The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/10/1987Tuesday, March 10, 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 10, 1987, at 9:00 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; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda of an emergency request from an owner in Oceanaire Heights Subdivisi"on for an abandonment of easement in order to meet a real estate closing. Chairman Scurlock also requested the addition of a discussion re the issuance of a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the new Jail until such time as the landscaping requirements are met. Chairman Scurlock announced that Item 9 - Forfeiture of Bond for Charlie Price Mining Operation - has been deleted since they have since renewed their bond. MAR 10 1987 BooK 7 ��E MAR 10 1937 BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and deleted the above items to today's Agenda. APPROVAL OF -MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Meeting of February 17, 1987. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of 2/17/87, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Scurlock requested that Item D be removed for discussion. A. Purchase of Discharge Pump for County_ Grapefruit Grove The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MARCH 4, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: "TOMMY" THOMAS INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF DISCHARGE PUMP FOR COUNTY GRAPEFRUIT GROVE Attached are two bids for the installation of the above pump at the. County citrus grove. Two other firms were contacted but their figures were substantially higher. Mr. Steve Futch and I recommend accepting the proposal of B & B Machine Shop and Industrial Supply Company of Fort Pierce, Florida, in the amount of $6,316.44. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted the proposal of B 6 B Machine Shop and Industrial - Supply Company of Fort Pierce in the amount of - $6,316.44 for the purchase of a discharge pump for the County grapefruit grove, as recommended by staff. FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE REPLY TO: 2001-9 Ave. ,Suite 303 Vero Beach, FL 32960 ��•� n u January 29, 19$7 T0: Tommy Thomas, Intergovernmental Cobrdinator FROM: Steve Futch, Acting County Extension Director �"U, - SUBJECT: Purchase of Discharge Pump for County Grapefruit Grove After reviewing the two bids from B & B Machine Shop and Knight & Math.is, Irecommend the bid from B & B be accepted. This bid also is the lowest of the two bids. Reasons for acceptance of B & B bid 1. Lowest cost of the two bids Cost of B & B bid: materials - 5:816.44 backhoe. est. - 500.00 TOTAL $ 6,316.44 Cost of Knight & Mathis bid: materials- - 5,864.00. supervision - 850.00 excavation est. - 1,000.0.0 TOTAL $ 7,714.00 2. It is noted that Knight & Mathis' pump is slightly larger. However, this additional size is not required, because this pump is only required to pump the excess water that will not normally run out through normal drainage system. 3. B & B bid will require less excavation and backhoe work around existing structures. This reduced excavation is reflected in the above estimated cost, however, and was not in the original bid proposal submitted by either company. It is noted that the County will be required to supply the following. 1) Electricity pole, meter box and power to the site. 2) Energize the pump. 3) Supply backhoe. 4) Remove fence and replace after pump outlet pipe is installed. Enclosed you will find the:two bids from B S B and Knight & Mathis. If you have any questions regarding the above recommendation, please call. AR 10 1987 3 Boos 6 7 FAE12'0 MAR 10 M7 BOOK 57 c�;, . 7 B. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity_ for Indian River County_Volunteer_Ambulance Squad i i ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted a Emergency Medical Services Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad. 4 � _r �rN tjti�� . EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES " CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WHEREAS, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER Ambu&=e Sertv.Ece p.�covide6 quatity emehgency m aeAvkceA to zei-75-0-T— Indian Riger Courcy; 'e'� and, WHEREAS, theAe ha6 been demonattated that there ,i.6 a need Sot th1A ambutanee zenv ce in thin to eaaeitW 62tvice6 to .the eitlzen6 os thia to operate county provide County; and, t u:i �Z eomp2y with : the WHEREAS, the above ambu°..anee 6enviee WIndicated that it :tequL%ement6 o6 the Emergency Medieae. Senv.i.ee6 Act oS 1973, the Board o6 County Indian River County hereby a CeAti.steate os Pubti.e I {b Commi66ianeJt6 os .i.eaue6 Convenience and Necu4 y o am ee company Sor the yeaA 193% T1,`� '!!.0 In i46u.i.ng thio ccatf ieate ,c t ,i.6 and enistood that the above named ambulance 4Rhvcce State Leg.cAtation and emvtgeney aezvicea on �•° . 7 wi.0 meet the requi4ement6 os provide a twentry-SouA hour baa•ia Son the Sotlow:ng area(a) -� Indian River County '• It ' e I k o 0 0 mm"64onw 'Scurlock, Jr. March 10, 1987 Don C. 4 � _r �rN C. Agreement between IRC and Leonard G. Hatala re Reimbursement for Overssiizing Certain Off -Site Utilities The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/87: T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MARCH 2, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO 1 (,i DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SLR itES SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND LEONARD G. HATALA GRANTING REIMBURSEMENTS FOR OVERSIZING CERTAIN OFF-SITE UTILITIES REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY BACKGROUND Mr. Leonard G. Hatala is the Developer for Tamara Gardens and he has expressed an interest in extending off-site water facilities to serve the Tamara Gardens project. The County is requiring the Developer to oversize the off-site utility improvements to serve the regional area and has agreed to reimburse the Developer $8,640.00 for the cost of oversizing these off-site utilities. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services asks that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of Indian River County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the following agreement with Leonard G. Hatala, and authorized the Chairman's signature. 5 BooK 7 MAR 10 1987 L_ MAR, .10 1967 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA and LEONARD G. HATALA 2/25/87 UTIL AJV:h (AHATAGR . j .- BOOK P 5." Granting reimbursements for oversizing certain off-site utilities required by the County. THIS AGREEMENT made this p?�, day of lZe7_ ' , 1987, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, (County), and Leonard G. Hatala, 5865 34th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, (Developer), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer, in conjunction with the construction of Tamara Gardens, is extending off-site water facilities to serve the subject project; and WHEREAS, the County has required the Developer to oversize the off-site utility improvements to serve the regional area and has agreed to reimburse the Developer for the cost of oversizing these offsite utilities; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the County and the Developer agree as follows: 1. The Developer shall construct all necessary off-site utilities, including oversizing necessary to serve the ,subject project and surrounding area. The County agrees to reimburse the Developer for the oversizing of off-site utilities as outlined below: -1- °ITEM Water Distribution System: 12 inch diameter water main from the existing water.crossing at the most easterly entrance of Greenbriar Subdivision for approximately 720 lineal feet to the northeast corner of the subject project. TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT $8,640.00 2. The reimbursement shall be paid in cash within 15 working days following completion of - the improvements and inspection thereof by the Division of Utility Services. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have caused these presents to be executed in their name the day and year first above written. Witness Witness Freda Wright Clerk to he -'Rc%a Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Charles 15. Vitunac County Attorney TAMARA GARDENS By � G✓��.K�. L66nard 0. atala President BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By '2�' c. Don C. Scur ock, Jr. Chairman Approved: 3-10-87 Approved for Utility.'' atters: Terrance G. -Pinto . Director of Utility Services -2- MA 10 1987 BooK 6.7 ;,v�,- 31. IMAR � 1 BOOK 67 F�,;.531 D_DER/Army Corps/DNR_ Permit_ Applications The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/24/87: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 24, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: D . E . R. , ARMY CORPS AND Robert M. Keat ng, CP D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA- Planning & Development Director tions THROUGH: Michael K. Miller, Chief A W Environmental Planning 11'"►► FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, Staff REFERENCES: TM #87-319 & Environmental Planner•lAb TM #87-322 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of March 10, 1987. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO. S 31-130562-4, 31-130467-4, 31-130621-4, and 31-130635-4 APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS: 1) Application No. 31-130562-4 Applicant: R. Steven Pate, General Manager Sea Oaks Development Co. 8765 North AlA- Vero Beach, FL 32963 Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian River, adjacent Sea Oaks Subdivision on Jungle Trail, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. The proposed project location is within the unincorporated portion of the County. Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a docking facility for 48 private recreation boats for use by residents at the Sea Oaks multi -family residential development. The facility is proposed to be a total of 6,262 square feet in size, consisting of a 6 foot wide walkway paralleling the shoreline for a length of approxi- mately 296 feet, connecting three main access piers which extend waterward approximately 120 feet. The proposed project location would be approximately 160 feet away from the intracoastal waterway channel (as marked by channel markers). No fueling facilities are proposed; no dredging or filling is to occur. 2) Application No. 31-130467-4 Applicant: Seacrest Estates Inc. 505 Beachland Boulevard Vero Beach, FL. 32963 8 r Waterway & Location: The project.is located in the Indian River, adjacent to Orchid Island Subdivision, Sections 26 and, 35., Township 31 South, Range 39 East,. Indian River County, Florida. The upland property associated with the project is "Tract E" - common area, off Riverview Court in the subdivision, located within the unincorporated portion of the County,. . Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct an L-shaped observation dock, having a 4' X 40` access pier with an 8' X 20' terminal platform (total area: 320 square feet) The proposed dock is to extend 48 feet waterward. No dredging or filling is to occur.. 3) Application No. 31-130621-4 Applicant: Ted and Ruth Zito 7 Beaver Dam Trail Old Saybrook, CT 06475 Waterway & Location: The project is located on the east side of AlA, just south of Ambersand Beach Subdivision, Section 4, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. The property address is 12436 State Road AlA, located within the unincorporated portion of the County. Work & Purpose: The applicant is proposing to fill 500 square feet of an isolated wetland approximately 1,600 square feet in size; the filling is proposed to accommo- date a 20 foot wide driveway for access to a single family residence being built on the property. In association with the project, eight red mangroves are proposed for removal, to be replaced with a comparable number of red mangroves planted along the shoreline of the Indian River on the subject property. 4) Application No 31-130635-4 Applicant: Ambrit Development Corporation c/o Dale Sorenson P. 0. Box 3983 -- Vero Beach, FL 32964-3983 Waterway & Location: The project is located in an arti- ficial canal connecting to the Indian River, adjacent to Little Harbour Subdivision, Section 17, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. The proposed project location is within the unincorporated portion of the County. Work & Purpose: The applicant is proposing to maintenance dredge an artificial canal approximately 1.76 acres in size; the dredging of approximately 1,750 cubic yards of silt and sand is proposed to deepen the canal to a depth of 5 feet. A turbidity curtain is to be installed during excavation to prevent silting within the Indian River. The dredged material is to be discharged to a spoil area adjacent to the canal, the spoil area being 200' X 150' in size. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: 9q��32 WiAR 10 1987 Boor, U d - The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region - The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan The Code of Laws &.Ordinances of Indian River County Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code 1) Application No. 31-130562-4: On January 13, 1983, the County Planning and Zoning Commission granted site plan approval for the Sea Oaks West development. Approved as' part of the site plan was a proposal to construct a 15 slip "T" formation boat dock to extend 110 into the Indian River, subject to government agency permitting. The proposal of a 48 slip docking facility is a substantial increase and change from what was originally approved. In accordance with County zoning ordinances, the new docking facility proposal is subject to site plan review, at which time impacts of the project can be evaluated in detail. Preliminary concerns include impact on seagrass beds in the River, manatee protection, and vehicular traffic/ parking accommodations. In addition to site plan review requirements, the project is to be located in the Indian Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore is subject to criteria set forth in Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code, enforced by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2) Application No. 31-130467-4: The observation dock proposed in Orchid Isle Subdivision is to be located on common area within the subdivision, and therefore is subject to County site plan review procedures. If man- groves are to be altered, a County mangrove alteration permit is also required before approval. The project is to be located in the Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore is subject to criteria set forth in Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code, enforced by DNR. 3) Application No. 31-130621-4: The single family lot at 12436 State Road AlA, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Zito, is bisected by a "finger" wooded wetland approximately 25 feet in width. The wetland is landlocked with no connec- tion to a waterway and has been previously altered by surrounding development. The applicant has received verbal approval from Mr. Frank Buck, of the DER dredge and fill permitting section that the area is exempt from DER, permitting requirements. A County mangrove alteration permit has been .issued by staff in accordance with Chapter 23}, Tree Protection Ordinance, of the County Code; a condition of the permit is that a comparable number of red mangroves will be planted along the Indian River shoreline on the subject property as mitigation for those mangroves to be removed as part of the fill project. In that shoreline mangroves serve a valuable function as aquatic life habitat as well - as shoreline stabilization, it is staff's opinion that the mangroves planted as`mitigation will have a higher eco-. logical value (once matured) than those removed as part of th xoject. 4) Application No. 31-130635-4: The application submitted by Ambrit Development Corporation for the dredging of an artificial canal adjacent to Little Harbour Subdivision indicates that -the canal is man made and has been previously dredged.° However, representatives from the Department of Natural Resources have expressed a concern to. staff that the canal may have been a natural creek and therefore subject to Aquatic Preserve review standards set forth in Chapter 18-20, F.A.C. Therefore, staff recom mends that the DER coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources to determine if the project falls within DNR jurisdiction. The applicant is proposing to discharge material dredged from the canal to land adjacent to the canal. The dredged material is to be used on site for fill in association with Little Harbour Subdivision which is presently under- going County approval. Distribution of the fill will be regulated in that a type "B" permit is required as per the County Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. In the event that protected trees may be damaged as part of the proposed project, County tree removal and/or mangrove alteration permits are required prior to commence- ment of the project, in accordance with Chapter 23J, Tree Protection, of the County Code. The application indicates that a turbidity curtain would be installed at the mouth of the canal during excavation to prevent silting of bottomlands within the Indian River. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners aut- horize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with the following comments: Application No. 31-130562-4 (R. Steven Pate, Applicant) 1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other appropriate agencies should coordinate with the DNR in that the project is located in the Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to require- ments of Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code. 2) In January, 1983, the County granted approval for a 15 slip "T" formation dock facility at the site. The proposed 48 slip dock facility is a substantial change from that previously approved. Therefore, construction of the project will not be permitted by the County until the project undergoes County site plan review to address potential impacts. 3) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact of the project on ecologically significant submerged bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River. 4) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact of the project on the Florida Manatee. BOOK 67 Fr4iH 534 AR 10 � BOOK 7 „ 35 Application No. 31-130467-4 (Seacrest Estates Inc. Applicant) 1) The DER and other appropriate agencies should coordi- nate with the DNR in that the project is located in the Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to requirements of Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code. 2) The project must undergo County site plan review to address potential impacts prior to County approval of construction. 3) The DER and other appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact of the project on ecologically significant submerged bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River. Applicant No. 31-130621-4(Ted and Ruth Zito, Applicants) 1) Indian River County requires replanting or replacement of mangroves removed at a minimum of one-to-one on-site mitigation, in accordance with the County Tree Protection Ordinance. 2) It is the County's understanding that the applicant has received verbal confirmation from the DER that the project is exempt from DER permitting requirements, in that it is a landlocked wetland previously impacted. Application No 31-130635-4 (Ambrit Development Corp., Applicant) 1) The DER and other appropriate agencies should coordinate with the DNR in that DNR representatives have expressed a concern to County staff that the project may be located as part of the Aquatic Preserve and therefore may be subject to requirements of 18-20, Florida Administrative Code. 2) Permitting in accordance with the County Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance is required prior to County allowance of the project, to address storage and distribution of the dredged material on uplands adjacent to the canal. Chairman Scurlock recalled that Commissioner Bowman had some questions at last week's meeting about some improvements that might have been made without a permit, and Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois reported that staff questioned the DER on the installation of a sea wall which Sea Oaks was contending was a replacement of a previously existing wall. Today's recommendations are indirectly related in that the proposed dock is in the same area. Commissioner Bowman asked how many mangroves were removed, and Mr. DeBlois explained that they did not see any evidence of 12 mangrove alteration at the sea wall site as it is very hard to tell what was there beforehand. Commissioner Bowman felt we should take "before" and "after" photographs, but Director Keating pointed out that it would be very difficult to get a "before" shot in many cases because we don't know far enough in advance what is planned. With regard to the Ambruit Development Corporation permit application, it appears that some mangroves were cut beforehand without a permit, and staff is working with the Urban Forester to determine just when they were cut. He emphasized that it is very difficult to enforce tree protection and mangrove alteration. Commissioner Bowman questioned #3, where they are proposing to build, south of Ambersand Subdivision, a 20 -ft. wide driveway across a salt pond. She emphasized that those salt ponds are already in critical shape because they were cut off from the river when the road was built; there is high salinity; and there is not enough oxygen in the water to support mangrove roots. She proposed that we require the installation of culverts under that road so that the two remaining salt ponds can wash. Commissioner Bowman recalled that a number of years ago an owner on the other side of AIA was required to put in a culvert under his roadway, but just ignored it. She believed that unless we get tough, people will continue to try and get away with these things. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff to forward the comments set out above to the DER; with the added recommendation that the installation of roadway culverts be required on Item #3 - Application No. 31-130621-4. Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, announced that Michael Miller has been named Chief of Environmental Planning, replacing Art Challacombe who recently moved to Hawaii. BOOK 7 , r�uC 5'136 MAR 10 1987 13 MAR 10 `987eooK � ��cF �3 E. Final Plat Approval - Orchid Isle Estates Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/87: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 25, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Kea ng, aICP SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR Planning & De elopment Director ORCHID ISLE ESTATES SUBDIVISION FROM: Stan Boling 1).41 REFERENCES: orchid isle Chief, Current Development STAN4 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of March 10, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Orchid Isle Estates is a 68 lot subdivision located on Pine Island (Little Orchid Island) , immediately south of the existing Orchid Island Subdivision. At their regular meeting of December 13, 1984 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional preliminary plat approval for the project. On May 21, 1986 the Board of County Commissioners granted an 18 month extension of the condi- tional preliminary plat approval. Mr. Luciano Cortese, Vice President of Seacrest Estates, Inc., owner/ developer, is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted: 1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat; and 2. a check made out to the Board of County Commissioners in the amount of $52,500.00, as a dedication to the park development fund, to satisfy the condition of preliminary plat approval. ANALYSIS: The project, developed on approximately 75 acres of uplands and fill areas of Pine Island, also includes approximately 275 acres of impounded wetlands that surround the platted subdivision area. These wetlands have been restored and preserved, and will be maintained under agreements with the D.E.R. and the Indian River County Mosquito Control District. A conservation easement, under an agreement with the D.E.R., has been placed over the 275 acre wetland area to preclude any future development. The subdivision and plat concerns only the 75 acres of fill and uplands area. The Public Works department has inspected the project and has verified that all required subdivision improvements, which are to be owned and maintained by a private property owners' association, have been constructed and are acceptable. The Environmental Health Department, although., concerned about the quality of drinking water, does not object to final plat approval or to the use of individual wells (standards for individual wells can be satisfied) and septic tanks on each ,lot. The Mosquito Control District has verified that all of its concerns have been addressed and that it has no objection to final plat approval. 14 The submitted $52,500.00 check will satisfy the sole condition of preliminary plat approval. The condition stipulated that the .public water access .easement requirement of the subdivision ordinance is to be satisfied by the dedication of funds represent- ing the fair market value of access easements in lieu of actually providing a total of five such easements. The fair market value of $52,500.00 was agreed to by the applicant and the county at the time of preliminary plat approval. Therefore, the improvements made on and adjacent to the subdivi- sion plat site have been constructed and accepted. All aspects and the condition of the preliminary plat approval have been satisfied. Thus, all County requirements regarding final plat approval have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval to Orchid Isle Estates Subdivision and accept the submitted $52,500.00 dedication to the park development fund as satisfaction of the public water access requirement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for Orchid Isle Estates Subdivision and accepted the submitted $52,500 dedication to the park development fund as satisfaction of the public water access requirement, as recommended by staff. F. Management Representation Letter to Auditors ----------------------------------------------- The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/87: MAR 10 1987 15 BOOK 6 7 F,� �,H� 53 Si �-1 MAR 10 7 BOOK 9 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: March 4, 1987 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC 3/10/87 AUDITOR'S LETTER The attached letter of Arthur Young and Co. is a standard representation which must be made annually by the County to its auditors. The auditors have the right to rely on the facts contained in this letter in their audit report to the County. Request authorization for the Chairman to sign this letter. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the Management Representation Letter to Arthur Young & Co., as recommended by the County Attorney. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 February 27, 1987 Arthur Young & Company The City Center 149 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32014 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 In connection with your examination of the financial statements of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida at September 30, 1986 and for the year then ended, we recognize that obtaining representations from us concerning the information contained in this letter is a significant procedure in enabling you to form an opinion on the financial statements Iand, accordingly, we make the following representations which are true to the best of our knowledge and belief. 16 GENERAL We recognize that, as members of management of the Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida, we are responsible for the fair presentation of its financial statements. We believe the statements of financial position, results of operations and changes in financial position are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding period. We have made available to your representatives all financial records and related data. We have no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities. INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROL: There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records underlying the financial statements. MINUTES AND CONTRACTS: We have made available to you all minutes of the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida up to and including meetings as of January 8, 1987. We have complied with all aspects of contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of noncompliance. OWNERSHIP AND PLEDGING OF ASSETS: Except for properties capitalized under financing leases, the Board has satisfactory title to all assets appearing in the balance sheets. There are no liens on such assets nor has any asset been pledged. All assets to which the Board has satisfactory title appear in the balance sheets. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS: There have been no transactions with related parties, as defined in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 57, or related amounts receivable or payable, including sales, purchases, loans, transfers, leasing arrangements and guarantees. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES: There are no unasserted claims or assessments that are probable of assertion and must be disclosed in accordance with -Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 other than those disclosed in the financial statements. There have been no violations of laws or regulations in any jurisdiction whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or as a basis for recording a loss contingency other than those disclosed or accrued in the financial statements. There have been no communications from regulatory agencies or government representatives concerning investigations or allegations of noncompliance with laws or regulations in any jurisdiction, or deficiencies in financial reporting practices. There are no other material liabilities or gain or loss contingencies that are required to be accrued or disclosed by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, nor are there any accruals for loss contingencies included in the balance sheet which are not in conformity with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5. 17 BOOK F FA; 540 MAR 10 1987 987 BOOK 67 ui;E 54 IRREGULARITIES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: There have been no irregularities involving management or employees who have significant roles in the system of internal accounting control. There have been no irregularities involving other employees that could have a material effect on the financial statements. There are no instances where any member of management or employee of the Board has an interest in a company with which the Board does business which would be considered a "conflict of interest." Such an interest would be contrary to policy. RECEIVABLES: Receivables represent valid claims against the debtors indicated and do not include amounts for services provided subsequent to September 30, 1986. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS: No events or transactions have occurred since September 30, 1986 which would have a material effect upon the financial statements at that date or for the period then ended, or which are of such significance in relation to the Boards affairs as to require mention in a note to the financial statements in order to make them not misleading as to the financial position, results of operations or changes in financial position of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. Yours very truly, G_..Z"Jz /_J Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman of the Board Indian River County, Florida Mr. Charles Vitunac County Attorney Indian River County, Florida Edwin M. Fry, Mzance Director Indian River County, Florida G. Partial Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Sewer Project - Countryside_ South ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved a Partial Release of Assessment Lien on 1 ERU SR -60 Sewer Project to Countryside South, -Lot 66-S. H. Partial Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Water .& Sewer Pine Creek Condominium IV ON MOTION by Comm ssioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Partial Releases of Assessment Liens on 1 ERU each of SR -60 Water and Sewer to Pine Creek Condominium IV, Apartment #104. ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE [1-16701 IN I. Satisfaction of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Sewer - Estate of Samuel E. Moon ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for SR -60 Sewer and Water in the amount of $39,133 and $12,498.62, respectively, received from the Estate of Samuel E. Moon. SATISFACTION OF ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD J. Purchase of Pickup_ Trucks for the Utilities_ Department The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/27/87: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Feb. 27, 1987 FILE: (�-il THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: Purchase of Pickup Trucks for the Director, Budget Office Utilities Department FROM:�� _ �- �'/a�-��-�� REFERENCES: Carolyn((Goodrich, Manager PurchasYng Department Several weeks ago bids were requested for 1/2.Ton Pickup Trucks for several departments. 19 BOOK 6 7 uu'Fr 542 MAR 10 1 7 M�ti i ®1987 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. The Utilities Department has funds budgeted for (3) 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks and (1) 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck, which has not been. bid. However., Pickup Trucks have consistently been less expensive on the State Contract than the bids received. Also, production cut-off dates are coming up by approximately April 1. The 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck can be purchased from the State Contract for $9860.92. Staff requests authorization to purchase (3) 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks and (1) 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck from the Florida State Contract. Funda are budgeted in Account #471-218-536-066.42. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the purchase of three 1/2 -ton Pickup Trucks and one 3/4 -ton Pickup Truck from the Florida State Contract, funding to come from Account #471-218-536-066.42. K. Approval of Amended Contract for Professional Services - Sandridge Golf Club Cart Storage The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/87; TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 4, 1987 FELE: of the Board of County Commissioners Itu THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: County Administrator Sandridge Golf Course Cart Storage; Professional Services request FROM Directr n General Services REFERENCES: On February 2nd, 1987, during the pre -construction conference for -the subject project, C.C.L. Consultants, Inc. was informed to present a Professional Services contract proposal that would define a scope of work. It was clearly understood by all parties concerned that no pay request would be considered without prior approval due to misunderstandings in the past. 20 After review by staff and the Architect of record, it was decided .that only Item B of the proposal would be needed on the project. Staff recommends Board of County Commission approval of the contract as amended, -and authorization for the Chairman to sign the document. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the amended contract with CCL Consultants, Inc. for professional services re Sandridge Golf Club Cart Storage, and authorized the Chairman's signature. z, aoa� � P,��r. 544 MAR 10 1987 CCL CONSULTANTS, INC. Consulting Engineer79 s , Surveyors r- A Planners iz� 2200 PARK CENTRAL BLVD., N. SUITE 100, POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064 664 AZALEA LANE, VERO BEACH, FL 32963 BOOK 6 7 0'k)r,- PROFESSIONAL SERVICE REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF: N2 01158 ❑ Planning Order 12 Engineering Order ❑ Survey Order ❑ Notice to Proceed from: THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 3:9— day of March _'Ig 87 by and between CCL Consultants, Inc. and the Client identified herein is for the Professional Services described under Item 2 of this Agreement. - CLIENT Iridian River County IS CLIENT F E OWNER OF PROJECT ADDRESS: 1840 25th Street PROPERTY? AYES ❑ NO ❑ N/A Vero Beach, FL 32960 NAME/ADDRESS OF OWNER: I SHORTTITLE: Sandridge Golf Course Clubhouse PROJECT NUMBER: 2 444 1. Legal Description of Project Site: DOES CLIENT HAVE OWNER'S AUTHORITY FOR THESE SERVICES? Q YES ❑ NO Sandridge Golf Course Clubhouse 2. Description of Professional Services to be provided by CCL Consultants. Inc. (attach additional pages, if necessary): INSPECTION/CERTIFICATION A. Inspection "CCL" to provide inspection of compaction of roadways, grading operations, and installation of pavement. B. Contract Administration, including _ 1. review, process and final construction certification for paving and drainage, - 2. project meetings. This representation.is estimated at'16 hours x $45.00 Hourly not to exceed $720.00 3. The compensation to be paid CCL Consultants, Inc. for providing the requested services stuff be:. . ❑ -;'4. Direct personnel expense plus a surchitge of 150%, plus reimbursable costs. See explanation on reverse side. ❑ B. A Lump -Sum charge of $ ® C. Unit Cost/Time Charges identified in Exhibit A, attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is accepted on the date first above written subject to the terms and conditions above stated and the provisions set forth on the reverse side. CLIENT: Iridian Rivet" COILUItA CCL CONSULTA TS, friC 201.1 ' SIGNED: C SIGNED: TYPED NAME. -Don C. Scurlo J . TYPED NAME: Mary ane V. Goetzfried TITLE: Chairman TITLE: Senior Planner DATE: Approved: 3-10-87 DATE: 7 Signed: 3-25-89 SIGN WITH BALL POINT PEN DWdbutia+: VWe•Cwt. Green•Stuvey Dept.: Yellow -CCL Caraulttmts Inc.: Ph*-Pro*ef Manager: Go18-Aect. Proposal File PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT.OF ORDINANCE ON COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE -- Continued from the'MeetIng of 3/3/87 The Board.reviewed the following memo dated 2/19/87: 22 � r r TO: The Honorable Members of ®ATE:February 19, 1987 FELE: The Board of County ®Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE f Robert M. Keatin , Planning & Development Director ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SUBJECT: ELIMINATE COUNTY PROHI- BITION OF CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE RELOCATED COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE FROM:Michael K. Miller Chief, Environmentalµ REFERENCES: Ord. Amen. Planning Disk: IBMIRD It is requested that the to presented consideration by the Boar of County Commission Meeting of March 3 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS herein be given formal Commissioners at the On March 3, 1987, a public hearing will be held by the Governor and Cabinet, as head of the Florida Department of Natural Resources, to consider adopting Rule 16B-26.018, Florida Administrative Code, reestablishing the Indian River County Coastal Construction Control Line. The Rule will substantially relocate the Coastal Construction Control Line landward of the current line in an attempt to accurately define that portion of the beach dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based upon the 100 -year storm surge and storm waves, and thus define the area within which special siting and design conside- rations are required to ensure protection to the beach dune system, proposed structures or existing structures, and adjacent properties. Upon adoption of the new line, all construction, excavation, and alteration on property seaward of the line will require a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Indian River County has three ordinances which prohibit cons- truction, excavation, and alteration at any point seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. A partial justification for these ordinances in the past may have been that as origi- nally conceived, the Coastal Construction Control Line was actually a setback line or a line of prohibition, seaward of which all construction and excavation was prohibited. Conse- quently, the line was much closer to the dune line and the actual mean high water line. Since that time, the Department of Natural Resources has conducted numerous studies and computer modeling, and based upon the dynamic forces at work along the shoreline, has arrived at a new concept which calls for a line of control, rather than a line of prohibition. Some construction and excavation are permitted seaward of the Coastal Construc- tion Control Line, but only according to stringent state -imposed standards. Staff feels that current Indian River County Ordinances should be revised to defer to the State Department of Natural Resources' expertise regarding the authorization of structures east of the relocated coastal construction control line. Failure to revise the ordinances in the manner proposed by the County Attorney's Office could result in legal actions for damages against Indian River County in the event that all construction and excavation on certain properties is prohibited by County Ordinance. 22a MAR 10 1987 BOOK �,� � MAR 10 1997 - BOOK 6 r- 5 4 At the February 26, 1987 regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission considered this request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the existing County Ordinances regulating construction seaward of the coastal construction control line. Michael Miller, Chief of Environmental Planning, reported that the Governor and Cabinet have approved the proposed con- struction control line. With the adoption of this ordinance, the State will be able to issue permits for these structures in Indian River County. Staff is recommending adoption of this ordinance because we are not sure that we have the same expertise that the State has with regard to structural engineering require- ments in the building codes. In addition, we have been advised by our Legal Dept. that it might not be wise, for liability reasons, for us to prohibit the building of a structure when a State agency is authorizing construction. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt Ordinance 87-26, amending the County Code of Laws and Ordinances with regard to construction of structures seaward of the coastal construction control line established by the Florida Dept. of Natural Resources. Under discussion, Mr. Miller pointed out that the State's building standards are much higher than ours. 0 Director Keating recommended that theBoarddirect the staff to bring back some changes to the tree protection ordinance in 23 relation to the new setback Iine,.and Commissioners Eggert.and Bird agreed to add that to the Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion with the inclusion of the direction to staff was voted on and carried unanimously. MAR 10 1987 24 BOOK ' � r � �E 548 r IMAR 10 '661 2/2/87(B4)LEGAL (�l Win) I BOOK � 1 Fv'F. 54 9 ORDINANCE NO. 87-26 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE ESTABLISHED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BY REPEALING SECTIONS 234-10(a) and (c), INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; BY REPEALING SECTION 3(8)(a) OF APPENDIX A, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 25(x)(1), APPENDIX A, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OR MAN-MADE STRUCTURE SEAWARD OF THE.COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE ONLY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CHAPTER 161, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND IMPLEMENTING RULES THEREUNDER; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE, SEVERABILITY AND INCORPORATION IN CODE. 4; BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Countv Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida as follows: SECTION I. Repeal of Sections 231_10(a) and _(c),_Indian _River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Sections 234-10(a) and (c), Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, reprinted below, are hereby repealed: (a) No structure shall be located seaward of the coastal construction control line established by the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 161, as may be amended from time to time, except as provided elsewhere in this chapter. This provision shall be construed to establish a local setback ordinance within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code, Chapters 1613-25 and 1613-33, as may be amended from time to time. (c) No structure, other than an elevated bridge or dune cross-over, or observation tower constructed in the interest of public safety, may be located seaward of the CODING: Words underlined are additions; words ift0fl / EW60dlh are deT-e-11—ons.- - ORDINANCE NO. ` coastal construction control line and the design of any such allowed structure must be approved in advance by the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores, or its successor, and the Public Works Director of Indian River County, Florida. SECTION II. Repeal of Section 3(8)(a), Appendix A, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Section 3(8)(a), Appendix A, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, reprinted below, is hereby repealed: (8)(a) Along the Atlantic Ocean, no building or man-made structure, except as provided for herein, shall he__ located above or below natural grade closer than 50 feet from the main dune bluff, west of the natural vegetation line until a permanent construction setback line shall be established by a survey by the State Department of Natural Resources and duly approved according to law. SECTION 111. Amendment to Section 25(x)(1), Appendix A, -Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Section 25(x)(1), Appendix A, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: (x) (1 ) E$#AIbt JMhW//df//C7da(s/t/alU/Ajihkl /ShkhbtR. The coastal construction control line, as established in "Beach and Shores Preservation", Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, as may be amended_ from time to time, is adopted by reference. No building__excavation or man-made structure] e��►bil/��id�e/��f��r�/��'/�itffier/$Ifii'►a�/filrh�/'!$�rJ�21t�/'e�/�� Beflrhe�d/Ib�G/iE�ie/�1d��`Ids/mep�fie�i//�f/lA�it�litFal/6tesd��litF�es shall be located seaward of the coastal construction control line, �$/�i��Glded/ #Ihereld� except those which have either received CODING: Words underlined are additions; words are deletions 2 MAR 1 �� BOOK 6 f' 550 Fr_ MAR 10 '681 ORDINANCE NO. 87 BOOK'ur a—permit—from the Department of Natural Resources or are ------------------------------- exempt— pursuant to Rule 166-33, Florida Administrative Code -------------------------------------------- (Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation). SECTION IV. Severability. If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. C CrT 1 r1K1 111 Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. SECTION—VI. Incorporation in Code. This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may he changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 10th day of March, 1987. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 11th day of February, 1987, for a public hearing to be held on the 3rd day of March, 1987, at which time it was tabled, and on March 10, 1987 it was, moved for adoption by. Commissioner Eggert, seconded by Commissioner Bird, and adopted by the following vote: CODING: Words underlined are additions; words iftOilklfoo6000 are dei e t i ons . ORDINANCE NO. 87-26 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 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By --V"� G- --- Don C. Scurlock, Jr Chairman Attest By �AZ46_ Freda Wri t Clerk SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ESTIMATED COSTS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/87: TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: March 4, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Sonny Dea irector General S r 'ces FROM: Josep A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: Sheriff's Bldg. & Communication Center The following is a detailed breakdown of the estimated cost of the Sheriff's Administration Building as compiled by C.E. Block, Sheriff's department and County staff. Sources of Funds Transfer 911 Surcharge Initial Bond Proceeds Interest Income Additional Financing Needed Sub -Total TOTAL 28 760,000 360,000 1,500,000 180,000 2,800,000 1,586,265 4,386,265 r BOOP{ P -JS 5:) MARIO T.7"37 Uses of Funds Architect Fee 191,233 P.W.R. Contract 2,155,803 911 Communication Center 355,906 Telephone - 911 71,115 Telephone - Sheriff Operations 71,000 CCD System 914,537 Operations Equipment 118,130 Shop Equipment 4,000 Relocation 20,000 Loop Road 30,000 Miscellaneous 5,000 Miscellaneous Equipment 5,000 Water Impact Fees 30,120 Road Impact Fees 16,456 Signs 4,000 Confiscated Property 30,000 Site Work 35,000 Contingency 200,865 Sub -Total 4,258,165 Issuance Costs 128,100 TOTAL EXPENSES BOOK P�:c.YJP 4,386,265 Sheriff Dobeck stated that he was here to answer any questions about the estimated total costs of the new building or the additional equipment that they requested this past week. OMB Director Joe Baird confirmed that $4.3 million is the total estimated cost and that the amount of additional financing needed is $1.5 million, which does not include Phase II of the Jail, the Sheriff's building, or the acquisition of property for the new Health Building. Commissioner Eggert questioned the costs for the exercise equipment, and Director Baird explained that the $49,105 cost for exercise equipment is included in the $118,130 for Operations Equipment. February 5, 1987 Richard Dees Indian River County Sheriff Dept. 2145 14th Avenue P.O. Box 608 Vero Beach, FL 32961 Duo Hip Machine ---------- ---- -----_---__ $ 2,965.00 Abduction/Adduction Machine ------ --- --------- 4,270.00 Leg Extension Machine ----------------------- 2,085.00 Leg Curl Machine ----------------- -------------_------- 1,895.00 Duo Leg Press Machine -----------------------_--_------- 4,285.00 Double Shoulder Machine -------------- --------------- 4,195-.00 Super Pullover Machine -- ---------------- 3,745.00 Women's Pullover Machine -___—--__. _____—__—_--- 2,595.00 Double Chest Machine — ----- ----------- 4,380.00 10° Chest Machine ------ -------------------- - 1,965.00 Multi -Biceps Machine -----------------__---_--__ 1,795.00 Multi -Triceps Machine ------------- _---- 1,785.00 Selectorized Bench Press Machine ---- ---- --- 1,995.00 Abdominal Machine --------------------- - 2,685.00 Low Back Machine ---------------- ------------------- 2,745.00 Multi -Exercise Machine ----------------------------- 3,240.00 Total 46,625.00 Delivery 2,480.00 TOTAL 49,105.00 *The above proposal is for equipment with standard paint and upholstery. *The above proposal is guaranteed for 60 days from date of proposal. Jay Hoover South Florida Sales Representative Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries Sheriff Dobeck advised that his department has been developing a mandatory physical fitness program in order to reduce accidents and injuries. The new facility has 1400 square feet allocated for the exercise area. They are in the process of establishing the guidelines and requirements for the exercise program and will be assigning a person to keep medical records on each of the 225 personnel. 30 B �1K F'r�:UE 554 AAR 10 987 BooK 67 ixi555 Chairman Scurlock felt that before he would vote for the exercise equipment, he would have to be assured of the following: 1) A commitment is made to a mandatory program and that a physical checkup be required of each individual prior to participation in the program. 2) Full utilization of the equipment. 3) The equipment is made available to other County employees such as firemen, etc. Commissioner Eggert still felt there is more physical fitness equipment than what is necessary, and Sheriff Dobeck explained that the equipment is necessary in order to have a program that works all of the muscles in the body. Sixteen people will work out in each 40 -minute segment, and each person will work out 3 hours a week. Commissioner Bird agreed that the program must be mandatory. Chairman Scurlock very much believed that a good physical fitness program makes for a more productive, alert employee. Commissioner Eggert did not dispute that, but felt it could be done with $30,000 instead of $49,000. Director Baird advised that they priced out each item on the Operations Equipment list and feel that the cost is very close. They left a 5% contingency construction cost, because on a. project of this size, there are always unforeseen items. The Architect's fee is an estimate because the telephone consultant's fee is still outstanding. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the estimated costs of the Sheriff's Administration Building as set out in the above memo and the costs for the physical fitness equipment. 31 MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY - PHASE I1 OF THE NEW JAIL The Board reviewed: the following memo dated 3/4/87: TO.: Honorable Board of County DATE: March 4, 1987 Commissioners THROUGH: Sonny DeanKviies rector General Se FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: Minimum Security Facility - New Jail Phase II The following is a detailed breakdown of the estimated cost of the. Minimum Security Facility - New Jail Phase II: Sources of Funds Initial Bond Proceeds Interest Income Sub -Total Additional Financing Needed Uses of Funds Building Architect Fee Site Work Impact Fee Water,Meter,Pit & Backflow Preventer Inspection Furniture & Equipment Miscellaneous Contingency Sub -Total Issuance Costs TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL 1,901,186 123,372 145,000 60,240 13,000 38,000 125,000 8,000 120,689 2,534,487 93,500 1,300,000 110,000 1,410,000 1,217,987 2,627,987 2,627,987 Commissioner Eggert asked if everything is included and whether staff has reviewed the site plans, and Director Baird stated that he feels comfortable with these estimates. Once again, the contingencies are 5% because we never know when the Department of Corrections is going to come in and require a change. The revenues from the 1/2 -cent sales tax were put into Account #204 where the interest doesn't necessarily have to be capitalized. He advised that we have approximately $1 -million in unpledged sales tax, but once we do the bond issues, the MAR 10 1887 32 BOOK Un 7 ft,,EVv- 6 Fir- - 10 1981 BOOK 67 P9;E 557 $1 -million goes into the general operating fund and MSTU; it will be lost revenue which will have to be made up somewhere else. Commissioner Bird questioned the inspection item, and Director Baird explained that he put in $38,000 as an estimate for an on-site inspector, but we have not committed to that as yet. Sonny Dean, Director of General Services, explained that on Phase I of the Jail we have an inspector who works with the Architect and is paid by the County. This was part of our contract with the Architect. be continued through Phase II. He recommended that the inspector Director Baird felt that $38,000 was a reasonable estimate. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the estimated construction costs for Phase II of the Jail, as submitted by staff. REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR NEW JAIL Sheriff Dobeck requested that the Board approve a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the new Jail until such time as the landscaping requirements are met. There are some questions regarding the landscaping plan with respect to the security requirements of the DOC. Commissioner Eggert hoped that we would put in as much landscaping as possible without causing a security problem. Commissioner Bird understood that the landscaping was not covered in the construction contract, and Chairman Scurlock advised that the landscaping will be done in-house. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the issuance of a temporary C.O. for Phase I of the new Jail for a period of 90 days to allow for the completion of the landscaping requirements. 33 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST BY GOOD GUYS PARTNERSHIP The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDANot NOTICE—PUBLIC NEARING ce oI hearing to coirswer me aaoonen of Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J, Schumann, a County oramanu reaomng tend from: A•1. AIJrsM Thew I to �' Lrmrted Comme'.10 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; to txoperry s waeenny awned W Good Guys PeMenhrp and n Weatea soutn S.R. that the attached copy of advertisement, being Of60 raneast Of 82nd Avenue. as: i The south 7373 too of tthe weeslds a Of ttte Baal 20 nixes of Tract 12, in Bac. ft"/, T Ownship 33 South, Range 38 / East. Chnsron, as the Indian reeortlit Comtlarry Swu&D-t in the matter of < i Oat boon i2. page 2b. Publm rer;or0a of SI. Weis. s - Ccunry. Flontla lean esrnmg rghta-ol- walI�Vyargfor roads rend canals. saitl lana now Zft... treutg m tndwn Rwer County. public in &I which is in mtarest • _ in the opera!& end Gbsen akA pponumry to ace heard. wsl He fretd by the Boartl of Covnry Com - Court, was Pub- missrorrars 0101 Indran River County, Florida, in the County Ccmmiasran Chainoars of the Covnry ,p �f fished in said newspaper in the issues of >� r-.ie�><� �SC �IrJ, Adminnivahon Building located at 1a4O 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. March 10,1987 at 9:08 am. The Board of County Commnssionare grant a lens intense ■omng dist"' man the it's' trict9"revueated Prowdad ars wrtlun the same Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is general aces category. Anyone who =wish, to aopeat any decision which may be made at this meeting will neva to a newspaper Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaehas Published been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, ensure mat i verbatim record m the proceeamgs re made, which mGueas me totirraft an ew• dance 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 upon which ms eotiear n based. Indian Rwer County Board of County Connorssxmen Publication of the attached c tiserrenY and affiant further says that he has neither paid no romised an opy of adver- p y person, firm or Bys-oon C. Scurlock Jr., Charman Feb. 18. 1987 Corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- ttsement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribe fo me t rs I S day of 4l A.D. �L - _ mousiness Manager) - (SEAU (Clerk of the Circuit CourtIridian River County, Florida) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/27/87: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 27, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: GOOD GUYS PARTNERSHIP Robert M._Keatfng,7 AICREQUEST TO REZONE 2.75 Planning & Develo ment irector ACRES FROM A-1, AGRICULT- URAL DISTRICT, TO CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL DIST- RICT FROM Richard Me Shearer, REFERENCES: Chief, 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 10, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Good Guys Partnership, the owners, are requesting to rezone approximately 2.75 acres located 600 feet south of State Road 60 and 600 feet east of 82nd Avenue from A-1, Agricultural District, to CL, Limited Commercial District. On February 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. [AR 10 1987 34 BOOK 67 FAGE55 MAR 10 1987 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS BOOK 67 FbGE 559 In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is undeveloped. The land north and west of the subject property is undeveloped except for a convenience store on the southeast corner of 82nd Avenue and State Road 60 and is zoned CL. East of the subject property is a First Union bank branch office zoned CL. South of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned A-1. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and the land to the north, east and west is located within the proposed boundaries of the 650 acre I-95/S.R. 60 commercial/ industrial node. The land located south of the subject property is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The proposed CL, Limited Commercial, zoning is. in conformance with the commercial/ industrial node land use designation and is consistent with the surrounding CL zoning. Transportation System The subject property will have access to State Road 60 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under CL zoning could attract up to 3,680 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) which will not decrease the existing' level -of -service "A" for this section of State Road 60.. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a floodprone area. Utilities County sewer and water will be available to the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board adopted Ordinance 87-27, rezoning 2.75 acres from A-1, Agricultural District, to CL., Limited Commercial District, as requested by Good Guys Partnership. 35 WHEREAS, The. Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held.a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The south 737.3 feet of the west 5 acres of the east 20 acres of Tract 12, in Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 2, page 25, public records of St. Lucie County, Florida less existing rights-of-way for roads and canals. Said land now lying and being in Indian River County, -Florida. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to CL, Limited Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on thisl0th day of March 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -�� r_ By -. Don Scarlock, Chairman BOOK F'.,:60 NAR I ® od s BOOK 67 D" 15 11 PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES FOR 120 -ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT CR -510 AND U.S. #1 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: C.R.5 1 M.S.# 1 Commercial/ Industrial Node VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly RM -6 RM -6 Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: RS -6 "o-" '' STATE OF FLORIDA IL - Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he .s Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published .Y at Vero Beach in Inman River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being '•uit., a %MGC ( r in the matter of in the Court, was b- lished.in said newspaper in the issues of v CL -�`•�`• �•� A proposed Node S fF= Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Boundary (120 Ac.) 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. NOTICE OF REGULATION OF OND USE— assecond crass mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, F Fonda for a period of one year next preceedingthe first publication of the attached copy of 'Na. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN corporation anv discount. rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commuswners of Indian River County. tisement for publication in the said newspaper. /! i ponds• shall hold a public hearing at which Parties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- --y` twiny to be heard. M the County Commlesion Chambers o1 me County Adrame rayon Building. Io- De 77 Vero Baaoh, F1=, on Tuesday, March 10. 1687, at 6:05 a.m. to Conder Sworn to and subscribed before me t day of � A.D. Dated et 25th SL, thaadoptiono1enOrdinance entitled: ` ( ' �Yti Q ' ` AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ESTASLISHINGINTERSECTION BOUNDARIES 'FOR THE 120 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF a1 AS GENERALLY DE- - COUNTY ROAD 510 (WASASSO ROAD) AND U.S. HIGHWAY SCRIBED IN THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND DEPICTED ON THE LAND USE ` f t sin _ss:gTu ea) e5 '-- 1 MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PROMO-_ IMG FOR THE BOUNDARY MAP. DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. <to /S ' - Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at thb a,941ing wit[ need . manta thud a veraatkri record of au proceedings is made which includes, DO to uw-ty and en- dance upon wit" the appeal is based. - - -. Indkn River County _ BoarE of County commlaeioners .- B C. Scurlock. Jr. _ Feb. 20.1987 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/13/87: TO: The Honorable Members CRATE: February 13, 1987.FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners •� DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Obert M. Keati , AI Planning & Devel pme Director ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUND- ARIES FOR THE 120 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE ,,ILLI THROUGH: Richard M. Shearer, AICP INTERSECTION OF 510 AND 1C�''If Chief, Long -Range Planning U.S. #1. FROM: Cherylene Boudreaux 461� 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 10, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to establish boundaries for the one -hundred twenty (120) acre Commercial/Industrial Node located at the intersection of U.S. #1 and C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road). 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 decreased the C.R. 510/U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node from 150 acres to 120 acres. On January 22, 1987, The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on this request until their first meeting in February in order for the staff to reconsider including Blocks 4 and 9 of Weona Park Subdivision. Some property owners in Block 4 wanted to be deleted from the staff's proposed boundary of the node and the owner of Block 9 asked to be included in the node.. On February 12, 1987, The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 -to -0 to approve this node boundary excluding Block 4 of Weona Park Subdivision and including Block 9 of Weona Park Subdivision. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The proposed boundaries of the C.R. 510/U.S. #1 Commercial/ Industrial Node were prepared based on the following criteria: 1. The general description and size constraint of the node as described in the text of the Land Use Element; 2. The existing commercial uses in the general area of the node; 3. The existing zoning pattern; 4. Property boundaries; 5. Traffic considerations; and 6. Environmental considerations. 38 BOOK �� F':4CE56 AR 10 1-8 NEAR 10 M7 BOOK 67 F.`G�(_ 5 All of the nodes are generally described in the Comprehensive Plan. The C.R. 510/U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node is described as: "A one hundred twenty (120) acre commercial/industrial node is located at the intersection of C.R. 510 and U.S. #1." All of the property proposed for inclusion in the node is zoned either CL, Limited Commercial District; CRVP, Commercial Recreational Vehicle Park; CH, Heavy Commercial District; OCR,' Office, Commercial, Residential District; IL, Limited 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. After the Planning and Zoning Commission considered this request on January 22nd, the staff reevaluated the node boundary to determine whether or not block 4 of Weona Park Subdivision should be deleted from the node and whether or not block 9 should be included. Currently, block 4 consists of several residences and block 9 consists of a single-family residence and a citrus grove. After reevaluating this area, staff recommended that block 4 of Weona Park Subdivision should be deleted from the node based on the existing land use pattern especially the fact that block 4 consists of only residential uses. Staff still feels that block 9 should not be included in the node at this time because of the existing land use pattern and because block 4 lies between block 9 and the major part of the node. Existing Land Use Pattern In the area that is zoned CRVP, Commercial Recreational Vehicle Park District, located in the northeastern part of the node, there is an existing K.O.A. Campground facility. In the CL, Limited Commercial District, there are existing service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, realtors offices, retail shops, an auto parts store, an animal medical clinic and other similar limited commercial uses. Along U.S. Hwy. #1 in the southern portion of the node is an area zoned OCR, Office, Commercial and Residential District. In this district there is a mixture of single-family residences, a health care registry office and several vacant parcels of property. The property located west of U.S. Highway #1 which is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District, is occupied by service stations, fruit packing facilities and mini -storage facilities. In the area zoned IL, Light Industrial District, which is located north of C.R. 510 and west of the F.E.C. Railroad tracks, there is an existing auto repair shop and fruit juice extraction facility. Also, there is an area in the node zoned A-1, Agricultural District, located south of C.R. 510 and west of the F.E.C. Railroad tracts. Transportation System The C.R. 510/U.S.#1 Commercial/Industrial Node has primary access on U.S. Highway #1 and C.R. 510 (85th Street) (both designated as arterials on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The node also has secondary access on Old Dixie Highway (classified as a secondary collector street) and 87th street and 55th Avenue (classified as a local streets). Environment The node area is not designated as environmentally sensitive. The major part of the node is not in a. -flood-prone area; except for approximately 7.46 acres located in the northeastern part of the node which is in an A-9 flood zone (Elevation 8). 39 Utilities County water. and wastewater facilities are not currently available'. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the revised boundaries of the C.R. 510/U.S. #1 Commercial/ Industrial Node deleting Block 4 of Weona Park Subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission— recommends approval of the revised boundaries of the C.R. 510/U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node deleting Block 4 and including Block 9 of Weona Park Subdivision. Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained that staff is recommending the deletion of Block 4 of Weona Park Subdivision while the P S Z Commission is recommending that Block 4 be deleted and Block 9 be included in the node. Commissioner Bowman felt that staff did not pay as much attention to the west side of U.S. #1 as they did to the east side. She pointed out that there are 7 single-family homes on 55th Avenue that have been there since the beginning of time that will be non -conforming if this is rezoned to commercial. Furthermore, she did not understand why staff is recommending that the sand ridge be rezoned to light industrial. Commissioner Bowman strongly recommended that the first thing they should do is see that the mess back of those homes is restored, because someone came in and did a lot of digging and never restored it. Director Keating advised that with the sand ridge work that we are coordinating with the St. Johns River Water Management District, staff is hopeful that sufficient regulations will be in place so that there won't be any adverse impact, not only in setting the minimum elevation of the ridge, but also prohibiting certain other activities. Mr. Shearer pointed out that these homes have been zoned industrial since 1957, and staff is not recommending any additional industrial zoning. In fact, last July the Board approved staff's recommendation to remove 30 acres of the sand ridge from this node. MAR 10 '1987 40 B()C)K F uuC.56�� MAR 10 1987 BOOK 67 Commissioner Bowman felt that the property owners in that area do not know it is zoned industrial, and Mr. Shearer advised that they received notices on both this hearing and that of the P & Z hearing. Commissioner Bowman also pointed out that to the north on CR -510, just to the west of the industrial site, there is a gorgeous 10 -acre parcel with a single family residence. Commissioner Bird felt that in some cases, the property owners have the best of both worlds. They can continue to reside there, but by virtue of this ordinance, will have the potential of their property becoming very valuable because of the zoning. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Dan Preuss,326 Live Oak Drive, felt that the line separating the commercial on the east side of U.S. #1 is arbitrarily drawn. He owns lot #4 on the east side of U.S. #1 and looks out on a tackle shop, a veterinarian's office, and an auto parts store. He emphasized that Lot 5, next to him, is commercial and the rest of the block, Lots 1 through 4, is zoned RS -6. To the east of that is a large citrus grove and the proposed zoning is RM -6. Mr. Shearer advised that in order to give a better boundary, staff would like to amend their recommendation to delete from the node lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 of Graves Addition to Wabasso. Mr. Preussnoted that there still would be a small area that is excluded from being either multi -family or commercial, but Commissioner Bird felt that in order to be consistent, we would have to either take in the entire block, including Mr. Preuss' lot, or exclude the entire block. Mr. Shearer pointed out that staff feels that multiple family, rather than RS -6, would be the most appropriate zoning, but that cannot be done today. There being no others who wished to be.heard, Chairman Scurlock declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner 'Bowman, that the Board adopt Ordinance 87-28, establishing boundaries for the 120 -acre commercial/industrial node located at the intersection of CR -510 and U.S. #1; following the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission to delete Block 4 from the node and include Block 9 of Weona Park Subdivision; and also deleted Lots 5 8 6 of Block 1 in Graves Addition to Wabasso Subdivision, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Wheeler preferred staff's recommendation because the road appears to be a natural buffer. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Wheeler dissenting. 42 BOOK 67 f ;r 566 I BAR BOOK 2/9/87 pnot LR -Planning CB/vh ORDINANCE NO. 87 - 28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION- ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISI1- ING BOUNDARIES FOR THE 120 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF C.R. 510 AND U.S. #1 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: SECTION 1 The attached map labeled as "Attachment A" and the description labeled as "Attachment B" shall be the official boundaries of the 120 acre Commercial/ Industrial Node located at the intersection of C.R. 510 and U.S. #1. 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 CRD1NANCE NO. 87-28 Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on the 10th day of March, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: I C. DON C. SCUR OCK, Jr. AIRMAN ATTEST BY: FREDA IGHT CL Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 16th day of March , 1987. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 20th day of March , 1987 at 11:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board oY—County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS. RICHARD'M. SHEARER CHIEF, LONG-RANGE PLANNING 120 acre Ord. pnot BOOK 6`1 7 � X11 r, MAR 1.0 198/ F ATTACHMENT A C.R.510/U.S.*1 Commercial/Industrial Node BOOK 67 �':�< ATTACHMENT B BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OF THE C.R. 510 (WABASSO ROAD)/U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE INTERSECTS DOT LATERAL DITCH #7; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 1360 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 640 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 1040 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HYBISCUS BOULEVARD; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 560. FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OLEANDER AVENUE; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF POINSETTA BOULEVARD; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TROPICAL AVENUE; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PALM BOULEVARD; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 560 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 480 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 440 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTHEAST APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. #1; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SUNRISE AVENUE; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 520 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 520 FEET; THENCE RUN APPROXIMATELY 240 FEET NORTHWEST ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET CROSSING THE E.E.C. RAILROAD; THENCE RUN NORTHWEST APPROXIMATELY 760 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 1400 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 720 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF C.R. 510; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 560 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 720 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST APPROXIMATELY 2960 FEET CROSSING THE F.E.C. RAILROAD AND U.S. #1; THENCE RUN NORTH APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. #1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LYING IN SECTIONS 28 AND 30, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE 39E OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTAINING 120 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSIENT MERCHANT ORDINANCE 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: 46 � ,� MAR 10 `198 BOOK 67 ira,,. 5 7 F", VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the ,p Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1,91P7 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 ore a thisday of D. L_L • (Business Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Codg' Indian River County, Florida) BOOK 67 u,jE 5 ! 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian Rive' County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- . ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March 10, 1987 at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance enti- tled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, LICENSING AND LICENSE TAXES; MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY PAVILION .AND OF - TRANSIENT MERCHANT; REQUIRING TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANTS; APPLYING NEW REGULATIONS TO CONTINUING TRANSIENT MERCHANT OPERATIONS; AMENDING SECTION 25 OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI- NANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, GENERAL PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION OF TRANSIENT MER- CHANTS IN TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CATEGORIES; ESTABLISHING APPLI- CATION, SITE, AND OPERATION STANDARDS FOR TRANSIENT MER- CHANTS; AND PROVIDING FOR CODI- FICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFEC- TIVE DATE: A copy of the proposed ordinance is available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone whom may wish to appeal any deci- sion which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Feb.18,1987 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/87: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 25, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. I ear 1 g, A SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSIENT Planning & Dev lopmefft Director MERCHANT ORDINANCE FROM: Stan Boling �/.7• REFERENCES: TMO 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 10, 1987. 47 BACKGROUND: Currently transient merchants, persons selling merchandise along roadways, are regulated by two portions of the County's codes of laws and ordinances: 1. Chapter 15: Licensing and License Taxes which requires/re- gulates the issuance of occupational licenses; and. 2. General Provisions. section of the zoning code which re- quires/regulates the issuances of temporary use permits. Over the past year, the regulations found in Chapter 15 and General Provisions have proven to be uncoordinated and too general to properly regulate the types of transient merchant requests being handled by staff. Existing Chapter 15 regulations broadly define transient merchants and allow for all types of -sales operations along roadways within agricultural, commercial and industrial zoning districts. Such operations, as long as they are not conducted from permanent structures requiring building permits, are permitted without site plan approval even though the enterprise may have many of the characteristics of a permanent establishment. Current General Provisions temporary use permit regulations address general nuisance, hazard, and traffic conditions but do not apply specific criteria (standards) or specifically limit uses. Staff has drafted an ordinance to amend both Chapter 15 and the General Provisions section to coordinate transient merchant regulations and to address problems with existing "loopholes" that allow commercial development without proper limitations and safeguards. A public workshop was held on December 1, 1986 to discuss the proposed ordinance. Several transient merchants and other interested parties attended the workshop. Many of the suggestions made at the workshop have been incorporated into the attached proposed ordinance. At their regular meeting of February 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. At the February 14th meeting, the Commission directed staff to make some minor changes in the draft ordinance. These changes (see attachment #2) have been incor- porated into the proposed ordinance. ANALYSIS: Although many other urban` or urbanizing counties in the state prohibit roadside stands (see attached #1), the proposed ordinance would limit transient merchants to operating fruit and vegetable sales and seasonal sales (Christmas tree sales, for example) while ensuring adequate temporary access and parking facilities. The proposed ordinance also prohibits the use of any structures (as defined in the zoning code) by transient merchants, thereby clearly delineating the boundary between transient merchant operations and operations requiring site plan approval. The following is a brief summary of each section of the proposed ordinance (see attachment #3). Section 1 Changes are made to prohibit the use of structures, as defined in the zoning code, and to ensure that all sales facilities are temporary and can be transported. Language is also added to allow exemptions for uses such as mobile ice cream sales. 48 BOOK -11 P,s F 57? BOOK Section 2 Amendments are made to Chapter 15 which ties in the General Provisions section of the zoning code and requires that transient merchants obtain both an occupational license and a transient merchant temporary use permit. This section also prohibits the "grandfathering -in" of existing operations when old "temporary" permits expire. The new regulations will apply to any new and to the existing transient merchant operations. Section 3 In this section transient merchants are specifically included in the temporary use catagories listed in the agricultural and commercial zoning districts. Section 4 This section establishes criteria -for the transient merchant operations and application information requirements, and limits transient merchants to fruit and vegetable sales and seasonal sales. The criteria found on pages 3 and 4 [(a) through (g)] of the proposed ordinance ensure that: a) temporary, mobile facilities are utilized; b) no utilities can be used, except temporary power for seasonal sales; c) all applicable sign regulations are met; d) permitted access points conform with other county access/ traffic requirements; e) driveways are properly located and permitted; f) parking spaces (temporary; no paving), in accordance with what is required for temporary real estate sales offices, are provided for; and g) a separation distance, which does not affect any existing permitted operations, is maintained between fruit and vegeta- ble sales. Application requirements, sorely needed to properly control right-of-way and setback encroachments and to ensure conformance with driveway and parking standards, are established on page 4(h) of the proposed ordinance. Also, a cash bond requirement, sug- gested by the transient merchants attending the December 1st workshop, is established to eliminate site cleaning problems [p. 4(i)]. The $200.00 figure was provided by Public Works to cover all loading, hauling, and dumping expenses and to discourage transient merchants from actually forfeiting the cash bond and paying the county to clean the site. The remainder of Section 4 prohibits sales operations in rights- of-way; exempts mobile ice cream sales, merchandise deliveries, and catering services from transient merchant regulations; and establishes the two types, of transient merchant operations al- lowed: fruit and vegetable sales and seasonal sales. In accor- dance with the proposed ordinance, all transient merchant tempo- rary use permits would require approval by the planning_ director whose decisions could be appealed to the Planning and zoning Commission. ALTERNATIVES: There are essentially three alternatives for handling the tran- sient merchant operations in Indian River County. 1. Keep the existing ordinances and regulations_ allowing a proliferation of uses and applying general standards; 49': 2. Prohibit transient merchant uses, "grandfathering -in" exist- ing operations; or 3 Modify existing regulations to restrict uses and to establish and apply specific criteria (standards). Alternative number one would invite abuse of existing loopholes, allowing all types of commercial sales meeting existing transient merchant definitions, and would ignore the need for coordinating Chapter 15 and General Provisions regulation and for existing specific criteria for sales operations. Alternative number two, employed by several counties, would alleviate staff problems of reviewing new applications but would also allow existing operations to continue without application of adequate standards. A prohibition would also do away with fruit and vegetable stands and seasonal sales which have traditionally been permitted in Indian River County. Alternative number three seeks to allow only certain types of transient merchants that meet adequate traffic and parking stan- dards. Sizes of operations would be limited by the type of facilities allowed to be used while the number of operations would be limited by zoning and separation district requirements. At present, alternative number three and the corresponding proposed ordinance presents a feasible way of handling existing and potential problems with transient merchants by permitting certain types of sales to operate under specified standards and conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed transient merchant ordinance. Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, presented staff's recommendation for the adoption of the proposed transient merchant ordinance. Commissioner Eggert asked if this will cover the sales of automobiles at locations away from dealerships, and Mr. Boling explained that sales events of that nature are not permitted under the current temporary use permit criteria. The only kind of special events that can be held on an offsite location would be amusement or fund-raising activities. 5 U(7(]K �9 �'rUL lA �` MAR 10 197 MAR 10 1997 Boos 57 Chairman Scurlock believed that since there is sufficient interest in having these type of offsite automobile sales, it would be appropriate for our staff to meet with the local dealers and work them regarding an appropriate location. Commissioner Bird felt we should encourage them to use the County Fairgrounds. Commissioner Wheeler asked if this will apply to flea markets, and Mr. Boling advised that new flea markets would require a separate site plan for a permanent facility, but the existing ones would be grandfathered in. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Alternate #3 of staff's recommendation and adopted Ordinance 87-29, amending Chapter 25 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Licensing and License Taxes: Modifying the definition of temporary pavilion and of transient merchant; etc. 51 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 29 IBMB 2/3W AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, "FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, LICENSING AND LICENSE TAXES; MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY PAVILION AND OF TRANSIENT MERCHANT; REQUIRING TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANTS; APPLYING NEW REGULATIONS TO CONTINUING TRANSIENT MERCHANT OPERA- TIONS; AMENDING PERA- TIONS;AMENDING SECTION 25. OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, GENERAL PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION OF TRANSIENT MERCHANTS IN TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CATAGORIES; ESTABLISHING APPLICATION, SITE, AND OPERATION STANDARDS FOR TRANSIENT MERCHANTS; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE, Section 1 Section 15-101 of Chapter 15, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: For the purpose of this article the following terms shall be given the meanings set forth below: Temporary pavilion is any devise, operational vehicle, AttAOt4tO, apparatus, tent, grouping of tables, or any other display technique or apparatus that is mobile or portable, and that is not a tOt;64444t structure, as defined in the zoning code. Transient merchant is any person or business entity that engages in the sale of any personal OtltOAX property, unless such sales are excluded from transient merchant status by other zoning code regulations, including but not limited to food products, agricultural products, and merchandise, from temporary pavilions 04/4t along public or private streets�t�i/76r��/i/�bf�/, with the following exceptions: (1) Any person selling agricultural products from agriculturally zoned property upon which tie or she grew the produce provided the products are not offered for sale in the road right-of-way$; and (2) Any person who sells his or her own property which was not acquired for resale, barter or exchange and does not conduct such sales or acts as a participant by furnishing property for sale in such a manner more than three (3) times during any calendar year (i.e., garage sales, rummage sales, white elephant sales, etc.) when property is not offered for sale in the road right-of-way. gantinn 2 Section 15-102 of Chapter 15, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Section 15-102. License and temporary use permit required; licensing process. (A) License prerequisite to sale. It shall be unlawful for any person or business entity to engage in the business of a CODING: Words in WA091W61W type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions -1- MAR 10 1987 Boos 57 L___ jjAR 1 1982 67 r .,t 517 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 29 transient merchant in Indian River County without having first obtained a transient merchant business license from the tax collector of Indian River County, Florida. ,()by (1) Application for license. Applications for a license to conduct business as a transient merchant shall be submitted to the tax collector. and shall contain the following information, certification, and permit: Aly (a) Name, permanent address and telephone number of applicant/owner. X(y (b) Florida sales tax number of applicant/owner. XAY (c) The exact location where the merchandise will be displayed and sold. ,(Ar (d) A letter from the owner of the property from which the merchandise will be displayed and sold granting permission to the transient merchant to conduct business at said location. X M� / bbbbk�/ /�iilg�tl�df/�a�Y/a /� / fitCYF►�11��'/ /.�t-lt�/ /�dd�' / �� X%Y (e) Certification from the zoning department of Indian River County 444J04f4 t that the area proposed for the display and sale carries a commercial/ 444441 ttXAX or agricultural zoning classification. No occupational license will be issued by the tax collector without this certification and temporary use permit 00ttItI04U. (f) A temporary use permit issued by the zoning department of Indian River County as required by the zoning code. No occupational license shall be issued without a temporary use permit. (B) Requirements applied to existing transient merchant uses. No transient merchant uses in existence prior to the adoption of these regulations shall be exempted from these regulations nor shall such uses be considered "grandfathered -in" under previous regulations. Transient merchants permitted under previous regulations shall comply with these regulations at such time that a previously issued occupational license or temporary use permit expires. Ccni- i nn Z Section 25(c)(3) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: a. Agricultural districts. (i) Christmas tree sales. (ii) Model homes. (iii) Temporary construction offices. (iv) Temporary meeting, recreation or amusement facilities. (v) Temporary real estate offices. (vi) Temporary sale of fruit and vegetables. (vii) Similar temporary uses. (viii) Transient Merchants CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions -2- ORDINANCE NO. 87-29 b. Residential districts. (i) Model homes (ii) Temporary construction offices. (iii) Temporaryreal estate offices. (iv) Similar temporary uses. C. Commercial districts. (i) Christmas tree sales. (ii) Temporary construction offices. (iii) Temporary meeting, recreation or amusement facilities. (iv) Temporary real estate offices. (v) Similar temporary uses. (vi) Transient Merchants d. Industrial districts. (i) Temporary construction offices. (ii) Temporary meeting, recreation or amusement facilities. (iii) Temporary real estate offices. (iv) Similar temporary uses. Q=t-+-inn A Establish section 25(c)(6)d of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows: d. Transient Merchant Operations (1) Transient merchant operations shall meet the following criteria: (a) Temporary pavilions utilized. No structures, as defined in the zoning code, may be utilized; only temporary pavilions as defined in the code of laws and ordinances may be utilized for transient merchant operations. All facilities used shall be self-contained and mobile or portable. No mobile homes or trailers that exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area may be utilized by "Class A" merchants as defined herein. Trailers may be used by "Class B" merchants as defined herein. (b) Utilities use restricted. No utilities connections (such as electrical, telephone, plumbing, or septic tanks) shall be permitted with the following exception: "Class B" transient merchants as defined herein may obtain temporary electrical power for sales operations. (c) Sign regulations. Any and all signs to be utilized on site must conform to county sign regulations and shall be deemed to be temporary and not a structure, and must be removed upon expiration of the temporary use permit or upon vacation of the site. A sign permit, if re- quired, must be obtained prior to issuance of a transient merchant temporary use permit. (d) Access alternatives. Access drives shall be limited to the lowest classification road available to the site; (e) Driveways restricted. All driveways utilized shall be either existing improved and permitted driveways or new driveways meeting the criteria specified herein. New driveways (road cuts) may be permitted by the County traffic engineer: CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions -3- R 1 0 I� BOOK MAR BOOK 67 NVUE 9 1® '�JU ORDINANCE NO. 87- 29 1. if traffic maneuverability and safety can be adequately handled by the new driveway location and design; and if 2. a State department of transportation driveway permit or county right-of-way permit, whichever is applicable, is issued for the new driveway. (f) Parking requirements. A minimum of four (4) temporary standard -sized parking spaces for "Class A" merchants, five (5) standard -sized parking spaces "Class B" merchants, shall be provided on site with all parking spaces and driveways clearly designated on site prior to sales operation. Temporary parallel spaces off of one-way drives may be provided if the county's size and dimension specifications for such driveways and spaces are satisfied. (g) Separation Distance. No "Class A" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within one thousand five hundred (1,500) lineal feet of another permitted "Class A" transient merchant operation. (h) Application requirements. Any application shall include a sketch showing: 1. site dimensions; 2. all required setback lines; 3. location and dimensions of all temporary pavilions, driveways, entrances and exits, parking spaces; 4. adjacent roads and road rights-of-way, and easements; 5. location and dimensions of all signs to be used. (i) Site cleaning and cash bond required. Within 30 days of temporary use permit expiration, all items related to the transient merchant operation shall be removed from the site. Prior to the issuance of any permit, a cash bond in the amount of $200.00 shall be submitted to the county. The county may use the entire amount of sub- mitted funds to pay for disposing of all transient merchant related items remaining on a site 30 days after permit expiration. Upon vacating and cleaning -up a site, an applicant may request in writing for the submitted funds. Permit applicants will receive the submitted cash bond amount if: 1. the county has not used the funds under the conditions described above; and 2. the site is inspected by the county and .it is verified that the site has been cleaned -up and all transient merchant related items have been removed. In cases where the County has used the $200.00 cash bond for site clean-up, no transient merchant temporary use permit shall be issued to the same applicant whose vacated operation caused the cash bond default and resulting clean-up by the County. CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions -4- M ORDINANCE NO. 87-29 (2). Operation in rights-of-way and easements. No transient merchants shall operate within any public rights-of-way. No operations within easements shall be permitted unless specifically allowed by all ^parties having an interest in such easements. (3). Exemptions. The following types of sales operations, for purposes of zoning regulations, shall not be considered transient merchants: a) curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent, intermittent stops; b) merchandise deliveries; c) mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted special events. (4) Time Limitations and Classifications. All transient merchant temporary use permits shall clearly define an expiration date. No permit shall be transferable, and no permit shall be 000d for a period of more than six months. Renewal of a permit shall require re-application. (a) Transient Merchant Classifications. All proposed transient merchant uses shall be classified as one of the following: Class A: Fruit and Vegetable Sales. Class B: Seasonal Sales such as Christmas tree sales and other similar uses; use in operation no more than 45 days during any given permit year. (Season and permit year periods must be specified on T.U.P. application). (b) Specific permit renewal and re-application periods. Class A and Class B permits may be renewed every six months. (5) Approval of planning director required. The planning and development director shall, based on review of the application and conformance with the criteria specified herein, have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny any tran- sient merchant temporary use permit application or re-application. (6) Appeals of decision. If an applicant disagrees with a determination made by the planning and development director under these provisions, review shall be available to the applicant by way of written appeal to the planning and zoning commission. Written appeals of any planning and zoning commission determina- tion may be considered by the board of county commissioners. Section 5 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING SECTIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions -5- MA R- 10 1987 600K 6 7 8Q MAR 10 e 1 Section 6 CODIFICATION ORDINANCE NO. 87-29 BOOK 67 FAU,581 The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. Section 7 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis- lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitu- tional, invalid or inoperative part. Section 8 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknow- ledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 10th day of March 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Don . Scurlock, Jr. hairman Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 16thday of March , 1987. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 20th day of March , 1987 at 11!00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. Bruce Barkett, Assistant County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS. Robert Keatifigi, D' ctor Planning & De elo ent CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions -6- PRESENTATION OF NEWLY PUBLISHED IRC SOIL SURVEY David Gunter, Soil Conservation, gave an excellent presentation of the newly published Indian River County Soil Survey. Chairman Scurlock commended the Soil Conservation Dept. for their work and efficiency in this matter, and Mr. Gunter thanked him on behalf of the Department, but felt they really did not do the public relations job that is needed. He expected, however, that more money will need to be budgeted as more and more people discover where their department is located. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the IRC Soil Survey, presented by the Soil Conservation Dept. SOIL SURVEY IS ON FILE IN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OFFICE IRC BID #321 - FIRE EXTINGUISHER MAINTENANCE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/27/87: TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Jo Baird Director, Budget Office DATE: Feb. 27, 1987 FILE: SUBJECT: IRC #321 -Fire Extinguisher Maintenance FROM: REFERENCES: Carolyn odrich, Manager Purchasing Department At the Board meeting of December 23, 1986, further information was requested on the following items. (1) Whether or not new or recycled powder is used by the bidders in recharging of portable extinguishers. (2) The manufacturer or brand name of the material used in recharging. (3) A further cost comparison of the bids. (4) A review of the specifications to ensure compliance with the State Fire Marshalls rules. MAR 10 1 58 BOOK 67 Fvur 592 LAAR 10 1987 Boa 67 ula 5SO Attached is a memo from Lynn Williams that addresses the above questions. The staff recommendation remains the same, to award to the overall low bidder All American Fire and Safety, Inc. TO: Joe Baird DATE: January 26, 1987 FILE: Director, OMB SUBJECT' Fire Extinguishers Bid #321 L nn Williams F OM: uperintendent REFERENCES: Buildings & Grounds The commission requested the following information during the discussion of the referenced bid at the meeting of December 23, 1986. 1. Whether or not the bidders used new or recycled powder in the - recharging of portable extinguishers. 2. The manufacturer or brand name of powder or material used in recharging. 3. A further cost comparison of the bids. 4. A review of the specifications to ensure compliance with the State Fire Marshall's rules. Attached in the order listed above is the information to clarify and/or substantiate the questions and concerns of the Commission. Items 1 and 2 should be covered.by the statements provided by all bidders, with the exception of American Safety Products, who included theirs with the bid documents. In addition to the statements attached, review of the Fire Code (NFPA 10) does not preclude the use of recycling the powder if collected in an approved container, checked, and reinstalled. Vero Beach Fire Equipment uses this procedure at the required six (6) year maintenance inspection. The attached cost comparison includes all bidders, and is for the majority of extinguishers used by the county and theprojected service required during the term of the bid. I requested that Bob Hunt and Michael Grice of the South County Fire District review our specifications as bid for compliance with the State Fire Marshall's rules, Michael Grice's comments are attached. The recommendation concerning award of this bid made in my memorandum of December 8, 1986, remains as stated. 59 Fire Marshal's Rules and Regulations. Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich advised that after extensive review by staff and representatives of the South County Fire District, staff's recommendation remains the same, to award the bid to the overall low bidder, All American Fire and Safety, Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation and awarded IRC Bid #321 for fire extinguisher maintenance to the overall low bidder, All American Fire and Safety, Inc. Chris Prewitt of American Safety Products of the Treasure Coast pointed out that on the original bid, they were the only firm that met all the bid specs and State law. After the original bids were received, the County sent out a letter allowing everyone else to comply with the specs. Furthermore, in the last bidding, his firm was the only one to list brand names of equipment and powder, and nobody complied with that whatsoever. In addition, his firm was the only one to mention the 6 -year maintenance that is required. He believed the County's bid process is unfair to the people in the business, and might even be illegal, and advised that he intended to pursue the issue. NORTH EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III ----------------------------------------------------- The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/87: 60 BOOK U7 1r,,,) F. 5S MAR. 10 1987 BOOK � `� gat 5S TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: March 2, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles Balczun, County Administrator SUBJECT: North Extension of Indian River Boulevard - Phase III FROM' James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Environmental Coordination Public Works Director Report date Feb., 1987 DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS In compliance with the Engineering Services Agreement between Indian River County and Boyle Engineering Corporation, the consultant has completed the Environmental Coordination Phase of the subject project. A copy of the Executive summary is attached. RECOYk=ATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that Indian River County authorize the Public Works Department to issue a Notice -to -Proceed to Boyle Engineering for the Preliminary Design Phase of the project and. to begin to pursue the Acquisition of Mitigation sites. At this time, staff would begin to communicate with Vista Royale Condominium un Property Owners Association for acquisition of the impounded wetlands east of Vista Royale and owners of similar properties along the Indian River. At the same time, the property owners along the North extension are working on a proposal to set aside approximately 250 acres of wetlands for enhancement and will request a development plan for approximately 50 acres. Both alternatives appear viable to Regulatory agencies. Staff does not wish to delay the project and would like to pursue both alternatives this spring. Funding to be from Gas Tax Revenue and Impact Fees. ATTACHMENTS 1) Executive Summary of Boyle Engineering Corp. Environmental Coordination Report dated Feb., 1987 (Full copies on file in Office of Board of County Coiunission) 2) Capital Road Program - Cash Flow Chart Over the past four months representatives from Indian River County and Boyle Engineering Corporation have been participating in the Environmental Coordination Phase of the Indian River Boulevard North Extension project. A series of 15 meetings have been held with regulatory agency representatives to discuss the project alignment, roadway design, drainage, stormwater/surfacewater management, environmental impacts and mitigation of those impacts. As a result of the meetings, a "conceptual design" has been prepared that will be refined during the Preliminary Design Phase of the project. The design includes the following: Alignment - The alignment prepared during the two lane design (1979-1981) should be maintained (Exhibit 1). Design - The roadway should be a limited access, four lane, rural cross section on fill, with a 25' grassed median and roadside swales. Two twin bridges (one at the Main Canal and one at the North Canal) should be constructed. The average right- of-way width for the typical section would be 2251. Drainage - A drainage study of the upland/wetland basin in the vicinity of the project should be prepared, so that drainage structures to convey off-site runoff can be designed. Of critical importance is the conveyance and discharge of flows that pass to the project site from the Country Club Pointe area, and whether the flows can be discharged to the adjacent impoundment or must be passed on to the Main and North Canals. Stormwater/Surfacewater Management - Stormwater treatment and surface water management should be handled within the swale systems on each side of the roadway. Berms will isolate the system from offsite flows. Discharge will either be to the adjacent impoundment if it is acquired or to the Main and North Canals. The County should pursue the determination of whether there is legal precedent for acquiring impoundment wetlands by eminent domain, if the impoundment will be part of the stormwater/surfacewater management system for the roadway. Mitigation - Mitigation of the 20 acres (approximately) of wetlands impacted by this project will be required by all of the permit and review agencies. The total acreage of mitigation and the specific site have not been established. However the agencies are willing to negotiate this issue prior to receipt of permit applications, and off- site mitigation can be considered. It should be noted that all agency representatives stressed that the optimal site would be the impoundment adjacent to the project. Coordination - The general agency reaction to the project was positive, but they would not "approve" of the project in writing at this time. Continued coordination with agency representatives is essential in order to resolve the mitigation issues. The location of the mitigation site will also impact both the drainage and stormwater/surfacewater management design for the roadway. Coordination with Country Club Pointe, Pelican Island Audubon Society and other interested parties should continue. Recommendation - Upon review and approval of this report by the County it is recommended that the County forward written authorization from the Director of the Public Works Division for Boyle Engineering Corporation to proceed with the Preliminary Design Phase based upon the conceptual design as modified herein. In addition, the County and Boyle Engineering Corporation should review the Scope of Services presented in the Agreement so that the tasks described above related to mitigation, drainage, and coordination can be pursued in parallel with the Preliminary Design Phase. 62 BOOK : J' r,H MAR 10 1987 BOOKS 7 FP.,r.5 S7 Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that the consultants from Boyle Engineering are here this morning to answer any questions the Board may have. Chairman Scurlock recalled that the last time the northerly extension of the boulevard was proposed in 1981, he voted against it because of the environmental aspect regarding the wetlands and because he did not feel it was our best priority at that time. However, when the Board authorized the study for the alignment of the northerly extension several months ago, direction was given to staff that we want this project done right and we want it done environmentally sound. Knowing that it would add to the con- struction costs, we wanted to make sure that whatever necessary is done to assure that no flooding will take place and there is a free flow of water. Director Davis confirmed that has been staff's approach, and explained that as a result of this environmental coordination report, we are going to have to sit down with Boyle Engineering and redesign the scope of work to include some additional bridging to mitigate the possible drainage impact on the Vossinbury Creek area. He stressed that we are going to be more than conservative in designing drainage structures. The consultants are also recommending that a drainage study be included in the preliminary design phase to look at the total watershed area all the way from the FEC railroad tracks to make sure that the drainage will work. Commissioner Eggert asked if the way the road is aligned will be affected by the situation north of Barber Avenue, and Director Davis explained that at this point, our alignment is similar to the one done in 1981. We don't expect any drastic deviation. The Gregory property north of Barber will not be affected any differently than it was in 1981. We are clipping a very small portion of the wetlands through the Gregory property, but then we are moving to the west as quickly as we can to get into the grove property. Basically, the alignment is not 63 chan in There is an unknown in th t th DOT �s getting serious about replacing the.Barber Bridge, and there is a possibility they may construct a parallel bridge just north of the existing bridge that may come along the north right-of-way Fine of the Main Relief Canal. If that happens, it might result in having to elevate the road to some extent. We have been communicating with the DOT, but they are just in the beginning of the bridge study. We hope, however, that our roadway will be constructed long before they start any construction of a new bridge. Chairman Scurlock asked if any residents of that area had any questions this morning. Margaret Stewart, 3027 Golf View Drive, advised that they met with Jim Davis and several Boyle engineers in December and talked about having two 8'x 5' culverts at the end of Golf View Drive. However, in the report just out, there is no mention of those culverts. As a matter of fact, they mention that at the present time the impoundment owners are not allowing any openings to the impoundment, and as a result, all new discharge structures will have to be constructed differently so as to pass the flow through to the canals without entering the impoundment. Director Davis pointed out that Appendix A summarizes the concerns of the residents discussed at the December meeting, but does not specifically indicate the size of the structures to be built there. The reason for that is that the consultants would like to look at the entire watershed area from the FEC railroad track eastward to the river and size those structures properly and very conservatively. There is a commitment to build the structures. Mrs. Stewart asked if that means they still will have culverts at the end of Golf View Drive, and Director Davis explained that there will be a means to pick up the drainage from Golf View Drive and bring it either into the project and divert it to the canal, or bring it through the wetlands to the east. 64 BOOK 67 MAR 10 '681 1987 AR I BOOK 67 We don't know yet the level of cooperation we will receive from the owners of the Caldwell, Gregory and Hoffman properties to the east. Those owners have set up a type of consortium and pooled their resources in order to propose a development plan that involves 300 acres of land, setting aside 250 acres as enhanced wetlands. They have met with the Governor's task force on the management of marshes, the DER, and other agencies that are involved in the permitting process. At this point in time those agencies seem to be interested in their proposal; however, it has not been finalized. We are waiting to see if anything is going to come of that, but at the same time we want to proceed with this project. If we cannot do any mitigation in that area, we would like to go offsite and mitigate along the Indian River. Chairman Scurlock asked why we just don't go ahead with acquiring those wetlands, and Director Davis felt there is a legal question as to whether we can condemn that many acres of wetlands for this project. Chairman Scurlock felt that if everyone took the position of not selling their land, our only option would be to go to condem- nation. Since that area is so sensitive, he would prefer buying it all at a reasonable cost. Director Davis advised that the study found that the permitting agencies will allow us to mitigate offsite; therefore, the property owner could argue that we do not have to take his property since we can go elsewhere to mitigate. Chairman Scurlock felt we are going to have an argument with those property owners no matter what, and believed that the main objective of their consortium is to develop.land in there with some sort of a project. He was not sure that anybody should build anything over there, and Commissioners Eggert and Bowman agreed. Attorney Vitunac explained that the first step in any L� are allowed to transfer that mitigation to other wetlands that we can acquire. Right now, it is a matter of bargaining to see if we can get land that is acceptable without going to condemnation. However, if we can show that we cannot get land anywhere else, it would be a full, valid point. Chairman Scurlock felt the message that we want to send today is that we want the project to be done right, and if we have a preference, we would just as soon mitigate right there next to the project and not have all those wetlands developed. Director Davis concurred, but pointed out perhaps the Vista Royale Condominium Association or some other entity would like us to come into its wetlands and enhance, which would give us a little better bargaining position than with the Caldwell, Gregory, and Hoffman properties. Commissioner Bird felt that the best assurance the Board can give Mrs. Stewart and the residents of Country Club Point is that we are going to look very closely at the design of this project so that it does not have an adverse impact on the drainage situation that presently exists in that area. Director Davis suggested that in order to clarify the drainage issue, that the Board authorize staff to go back into the draft report and add language stating that two 8' x 5' box culverts will be built. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, was concerned about the drainage by the hospital node. He believed that as, more and more flat -roofed buildings are erected and more and more ground is covered, there will be*more and more runoff. He just wanted to make sure that there is adequate egress to the river for that runoff. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the idea is to keep all that runoff from getting into the river before it gets treated. Mr. Koolage believed that land is not made to be built on, and the Commissioners wholeheartedly agreed. 66 BOOK FiG 590 MAR 10 1987 MAR 10 M7 BOOK 67 F,{'UL 591 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the draft report with inclusion in the language of the installation of two 8' x 5' culverts at the end of Golf View Drive. Director Davis anticipated that the project would be put out to bid in the first quarter of 1988. RESOLUTION ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION Robert Keating, Director of Planning 8 Development, explained that he asked that this abandonment be added today as an emergency item in order to accommodate the owners' real estate closing on a lot in Oceanaire Heights Subdivision. Staff is requesting approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-24, abandoning certain easements in the Oceanaire heights Subdivision. r/e f orm DISK: REMS RESOLUTION NO. 87-24 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below, and WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Bruce & Ellen Jacobs, whose mailing address is 9630 Riverview Drive, Sebastian, FL 32958, Grantee, as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easements: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Egizert seconded by Commissioner Bowman and adopted on the 10th day of March, 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Commissioner Bowman Commissioner Bird Commissioner Eggert Commissioner Wheeler Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye 1 BOOK P o' 59- FIF7 XAi 10 1987 BOOK 67 Ft�uF. 593s3 RESOLUTION NO. 87-24 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of March 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By G Don C. -Scurlock, J Chairman Attest By FredaW igh Clerk/fty' STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY, tha on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in t State and County aforesaid, to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Don C. Scurlock, Jr. and Freda Wright well known to me to be the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk, respectively, of Indian River County, a politicial subdivision of the State of Florida, and they acknowledged executing the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 10th day of March, 1987. Notary Public My Commission Expires: - NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA NY COMMISSION EXP. JULY 8.I990 INS. UNO. EXHIBIT "An The drainage and utility easement being the westerly 5 feet of Lot 9 and the westerly 5 feet of the north 23.50 feet of Lot 8, Block 'C, Oceanaire Heights Subdivision Unit #1, as recorded in Platbook 3, Page 84, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. 69 P COUNTY LANDFILL AND COLLECTION CENTER IMPROVEMENTS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MARCH 2, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR r VIA: TERRANCE-G. PINTO l DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE ENGINEERING OPERATI NS MANAGER DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: COUNTY LANDFILL AND COLLECTION CENTER IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION As you know, the Division of Utility Services has retained Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) to perform a solid waste rate study, a solid waste master plan, as well as, a septage and sludge report. The results of the studies were presented to you for your consideration on February 2, 1987. During that presentation, both Utilities Division staff and representatives of CDM expressed concern over the amount of available disposal capacity in Phase I of the landfill. Attached for your review and approval are Exhibit A -Scope of Work, Exhibit B - Project Labor Breakdown, and Exhibit C -Project Budget as submitted by CDM. T T.TAT VQ TO Due to the extended lead time required for design and construction, the Division of Utility Services has already negotiated fees for design of the required solid waste system improvements with CDM. The engineering fees associated with subject project have been limited to $237,100.00 with an estimated duration of six (6) months for design. RECOMMENDATION The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and thereby authorize CDM to perform the subject engineering for $237,100.00. A formal work authorization outlining the agreement is forthcoming for your signature. Chairman Scurlock understood that this is not the total for engineering fees that will be necessary to fully complete the project. Jeff Boone of Utility Services advised that this will effectively gain the permitting, design and bid documents. There are some other items that are so far down the road the costs cannot be projected at this time, and those will have to be brought to back to the Board under a separate work authorization. 70 0 1987 j'�R BOOK F'L'UE. Pr - MAR, 14198i BOOK 67 u.jF.59Y5 In answer to a question by Commissioner Eggert, Mr. Boone advised that some stormwater management concerns on the existing phase have been resolved. Commissioner Bird stressed how he depends on staff in these technical matters to determine that these consultant charges are competitive, and Chairman Scurlock advised that OMB Director Joe Baird is in the process of meeting with all our current consultants regarding their range of prices. He noted that today's prices are very well within range, and pointed out that the $237,000 was arrived at only after considerable review and revision. We try to use the Farmers Home Administration fee curve schedule, which is more conservative than the standard schedule used in many of these contracts. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that in running for the Commission, she heard many comments about whether the County was locked in with the same consultants. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation and authorized Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. to perform the engineering for the County Landfill and collection center improvements at a cost of $237,100. WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 3 PROJECT: LANDFILL AND COLLECTION CENTERS ThisWork Authorization is provided for in the Agreement for Professional Services by and between Indian River County, Florida, and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 6, 1985. —thorization No. 3 provides for design services in ' nce with Element II as more specifically described in the d Scope of Work. �3 for such services shall be in accordance with Section 4 V) kw upper limit budget amount of $237,100. In accordance Z ticle lc, details of the budget are provided in the d Project Budget. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Al Don -C-. Scurlock, Jr. ly Chairman lbthDay of March 1987 Approved: March 1.0, 1987 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. e. E. Lawrence Adams, Jr. Vice President Day of ) A 1987 EXPANSION AND MODIFICATIONS TO WEST COUNTY SUBREGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT - WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 11 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: DIRECTOR OF UTILOITY �ERVI� ES FROM: JEFFREY K. BARYON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: EXPANSION AND MODIFICATIONS TO WEST COUNTY SUBREGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 11 BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS MARCH 2, 1987 The West County Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Phase I was put into operation in June 1986 with all of its 1.0 million gallon capacity reserved by those who participated in the Route 60 Sewer Assessment Program. 72 BOOK 67 E, : 590' IMAR 10 1987 BOOK 67 o -UF 597 There are many businesses and franchises within the service territory of our West County Plant and, in order to plan for their connection to the plant, the County Division of Utility Services needs to start the work on the plant expansion to Phase II for another 1.0 million gallons per day at this time. Enclosed is a proposal from our wastewater engineering firm' of Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. for the proposed work on the plant expansion. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Project Work Authorization #11 for Phase II of the West County Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, with funding to come from the transfer of funds from the Sewer Impact Fee Account into project account 471-000-169-037.00 within the Division of Utility Services department. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, -the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization #11 for Phase II of the West County Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant, with funding to come from the transfer of funds from the Sewer Impact Fee Account into project account No. 471-000-169-037.00 within the Division of Utility Services. 11 Consulting Services Project No. (County) 8700.1 Masteller & Moler Associates, INC. (WASTEWATER) I PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title:., 'Proposed 1.O MGD Expansion and Modifications to the Existing West County Sub - regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Consulting engineering services consisting of design, engineering, preparation of contract plans, specifications and bid documents, securing regulatory agency permitting, assistance during bidding and resident inspection in connection with the referenced project. The project will generally consist of_a new 1•.0 MGD Marolf type plant to be constructed in parallel with the existing 1.0 MGD plant and include modifications and additions to the existing plant to provide for an operators: office building, provide for in-line flow equalization of 20% of the total combined 2.0 MGD design flow and other minor provisions desired by the County Utilities Department to facilitate operations. The scope of the project will be from the plant influent to the chlorine contact tank effluent and does not include any effluent disposal facilities design. The budget estimate for the project is $1,500,000.00. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated July 2, 1986 and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services included in this project: A. Project Design Services per Article 4, paragraph 4a. and 4b. B. General Services During Construction per Article 5, paragraph 5a., 5b., & 5c. C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, paragraph 6c., 6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall include field surveys, soils testing, structural, electrical and architectural services necessary for design and preparation of construction plans and assistance to the County in obtaining various permits and approvals for construction (permit fees to be paid by the County). D. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b,, the lump sum fee for Article 4, paragraphs 4a. and 4b. is $98,250.00. For Article 5, paragraphs 5a., 5b., and 5c., and Article 6, paragraphs 6c.,6d.,6e.,6f., and 6g., payment shall be based on Article 8, para- graph 8a(1) with resident inspection services to be billed at an hourly rate of $40.00. (Note: it is estimated that the project construction will take 1200 hours and therefore, $48,000.00 should be budgeted for resident inspection service. However, the actual resident inspection expense will be based on the actual time required multiplied by $40.00 per hour). APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Dater APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Charles Vitunac, County Attorney MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. By� 6S ,.�1� Earl H. Masteller, P.E. President. Date: APPROV-J -"�., /; T -- ', t ,y MA, -R � S �Y . r .._ � �U : L,�V C n J BOOK �'9 r,�-UE 59, 8 VAR 1.0 19'87 Boa 67 F,q'UF�c�� WATER -SYSTEM -MASTER PLAN EXPANSION TO INCLUDE SEBASTIAN AND -------------------------------------------------------- FELLSMERE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/3/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MARCH 3, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO �yy DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S CES FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER q0 DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN EXPANSION TO INCLUDE SEBASTIAN AND FELLSMERE BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION On December 12, 1984, the County entered into an agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation to provide a water system master plan. Addendum #1 originally added the cities of Vero Beach and Sebastian. Attached for your review are revisions to Addendum #1. Addendum #1 now includes only the cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere. As previously directed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Division of Utility Services has effectively negotiated with the cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere for their respective share of the costs. AVAT.VCTC As outlined in the agreement, the budget estimate for the Sebastian area totals $50,265.00 with the City of Sebastian's share being 46.5% or $23,373.00 and the County's share being 53.5% or $26,892.00. Likewise, the City of Fellsmere has agreed to pay their portion of the study equaling $2,673.00. Following.is a summary of the cost sharing for the county -wide master plan. FUNDING SOURCE STUDY AREA COST Indian River County South County $173,325.00 Indian River County North County 26,892.00 City of Sebastian Sebastian Area 23,373.00 City of Fellsmere Fellsmere 2,673.00 TOTAL $226,263.00 Addendum #1 thereby increases the County's share of the master plan by $26,892.00 to a total of $200,217.00 which is funded through the Utility Division Impact Fee Fund. ..Also outlined in the revisions to Addendum #1 is an estimated budget cost of $4,577.00 to update the existing computer model and water, system maps. This is an activity that should be done approximately every six months, depending upon -the growth rate of the system. 75 RECOMMENDATION The Division of Utility Services recommends that. the Board of County Commissioners authorize the attached agreement to proceed with the water system master plan. Furthermore, the Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and thereby.authorize the updating of the existing computer model and water system maps by executing the attached agreement. Jeff Barton, Assistant Director of Utility Services, explained that the Board previously authorized the $173,325 and we have paid most of that amount already. We are just extending the contract to include the other services. We are adding $26,892 for our part of the study and the other cities have agreed to pay their share. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo and approved Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for Expansion of the Water Master Plan to include service to the Sebastian and Fellsmere study areas. ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WEST COUNTY SCHOOL WASTEWATER COLLECTION DISTRIBUTION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/3/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MARCH 3, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTILIT ERVICES FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER �Q DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WEST COUNTY SCHOOL WASTEWATER COLLECTION DISTRIBUTION BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION Attached for your review and approval is a work authorization submitted by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. for engineering fees 76 BOOK F H';r 600 MAR 10 1987 J r MAR 10 1987 BOOK F�,�601 for offsite wastewater system improvements. for the new West County School. Engineering for offsite wastewater improvements to service the School originally were going to be done by the School Board. After discussion with the School Board staff, it was determined that it would be much more cost effective for all if the County handled the engineering and construction with a contribution -in -aid -of construction for the School Board. TTTATVQTQ Preliminary estimates for construction by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. amount to $233,100.00. Engineering fees for the subject project amount to $24,900.00. The total estimated project cost is therefore $258,000.00. Funding for the project will be initially provided by the Utilities Impact Fee Fund, but will include a $125,000.00 contribution -in -aid -of construction by the Indian River County School Board. Future development will pay a proportionate contribution -in -aid -of construction in addition to the Impact Fees. RECOMMENDATION The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the subject construction and thereby authorize the attached work authorization for $24,900.00 as submitted by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the construction of offsite wastewater system improvements for the new West County School and authorized Work Authorization #13 submitted by Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. in the amount of $24,900 for engineering fees, as recommended by staff. 77 M Lk WEST COUNTY SCHOOL PUMP STATION/8TH STREET ND KINGS HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN TAKE -OFF ESTIMATE 5. 6. 7. 8: 9. 10. 11. 6" PLUG VALVES 8" PLUG VALVES 8TH ST CANAL CROSSING MAIN RELIEF CANAL CROSS PVD ROAD RESTOR CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE SEED & MULCH SUB -TOTAL: 2 UNIT 2 UNIT LUMP SUM LUMP SUM 2860 LF LUMP SUM 8150 LF 10% CONTINGENCY: CONSTRUCTION EST. TOTAL: USE -AS CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 78 500.00 700.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 16.00 500.00 0.50 $ 211,910.00 $ 21,191.00 $ 233,101.00 $ 233,100.00 BOOK 1,000.00 1,400.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 45,760.00 500.00 4,075.00 6"d' F,�,--E60 PAGE 1 OF 1 DATE: 2/19/87 JOB: WEST COUNTY SCHOOL PUMP STATION WITH 8" FORCE MAIN ALONG NORTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET & 6" FORCE MAIN ALONG EAST SIDE OF KINGS HIGHWAY TO MANHOLE AT ELECTRIC SUBSTATION NEAR WATER TANK CLIENT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1. MOBILIZATION LS LUMP SUM $ 6,150.00 2. 6" DIA. PVC FORCE MAIN 8150 LF 8.50 69,275.00 3. 8" DIA. PVC FORCE MAIN 2860 LF 12.50 35,750.00 4. LIFT STATION 1 UNIT 40,000.00 40,000.00 5. 6. 7. 8: 9. 10. 11. 6" PLUG VALVES 8" PLUG VALVES 8TH ST CANAL CROSSING MAIN RELIEF CANAL CROSS PVD ROAD RESTOR CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE SEED & MULCH SUB -TOTAL: 2 UNIT 2 UNIT LUMP SUM LUMP SUM 2860 LF LUMP SUM 8150 LF 10% CONTINGENCY: CONSTRUCTION EST. TOTAL: USE -AS CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 78 500.00 700.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 16.00 500.00 0.50 $ 211,910.00 $ 21,191.00 $ 233,101.00 $ 233,100.00 BOOK 1,000.00 1,400.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 45,760.00 500.00 4,075.00 6"d' F,�,--E60 r MAR. 1 0 '6C-7 BOOK d 69 3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: February 19, 1987 . Work Authorization No. 13 for Consulting Services Project No. 13 (County) (Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.) (WASTEWATER) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title: West County School Pump Station with 8" diameter force main along north side of 8th Street and 6" diameter force main along east side of Kings Highway to manhole near electric substation. Consulting engineering services relative to design services for construction of a new sewage pump station at West County School and approximately 2860 LF of 8" diameter force main from the school site along the.north side of 8th Street to Kings Highway, then, construction of approximately 8150 LF of 6" diameter PVC force main, north along the east side of Kings Highway to the existing manhole near the existing electric substation. Estimated construction cost of project is $233,100.00. New services include twenty-five (25) hours of "General Services During Construction" per "Agreement" Article 5, Paragraphs 5a. and 5b. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated July 2, 1986 and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services included on this project: A. Project Design Services per Article 4, Paragraph 4a. and 4b. B. General Services During Construction per Article 5, Earagraph 5a., and 5b. Please note that twenty-five (25) hours of these services are included in the lump sum fee in "D" below. C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, Paragraph 6c., 6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall include field surveys necessary for design and preparation of construction plans and assistance to the County in obtaining various permits and approvals for construction (permit fees to be paid by the County). D. _Payment for Services per Article 8, the lump sum fee for Article 4, Paragraph 4a. and 4b. and Article 5, Paragraph 5a. and 5b. above is $24,900.00. Payment shall be per Article 8, Paragraph 8b. and 8d. Included in the $24,900.00 lump sum fee is $1,000.00 or twenty-five (25) hours for periodic inspection services. Any additional inspection services in excess of the twenty-five (25) hours will be invoiced as additional services at the hourly rate of $40.00. Payment for Article 6, Paragraph 6c., 6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. shall be per Article 8, Paragraph 8a(1). APPROVED BY: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY_ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By / Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Date _- /t,") ` OF -7 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Charles Vitunac, County Attorney SUBMITTED BY: MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. y Earl H. Masteller, P.E. President Date February.19, 1987 APPRoCAT D` COUNTY WATER SYSTEM COMPUTER MODELING ANALYSIS The Board.reviewed the following memo dated 3/3/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MARCH 3, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI CES FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE �( ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER /j��(/ DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES ( SUBJECT: WATER SYSTEM - COMPUTER MODELING ANALYSIS BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION Boyle Engineering Corp. is currently preparing a county wide water system master plan, including a computer hydraulic model. Frequently, expansions to the existing water distribution/transmission system as a result of a county initiated capital expansion project or a private development project will warrant computer modeling. By utilizing the existing computer model by Boyle Engineering, consistent hydraulic design is assured. nwnT.veTc Attached for your review and approval is an agreement with Boyle Engineering Corp. to facilitate the County and private developers a means of hydraulic modeling consistent with the county water system master plan. As outlined, the fee for each analysis will be $450.00 for up to 500 equivalent residential units, with additional modeling runs at a rate of $250.00 each. RECOMMENDATIONS The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners execute the attached agreement -and thereby authorize Boyle Engineering Corp. to perform computer hydraulic modeling for expansion to the County's water system. Futhermore, the authorization will enable the County to utilize the subject services as needed and also to pass on the computer modeling cost for private development projects to the developer. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Addendum No. 4 to Agreement, as recommended by staff. 80 MAR 10 1987 BOCK 6 7 6 BOOK 6 7 `' �JJF ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO WATER SYSTEM THIS document, executed this /0 day of , 1987 is Addendum No. 4 to the Agreement dated December 12, 1984 (hereinafter called "AGREEMENT") between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (hereinafter called "OWNER") and BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a California Corporation, (hereinafter called "ENGINEER") with an office located at 320 East South Street, Orlando, Florida 32801. WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the AGREEMENT provides that the OWNER, by means of an addendum to the AGREEMENT, may authorize the, ENGINEER to provide services other than those described in the AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the OWNER desires to have the ENGINEER provide other services related to the water system. WHEREAS, the ENGINEER is willing and able to perform additional pro- fessional services for the OWNER within the basic terms and conditions of Sections 2 through 6 of the AGREEMENT, which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, and this Addendum No. 4. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained, it is hereby agreed that the ENGINEER shall provide the services related to the Project for which this Addendum No. 4 applies under the terms and conditions set forth herein. PART A - SCOPE OF SERVICES The ENGINEER shall provide the following services related to the OWNER's water system: 1. Revise water system maps based on data provided to the ENGINEER by OWNER, and furnish reproducible mylars of the revised maps to OWNER. 2. Revise water distribution system computer model based on data provided to the ENGINEER by OWNER. 3. Perform analyses of the OWNER's water distribution system, utilizing the water distribution system computer model when appropriate, and present the results of the analyses to the OWNER in the form of a brief letter report. 4. Advise the OWNER on matters related to the water system and the water distribution system computer model. The above services will be provided by the ENGINEER on an "as needed" basis. The OWNER's Utility Services Director shall determine when such services are required, and shall so notify the ENGINEER. Upon such notification, the ENGINEER shall submit a letter to the Utility Services Director which shall describe the work tasks 81 that the ENGINEER antieipates to perform, and the estimated cost to complete the work tasks. The OWNER's Utility Services Director may authorize the ENGINEER to proceed with the work tasks by approving the letter. PART B PERIODOF SERVICE The ENGINEER shall provide services to the OWNER under this Addendum No. 4 for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months. The period of service may be extended by mutual agreement of the OWNER and ENGINEER. PART C -,PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER For services rendered, the OWNER shall pay the ENGINEER in accordance with Section 5.1.1 of the AGREEMENT titled "Wage Cost Multiplier". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum No. 4, consisting of three (3) pages has been fully executed on behalf of the ENGINEER by its duly authorized officers, and the OWNER has caused the same to be duly executed in its name and in its behalf, effective as of the date hereinabove written. Richard J. Cole n, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Clerk Board of County Qommipioners Approved ain to utility matters erranc into Director of Utility Services ENGINEER BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION Kermit L. Prime, Jr., P.E. Vice President OWNER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Chairman Board of County Commissioners 81a Approved as to form and gal fsufficiency By l JAN Charles P. Vitunac County Attorney BOOK F;�,F. bj' ZAR ® ` l BOOK �d ,Jc t NORTH COUNTY AREA SUBREGIONAL SEWER PROJECT - EXPANSION OF SERVICES - WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 10 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/87: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILE VICES DATE: MARCH 2, 1987 FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF SERVICES NORTH COUNTY AREA SUBREGIONAL SEWER PROJECT WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 10 BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS On November 18, 1986, (as part of Hydrogeologic Assessments), the Board of County Commissioners approved the expansion of the territory to be covered by the North County Subregional Sewer Project and for Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., the engineers, to prepare all documents for the necessary assessment roll for the participants in the North County system. The formal Work Authorization for expansion of services has not been before the Board for recommendation for the Chairman to execute. The expansion of services will cost $4,800.00. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Division of Utility Services recommends to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the expansion of services in the amount of $4,800.00 with funding to come from the project account set up for the North County Subregional Sewer System (471-000-169-006.00). Jeff Barton, Assistant Director of Utility Services, explained that this is an expansion of current authorization so that they can put the final work project together, prepare the assessment roll, and advertise for a public hearing. Chairman Scurlock explained that this was necessitated because we were unsuccessful in acquiring Mr. Fischer's property, and the location of the plant was moved south, closer to Kiwanis- Hobart Park. 82 MAR 101987 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization No. 10 with Masteller & Moler Associates in the amount of $4,800 for expansion of services in the North County Subregional Sewer Project, as recommended by staff. 83 BOOK 6� Fku 608 ,MAR i 0 1987 BOOK 67 �'a`.r. 6199 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: 12/11/86 Work Authorization No. 10 For Consulting Services (Wastewater) Project No. 10 (County) 86004 (Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title: North County Area Subregional Sewer Project Study and report services consisting of research and development of project assessment roll and related illustrative maps for use in the assessment of properties in connection with capital financing for the referenced project. Services also include attendance at required public hearings. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated July 2, 1986 and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services included on this project; A. Study and Report Services per Article 3. B. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b. for "A" above shall be the lump sum fee of $ 4800.00 Payment shall be per paragraph 8d. APPROVED BY: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY / Cew Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman . SUBMITTED BY: MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. wll, �T�ZXJ*m L1ri�/_"L1/. Date .J ,O / Date 12/12/86 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: APPROVED F U MATTERS Charles Vitunac BY County Attorney 1Cu P"N; 0 DiREC TOR D V. OF U T 1UTY SERVICES r REFINANCING OF HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY BOND ISSUE The Board reviewed, the following memo dated 3/4/87: TO: Board of County Commissioners c FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: March 4, 1987 RE: AGENDA - BCC MEETING 3/10187 REFINANCING OF HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY BOND ISSUE The Housing Finance Authority of Indian River County joined a pooled bond issue, handled by Leon and Polk Counties in 1985, and was allocated approximately $1,000,000 out of the $31,340,000 bond issue to be used for single-family mortgages. Indian River County used none of its allocation because of market conditions. As explained on the cover letter and the attached resolution, Leon and Polk Counties wish to restructure the bond issue and to do that they need Indian River County to reallocate its share of the issue back to Leon and Polk Counties. The Housing Finance Authority will be meeting on March 12 to pass its resolution in support of this procedure and because of the Leon and Polk refunding deadline of March 25, it is necessary that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the County's resolution attached to this memorandum by its March 10 meeting. This County resolution should be passed contingent upon the Indian River County Housing Finance Authority passing a similar resolution, a copy of which is attached. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-25, approving the reallocation of unused funds from the Housing Finance Authorities of Leon and Polk Counties Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, 1985 Series A Bonds. 85 BOOK Fr -GE. �� F 10 1987 MAR. 10 1997 BOOS ' RESOLUTION NO. 87- 2 S RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPR-OVING A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (FLORIDA) ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (FLORIDA) APPROVING THE REALLOCATION OF UNUSED FUNDS FROM THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITIES OF LEON AND POLK COUNTIES. (FLORIDA) SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, 1985 SERIES A BONDS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR USE IN POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE". WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have by ordinance and resolutions created. the Housing Finance Authority of Indian River County, Florida, to alleviate a shortage of housing capital for investment in housing -in Indian River County, Florida (the "Indian River Authority"); and WHEREAS, the Housing Finance Authority of Polk County and the Housing Finance Authority of Leon County entered into an Interlocal Agreement and did jointly issue their Single -:Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, 1985 Series A, in the aggregate principal amount of $31,340,000 (the "1985 Series A Bonds"), the proceeds of said bonds to be utilized for the origination of low interest rate mortgage loans within the respective Issuer's area of operation, including Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Indian River Authority has adopted a resolution approving reallocation of unused funds from the proceeds of the 1985 Series A Bonds originally designated for use in Indian River County, Florida for use in Polk County, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board'of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida; that: Section 1. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: It is advantageous, economically and otherwise, to authorize the reallocation of unused funds from the 1985 Series A Bonds to the Housing Finance Authority of Polk County, Florida to provide funds for the acquisition of mortgages from lending institutions to make loans to persons or families of moderate, middle or lesser income within Polk County, Florida. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida does hereby ratify the resolutitn approving the reallocation t of unused funds from the proceeds of the 1985 Series A Bonds initially available for use in Indian River County to the Housing Finance Authority of Polk County, Florida for use i<n Polk "County. Section: 3. This Resolution shall °become affective immediately upon _ irts adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED with a quorum presenting and voting this 10th day of March , 1987, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INDIAN `RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE I — CHANGE ORDER #6. The Board reviewed the following memo dated. 2/16/87; TO: The Honorable Members February 16, 1987�tLE: of the Hoard of County ®ATE- Commissioners THRU: Charles P. Balczun County AdministratorSUBJECT: THRU: Joseph P. Baird Director, OMB H. T. De FROM: Directo General Services Indian River County Jail Phase I - Change Order Six REFERENCES: The subject change order is a "clean-up" of items that need to be addressed for the closing -out of the subject project. The following are this writer's comments and recommendations on Change Order Number Six. 1. Loss of Telephone Service Concur with Architect's Recommendation. 2. Security Fencing Installation County crews did delay the installation - concur with Architect's recommendation. 3. Electrical revisions Concur with Architect's recommendation. 4. Additional fill beneath slab 5. Delayed permanent water Contractor was -informed from the beginning of project this was their error. Concur with Architect's recommendation. See Item 2, Paragraph 3, Pre - Construction Conference. Sub -contractor did not finish installation of service at time General Contractor had requested. 6. Interest Expense See comments by Indian River County's Director of Management and Budget. 7. Delays at laundry room Owner had to revise and coordinate construction of Phase II. Concur with Architect's recommendation. 8. Additional signage Captain Bill Baird had requested signage to agree with console graphics in control room. Concur with Architect's recommendation. 9. Interest Expense See comments by Indian River County's Director of Management and Budget. 87 BOOK I F;jur612 - r- AAR 10 1%1 10. Install solenoid valve In Building B 11. Additional Mechanical Work 12. Testing of sewer lines BOOK 67 :+vE This was needed as an emergency shut-off for Building B. County purchased valve and R.S.H. agreed to install it. There was no mention of time extension when first discussed with Architect. The work was due to a design problem. All expense as to labor and material will be paid by the Architect. Time extension with liquidated damages should not be borne by the County. Contract documents state county will pay for all testing. Since test was prior to penalty time, staff does not feel time extension is justified (See Article 7.7.2 Contract Documents) Staff is in agreement with the seventeen (17) days extension. We did disagree with the first submittal for Substantial Completion (Dean letter of 12/22/86 - attached) as previously stated. It was felt at the time, and later °proven, that- additional work was needed to meet the requirements o_ - _ -ompletion as outlined in the contract documents. SUMMATION OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: AMOUNT DAYS 1. Loss of Telephone $ 300.00 1 2. Security Fencing 2,000.00 7 3. Electrical 678.00 0 4. Additional Fill .0 0 5. Delayed Permanent Water 1,728.00 0 6. Interest Expense 0 0 7. Laundry Room 1,728.00 4 8. Additional Signage 914.00 1 9. Interest Expense 0 0 10. Solenoid Valve 1,397.50 0 11. Additional Mechanical Work 1,887.00 7 12. Testing Sewer Line 500.00 0 $11,232.00 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES 1. Original Contract Completion date to actual Substantial Completion (10/24/86 to 1/9/87) 2. Credit for Contractor Request 3. Credit for miscommunications 4. Total Assessment of Liquidated Damages 88 20 Days 77 Days (20) Days (17) Days 40 Days General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that staff does not agree with Items 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 of the Architect's recommendations listed in the above memo. He advised that he would address Items 5, 10, and 12, and Director Baird would be addressing Items 6 and 9, which deal with interest. Item 5 Since we hired a subcontractor to install the water meter, pit and other paraphernalia it took to furnish service to the building, staff is recommending a denial of the 4 -day extension on this item. Item 10 Since there was no extension agreed upon with the Contractor, staff does not recommend the 3 -day extension. Item 12 When the sewer line was completed out there, we informed the Architect that we could not accept the work without an appropriate test. The Utility Dept. was unable to use the mirror test, and the Architect called in someone to run a ping pong ball flow test. Staff has no problem with paying for the test, but feels that the Contractor should not be given another day to perform that test. Director Dean advised that the Architect is here today to answer any questions. The Contractor and Architect are recommending that we penalize them for 32 days and we are recommending that we charge them for 40 days, a difference of 8 days. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/87: FUARIU u Boos 67 TO: Sonny Dean, Director DATE: February 25, 1987 General Services SUBJECT: Items 6 and 9 of Change Order #6 - Interest Expense FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director This department has difficulty approving Items 6 and 9 of Change Order 6. We feel that this aspect of the change order fails for the following reasons: 1. RSH has failed to provide adequate proof that.they are entitled to any interest at all. Article 5 of the contract between RSH and the County has this to say about timing of the payments. "Based upon applications for payment submitted to the architect by the contractor, and certificates for payment issued by the archi- tect, owner shall make progress payments..... for the period ending the 25th day of the month, as follows..... Not later than 10 days following the end of the period covered by the application for pay- ment....." Before payment is made by the County a document called "Application for Payment" must be formally drawn up by RSH and then submitted to the architect. The architect verifies the information on the document and certifies it. He then passes the completed form on to the County for payment. RSH claims that the County has not tendered payment to them in a timely fashion in accordance with the terms of the contract (10 days from the 25th of each month). However, analysis of several of RSH's applications for payment indicate several timing prob- lems on their part; so material as to make it impossible for the County to comply with the ten day rule: A. Not one payment was calculated by the contractor for the period ending the 25th of the month as per the contract. Payments were dated no earlier than the end of the month in every circumstance. Not only has a term of the contract been breached by this action, but at this point, the contractor has already held the "Application for Payment" for at least 5 of the 10 day payment period (25th of month to end of month is at least 5 days ex- cept February). B. The contractor did not necessarily sign the ap- plication for payment on the same day it was dated. Sometimes it was signed three or four days later. For example one month the appli- cation was dated 5-30 but not signed until 6-2, -three days later. C. The architect did not certify the application for payment until, onaverage, days later. 90. Thus, the contractor might retain the application for up to a week from the 25th of the month and the architect might not sign for up to another week. The combination of delays adds up to more than ten days before the County even sees the application! 2. Even if RSH proved its case regarding the lack .of timeliness on the part of the County (which it can't) their change order submission lacks the detail needed to make a decision as to whether to approve it. The figure $6,561.24 stems from a letter dated September 22, 1986 to W.R. Frizzell from RSH Construction. There is absolutely no proof as to how the interest figures were derived. The contract with RSH provides for payment of 10% interest for late payment (.un- fortunately, it is vague as to whether such interest is compounded or simple), but there is no way of de- termining the number of days used in the calculation or why that number was used. (See Letter) In Summary - RSH has not been able to prove that the County is at fault for failing to remit payment to them within ten days of the period ending on the 25th of the month. Staff feels that Change Order 6 - Items 6 and 9 - Interest Expense should be denied. OMB Director Joe Baird felt that the way the contract was written made it impossible for both sides to comply. According to the contract, the Contractor was to bill us for work done through the 25th of the month and we were to pay them within 10 calendar days. That was almost impossible, because the bills first had to be sent to the Architect for sign -off and then sent to us for our review. The Contractor consistently billed us through the 30th of the month instead of the 25th, but expected payment by the 10th. We made every attempt to pay promptly, but corrections had to be made on some of these bills. In his opinion, we should not pay the interest expense in Items 6 and 9. Pat Carroll, President of Frizzell Architects, came forward to answer any questions the Board might have, and Commissioner Bird asked why they feel differently than staff on the number of days' penalties. Dallas Disney of Frizzell felt it is due to the interpretation of the General Conditions in the contract, and pointed out that their recommendations to the County are only advisory. MAR 10 1987 91 BooK 67 ulu, 6-1.6 MAR 10 1987 Bou 7 Farr 617 Commissioner Bird noted that if we end up in litigation on this, the Architect's recommendation would weigh pretty heavily in a court of law. Mr. Carroll did not feel we would end up in litigation over the amount of money involved in the 8 -penalty. He stated that they would work with the County in clarifying and interpreting the contract documents. Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Carroll how he felt about the County not paying the two interest expenses since we made every attempt to pay the bills in the almost impossible turn around time of 10 days, and Mr. Carroll believed that whoever wrote that clause into the contract misunderstood the process. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation that Items 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12 not be paid; and that the Contractor be penalized for 40 days for not completing construction of the Jail on time according to the Contract. OWNER: INDIAN RIVER BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: January. 9, 1987 . COMMISSIONERS TO: (Contractor) r -71 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 1766 RSH CONSTRUCTORS P. 0. Box 52149 CONTRACT FOR: General Construction Jacksonville, Fl. 32201 CONTRACT DATED: March 27, 1985 L J YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB: 1. Loss of telephone service due to work by others ADD DEDUCT not complete. $ 300.0 $ 2. Security fencing installation delays due to work by others not complete. 2,100.0 3. Miscellaneous electrical revisions 678.00 4. Additional fill beneath slab. NO CHANGE 5. Delayed permanent water due to work by others not complete. 1,728.00 6. N/A ___0___ - 0--- 7. 7. Delays and revisions at Laundry Room 1,728.00 8. Additional signage at cell blocks 914.00 9. N/A --- 0--- 10. Add solenoid valve. 1,397.50 11. Additional mechanical work 1,887.00 12. Testing of sewer lines. 500.00 13. Liquidated damages of $500.00/day for 40 days 20,000.00 THIS CHANGE ORDER SHALL INCLUDE AS DOCUMENTATION OF REVISIONS W.R. FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS, INC. LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1987 AND RSH CONSTRUCTORS LETTER OF DECEMBER 18, 1986 AND RELATED BACK-UP INFORMATION.TOTAL sll,232.50s 20,000.00 The Contract Time will be (Increased) ( y thirty-seven ( 37 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor Indicates his agreement herewith, Including any adjustment In the Contract Sum or Contract Time. ORIGINAL CONTRACT ................................... s3, 768 f 921 - 0 FORMER CHANGE ORDERS ............... AD......... $ 7 242.00 $ 3,776,223.00 THIS CHANGE ORDER.................................................................................. DEDUCT) .... $ ( 8,767.50) REVISED CONTRACT PRICE ... $ 3,767,455.50 SIGNED: W. R. FRIZZELL ARLMITECTS, INC. BY APPROVED: RSH CONSTRUCTORS, INC CONTR �®RfBY `— Z'� . i DATE �7 PAGE OF----!— PAGES 92a ACCEPTED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA OWNER BY l � C DATE 77 BOOK 67 FA r 618 BAR 10 Box 67 c.�,E619 CODE—ENFORCEMENT _BOARD _APPOINTMENTS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/6/87: TO: County Commission DATE: March 6, 1987 FILE. FROM:Alice E. White Admin. Aide I SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Appointments REFERENCES: When the original appointments were made, the Ordinance stated that each Commissioner would appoint one member, and the other two would be appointed at large by the full County Commission. The appointments needed on March 10 are as follows: Replacement for Charles Block, Architect (Board appointment) (3 years) Replacement for Mack May, Real Estate (Margaret C. Bowman appointment) (3 years) Replacement for Robert Knight, Labor (Board appointment) (until March, 1988) ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously appointed Robert A. Reid to a 3 -year term on the Code Enforcement Board as the architectural representative. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed Wayne Sommers to a 3 -year term on the Code Enforcement Board as the real estate representative. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously appointed Anthony Gervasio to the Code.Enforcement Board until March, 1988, replacing Robert Knight asthe labor representative. 93 FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/87: TO: County Commissioners ®ATE: March 4, 1987 FILE SUBJECT: Recommendations of the Florida Fire Chiefs' Assn. to the Legislature FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert REFERENCES: Commissioner As a Board, we may need to consider the effect of these recommendations, especially page 6 - #600.1 and 600.2, on the County, and make appropriate recommendations to the Legislature. Commissioner Eggert felt that we should inform the Legislature that we oppose Items 600.1 and 600.2 under Emergency Medical Services. Item 600.1 deals with separating the trust funds more broadly across the different agencies within the county rather than coming in and being carefully disbursed. With regard to Item 600.2, she felt that.we should have as much control as possible over the issuance of certificates of public conveyance and necessity. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that it is unclear in 600.2 if the County would have a veto power in the case where a municipality wished to certify a particular service that the County felt was inadequate. Commissioner Bird wondered if we should wait to see what legislation is introduced so that we know how to respond against it, but Commissioner Eggert felt we should respond now, so that the Legislature is aware ahead of time that there is opposition to some of these recommendations. 94 BOOK P�. r. U-0 6 �y BOOK Administrator Balczun questioned whether we should support Item 200.2 which opposes legislation removing certain positions within a department from high risk pension benefits. He emphasized that sometimes approval of seemingly innocuous items has greater impact than anticipated. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board instructed the County Attorney and County Administrator to review all these items carefully to see if there are any other items besides 600.1 and 600.2 that might have adverse effect on the County and bring them back to the Board. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A.M. ATTEST; Clerk 95 Chairman