HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/3/1987Tuesday,. March 3,1987
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,
March 3, 1987, at 9:OO o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman;
Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also
present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Elmer Vogelsong, Immanuel Baptist Church, gave the
invocation, and Administrator Balczun led the Pledge of Alle-
giance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
General Services Director Dean advised that staff would like
to pull Item 9 (CO #6, Phase I, IRC Jail, Finalizing Jail Con-
s,truction) from today's agenda and include it on next week's
agenda.
Commissioner Bird asked that a discussion of the traffic
situation on North U.S.I be placed under his items.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
addition and deletion of items 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 February 3, 1987.
BOOK G 7F' `E 4516
MAR .3 1981
Commissioner Eggert referred to Page 40, which is a copy of
a legal document, and wished to know exactly what the stamp on it
that says "Approved as to form and legal sufficiency - By__
County Attorney" means.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that it means that whatever
is in the document is in the proper form and can be put into
effect legally. It says nothing about policy or arithmetic or if
it is in the best interests of the county.
Commissioner Eggert stated that concerns her greatly.
Attorney Vitunac noted that if the Board wants to know if
something is in the best interests of the county, then they look
to their own signatures on the document or that of the
Administrator. He further noted that the attorneys do give input
as to what they think is best at staff level and at the hearings
that go on concerning the making of that document, but as to the
document itself, this just says it is legal and is in the proper
form.
Commissioner Eggert continued to express concern, and
Attorney Vitunac noted that this is the same wording used
statewide by the county and city attorneys, but if the Board
wishes it to be for more than that, he can revise it.
Chairman Scurlock believed he did want it changed. He noted
that when former County Attorney Brandenburg reviewed a document,
it was for more than just whether it was spelled correctly and in
the proper legal form. He felt we need a team effort to cross-
check on these things. For instance, there was one document
with everyone's signature on it that he signed as Chairman, and
then the contractor came in and said that it shouldn't have been
signed because he hadn't yet provided proof of insurance and, in
fact, wanted the contract delayed a few more days until he could
provide it. The Chairman emphasized that he signed relying on all
those who had reviewed and signed off on the document.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that she would like to have
2
more confidence that there has been no slip-up, and somehow this
stamp doesn't make her feel the.county is protected in the way
she had 'assumed it was protected.
Administrator Balczun advised that staff is currently
developing a new method for contract administration and contract
execution. The Administrator stated that generally when he
signs, he is indicating that the contract document is in the best
interests of the county.
Commissioner Bird believed if any of the staff feels
something is not in the best interests of the county, the time to
indicate that is when we are discussing it at the meeting.
In the ensuing discussion regarding how complex things have
become, Chairman Scurlock discussed the County structure, noting
that we have only three people who work directly for the Board -
the County Attorney, the Administrator, and Administrative Aide
Liz Forlani; everyone else works directly under the
Administrator.
Attorney Vitunac stated that is why we should have at least
two names on each document - the County Attorney and County
Administrator - and then you know that everything under each of
them has been covered. He continued that the stamp the attorney
signs actually does not mean just that the document is in the
proper form, but that the document does what the Board wanted it
to do, and it is legal.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she just wasn't sure what the
stamp meant and wanted to express her feeling that she is
counting a lot on the Attorney's office, especially since we have
adopted the policy that if we move to approve a certain thing,
included in that approval is the ability for the Chairman to sign
the document.
Commissioner Bowman suggested the Attorney's stamp could say
"form, substance, and legal sufficiency," and Administrator
Balczun suggested the word "intent."
3
MAS 31987 BOOK 6 7 PF§I) -L 4 5 58
LIAR
3 1987
BOOK
67 FvJ E 4 59
Attorney Vitunac asked
if the Board would like the
stamp to
be worded differently. He personally felt the words just
suggested are all implied in the word "sufficiency." He further
stated that when the Chairman sees the Administrator's and County
Attorney's signatures on a document, he should be able to sign it
without any further questions or having to look it over, and if
there is anything wrong, it is staff's problem, not the
Chairman's. Attorney Vitunac continued that if his name is on it
and if it doesn't mean what the Board intended, then he has made
a mistake.
Chairman Scurlock believed the Attorney has the Board's
message.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3,
1987, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of February 10, 1987. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 10,
1987, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that Items L and N be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
4
A. Approval of Duplicate.Tax Sale Certificates
ON.MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Duplicate Tax Sale Certificates for Dorothy J.
Mikus, as follows:
No. 889.. ....... $77.43
No. 1034..... .. $51.99
No. 1051......... $55.87
No. 1075..... .. $64.48
No. 1335... $86.29
No.'1351......... $94.23
No. 1362......... $78.66
B. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
St. Johns River Water Management District Annual
Financial Audit for FY 1985-86, ending 9/30/86.
Report on Audit of the IRC District School Board
for Fiscal Years ended June 30, 1984; June 30,
1985; and June 30, 1986.
C. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird the Board unanimously approved out -
of -County travel for Commissioners and appropriate
staff to attend a Water, Sewer and Solid Waste
Seminar in Miami, April 6-7, 1987.
D. Final Plat Approval - Riverwalk II_ Commercial_ Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo of Chief Planner Boling:
5
Bom 6 1 nu -L 460
MAR .3 1997
BOOK 6 7 461
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 20, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keatificl, AXC7 UBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Planning & Developmen-f Director RIVERWALK II COMMERCIAL
SUBDIVISION
FROM: Stan Boling A & REFERENCES: riverwalk ii
Chief, Current Development STAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION:
Riverwalk II is a four lot commercial subdivision of a ±5.32 acre
parcel located on the west side of U.S. l immediately south of the
Riverwalk II Shopping Center. On September 11, 1986 the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved a preliminary plat for Riverwalk
II. A land development permit, as well as utilities permits, have
been issued for the construction of all required subdivision
improvements. No construction has yet begun. The owner,
Riverwalk Associates, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval
and has submitted the following:
1." a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a certified cost estimate for construction of all required
improvements;
3. an executed contract for the construction of required im-
provements; and
4. a letter of credit to guarantee the construction contract.
ANALYSIS:
The plat will establish four building sites (Tracts D, E, F, & G)
that will accommodate businesses that will be site -planned and
developed later. The lots will be served by a privately main-
tained marginal access road and by a common drainage system, and
water and wastewater utilities provided through the Riverwalk
franchises. Public Works and Utilities have approved the cer-
tified cost estimate for covering all required road, drainage, and
utilities improvements. The County Attorney's office has verified
that the submitted executed contract and letter of credit are
acceptable.
Therefore, all applicable County requirements regarding final plat
approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for the Riverwalk Il Subdivision, accept the
submitted letter of credit, and authorize the chairman to sign the
submitted executed contract for construction of required improve-
ments.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner.Bi.rd, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval for Riverwalk LI Commercial Subdivision,
accepted the submitted letter of credit in the amount
of $316,753.96, and authorized the Chairman to sign
the contract for construction of required improvements.
(CONTRACT & LETTER OF CREDIT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO BOARD)
E. Resolution ExpandingMarine Advisory Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 87-22 reestablishing and expanding the
Indian River County Marine Advisory Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REESTABLISHING AND EXPANDING
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MARINE ADVISORY
BOARD AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO.
87-15.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is greatly affected
by, dependent upon and served by the Indian River Lagoon;
and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the
citizens of Indian River County to maintain, preserve and
enhance the natural beauty, water quality and usefulness of
the Indian River Lagoon as an irreplaceable natural
resource; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Boa -rd of County
Commissioners of Indian River County to expand the Marine
Advisory Board by repealing Resolution No. 87-15 and adding
to the membership of the Board to accomplish the
above -stated objectives;
B
7
AR 3 1987
BOOK 67 ,�:,t 462
BAR 3 199 67 �.,,
BOOK 4- b0l
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners*of Indian River County, Florida:
1. Indian River County Resolution No. 87-15 is
hereby repealed.
2. The Indian River County Marine Advisory Board
is hereby established to consist of the following members
who will be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners:
a. A County Commissioner, who will serve as
Chairman of the Marine Advisory Board.
b. A representative of a local environmental
organization, such as, but not limited to, the Audubon
Society, the Sierra Club, or the Florida Defenders of the
Env i fennient .
C. A representative of commercial fishermen,
preferably a person affiliated with a commercial fishing
organization.
d. A representative of recreational
fishermen, preferably a person affiliated with a
recreational fishing organization.
e. A representative of recreational boaters,
preferably a person affiliated with a recreational boating
organization.
f. Two persons not necessarily affiliated
with a particular user -group of the Indian River Lagoon, but
who have expressed an interest in the objectives stated
herein.
3. The terms of the Marine Advisory Board members
shall be two years, and a member may serve no more than
three terms in succession. Members serve at the pleasure of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County and
may be removed by a majority vote of the Board. Vacancies
in the Marine Advisory Board membership shall be filled by a
majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County.
4. The Marine Advisory Board shall have advisory
powers only. The Marine Advisory Board shall prepare and
8
recommend policies and, where possib-le, specific plans
relating to:
a. Preservation and enhancement of
recreational uses in the Indian River Lagoon.
b. Protection and improvement of water
quality and marine habitat in -the Indian River Lagoon.
C. Minimization of adverse impacts on the
Indian River Lagoon from all forms of pollution,
development, and over -fishing.
d. Utilization of the Indian River Lagoon and
its r6iew61316 resources in ways proven not to degrade water
quality, marine, habitat, recreational utility and natural
beauty.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this3rd day of March , 1987.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
Don Scu"r oc ,
Chairman
F. Final Assessment Roll - 37th Ave. bet. 10th & 12th Sts.
The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Michelle Terry:
9 1300 67 Fr��E
�� � X97
BOOK 67 r,�,U s
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
Coun min ' - ator SUBJECT'
�?�`� • 37th Avenue between 10th Street
a p N. rescia, P.E, and 12th Street
County Engineer
'y/
FROM: Michelle A. Terry REFERENCES:
Civil Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of 37th Avenue between 10th Street & 12th Street
is complete. The final cost and preliminary estimate for the
work is:
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Const/FF Final Cost Prelim. Est.
1) 37th Avenue $9.5908 $11.1268 $22,845.34 $35,338.72
All construction costs are under the original estimate.
The Final Assessment Roll has been prepared and is ready to
be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to
be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first
to be made twelve months from the due date and the second to
be made twenty-four months from the due date at an interest
rate of to over the Prime Rate established by the Board of County
Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final
determination of the special assessments.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will
be less than computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the
only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment
rolls.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the
paving of 37th Avenue be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and that they be transferred to the Office of
the Clerk to the Board for collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Final Assessment Roll for the paving of 37th Avenue
between 10th Street and 12th Street and directed that
the Roll be transferred to the Office of Clerk to
the Board for collection at a rate of 1% over the
Prime Rate as of today's date, or 81%.
(ROLL ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO BOARD)
10
G. Gravity Sewer Proj 11th St. &_7th Ct. (Change Orders)
The Board ,reviewed memo from Engineer Boone:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1987
VIA: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO <PI
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
60
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE
ts"MAN
ENGINEERING OPERAAGER
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES PROJECT NO.
GRAVITY SEWER - 11TH STREET & 7TH COURT
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
WORK AUTHORIZATION CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NO.2
BACKGROUND
US86-17-CS
0
On January 20, 1987, the Board of County -Commissioners authorized the
construction of a gravity wastewater collection system on 7th Court from
12th Street to 11th Street, continuing east on 11th Street from 7th
Court to 6th Avenue, and continuing south on 6th Avenue from 11th
Street, and connecting to an existing manhole.
After awarding the subject contract, it was confirmed that the Public
Works Division was prepared to pave 7th Court and 11th Street, as well
as 7th Avenue under the Petition Paving Program. With the paving of 7th
Avenue pending, the Division of Utility Services has had cost estimates
for construction prepared by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. to
expand the subject contract to include the construction of the gravity
wastewater collection line on 7th Avenue from 12th Street to lith
Street.
ANALYSIS
Attached for your review and approval is Construction Change Order No.
1: to add two (2) additional 6 inch diameter service laterals to the
previously approved construction. The additional service laterals
will serve adjacent commercial areas which currently have on-site
wastewater treatment facilities. Also attached for your review and
approval are Work Authorization Change Order No. 1 as well as
Construction Change Order No. 2 for additional engineering fees and
construction costs associated with expanding the subject contract to
include the construction of a gravity wastewater collection line on
7th Avenue from 12th Street to 11th Street.
Outlined below are the associated costs for the above-mentioned change
orders:
Description
Additional Total Additional
Engineering Engineering Construction
Costs Costs Costs
Total
Construction
Costs
Total
Project
Costs
Original Project Costs
Original
Project
Costs
$5400.00
$60573.00
$65973.00
MAR 3 1987 11 BOOK 67 u,'-; X66
MAR � 1997
Total
Engineering
Costs:
Total
Construction
Costs:
Grand
Total
Project
Cost:
Revised Project Costs
$7500.00
BOOK F us'[467
$80043.00
$87543.00
Construction Change Order No. 2 also will extend the contract duration
by 20 days which will extend the original date of completion from May
30, 1987 to June 19, 1987.
Funding for the subject project including increases to the original
project costs shall be by means of the Division of Utility Services
Impact Fee Fund, although an equitable connection fee for residential
and contribution -in -aid -of -construction for commercial connections is
being developed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and thereby execute the attached Change Orders
for Construction Nos. 1 and 2, as well as Work Authorization Change
Order No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Construction Change Order No. 1, (Collee Mechanical)
increasing the contract amount by $480; Work Authori-
zation Change Order No. 1, (Masteller 8 Moler for
consulting services) increasing the contract amount
by $2,100 ; and Construction Change Order No. 2,
(Collee Mechanical) increasing the contract amount
$18,990 and extending the contract period 20 days.
12
L
Page 1 of 1
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $60,573.00
DATE: 2104 0 � REVISED CONTRACT PRICE_ $61,053.00
JOB NAME
OWNER: Tnriian River Cn,inty
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
ORIGIN
UNITS
ORIGINAL
•TOTAL
'PRICE
UNIT
CHANGE
PRICE
' CHANGE
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
LS
1.0
3,000.00
--_
___
3,000.00
2
8" Diam. Gray. Sew.
20/LF
1925
38,500.00
___
___
3
3
Manhole
1000Ahit
6
6,000.00
___
___
6,500.00
6,000.00
4
Refurbish Exist.
Manhole
200/Unit
1.0
200.00
___
___
200.00
5
Pvd. Rd. Restor.
12/LF
250
3,000.00
_-_
___
3,000.00
6
Non-Pvd. Rd. Restor.
3/LF
1530
4,590.00
__-
___
4,590.00
7
Pvd. Drvway Restor.
1O/LF
35
350.00
__-
___
350.00
8
Seed & Mulch
0.30/LF
110
33.00
___
___
33.00
9
4" Diameter Ser-
vice Lateral
220/Unit
19
4,180.00
___
___
4,180.00
10
6" Diameter Ser-
vice Lateral
240/Unit
3
720.00
+2
+ 480.00
1,200.00
TOTAL
$60,573.00
+ 480.00
$61,053.00
The amount of the Contract will be Increased by the sum of:
Four Hundred Eighty and XX/100 Dollars. ($480.00)
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be:
Sixty-one Thousand Fifty Three and XX/100 ($61,053.00)
The Contract Period provided for completion will be unchanged.
Contractor: Collee MecUan;rbal, .Inc. Date:
_? 77 4 - -
Engineer:
Owner:
S
,.
13
A P;
C11 0c -S P. VittmaC 1
County Attorney • ,;
BOOK u 4 �h�li 4�j
r
MAR 3 1987
BOOT( 67 F".!GE 469
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO: i
DATE :��Q,/��
CONTRACT FOR: Work Authorization # 8 for Consulting Services/Gravity Sewer
11th Street & 7th Court (US86-17-CS)
OWNER: Indian River County
ORIG. CONT. PRICE: $5,400.00 REVISED CONT. PRICE: $7,500.00
I Decrease in (Increase in
Description of Changes I Cont. Price (Cont. Price
I I
Expansion of Engineering Services I I $2,100.00
I I
TOTALS: I _ _( Zero) _ _ _ $2,100.00
I I
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: I I $2,100.00
JUSTIFICATION:
Project expanded to include approximately 650 linear feet of gravity sewer,
manholes, laterals and restoration along 7th Avenue between
12th Street & 11th Street.
Amount of the Contract will be (R*xx EIizeM) (Increased) by the sum of:
Two Thousand One Hundred and xx/100 Dollars ($2,100,00)
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be:
Seven Thousand Five Hundred and xx/100 Dollars ($7,500.00)
This document will be come a supplement to the contract and all
provisions will apply hereto.
Requested • MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Sign)
Accepted:
(Sign) / G
'APPR3\JE0 UT
5 Y //4 ?
10?
�E`v�:ti�E4:<E.�.�• � ��I'ete(.::, ��F:1/�r�zt�
Date: Z I Z3 /67
—r
Date: /9 :z
Page 1 of 1
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE- $61,053.00
DATE: REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $80,043.00
JOB NAME Tndian River County Project No. US86-17-CS
Gravity Sewer/11th Street & 7th Court
OWNER: Tndian River County
The amount of the Contract will be Increased by:Eighteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety
and xx/100 Dollars..($18;990.00)
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be: Eighty Thousand
Forty Three and xx/100.dollars. ($80,043.00)
The Contract Period provided for completion will'be.increased by 20 days.
This Document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Contractor:
Engineer:
Owner.
� �.;�``'f cf
Date:
Col ee Mechanical Inc.
Date: Z% ` ��?
MASTELLER & MOLE ASSOCIATES, INC. _T
r�7
15
Boa 67 470
ORIGINAL
j
REVISED
UNIT
ORIGIN
'TOTAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
UNITS
,PRICE
CHANGE
r CHANGE
PRICE
1.
Mobilization
3,D00.00
Lump Sum
3,000.00
----
----
$ 3,000.00
2.
8" Dia. Gravity Sewer
20.00
19251F
38,500.00
+ 650
+13,000.0
51,500.00
3.
Manhole
1y000.00
6 Unit
6,000.00
+ 2
♦ 2,000.oc
8,000.00
4.
Refurbish Exist.
Manhole
200.00
1 Unit
200.00
----
----
200.00
5.
Paved Rd. Restor.
12.00
250 LF
3,000.00
----
----
3,000.00
6.
Non-Pvd. Rd. Restor.
3.00
1530 LF
4,590.00
+ 650
+ 1,950.oc
6,540.00
7.
Pvd.Drvway Restor.
10.00
35.LF
350.00
----
----
350.00
8.
Seed & Mulch
0.30
110/LF
33.00
----
----
33.00
9.
4" Dia. Serv.Lateral
220.00
19 unit
4,180.00
+ 6
+ 1,320.0
5,500.00
10.
6" Dia. Serv.Lateral
240-00
5 Uhit
1,200.00
+ 3
+ 720.0
1,920.00
TOTAL
$61,053.00
+18,990.0
80,043.00
The amount of the Contract will be Increased by:Eighteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety
and xx/100 Dollars..($18;990.00)
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be: Eighty Thousand
Forty Three and xx/100.dollars. ($80,043.00)
The Contract Period provided for completion will'be.increased by 20 days.
This Document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Contractor:
Engineer:
Owner.
� �.;�``'f cf
Date:
Col ee Mechanical Inc.
Date: Z% ` ��?
MASTELLER & MOLE ASSOCIATES, INC. _T
r�7
15
Boa 67 470
r
B AR � 1987
BOOK 67 FA,. 1
H. Change Order #1 - River Shores Estates Water System
-------------------------------------------
mprovements
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer Jeffrey Boone:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO -1-P/,&,0_
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE
ENGINEERING OPERATI NS IMAGER
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1987
SUBJECT: RIVER SHORES ESTATES SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT #UW 86 -14 -DS - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION
On January 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the
contract for water distribution system improvements for the River
Shores Estates Subdivision to Coastline Utilities,' Inc. in the amount
of $198,441.00.
Prior to issuing the Notice of Award, Terrance G. Pinto, Director of
Utility Services, was able to negotiate the unit cost for the 7,350
lineal feet of 6 inch diameter water main down from $13.55 per foot to
$13.00 per foot.
ANALYSIS
Attached for your review and execution is Change Order No. 1, which
outlines the effective decrease of $4,042.50 in the subject contract.
The net effect of this change order decreases the original contract
amount of $198,441.00 to $194,398.50.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and thereby execute the attached Change Order
No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #1 re River Shores Estates Water System
Improvements decreasing the contract with Coastline
Utilities $4,042.50.
16
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Page , of l
.ANGE ORDER NO ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 5198.441.00
DATE: .3 0 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $194.198.50
JOB NAME Indian River County Pro3ect #UW86-14-DS
Potable Water Main - River Shores Estates
OWNER:_ Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ORIGINALORIGINAL
UNIT
PRICE
"
UNITS
NOTAL
1PRICE
REVISED UNIT:
PRICE
CHANGE
PRICE
CHANGE
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
15000.00
Lump Sum
$15,000.00
----
----
$ 15,000.00
2
8" Dia, WM
12.37
850 LF
10,514.50
----
----
10,514.50
3
6" Dia. WM
13.55
7350 LF
99,592.50
13.00
4,042.50
95,550.00
4
8" Dia. Gate Valves
465.00
2 UNIT
930.00
----
----
930.00
5
6" Dia. Gate Valves
335.00
23 UNIT
7,705.00
----
----
7,705.00
6
Fire Hydrants
1261.00
7 UNIT
8,827.00
----
----
81P827.00
7
12 x 8 Wet Tap w/Vlv
:.1900.00
1 UNIT
11900.00
----
----
1,900.00
8
Pvd. Rd. Restoration
18.00
325 LF
5,850.00
----
----
5,850.00
9
Non-Pvd. Rd. Restor.
10.00
50 LF
500.00
----
----
500.00
10
Pvd. Dr. Restoration
16.00
575 LF
9,200.00
----
----
9,200.00
11
Non-Pvd. Drive Restox
8.00
130 LF
1,040.00
----
----
1,040.00
12
Seed & Mulch
1.10
7200 LF
7,920.00
---'
----
7,920.00
13
1" Dia. "Short" Ser-
vice Lateral
186.00
52 UNIT
9,672.00
----
----
9,672.00
14
1" Dia. "Long" Ser-
vice Lateral
330.00
40 UNIT
13,200.00
----
----
13,200.00
15
2" Dia. "Short" Ser-
vice Lategal
295.00
10 UNIT
2,950.00
----
----
2,950.00
16
2" Dia. "Long" Ser-
vice Lateral
455.00
8 UNIT
3,640.00
0000
0000
3,640.00
TOTAL
1-4042-50)
$194,398..50
The amount of the Contract will be Decreased by the sum of: _Four Thousand, Forty-two
and 50/100's. ($4,042.50).
The Contract Total, including this and previous -Change Orders, will be: One -Hundred
Ninety Four Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Eight and 50/1001x. ($194,398.50)
The Contract Period for completion will be unchanged.
This Document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Contractor:
Coastline Utilities, Inc.
Engineer:
Owner:
Indian River County
j
Date: QI33181
Dater
as
By 11 'UMPI-trt
ChtarWs P. V;t:r:T ,
County. AttomeY
MAR .`�� 17 BOOK 67 F,�JE 7
,MAR - 3 1987 BOOK 67 473
3
1__ Change_Order _#1___Ixora _ Park Water_ System_ Improvements
The Board reviewed memo of Engineer Jeffrey Boone:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1987
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO �ellw`--
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE/6
ENGINEERING OPERA ONS MANAGER
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: IXORA PARK SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
#UW 86 -15 -DS - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1.
BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION
On January 27; 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved and
thereby awarded the contract to construct water distribution system
improvements in the Ixora Park Subdivision to Coastline Utilities, Inc.
in the amount of $83,243.20. Since that time, the Division of Utility
Services has elected to expand the scope of the contract to include
water system improvements along the west side of Cook's Court in Block
4 of the subdivision, rather than delay improvements to this area until
subsequent phases of the Ixora Park project. In order to accomplish
this expanded scope of work, additional engineering services by
Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. as well as additional construction
by Coastline Utilities, Inc., will be required. Attached for your
review and approval are change orders for the additional engineering
and construction.
ANALYSIS
Original engineering fees including surveying, design and limited
construction inspection amounted to $7,200.00. Additional engineering
fees in the amount of $1,800.00 yield a total engineering fee of
$9,000.00.
Similarly, original construction costs amounted to $83,243.20. By
extending the original unit costs, the expanded scope of the project
amounts to an additional $16,222.50 in construction costs. This yields
a total construction cost of $99,465.70
The expanded scope of Phase I of the project, therefore, increases the
total project cost including engineering and construction by $18,022.50
from $90,443.20 to $108,465.70.
The increased costs associated with Change Order No. 1 for engineering
and Change Order No. 1 for construction, like the original project
costs, will be funded by the budgeted Utilities Operating Funds
(Renewal & Replacement). Again, this is a necessary improvement in the
Ixora Park Project and has simply been included in Phase I rather than
subsequent phases. The change order for construction will also
increase the duration of the project by twenty (20) days, thereby
making thedate of completion July 13, 1987 rather than the original
date of completion of June 23, 1987.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and execute the subject Change Order No. 1 for
engineering services by Masteller & Moler, Inc. and construction Change
Order No. 1 for Coastline Utilities, Inc.
18
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #1 re Work Authorization #9 for
engineering services by Masteller & Moler and
Construction Change Order #1 (Coastline Utilities)
for lxora Park Water System Improvements.
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO: 1
CONTRACT FOR: Work Authorization #9 DATE:
For Consulting Services
Potable Water Main - Ixora Park
OWNER: Indian River County
ORIG. CONT. PRICE: $7.200.00 REVISED CONT. PRICE: $9.000.00
I Decrease in (Increase in
Description of Changes I Cont. Price (Cont. Price
_ I I
Expansion of Engineering Services $1,800.00
TOTALS: I ( ZERO) 1,800.00
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1 1 $1,800.00
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: I I
JUSTIFICATION:
Expansion of Engineering Services to include design of an additional
725 ± linear feet of 8'inch diameter potable water main including
appurtenances and restoration.
Amount of the Contract will be (13tacmeammkW (Increased) by the sum of:
One Thousand Eight Hundred and xx/100 dollars ($1,800.00)
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be:
Nine Thousand and xx/100 Dollars ($9,000.00)
This document will be come a supplement to the contract and all
provisions will apply hereto.
Requested • }}MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Sign) f. `J• _2/ k
Accepted.. Indian River County
(Sign) s Gd4 e. 4 "—/
Date:
Date: 07?
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency
Charles P. Vituna
C^:!nty Attorney
MAR 31997 19
BOOK 67 P,�,";E 4 !_l
IAR � 1981 BOOK G eY o 75
Page 1 of 1
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE sag -243.20
DATE: op /9'7 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE s4o�yb,5_�n
JOB NAME Indian Riner County Project No. [IW86-15-DS
Potable Water Main Ixora Park
OWNER: Indian River County
The amount of the Contract will be Increased by the sum of: Sixteen'Thousand Two Hundred
-Twenty-Two and 50/100 Dollars. ($16,222.50)
The':Contract Total including this and previous. Change Orders will be: Ninety -Nine Thousand
Four Hundred Sixty=Five and TO/100 Dollars. ($99,465.70)
The Contract Period provided for completion win be Increased by twenty (20) days.
This Document Will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Contractor: --j- Date: 2- 2 m 97
Coastline Utilities Inc.
Engineer: 92au=I& Date: 2 Fq]
MASTELLER & MOL R ASSOCIATES. INC.
Owner: Date: 7
�—T
Indian River Countv
20
Approved as, to form
and legal sufficiency .
By . `_�
Charles P. i/iturtaC
rail Mf*rrfey
"4AW.
ORIGINAL
REVISED
UNIT
ORIGIN
TOTAL '.
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
UNITS
PRICE
CHANGE
i CHANGE
PRICE
1.
Mobilization
3,000:00
Lump Sum
3,000.00
----
----
3,000.00
2.
8" Dia. WM
15.62
3200 LF
49,984.00
+ 725
+11,324.50
61,308.50
3.
6" Dia. WM
10'.04.
230 LF
2,309.20
----
----
2,309.20
4.
8" Dia. Gate Valves
465.00
4 Units
1,860.00
+ 2
+ 930.00
2,790.00
5.
6" Dia. Gate Valves
335.00
6 Units
2,010.00
----
----
2,010.00
6.
Fire Hydrants
1,261.00
4 Units
5,044.00
----
----
5,044.00
7.
8 x 8 Wet Tap w/
tapping Valve
1,385.00
1 Unit
1,385.00
----
----
1,385.00
6.
Pvd..>Rd. Restoration
18.00
50 LF
900.00
+ 30
+ 540.00
1,440.00
9.
Pvd. Dr. Restoration
16.00
120 LF
1,920.00
+ 70
+ 1,120.00
3,040.00
10.
Seed & Mulch
1.00
3260 LF
3,260.00
+ 625
+ 625.00
3,885.00
11.
l" Dia. "Short" Ser-
vice w/1 meter boa
187.00
9 Units
1,683.00
+ 9
+ 1;683.00
3,366.00
12.
2" Dia. "Short" Ser-
vice w/2 meter boxes
412.00
24 Uni
9,888.00
----
----
9,888.00
TOTAL
e3.243.20
1+16,222.5
99,465.70
The amount of the Contract will be Increased by the sum of: Sixteen'Thousand Two Hundred
-Twenty-Two and 50/100 Dollars. ($16,222.50)
The':Contract Total including this and previous. Change Orders will be: Ninety -Nine Thousand
Four Hundred Sixty=Five and TO/100 Dollars. ($99,465.70)
The Contract Period provided for completion win be Increased by twenty (20) days.
This Document Will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Contractor: --j- Date: 2- 2 m 97
Coastline Utilities Inc.
Engineer: 92au=I& Date: 2 Fq]
MASTELLER & MOL R ASSOCIATES. INC.
Owner: Date: 7
�—T
Indian River Countv
20
Approved as, to form
and legal sufficiency .
By . `_�
Charles P. i/iturtaC
rail Mf*rrfey
"4AW.
The Board reviewed --memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: The Honorable Manbers of the DATE: February 23, 1987 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Change Order # 2 -
Miscellaneous Intersection -
4th Street and 27th Avenue
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Monte Falls, Lloyd & Assoc.
Public Works Director to James Davis dated 2-18-87
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
To provide for additional drainage at 4th Street and 27th Avenue and to
correct an error in the Contract Price included in Change Order # 1, staff
recommends approval of Change Order # 2.
RECONA'1 MATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Change Order #2 be approved. Funding to be from
Road Impact Fees (District 6) and Gas Tax Revenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #2 Misc. Intersection Proj. (4th St.
& 27th Ave.) reducing the contract with Dennis L.
Smith, Inc. $10,833.50.
CHANGE ORDER
No. 2
Dated February 17, 1987
Owner's Project No. 8621/8551 Engineer's Project No.86-584, 86-792
Project IMPROVEMENTS AT 4TH ST. AND 27m AVE.; AND 16TH ST_ AND 44Rfl AVF-
Owner INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Contractor DENNIS L. SMITH, INC. Contract Date August 13, 1986
Contract For Roadway Improvements
MAR3 197 21 Boos �r.-14
SUB -TOTAL:
$• 3,656.30 (14,489.80)
NET CHANGE ORDER: ($10,833.50)
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Time:
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order $ 127,797.27
Net ( (Decrease) resulting from this Change Order $ 10,833.50
Current Price Including This Change Order $ 114,963.77
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order -45-
Calendar Days.
Net ( - (Decrease) resulting from this
Change Order -15- Calendar Days
Current Contract time including this Change
Order -60-
I
The.above changes are approved:
Calendar Days
:'.LLOYD & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Engineer
By:
Date: February 17, 1987
The above changes are accepted: DENNIS.I.,. SMITH. INC.
a�� W - - _.
Ap$Wved by: JaWN W. Davis, PE
Approved as to form
ako legal sufficiency
L
Barkett
. Asst. County Attorney
By:
Date: �94//. -!Rr/7
'•3-3�
MAR 3
1987�
Fro L
BOOK >s
Nature of the Change: Additions, Deletions,
and Corrections as noted below:
ADDITION- DELETION NET C.O.
1.
ADD 76
L.F. of 18" Dia. ACCMP @ $33.50/L.F.
$ 2,546.00 $
2.
ADD 1 EA. of Type P Inlet Bottom @
$910.00/EA.
910.00
3.
ADD - Lower grade on two (2) catch basins @
$100.00/EA.
200.00
4.
CHANGE
three (3) inlet tops from Type 6
to Type 9 @ -$100.00/EA.
( 300.00)
5.
CHANGE
original contract price as noted on
Change Order No. 1 from
$98,444.85 to correct amount of
$84,255.05.
(14,189.80)
6.
ADD $
.30 to contract amount to adjust
addition error on Change Order
No. 1
.30
SUB -TOTAL:
$• 3,656.30 (14,489.80)
NET CHANGE ORDER: ($10,833.50)
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Time:
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order $ 127,797.27
Net ( (Decrease) resulting from this Change Order $ 10,833.50
Current Price Including This Change Order $ 114,963.77
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order -45-
Calendar Days.
Net ( - (Decrease) resulting from this
Change Order -15- Calendar Days
Current Contract time including this Change
Order -60-
I
The.above changes are approved:
Calendar Days
:'.LLOYD & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Engineer
By:
Date: February 17, 1987
The above changes are accepted: DENNIS.I.,. SMITH. INC.
a�� W - - _.
Ap$Wved by: JaWN W. Davis, PE
Approved as to form
ako legal sufficiency
L
Barkett
. Asst. County Attorney
By:
Date: �94//. -!Rr/7
'•3-3�
K. Partial Release = SR60 Sewer - Countryside South (Realcor)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Partial Release of one ERU SR60 Sewer for Lot No.
54-2 Countryside South (Realcor-Veno Beach Assoc.)
(SAID RELEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
L. Purchase 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck_- Planning Department
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Feb. 19, 1987 FILE:
THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: Purchase of 1/2 Ton Pickup
Director, Budget Office Truck for the Planning
Department
FROM'. REFERENCES:
CarolyrvGoodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
Several weeks ago bids were requested for 1/2 Ton Pickup
Trucks for several departments.
The low bid was $8821.42. The equivalent vehicle is
available on the Florida State Contract for $8684.57.
At the February 3, 1987 Board meeting staff was authorized
to purchase the trucks from the State Contract.
Staff requests authorization to purchase an additional pickup
truck from the State Contract for the Planning Department.
There is $11,000.00 budgeted in. Account #004-205-515-066.42.
Chairman Scurlock commented that the price on State Contract
is not a whole less than the bid, and he wished to know if the
bid includes the cost of picking up the vehicle as that possibly
could eliminate the difference.
MAR 3 1997 23 BOOK 7'nIjA 8
L_
OK 67 P,q:
�� 197 BO
lt- 479
OMB Director Baird stated that the pickup will be delivered,
and Commissioner Bowman felt the bid should call for an F.O.B.
price.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the purchase of an additional pickup truck from State
Contract for the Planning Department.
M. Bid #342 - One New One "Ion Truck Cab -Chassis (traffic/Eng.)
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Feb. 20, 1987 FILE:
THRU: Joseph A. Bair SUBJECT: IRC BID #342 -One (1) New
Director, Budget 'ce 1987 One Ton Truck Cab -Chassis
FROM: ,`�
6-ri�t,�e� REFERENCES.
Carolyn G o rich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received February 18, 1987 at 2 P.M. for IRC #342 -
One (1) New 1987 One Ton Truck Cab Chassis for the Traffic
Engineering Department.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Bartow Ford, Bartow, Fl. in the
amount of $10,900.00 for a Ford F350. The bid meets specifications.
The equivalent vehicle on the State Contract would be $11,225.06.
3. Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends that IRC #342 be awarded to the low bidder,
Bartow Ford in the amount of $10,900.00.
Funds are budgeted in Account #111-245-541-066.42.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously Bid #342 for
a new One Ton Truck Cab -Chassis for Traffic Engineering
24
to the low bidder, Bartow Ford, in the amount of
$10,900 per the following bid tabulation:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Qo
c0
BID TABULATION
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
IRC BID #342 1 Feb. 18 1987.
BID TITLE ONE (1) NEW 1987 ONE TON
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
One 1 New 1
Cab -Chassis
�•
cpm
4,
o,
.°
cs
3
mm�m
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
GMC
F3
0
UNIT PRICEI UNIT
D3
109001 001 111
2. Days required for delivery after
receipt Of Purchase Order Days 60 1 60-120 1 30-6
N. Range Balls for Golf Course
The Board reviewed memo from Golf Pro Bob Komarinetz:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: February 23, 1987
Commissioners
THROUGH: Tommy Thomas " /.
'f
Intergovernmenta
Coordinator
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Bob Komarinet;
Golf Pro
SUBJECT: Range Balls
for Golf Course
International Golf, Inc. will furnish Sandridge Golf Club
1,000 dozen high quality range balls for $4.30 per dozen on
the initial order. International Golf, Inc. will then in turn
have diving rights after we are open for 60 days and will give
us a written proposal for future discounts on our range pro-
gram. Normal purchase price on range balls of this type of
quality is $5.00 per dozen.
RECOMMENDATION
nu
The Golf Course staff recommends that we go with this
type of program.
Chairman Scurlock had a question in regard to the 70�
difference in price in exchange for the ability to extract the
balls out of the lakes.
AR 3 1987 25 BOOK uc 4 8
B AR
3
1987
BOOK
F
Fa,r.481
bids for diving in the
lakes
Mr. Komarinetz advised that the normal
price for
any
decent
range ball would be around $5.50 per dozen. He clarified that
they are giving us a price break just for the opportunity to bid;
we have no commitment to them at all.
Commissioner Eggert believed the memo states that Interna-
tional Golf will have the diving rights, but Mr. Komarinetz noted
that is for only for 60 days and we can refuse within that 60
days.
Discussion continued regarding whether the bid is competi-
tive, whether we are committed or not, etc., and Commissioner
Bird did feel the bid is competitive; it just is not on the same
basis we are used to.
Chairman Scurlock believed there is a national corporation
that might be able to submit a very competitive bid, and Mr.
Komarinetz felt International Golf probably is the corporation he
is referring to. He believed International Golf is at Bent Pine
Golf Course, and this corporation is all over the world.
Commissioner Wheeler inquired where we stand legally with
this type bid process as he felt it may be discouraging some from
bidding if they find out someone has the option to meet their
Attorney Vitunac agreed it could discourage people from
bidding, but pointed out that a determination has been made by
our Professional that this is the best way to get this operation
under way for the first year.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that main thing we are doing
is buying 1,000 dozen balls at $4.30 a dozen which Golf Pro
Komarinetz feels is a very competitive price, and we are not
making any commitment
beyond
that
other than when we
go
out for
bids for diving in the
lakes
that
we will give them
the
right of
first refusal on that for one year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the
26
proposal made by International Golf, Inc., to furnish
1,0-00 dozen range balls for $4.30 per dozen with an
option of first refusal on diving rights, per the
following letter of intent:
INTERNATIONAL GOLF, INC:.
21 S.E. 10th Street O Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 O (305) 426-8870
USA(800)327-1760 O FLA(800)635-6366 O (Dial Tone) 829
February 9, 1987
Bob Komarinetz
Indian River County
Sandridge Golf Club
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
This is my letter of intent in which we are willing to do
the following:
We will furnish you with up to 1,000 dozen range balls,
either new Spalding balls, or our used range balls,
which are shown in our new catalog. We will also offer
you a 2 for 1 trade back to rotate these range balls
within any given 12 month period. We will allow a
100 20 day, net 30 day discount on all of your
original purchases. We will have the option of first
refusal and an opportunity to meet any competitor's
bid for the first year on your lake and water hazard
contract.
I am looking forward to hearing from you very soon!
JG/slg
enclosure
TELEX 4415"
e
Indian River un y - Si aure
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency
By
Charles p."Vitunw—
County Attorney
I��
GOLF FAX 305-392-2952
1 N C.•
27
BOOK
7 FvI
I
BOOK 6 PAGF. 43
PLAT VACATION FOR PORTION OF DIXIE GARDENS, UNIT THREE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of DL &a_e-
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of .L�t' � :Z
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 beforg met this � day of .D,(F7„L_
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
Notice of hearing to consider vacating a por-
tion of the plat known as Dixie Gardens, Unit 3,
Section 3 filed in Plat Book 8, Page 71 of the
public records of Indian River County, Florida.
The subject property is described as:
All of that subdivision shown on a plat
entitled "Dixie Gardens, Unit 3, Section
3” filed in Plat Book 8, Page 71 of the
Public Records of Indian River County,
EXCEPT the north .35 feet of said sub-
division, which appears as a drainage
right-of-way: ALSO EXCEPT the East 35
feet of said subdivision, which appears
as the west portion of 8th Avenue S.W.
The Board of County Commissioners will con-
duct a public hearing regarding the plat vacation
request. The public hearing, at which parties In
Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to
ppae heard, will be held by said Board of County
Commissionera in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach. Florida, on
Tuesday, March 3, 1987, at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
tyvhich may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which Includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
B :-s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
;Feb. 13, 20,1987
Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation, noting
that the applicant owns the property proposed to be vacated in
its entirety:
28
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 19, 1987
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEADCONCURRENCE:
FILE:
Robert M. , Keatin , AI9 SUBJECT: PLAT VACATION REQUEST` FOR
Planning & Development Director A PORTION OF DIXIE
GARDENS, UNIT THREE
FROM: Stan Boling 4.6- dixie gardens
Chief, Current Develop BUERENCES: STAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Attorney Bennett L. Rabin, on behalf of Timber Ridge, Inc., is
requesting that the Board of County Commissioners vacate a portion
of the Dixie Gardens, Unit 3, Section 3 plat. The portion of the
plat to be vacated (see attachment #2) includes 16 lots, two
cul-de-sac roads, and a "park" parcel, all of which are owned by
Timber Ridge, Inc. The subject property is located north of Oslo
Road along the Lateral "J" canal and forms the northwest corner of
the Timber Ridge development (see attachment #1).
The portion of the plat to be vacated does not affect any public
or private facilities or access rights other than what relates to
the 16 lots being vacated. The owner, Timber Ridge, Inc., was
recently granted conceptual PRD plan approval by the Board which
proposed to re -plat the subject property and incorporate it into
the Timber Ridge project. The requested plat vacation will allow
the future development and platting of the property under the PRD
plan.
ANATYSTq e
According to Chapter 177.101 of the Florida Statutes, the Board of
County Commissioners must ascertain three facts before it approves
a plat vacation request. These facts are:
1. that the applicant(s) hold fee simple title to the land for
which the request is being made;
2. that the vacation, if approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, will not affect the ownership or right of
convenient access of residents within the subdivision; and
3. that all back taxes on the subject property have been paid.
The applicant has submitted a deed to the Planning Department
showing that it holds fee simple title to the subject property.
The partial plat vacation would not affect rights of convenient
access to any area residents. Also, documentation has been
submitted by the Indian River County Tax Collector's office
certifying that all back taxes on the property have been paid.
Thus, all state requirements concerning plat vacation have been
met. County staff has no objections to the requested vacation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution vacating a portion of Dixie Gardens, Unit 3,
Section 3.
29
BOOK 67 rn1484
MAR .3 `9877 `5
BOOK `. ��E_ �;;
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Reso-
lution 87-23, vacating a portion of Dixie Gardens,
Unit 3, as requested by Andrew Mustapick, owner of
Timber Ridge,- Inc., -
RESOLUTION 87 - 23
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF DIXIE
GARDENS, UNIT 3, SECTION 3, LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the County has received a request from the owner of
the property within the area to be vacated, being Timber Ridge,
Inc., asking that the Board of County Commissioners vacate that
portion of Dixie Gardens, Unit 3, Section 3 as recorded in Plat
Book 6, Page 71, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida,
as described below.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §177.101, notice
of a public hearing to consider said request has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the request, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said portion of
subject plat is held in fee simple ownership by the applicants,
that all back taxes on the subject property have been paid to
date, and that vacation of the subject portion of the plat will
not affect the ownership or right of convenient access of persons
owning other parts of Dixie Gardens, Unit 3, Section 3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All of that subdivision shown on a plat entitled "Dixie
Gardens, Unit 3, Section.3" filed in Plat Book 6, Page 71 of
the Public Records of Indian River County, EXCEPT the North
35 feet of said subdivision, which appears as a drainage
right-of-way; ALSO EXCEPT the East 35 feet of said sub-
division, which appears as the West portion of 8th Avenue
S.W.,
is hereby vacated and said. property is hereby returned to un -
platted acreage, pursuant to the authority vested in the Board by
F.S. 177.101(3).
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 177.101 in theOfficial Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
30.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner bird , and upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Margaret Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 3rd day of March , 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlock, Jr , Chairman
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY CODE RE CCCL LINE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
E -1" / s
a_
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of e 4- Z./, / ZZZ
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 subscribedfore a this day of A.D.___,Cs L_
(SEAL)
Msiness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Co6rf, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE -PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florlda, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in Interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard, In the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Build -
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Thursday, March 3, 1987, at 9:05
a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION
OF STRUCTURES SEAWARD OF THE
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
LINE ESTABLISHED BY THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE-
SOURCES BY REPEALING SECTIONS
23�h-10(a) and (c), INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES: BY REPEALING SECTION
3(8x8) OF APPENDIX A, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES; AND BY AMENDING SECTION
FOO
APPENDIX A, INDIAN RIVER
COU CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES,'TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A BUILDING OR MAN-MADE
STRUCTURE SEAWARD OF THE
COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
LINE ONLY TO THE EXTENT PERMIT-
TED
ERMITTED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CHAPTER
181, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND IMPLE-
MENTING RULES THEREUNDER:
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE,
SEVERABILITY AND INCORPORATION
IN CODE.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
BY: -s- Don C. Scurlock
Chairman
Feb. 11, 1987
31 tj00K 7F'9.;
MAR � ����
'NAR S 1997 BOOK 67 , ,9a-4.87
Chairman Scurlock asked how we can adopt the proposed
ordinance when the State hasn't even had their hearing on the
proposed Coastal Construction Control Line.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she does not want to repeal
what we have in the event the State line doesn't go through.
Planning Director Keating asked the County Attorney if there
is any way to make our ordinance conditional on the adoption of
the State lines, and Attorney Vitunac advised that we could
postpone the hearing until next week and table it to a time
certain or could adopt the proposed ordinance contingent on
adoption of the lines by the State.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, to table
the public hearing until next week's meeting at
9:05 A.M.
Director Keating explained that the reason staff brought
this forth at the same time as state action is so that we
wouldn't be precluding development seaward of the new line which
is substantially landward of the other line and would, in
essence, make a number of lots and parcels unbuildable. He noted
that even if we repeal all our ordinances, the state regulations
would prevail.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that she does not want there
to be building if we don't move this line or until we do.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to
table. It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES - COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE AT OSLO
ROAD & 74TH AVENUE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
32
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-Joumal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River .County,. Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
1n the matter of �✓ Q'I/t!/
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.
Swam to and subscribed re this day o A.D. Iy^o
7
Usiness Manager)
(Clerk of tha r• 'tt Court, indian River County, Florida)
(SEAQ
t "'
Oelo Rd. 74th Are SWI -"
f atM�,� FarJA1-s".r' I ki�191� yr � m,
coa>� Ytq Comalarla! / Industrial Node
sfrsLhkg
_I�t' „ d f s �} S :'f i' +ry�'t�it •� Q .tp;..
s h t 1 '1411.7 1 R - d'i^�•,`
e C '[3.J 1 f1m.tD ilk JtF.tle � 1 + x-•�"�y"�_.
�... •.,ane. ,.
�- w*rsepe j ¢ 1-t..,..- :. �;✓ �••ro..,. t j: u:... f .: _ p7 ,� J ., _
A.r;
wn
n ,
1.1
Cn8 dC�"rM...: ,a�•ii a.�.-�er" ax +� i
VAZ T 7, �~ c �•7fr
Propoaed Node Bound ary(450 Ac.)
.r.t!Qv.M- NOTICECFREOIRA7WNOFLAML;611 N=CE OF PUBLIC HEARINGI
`Y
'to CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A COUNITT ORDINANCE--
_ • , AW23R M THE COUNTY'S COYPRENEN8IYE PLAN
NOTICE I8 HEREBY OMEN ew tM A 'of County Conantdonin of Winn RIvw count.
have an oppor-
mF M to Mayo. tludl hold M DCounty Co heart u Ctwnbwa Aortth�abonn Semi g. W
colas at 7910 E81h S"K Vero wash, FkwkW an Tusaoay. March 3,.1887. a19M. m eamidw
tM AN ORDINANCE
DN Or OF INDIAN
RIVER
AN OADINA 0 A OF OMM R IAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, E THE SOUTHWEST
EST CORNER FOR THE a80 ACRE COM OSLO
GEN 11 NODE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
a LA TM AVENUE AND OSLO ROAD AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED O IN THE TEXT E THE
IAIm USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELE-
- HENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREIIEI VE PLAN: f+ROV101N6 FOR THE BOUNDARY
MAP. DESCRIPnON OF THE NODE AND EFFECTNE DATE.. .
AWAM
am" ththatwivotatlm ractxo pftW wish to aPP@0 �rooeaampa audocison ee rrhMah atellWes o ado Is e iy ark arMeMiwm
upon when the app@M Is bolas.
lrxftn River
Boaro of County�ConwAnionsm
(
11.1987 By.+Don C. Balatook,.k Cntlrman tt
Fab. i P
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE-
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUND-
obert M. Keatin , A ARIES FOR THE 450 ACRE
Planning & Developme Director COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
NODE LOCATED AT OSLO ROAD
n�L THROUGH: Richard M. Shearer, AICP AND 74TH AVENUE.
lC, 7 Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cherylene Boudreaux REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the four -hundred fifty (450) acre
Commercial/Industrial Node located at Oslo Road (9th Street S.W.)
and 74th Avenue.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for
each of the nodes as generally described in the text of the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
MAR 3 1987 33 BOOK 7 F,•,H 488
L
MAR � `681
BOOK 67
On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an
amendment to the text of the Land Use Plan which enlarged the
Oslo Road/74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node from 230 acres
to 450 acres.
On January 22, 1987, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
7 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed boundaries.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed boundaries of the Oslo Road/74th Avenue
Commercial/ Industrial Node were prepared based on the following
criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the node
as described in the text of the Land Use Element;
2. The existing industrial uses in the general area of the
node;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Traffic considerations; and
6. Environmental considerations.
All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Oslo Road/74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node is
described as:
"A four hundred fifty (450) acre commercial/ industrial node
is located at the southwest corner of the 74th Avenue
(Range Line Road) and Oslo Road intersection."
All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is zoned
either CG, General Commercial District; IG, General Industrial
District; or A-1, Agricultural District. The proposed node
boundaries follow property lines and the existing
commercial/industrial zoning district boundaries in most cases.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The property in the node area zoned IG, General Industrial
District, located south of Oslo Road is occupied by the following
industrial uses: The Ocean Spray facility, the Hercules Pectin
Plant and Perfection Trusses, Inc. These uses when combined
comprise approximately 90 acres of the node area. The remaining
area basically consists of groves and vacant land. The County's
sanitary landfill and a correctional facility are located south
of the node.
Transportation System
The Oslo Road/74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node has access
to Oslo Road (9th St. S.W.) and I-95 (both designated as
arterials on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The node also has
access to 82nd Avenue (classified as a primary collector) and.
74th Avenue (classified as a secondary collector).
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive.
The majority of the node area is not located in a flood -prone
area; except for approximately 960,000 square feet (22.04 acres-)
of property located in the southeastern portion of the node which
is in Flood Zone A.
34
Utilities
County water and sewer facilities are not available at the
present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning & Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends the Oslo Road/74th
Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node boundaries be approved.
ATTACHMENT A
Oslo Rd. & 74th Ave SW
Commerial / Industrial Node
A'' 3 1961
® Proposed Node Boundary(450 Ac.)
35
BOOK 6 7 Ffi,E 4,90
I
'II
�1
1
_
A'' 3 1961
® Proposed Node Boundary(450 Ac.)
35
BOOK 6 7 Ffi,E 4,90
A� j
BOOK 9 f'tq;E 491
Commissioner Eggert questioned if this still is enough
acreage and also whether we should be so set in our boundaries,
and Commissioner Wheeler also questioned the advantages of
having fixed lines rather than flexible, he believed this can
lead to holding of land for speculation rather than development.
Chief Planner Shearer agreed there are both advantages and
disadvantages, but pointed out that the current Comprehensive
Plan states that the Board of County Commissioners will adopt
boundaries for all of the nodes, and once those boundaries are
set, everyone in the node will be rezoned commercially.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that prior to 1984, there was
some flexibility.
Chairman Scurlock explained that it was argued that the
flexibility created more problems than otherwise because without
boundaries people could not determine whether they were in a node
or not, and we were bombarded with requests from people who
wished to know exactly what their property was. There is a lot
of history behind this.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she will stand on the record
that she disagreed with a lot of the history. She felt her
problem is that until that 1-95 interchange goes in, nothing will
happen there except a lot of land speculation.
Commissioner Wheeler believed there is a good deal of vacant
land around this node that is just as suitable for industrial as
what is marked out.
Planning Director Keating pointed out that even though you
have set boundaries, that does not prevent advertising an
ordinance to change them again.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney John Sutherland informed the Board that he and some
others own a small portion of land in this vicinity, and in spite
of what the Planning Department has said with such authority, he
felt we need to step back and take another look at the
boundaries. Attorney Sutherland referred to the map presented
36
for the -zoning, and noted that it shows -a two tract area north of
Oslo Road up to 5th`Street SW, but the proposed node boundaries
north of Oslo take in only half a tract in.distance. Attorney
Sutherland felt if it is important enough to set up an area that,
from a planning standpoint, sometime in the future is deemed to
be the appropriate place for certain development such as
commercial and industrial, then serious thought should be given
to preventing residential development from coming into the
adjacent area. He, therefore, felt the size of the node should
be expanded to block out residential development since once
people live there, they have an entirely different view of what
should be done than what you have planned to do; it is never a
problem to downzone something, but it is very difficult to raise
it to industrial. Attorney Sutherland continued to urge holding
residential development from the north and stated that the
development is not going to come from the south since nobody is
going to put a residence next to a county dump. He further noted
that if you have a very restricted node, then those within that
area can demand a large amount of money for their property, and
we need to have some area available in the county to encourage
businesses to come in.
Chairman Scurlock believed we expanded the 1-95/SR60 node
for those very reasons.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing
the Poitras family trust on the north side of Oslo Road. He
noted that he has been through all the various workshops, etc.,
and just would request that the Board not "tinker" with the
Poitras property this morning.
It was determined that nobody further wished to be heard,
and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bird noted that to him the whole node out there
is so premature that it just relates to the degree of premature-
ness, and he did not have any strong feelings about expanding it
or not to take in the property discussed by Attorney Sutherland.
37
c -, BOOK � ;'�1G� ���
�� � rel
�DAAR 1987
BOOK 6 �7 F.�G`r_4 9 3
Discussion ensued about the amount of property this would
amount to, and Chief Planner Shearer stated it would be easily
240 acres, depending if you included the property all the way
over to 1-95 or if you stopped at 82nd Ave.
Discussion continued re the amount to add, and Commissioner
Wheeler pointed out that Aerodrome Subdivision is not too far
away, and also south of 5th Street is being developed.
Chairman Scurlock further noted that both water and
wastewater are very much available to this area.
Commissioner Bird believed another option would be to
compromise to some degree and just take the northern line to the
end of the 40 acre blocks, including those blocks in their
entirety instead of cutting them in half, and not go all the way
to 5th St. SW where we would start encroaching on Aerodrome
Subdivision.
The Chairman agreed that we need some buffer between the
node and Aerodrome Subdivision, which is an expanding residential
development.
Commissioner Bird asked how Attorney Sutherland felt about
including the 40 acre blocks as suggested, and Attorney
Sutherland believed that would make a lot more sense. He again
emphasized that if residential development is not blocked out
now, we will never be able to use this area as an industrial site
in the future, and it is always possible to downzone later on.
Discussion continued i.n regard to possibly including the 60
acres of each blocked area as you move across up to Rebel Road
which would be 240 acres additional.
Attorney O'Haire pointed out that there is an enormous
borrow pit which was dug in connection with the construction of
1-95 that takes up a good part of a 40 acre tract and is a
natural buffer to the residential subdivision on the north. He
also pointed out that Aerodrome Subdivision is unusual in.that it
has airplane traffic, and this would limit the residential
desirability of that piece of property. It was noted that the
38
borrow pit is located just above the property zoned CG west of
82nd Ave.
Commissioner Bird asked what the proper procedure to expand
the node would be, and Director Keating advised that the Board
could direct staff to do a county -initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment when the next window opens in July or the Board could
move the boundaries of the node, taking some area out and putting
it up there.
The Board indicated they would prefer to add rather than
take away.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 87-24 approving the node boundaries as
advertised and directed staff to take action to
add to the node the four 60 acre parcels between
82nd Avenue and 5th Street SW over to the east part
of the node.
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -24
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH-
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 450 ACRE COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT OSLO ROAD AND 74TH
AVENUE AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF
THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND
USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY
MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive
Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer-
cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial,
and hospital/commercial node; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a
public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to
establish boundaries for this node; and,
39
BOOK fi{,E 4 19
B AR S 1987 BOOK 67 Nrr 95
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties
in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered
to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of
the County's Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1
The attached map labeled as "Attachment All and the
description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official
boundaries of the 450 acre Commercial/Industrial Node located
at Oslo Road and 74th Avenue.
SECTION 2
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on the 3rd day of Marrh
1987.
(ATTACR,ANT A - See Page 35)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:/ G
DON C. SCURLOC , Jr.; F
ATTACHMENT B
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OF THE
OSLO ROAD/74TH AVENUE S.W. COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 74TH
AVENUE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTS THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 13TH
STREET SOUTHWEST; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 3440 FEET ALONG
THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 74TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST; THENCE RUN
WEST APPROXIMATELY 6640 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 3440 FEET ALONG THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF I-95; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY
5200' FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LYING IN SECTIONS 23, 24,
25 AND 261 TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 38E OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. CONTAINING 450 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
40
ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES - 1-95/SR60 COMMERCIAL/IND. NODE
The hour of 9:05 olc:lo.ck A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press.Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a 064-61
in the matter of
in the / Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the issues of
Affiant further saysthat 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-
tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, fine 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 is �! day o A.D.
� 1__4X
bj JL'� si ss Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit CourtXndian River County, Florida)
(SEAQ
S.R. 60 / 1-96
Commercial/ Industrial Node
A-1
R RM e
A. -
AM a
. -
Ma _
R."..7 a . —r .
-PROPOSED NODE BOUNDARY
(650 Ac.)
NOTICE OF REGULATION OF LAND USS- - E
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY OWEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Fonda, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in (merest and clizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be hoard. In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, Io- n
rated
at
1800 25th StraeL Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, Match 3, f 887, at 9:05 a.m. to ceder '
the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: _
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES 1
FOR THE 950 ACRE COMMERCIAVINDUSTRIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1.95
AND STATE ROAD 90 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELE-
MENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP. DESCRIP-
TION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 1
ensure that a verbne who atimmrecord to appeal
proceedings to made. any decision which may
hich Includes testi=anti lneed to.
evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian Rim County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s-Don C. 8curtock Jr.. Chairman
Fab. 11, 1987
Chief Planner Shearer made the following presentation:
MAR 3 1987 4 1
BOOK UI � f "; . Q
MAR. 3 1987
�^
BOOK 67 F',` E497 1
TO: The honorable Members DATE: February 4, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUND-
Ro ert M. Keati g, AIXY ARIES FOR THE 650 ACRE
Planning & DevelopmeiV Director COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
JV( NODE LOCATED AT THE
THROUGH: Richard M. Shearer, AICP INTERSECTION OF I-95 AND
Chief, Long -Range Planning S.R. 60.
FROM: Cherylene J. Boudreaux REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish
boundaries for the six -hundred and fifty (650) acre
Commercial/ Industrial Node located at the intersection of I-95
and S.R. 60.
On September 12, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
an amendment to the text of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan which provided for establishing boundaries for
each of the nodes as generally described in the text of the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an
amendment to the text of the Land Use Plan which enlarged the
I-95/S.R. 60 Commercial/ Industrial Node from 550 acres to 650
acres.
On January 22, 1987, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
7 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed boundaries. Also,
the Commission approved a motion to consider the property located
generally southwest of the intersection of I-95 and S.R. 60 for
inclusion in the node at a future date.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed boundaries of the I-95/S.R. 60 Commercial/Industrial
Node were prepared based on the following criteria:
1. The general description and size constraint of the node
as described in the text of the Land Use Element;
2. The existing commercial and industrial uses in the
general area of the node;
3. The existing zoning pattern;
4. Property boundaries;
5. Traffic considerations; and
6. Environmental considerations.
The I-95/S.R. 60'Commercial/ Industrial Node is described in the
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
"This is a commercial/industrial node containing six hundred
and fifty .(650) acres".
The property proposed for inclusion in the node is zoned either
CL, Limited Commercial District; CG, General Commercial District;
CH, Heavy Commercial District; or IL, Light Industrial District.
The proposed node boundaries follow property lines and zoning
district boundaries.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The two areas zoned CL, Limited Commercial District, include a
banking facility, and a convenience store located east of 82nd
Ave. and a small retail shopping plaza and a motel located north
of State Road 60.
The following are some of the existing uses found in the large
node area along S.R. 60 zoned CG, General Commercial District: an
aluminum sales building, a mobile home window sales shop, a truck
stop, a convenience store, two motels, several service stations,
and several parcels of vacant land.
The two areas in the node zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District,
are occupied by fruit packing facilities and a future commercial
park.
There are also several industrial establishments located in the
IL, Light Industrial District, including the Pine Tree Industrial
Park, east of I-95 and the M.A. Ford Co., and Rampmaster located
west of 98th Avenue.
Transportation System
The I-95 and S.R. 60 node boundary is located at the intersection
of the major east -west highway in the County and one of the major
north -south highways. The node has primary access on I-95 and
S.R. 60 (both are designated as• arterials on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan). The node also has secondary access on 82nd
Avenue and 98th Avenue (both classified as primary collectors)
and on 16th Street and 90th Avenue (classified as secondary
collector streets).
Environment
The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive.
The major part of the node is not located in a flood -prone area.
However, one exception is approximately 840,000 square feet
(19.28 acres) of area located generally west of I-95 which is in
Flood Zone A.
Utilities
Water and sewer facilities are presently available for the node
area east of I-95. There are no current plans to continue these
facilities west of I-95.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning & Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the
proposed I-95 and S.R. 60 node boundary.
MAR 3 1987 43
BOOK 67 ft�� E 4 9S
Flr-- I
AUR j 1987 BOOK 67 iL`vH, 99
ATTACHMENT A
S.R. 60 / 1-95
Commercial/ Industrial Node
_; r `L r1 In�l„g�'� ttt A+ RS -1
q-1 CUM ��� � t RS -8
1 —
..t}i}
R
1 RM
1 LL
t.,
:..»».m.....r.....»:.....,.....%,:»v....., ......:....:... :...... .. .::::}:•}i:..:; ...;.::. :rte<:
oi:c; .}::>}: • :}}}: i.:m..: , ::
-••as. U
4y:Ni} •}4?:�".
,......... ,..: .. ... :•:...- iR3k-.:?::•;}: :;:::. .:•:' <^d-iii';.:rf;:.>z::.t.}: y.<::: i}:xii}:..
1 f,
Q4.
A 1 4.
t;+
A
M 8
RM
8
1
CA
..::......
v
:w' irft?i �Jj
�122n ST
PROPOSED NODE BOUNDARY
(650 Ac.)
Commissioner Eggert inquired how the boundaries of the node
got clear east to Zippy Mart, and Planner Shearer advised that a
policy was set by the Board, while considering a county -
initiated rezoning in December of 1984, that the node boundary
would go east to the First Banker's facilities on the south side
of SR60.
Commissioner Eggert expressed concern about moving so far
east that we prevent other small neighborhood nodes from being
able to develop because they can't be within a mile. She felt at
some time we must stop the node movement eastward.
Planner Shearer pointed out that staff is recommending the
boundary.be set on the east end today and noted that this node
already has been enlarged four times.
Chairman Scurlock believed the big question concerns the
44
RM -8; whether some of.it should be included in the node; and if
not., why not.
Discussion continued as to the RM -8 line and the possibility
of squaring off the boundary on the north along that line down to
the RMH-8. It was noted that right now in the RM -8, there is a
vacant parcel of about 20 acres and an .9 acre mobile home park
with between 11-14 homes. The RMH-8 is Ranchland Mobile Home
Park.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if she was alone in feeling
that something should be done west of 1-95, and other Board
members assured her she was not.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the amount of property
involved if we were to square off the A-1 and RM -6 segments on
the south of SR60 and west of 1-95, which were not included in
the node, and Planner Shearer believed it would be in the
neighborhood of 150 acres.
Commissioner Wheeler inquired about the northwest quadrant
on 1-95, and Chairman Scurlock explained there is an existing
subdivision and it is an active one.
Commissioner Wheeler believed the industrial usage is mainly
west of 1-95, and Chairman Scurlock noted that you are hemmed in
on the north by two subdivisions and on the southeast by two
mobile home parks. The only area not hemmed in is the southwest
corner, except for the Florida Gas transmission line.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard, and
clarified that the Commission at this point is looking at the
possibility of expanding the node to square off the areas just
discussed.
Terrance Riley, 2139 79th Court, pointed out an area on the
map and wished to know what could be put in there in the way of
industrial or commercial.
Chief Planner Shearer advised that right now that area is
limited commercial and agricultural, and there is a rezoning
request now to go to CL. That area is designed to meet the
A 45
BOOK 67 500
MAR
. 3
1987
BOOK
1 f-,�;-L 501
convenience
shopping needs of the area residents and
would allow
such things as supermarkets, drugstores, professional offices,
hardware stores, and things of that type.
Mr. Riley had further questions as to where truckstops or
gas stations would be allowed, and Planner Shearer stated that
under the current zoning, the property east of 82nd Avenue (Ranch
Road) is CL and would not allow truckstops or any type industrial
activities. The area west of 82nd Avenue on the south side of
SR60 is zoned GC and allows a little broader range, including
truckstops and car dealers.
Attorney Chris Marine came before the Board representing
Richard Lessinger who owns the 20 acre parcel back of the CL on
the north of SR60. He pointed out that if the node were squared
off on the north as discussed, it would basically bisect his
client's parcel from east to west, and they are in support of
that expansion which would leave the north half of the property
as a buffer for the Paradise Park Subdivision.
Attorney Michael O'Haire advised that he is representing the
extreme westernmost piece and he did not wish to speak any
further on a battle which he has already won.
W. E. "Kinky" Orth, owner of Hibiscus Air Park west of 1-95,
noted they are grandfathered in out there at the airport. He
emphasized that their property goes all the way south to 12th
Street, and inquired about the possibility of the node being
expanded further south.
Discussion ensued re the area that would be suitable if the
Board were to consider expanding the node west of 1-95 further
south, and Chief Planner Shearer felt 16th Street would be an
appropriate boundary. He noted that airports are a permitted use
in agricultural districts and the basic thing we need to make
sure of in the future is providing a buffer of industrial and
something compatible so the airportdoesn't butt up to
residential.
46
The possibility of expanding the node to 14th Street rather
than 12th was discussed, and Chief Planner Shearer believed this
presented access problems.
Commissioner Bird felt that 16th Street is the limit he
would want to go to at this time.
_Mr. Orth continued to argue for expanding to 12th Street,
but the Board indicated that they felt that expansion is too far
at this time.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 87-25
approving the current boundaries as advertised; and
directing staff to take action to expand the node and
square it off to include the two A-1 parcels and one
RM -6 parcel on the west of 1-95 down to 16th Street
and the RM -8 on the north of SR60 up to the west line
of the RMH-8 (excluding Ranchland Mobile Home Park.)
Commissioner Wheeler expressed concern about the small
mobile home park in the RM -8 being included as he felt this would
cause the people living there to be displaced when the value of
the land rose.
Attorney O'Haire informed the Board that he represents the
owner of that park which has 13 mobile homes, and everyone there
already has been served with an eviction notice.
It was noted that the next window for addressing changes in
the Comprehensive Plan is in July.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
47
A 1987 Boos G7 502
�C Fr -
'MAR 3 � 87
Boos 67 F,�,F.503
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -25
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISH-
ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 650 ACRE COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
I-95 & S.R. 60 AS GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE
TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON
THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE
BOUNDARY MAP, DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND
.EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida have amended the County's Comprehensive
Plan to provide for establishing boundaries for every commer-
cial, commercial/industrial, industrial, tourist/commercial,
and hospital/commercial node; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission has held a
public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation to
establish boundaries for this node; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a
public hearing on these proposed boundaries at which parties
in interest and citizens had an opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners is empowered
to adopt these boundaries to assist in the implementation of
the County's Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the
description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official
boundaries of the 650 acre Commercial/ Industrial Node located
at the intersection of I-95 and S.R. 60.
SECTION 2
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance. has been filed with the
Department of State.
48
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on the 3rd day of March
1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: ; �) 6 w -, /,, el, &
DON C. SCURLOCK, Jr.,. A RMAN
ATTACMT A - See Page 44
ATTACHMENT B
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OF THE S.R. 60/
I-95 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.R. 60
(20TH STREET) INTERSECTS THE EAST' RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 82ND
AVENUE; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 960 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
APPROXIMATELY 1340 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 3560 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST
APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET;
THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 640 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH
APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST
APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 687 FEET TO
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 16TH STREET; THENCE RUN WEST ALONG
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 16TH STREET APPROXIMATELY 2600 FEET
TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF I-95; THENCE RUN NORTH ALONG THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF I-95 APPROXIMATELY 2160 FEET; THENCE RUN
WEST APPROXIMATELY 840 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 2160
FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 16th STREET; THENCE RUN
ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 16TH STREET APPROXIMATELY
1320 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 2160 FEET; THENCE RUN
WEST APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH ALONG THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 98TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 3520 FEET; THENCE
RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY
1320 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 480 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 1320 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 480 FEET; THENCE
RUN NORTH 1320 FEET ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 100TH
AVENUE INTERSECTING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.R. 60; THENCE
RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 1400 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF S.R. 60; THENCE RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
98TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 640 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY
1000 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 80 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST
APPROXIMATELY 2200 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 1080 FEET;
THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY. 3480 FEET INTERSECTING THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 88TH AVENUE; THENCE RUN SOUTH ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 86TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 560 FEET; THENCE
RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 1680 ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
21ST STREET; THENCE RUN SOUTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
85TH COURT APPROXIMATELY 960 FEET; THENCE RUN APPROXIMATELY 2360
FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.R. 60 (20TH STREET) TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LYING IN SECTIONS 1, 2, 3, & 4, TOWNSHIP
33S, RANGE 38E, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 650
ACRES MORE OR LESS.
MAR 3�� 7 4 9 BOOK P� r M
MAR- 3 BOOK 67 ;1c 1
PRESENTATION - APPRAISAL OF FLORIDAN AQUIFER AS A SOURCE OF
POTABLE WATER FOR NORTHERNMOST SEGMENT OF BARRIER ISLAND
Michael Miller, Chief of Environmental Planning, reviewed
the following memo and introduced Dr. David Toth:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 18, 1987 FELE:
The Board of County ,
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURENCE
• SUBJECT:
Robert M. a a ig, P
Planning & DevolopAdnt
FROM:Environmental
R. Miller, Chief /
• Environmental Planning WEERENCES:
PRESENTATION BY DR. DAVID
TOTH, HYDROLOGIST, WITH
ST. JOHN'S RIVER MANAGE-
MENT DISTRICT, CONCERNING
AN APPRAISAL OF THE
FLORIDAN AQUIFER AS A
SOURCE OF POTABLE WATER
FOR THE NORTHERNMOST SEG-
MENT OF THE BARRIER
ISLAND.
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on March 3, 1987.
INTRODUCTION TO PRESENTATION
Dr. Toth recently offered to brief the Planning & Zoning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners on his recently
completed Groundwater Study, as outlined above. The presenta-
tion is scheduled for approximately 15 minutes and will include
a slide presentation.
The introduction to the report is a$ follows:
The Floridan aquifer is the primary source of water
supply in the east -central Florida area. South of
Volusia County, however the Floridan generally
contains water with chloride concentrations that
exceed 250 milligrams per liter (mg/1), the recom-
mended limit for public drinking water (Figure 1).
Therefore, throughout much of Brevard County it is
difficult to obtain ground water suitable for public
supply. The City of Cocoa obtains water from both
the surficial and Floridan aquifer systems in Orange
County. The city of Melbourne and adjacent areas of
South Brevard County rely on surface water from Lake
Washington. In Indian River County, practically all
of the public and domestic water supply systems tap
the surficial aquifer system.
Supplies of potable water within the Floridan aquifer
in southeastern Brevard and eastern Indian River
Counties occur only in the area bordering Sebastian
Inlet. Here, the Floridan aquifer contains a lens of
potable quality water completely surrounded by
non -potable quality water. This lens is referred to
as the Sebastian Freshwater lens. The lens supplies
significant quantities of water to a large number of
South Brevard and Indian River counties.residents.
The purpose of this study is to determine the aerial
extent of the Sebastian Freshwater lens, to document
50
the changes in its size with time, and to project the
future. utility of the lens. This report contains a
quantitative appraisal of the Florida aquifer produc-
ing zones and should serve as an aid to water re-
source planners in determining management strategies
to enhance the utility and duration of this water
supply.
Staff recommends that the features of the Sebastian Freshwater
Lens, as identified by Dr. Toth, be given serious consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners when determining ground
water management strategies associated with land development
activities in the North County.
Dr. Toth made a slide presentation. He informed the Board
that the "Sebastian Lens" is the only area in southeast Brevard
County and Indian River County where the aquifer contains potable
water. It is a finite reservoir of fresh water which was
entrapped in the rocks during the last glacial advance; it is
continually shrinking due to ground water withdrawal, and the
water that is being removed is being replaced with much higher
chloride content. The lens itself receives no recharge. The
study area covers from Floridana Beach south to Wabasso Beach and
extends approximately two miles west of the Indian River
shoreline. Dr. Toth noted that in this area the lens consists of
two zones; the upper zone is penetrated by wells from 300-500' in
depth and consists of three lobes. The southern lobe penetrates
part of Indian River County and stretches from Mathers Cove in
Brevard County to News Cut in Indian River County, which
locations are shown in the following sketch.
51
BOOK 1'}?Ut
MAR 3 `937
y �l
BOOK � t, u''. 5�_� 1
Dr. Toth continued that the second zone is penetrated by
wells 500-800' in depth and the thickness of this zone is not
known. The thickness of the upper zone increases as it goes to
the south and obtains its maximum thickness at Sebastian Inlet
where it is 250' thick. Conceivably the lens can extend offshore
some distance, but they do not know about that. In 1956 the bens
used to extend over to the mainland at Sebastian and Roseland,
but now has shrunk and has more chlorides. It is believed the
52
M
water in the Lower zone is higher quality and representative of
the original water entrapped in the lens. Most of the water is
being withdrawn from the upper zone, and the only significant
withdrawal from the lower zone was by Aquarina which in 1984
withdrew 2.2 million gallons per year. Dr. Toth then cited
figures for the gallonage drawn from the various Lobes, stressing
that ground water heat pumps are the largest user of the water
from both lobes. Total water use amounted to 195 million gallons
per year in the middle and south lobes, and based on 1984
figures, they estimate a minimum life of 143 years for those
lobes.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the life of the lens had been
estimated based on the figures for today's use, and Dr. Toth
stated just the 1984 figures were used; he agreed the use
obviously will increase so the actual life would be shorter.
Commissioner Bowman asked what Dr. Toth would recommend
about the use of the lens for heat pump purposes, and he advised
that Brevard County has an ordinance that says all existing heat
pumps must have a demand valve on them when they are not in use,
and if new pumps are put in, there must be a return well
returning the water to the aquifer of origin. This is what he
would recommend for Indian River County also.
Chairman Scurlock believed the issue is not whether the
resource is there, but the cost of producing potable water. He
believed there actually is not a lack of the resource, and the
whole purpose of this study would be to manage that resource to
reduce the cost over the longest period possible. The Chairman
felt most people do not realize that in Indian River County we
are way ahead in terms of re -use for golf courses, etc., so that
we don't have to use potable water for irrigation purposes, and
in fact, he felt we may be leading the state in that effort.
Discussion continued in regard to withdrawal wells on the
barrier island and also as to whether the lens extended down into
the grove area.
,9-
53r,1J S,
BOOK F,�.: a=
:MAR
i300K f',tiCF.50
Engineer Darrell McQueen confirmed that there are a hundred
or more wells on the barrier island. He believed there is a good
chance the lens does extend down that far, but not in the quality
of drinking water.
The Chairman thanked Dr. Toth for his presentation.
APPEAL RE C.O.#5, JAIL, PHASE I - COST OF RELOCATING ARCHITECT'S
AND CONTRACTOR'S TRAILER
Chairman Scurlock referred to the following letter from RSH
Constructors:
4 saff
Constructors
Earl N. Shlmp III
QcomMISSIC=ERS)'��
987 OISTRIBUuf`idi'dL'�STFebruary 12, 1987 V® Commissioners
oAdministrator
i+sr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Attorney E� Personnel _—
Board of County Commissioners Public Works
1840 25th Street Community Dev.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Utilities
RE: Indian River County Jaile
Other
Phase One (1)
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
With reference to the Indian River County Jail, we have been advised by
Frizzell Architects that Change Order Number Five (5) in the amount of
$545.00 for the additional cost to relocate power, telephone and grounding
_for the Architects and Contractors trailer has been denied.
This is to advise you that RSH Constructors appeals this decision and
requests that this situation be brought forth before the Board and
reconsidered.
In order to provide you with a brief history of this situation, when RSH
Constructors commenced construction on the new jail, there was no other
construction being performed on site. In addition, there were no other
contracts for any other phases to be constructed. The only additional
work scheduled at that time was the site work and paving to be performed
by the County.
In order to locate the office trailers, RSH Constructors verbally
discussed this with representatives of the County and the Architect,
including discussions at both the site and at the pre -construction
conference. Our intention at that time was to locate the trailers in such
a place as to avoid interference with the site work and•paving being
performed by the County. During this time, there was no direction to RSH
Constructors of any potential interferencewith future construction
activities.
54
Also, you may recall that the County and the Architect was extremely
excited about the groundbreaking ceremonies prior to construction. RSH
Constructors was requested to expedite the location and installation of
the office trailers on site so that the groundbreaking could occur and so
Photographs could be taken with the contractors presence on site. Again,.
there was every opportunity for the Architect and the Owner to advi�� RSH
Constructors if the trailer location presented a potential interference
with future construction.
After Indian River County awarded Phase II of the jail to an alternate
contractor, RSH Constructors was directed to relocate the Architects and
Contractors trailer. Not only did this relocation require moving the
trailers, but the power, telephone, grounding and plumbing bad to be
relocated. The additional cost incurred to RSH Constructors for this
relocation should certainly be reimbursed by the party which received
benefit from this relocation. In this situation, clearly the Owner
received the benefit as the original location of the trailers in no way
represents an error on the part of the contractor.
Also, please note that approval has been recommended by the Architect and
by the Indian River County staff as evidenced by Indian River County
interoffice memorandum dated January 14, 1987 from Mr. H. T. Dean to the
Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners.
Based on the above, this is to request that the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County reverse their previous decision and
approve Change Order Number Five (5) in the amount of $545.00. Should the
Board elect not to approve our Change Order Number Five (5), we demand
that we be advised of the Article and paragraph of the General Conditions
of the Contract which are being cited in order to deny our request.
In closing, we feel that the decision on the part of the Commissioners is
incorrect and should we be required to appear before the Board, additional
expenses will be incurred due to the travel and time required from
Jacksonville, Florida to Vero Beach, Florida. This additional expense
would not have been incurred if the Board of County Commissioners had
properly approved our request initially. Therefore, should we be required
to appear before the Board to defend this item, an additional $600.00 will
be required, consisting of eight (8) hours employee time at $50.00 per
hour plus $200.00 travel expense.
Upon receipt of this letter, kindly contact me and hopefully a
satisfactory resolution can be reached. I look forward to your prompt
response.
Sincerely yours,
Earl N. Shimp, III
The Chairman took exception to the last paragraph of the
letter, emphasizing that the Board did not require them to come
to any meeting, and we don't have to pay for any such expenses.
He also did not appreciate them contacting our auditors as was
done.
Earl Shimp, Vice President of RSH Constructors, thanked the
Board for the opportunity to readdress this situation, stating
that he would address the Chairman's remarks at the conclusion of
55
BOOK 67 JL 510.
IF, --I
MAR 3 1987
l
BOOK
his presentation. Mr. Shimp proceeded to present a detailed
history of the events leading up to today and read verbatim from
the project specifications, Sec. 015004, Page 4, which states
that temporary support facilities are to be located for the
convenience of the user (which is the contractor and the
architect) and for minimum interference with construction
activities. He explained that what RSH did was take the site
plan of the site, made a survey of all the various utilities,
considered their construction activities as well as all the
paving which was County performed, and from that decided on a
location for the trailers.
Chairman Scurlock asked if they took the drainage into
consideration, as he believed part of the relocation was
necessitated as much by the drainage that had to be accomplished
on the site as any of the other factors mentioned by Mr. Shimp.
Mr. Shimp stated that they took into account all the
drainage that affected their work.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the site plan was the overall
site plan for all the phases or just for the building they were
to construct, and Mr. Shimp stated the site plan they have does
illustrate with a dotted line future inmate housing but with no
dimensions - no size, no shape.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the trailer was located
on a future building site, and Mr. Shimp agreed it is certainly
within the confines of the new facility and that is why they
moved it. As to whether it is within the dotted lines, there
were no dimensions to lay it out.
Questions continued as to the site plan Mr. Shimp has, and
Chairman Scurlock believed they had dimensions on other drawings
and could have overlaid those on their site plan to figure sizes.
Mr. Shimp stressed that the documents say you cannot scale
drawings.
Mr. Shimp next reviewed in detail the sequence of the
various change orders, noting that on August 5, RSH requested
56
$545 for relocation costs and on August 8th the architect
accepted their relocation by letter, with a copy to the county.
On August 21st, they met on site with the site representative who
agreed with the trailer relocation; the architect sent out Change
Order #4, in regard to these costs, among other things, which was
approved by the Board on September 16th, but not signed by the
Chairman because it had not been signed by the contractor first.
However, on this change order the costs for the trailer
relocation ($545) had been zeroed out, and, therefore, they sent
the Change Order back to the architect for correction.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the item went to zero because
the Board did not approve that item.
Mr. Shimp continued to review in great detail the confusion
involved with Change Orders #4, #5, and #6 which were sent back
and forth over a period of 81 months, all relating in some part
to the $545 cost of relocation of the trailer, which cost the
Board continued to delete. He stated that they are appealing to
the Board to approve what is clearly due RSH. They placed the
trailer in a place that was for the convenience of the user and
did not interfere with any construction activity involved in
their work. It did interfere with something outside the scope of
their work.
Mr. Shimp then addressed the Chairman's objection to the
last paragraph in his letter, which stated that there would be an
additional $600 charge if they were required to appear before the
Board to defend this item. He believed the Chairman stated that
the Board did not demand that anyone attend, and he agreed that
is correct. Mr. Shimp believed if the Board will reconsider the
relocation cost he is appealing, they will approve it, but in the
event the Board does not, he requested that the exact term and
article they are using to reject the item be made known. As to
the Chairman's objection to their contacting the County's
auditors, Mr. Shimp stated that RSH did not contact them; the
MAR
. I9�� 57
BOOK 67 FvI F 51
MAR 3 1987 BOOK 67 FvUL 513
auditors contacted RSH trying to verify records, and RSH simply
responded.
OMB Director Baird believed the auditors said that RSH made
further spoken comments, but Mr. Shimp stated that he did not
believe he ever spoke with the auditors.
Administrator Balczun advised that yesterday staff had quite
a discussion about this matter. Staff does not feel the county
is obligated to pay the amount in question, and the consensus was
to recommend that the Board reject the appeal without further
comment.
Commissioner Eggert believed it was the Architect's error,
and, therefore, his responsibility.
Commissioner Bird hoped we are not going to the Supreme
Court over $545, but Chairman Scurlock believed there is more
involved, i.e., a time extension and liquidated damages.
OMB Director Baird advised that the time extension is
another change order that will be discussed at a later date, and
Mr. Shimp stated that the trailer relocation did not involve any
time extension at all - only the hard cost of the move, relo-
cating electric wires, telephones, etc.
Commissioner Bird noted that apparently $545 then would
totally satisfy this issue as far as the contractor is concerned.
He further understood they met with the Architect and someone
from our staff and determined this was the proper place, and he
did believe after that we did make a decision to go ahead with
the second phase.
General Services Dean noted that some staff member could
have met with RSH out there as claimed, but it wasn't he.
Mr. Shimp stated that the Architect not only had his staff
representative, but had an on-site representative at all times
assisting with those decisions.
Commissioner Eggert inquired who the county representative
was, and Mr. Shimp did not know if Tom Stough was the county's
representative or the architect's representative, but the
58
contract documents state that the architect is the county
representative.
Administrator Balczun addressed the definition of "owner's
representative," and agreed that the architect does represent the
owner to some extent, but he emphasized that this Board has never
divested itself of the authority to make decisions binding the
county to financial obligations and certainly never devolved that
authority to an architect.
Commissioner Bird felt it appears that this contractor is
due to be reimbursed, but possibly the question is who reimburses
him - do we or the architect? He noted that he gets the feeling
there is something more underlying all this.
Administrator Balczun assured him that staff simply doesn't
feel it is a legitimate claim against the county.
Commissioner Wheeler stated it was his understanding that
nobody told them to put the trailer there; they simply put it
there and no one objected.
Chairman Scurlock wished to refresh the Board's memory re
the history of this situation. He noted that back when we began
the first phase of the Jail, because of the pressure from the
Department of Correction, we were looking to have this facility
built as quickly as possible. The other job this company had in
North Florida was way behind schedule, and we became concerned as
to why we weren't seeing construction started and our project
moved along. There is some suggestion in the correspondence from
Mr. Shimp that we hurried them and said put your construction
trailer here just so we so we could take some pictures to show
the community we were moving ahead, but the fact is that we had
to hurry them to get them started so the facility could be
completed on time. The Chairman also stressed that while the
drawings Mr. Shimp has of the site may not be exactly to'scale,
the dotted lines did show the future site of Phase II and that is
where they chose to locate.
59 �
BOOK 67 Ega 514
MAR
3
1987
BOOK
6
�a r
MOTION WAS MADE
by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED
by
Commissioner Wheeler, to approve staff recommenda-
tion to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Bird was confused that there is such an issue
being made of this on either side and still felt there must be
something behind the scenes of which he is not aware.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel there is anything involved
beyond the fact that we just do not owe these costs.
Mr. Shimp continued to argue that they moved the trailer for
the Board's convenience and the documents clearly state that it
should be located for the contractor's convenience. He wished to
know the article on which the Board would base a denial.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Bird voting in opposition.
REQUEST TO PAVE 5TH ST. SW WEST OF 82ND AVENUE
Public Works Director Davis reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: February 19, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Request for County to Pave 5th
_ Street S.W. West of 82nd Ave.
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
FROM:�? Michelle A. Terry. YREFERENCES:
Civil Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As a condition of Final Plat Approval for Aerodrome Subdivision No.
3, 5th Street S.W. west of 82nd Avenue to Newport Drive will have to be
paved. At the August 12, 1986, meeting of the Transportation and
Planning Committee, the Committee recommended that:
a) The improvements of the 5th Street S.W. segment be funded via
the petition paving process_ and that a valid petition and
assessment be accepted in lieu of."bonding-out" in regards to
final plat approval and
60
b)'That.`the segment of 5th street S.W. between the subdivision. and
82nd Avenue be improved within the amount of right-of-way
obtainable (30' at this time)
Approximately a_ year ago some property owners in Aerodrome
Subdivision initiated a petition to have this road paved. At that time
there were not enough property owners in favor, to make a valid
petition.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1- This road could be paved by the owner -developer.
The paving and drainage improvement would be constructed within the
existing 30' right-of-way. The owner -developer or County Engineering
could contact the property owners along the north side of the road and
request a 20' road right of way in addition to the 30' existing, thereby
making paving and drainage improvements within a preferred 50' right-of-
way. If the property owner along the north did not donate R/W, the
County would proceed with condemnation and include this in the cost of
the project. (See attached map)
Alternative No. 2 - This road could be paved by the County under the
Special Assessment Program. Right-of-way acquisition would be the same
as in Alternative No. 1.
At the present time the county graders grade this road and thereby
qualifing it for petition paving program.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 thereby making paving and
drainage improvements within a 50' R/W if obtainable or within the
existing 30' R/W, if necessary under the petition paving program.
Benefited area to be determined. Funding will come from benefited
property owners at 75% and county to pay 25%.
As of this date, there has not been any response form Carmela Grove.
(See attached letter)
Director Davis advised that after the petition came in, a
development project came in to increase the platted lots in the
Aerodrome area, and one of the conditions of approval was that
the road be paved. The question is should we proceed with the
petition paving.process, assess the benefited owners and assess
the developer his pro rata share, or should the road be paved by
the developer himself. Staff's recommendation is to continue
with the petition paving. They have been in communication with
the developer, who has indicated he would donate the right-of-
way, but he would not elect to donate that and pay the assessment
also. Staff feels we need the additional R/W and recommends we
acquire it by donation and then either the county pick up the
developer's $2,800 assessment in lieu of purchasing right-of-way
or that it be assessed to the other benefitting owners.
Commissioner Eggert believed if something comes in as a
condition of final plat approval, the developer would have to
pave the road, and Director Davis agreed, but noted that the
question is whether that is equitable when other people share in
61 BOOK 67 C'A E 16
MAR 3 1987
Bou 67 rnLI 517
the benefit. Also it is a question of timing. The developer can
elect simply to wait until we pave the road and then he can come
in and develop anyway.
Discussion continued at length re timing, benefits, etc.,
and Commissioner Eggert noted that the developer cannot proceed
with his project until this is paved.
Attorney Vitunac agreed, but pointed out that he can put in
a 30' road, and we want a 50' road.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the value of the right-of-
way donation, and County Right -of -Way Agent Finney advised that
20' additional R/W amounts to 6/10 of an acre or $2,985. The
assessment is very close to the Property Appraiser's value.
The Chairman suggested we accept staff's recommendation to
make the improvements under the petition paving program.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 2 as recommended by staff in memo
dated February 19, 1987.
CITY OF VERO BEACH PROPOSAL RE JOINT CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE OVER
MAIN CANAL AT COUNTRY CLUB_DRIVE
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo:
TO The Honorable members of the DATE: February 24, 1987 FILE:
Board of County Ccmnssioners
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
SUBJECT:
Proposal From City of Vero
Beach's Consultant, Lloyd and
Associates, to Jointly
Construct a Bridge and Utility
Structure Over the Main Canal
at Country Club Drive
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Darrell E.
McQueen, Lloyd
Public works Director and Assoc. to Jim Davis
DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS
In the effort to reduce capital expenditures, the Public Works staff
recently proposed repairing the Country Club Drive bridge in lieu of
constructing a new concrete bridge. Most of the $150,000 that was budgeted
in .the FY 86/87 Road and Bridge Division budget could be saved, however, in
the Main Canal environment, a timber substructure bridge will probably
deteriorate within 10-15 years. Last summer, the Board authorized
Kimley-Horn & Assoc. to assist the Engineering Division in designing a.
concrete bridge. As engineering progressed, it was determined that the
design would result in at least a $150,000 expenditure for a new bridge.
Due to budget restraints, the consultant was asked to cease work and the
Road and Bridge Division was planning to replace wood piling this summer.
The City of Vero Beach has three utility lines supported by the existing
bridge and must relocate them. The City's consultant has proposed that
Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach jointly fund a concrete
bridge with utility raceways. The cost would be:
Indian River County share $ 95,000
City of Vero Beach share 15,000
Total cost including Engineering $110,000
If this proposal were accepted, the County would still save $55,000 from
our budgeted figure of $150,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the County accept this proposal and jointly fund
this project with the City. Funding to be from Fund 111-214-541-, Road and
Bridge Division.
Commissioner Eggert inquired how the cost got from $150,000
to $110,000, and Director Davis explained that it is basically
due to the availability of a contractor who is building a bridge
going over to the John's Island area. He is about finishing up
on that bridge, and Lloyd & Associates have indicated he would be
willing to do the work for this price.
Engineer Darrell McQueen of Lloyd & Associates, engineers
for the City of Vero Beach, agreed it is an unusual price,
probably slightly more than half of what it would be if you went
63 BOOK q r P
MAR 3 1987 . � V:
MAR
1987BOOK
67
F "�,J1
to bid.
It is a bridge similar to the one going from
John's
Island to Jim Island. This contractor has worked for them since
1978; they have a good working relationship with him; he is
bondable; and the price he has quoted is the same price he gave
for the John's Island bridge. Mr. McQueen noted that this is the
same contractor who was successful bidder on the two canal
crossings for the City.
Public Works Director Davis asked the Board if the City and
County were jointly cooperating in a project whether this work
could be accomplished as a change order to the City contract
rather than us having to go out competitively.
Attorney Vitunac did not believe state law would require us
to bid in this instance. We can have a private contract with the
City to contribute some money towards the project, and everyone
agrees this is a special deal which is in the public interest
because the price is so favorable.
Engineer McQueen explained how this would be done and the
savings involved for the City and County.
Commissioner Bird wished to be sure that Director Davis felt
this is a good deal, and he confirmed that he did.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
Public Works Director Davis to proceed on the above
project however is legal.
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY DONATED BY THE LIER FAMILY
The Board reviewed the following memo, which it was felt was
self-explanatory:
64
i
TO: The.Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Charles P. Balcczzun,,'Administrator
FROM: L.S. "Tommy" ''Hofn , it ctor
Intergovernmental Relations
DATE: February 23, 1981
I have had several discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Lier
relative to property in Government Lot 6, North of Wabasso
Estates on the West side of AlA. The Lier's gave us a 100 feet
of beachfront property, which is on the South end of the Bell
Road Park property. Now they would like to exchange their 100
foot lot on the West side of AlA, as shown on the attached map,
for 150 feet of land located on the North end of our Park
property on the West side of AlA.
The reason they would like to make this exchange is because
they only use this property for access to their groves West of
said property.
It is obvious that we will be receiving much more property
than we are giving up. I recommend that the Board consider this
exchange.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed to
the exchange of property requested by the Lier family
as set out above and as shown on the following chart.
� LER 1
N
1 �P.110 "1 P.AS.
9\
G �V, CU I Ile I
65 BOOK 6 7 PAGE. Yl
SE 1 /4 SECTION 10 '
u •Art
X20. 80`� e•% \
a_
GOV.
LOT Z6
>a
� LER 1
N
1 �P.110 "1 P.AS.
9\
G �V, CU I Ile I
65 BOOK 6 7 PAGE. Yl
r -
')B AR . 6 37
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
BOOK 67 Ff!ut
Commissioner Eggert informed the Board that the Economic
Development Committee is working closely with the Chamber of
Commerce and also had the State Department of Commerce down here.
They are working mainly to see what we have and do not have
available and are progressing nicely with that.
EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Eggert believed they have made some headway.
They have the Ambulance Squad and its Board talking to the
Hospital Board and trying to work out where the paramedics will
be stationed; they have the North County and South County Fire
Districts talking to each other so they know who in North County
to dispatch and have the dispatching people sending instructions
to all of the service people as to exactly how things are to be
dispatched; they also have the fire and police and sheriff's
departments supplying names of paid EMT's to the Ambulance Squad
to see if they can't get them to volunteer. In addition,
Commissioner Eggert advised that she is working with Emergency
Management Director Doug Wright, and they will talk to Dr. Teel
re emergency room services and also to see if the number of
vehicles and services that arrive at a scene are entirely
necessary. Hopefully all this will lead to something good.
DISCUSSION RE TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON NORTH U.S.I
Commissioner Bird noted that when the D.O.T. representatives
were here, he asked them to look into the construction situation
on North U.S.I to be sure the contractor was doing everything he
could to move traffic safely and expeditiously, and nothing has
happened. There was another bad accident this morning on U.S.1
because that project doesn't allow a safe way to turn left onto
U.S.I. afte-r they come over the railroad crossings -or to turn.
left off of U.S.I. 1t is obvious that what is there isnot only
not working, it is dangerous, and he believed the D.O.T. or
someone has a responsibility to move that traffic more safely.
Commissioner Bird further noted that on 6th Avenue there is
a trenchlike excavation that has been lying open for at least 2-3
weeks, and he wished to know why it has been left like that so
long.
Public Works Director Davis explained that is a utility
project; they are putting a gravity sewer line down 6th Avenue,
and he mentioned to Utilities a week ago that the traffic control
was not proper there. He believed they are waiting for some
testing of the line before they restore the pavement.
Commissioner Bird advised that the area he is talking about
in front of the Jungle Club has been backfilled, but they have
never paved over it and it is creating a terrible situation.
Administrator Balczun stated that he was familiar with this
and would check into it.
Director Davis explained that our contractor is being held
off on these jobs for several reasons - Southern Bell, utilities,
etc. It is a very busy corridor with all the utilities trying to
get their work done - water, sewer, telephone, some electrical.
Discussion returned to the traffic problem on U.S.I, and
Director Davis noted that they have taken a 5 lane section and
closed off two lanes. The remaining three lanes they have
channelized to allow two lanes southbound and one northbound.
This does create a problem for the northbound traffic, but he did
not know what else they could do besides putting more flagmen on
the lane.
Commissioner Bird noted that he has never seen any flagmen
and felt there should be at least one.
Chairman Scurlock requested Director Davis to contact whom-
ever he can in regard to this situation.
MAR 3 1987 67 BooK 67 I,�JF 5 2" 2
I
F -
'B AR J �IJ87 Boos67 a"A'jL )
SOUTH COUNTY AND NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South County Fire District and then of the
North County Fire District.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
68
jol
Chairman