HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/1987Tuesday, April 21, 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 Tujesday,
April 21, 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; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Dr. Stan Sanford, First Baptist Church, Wabasso, gave the
invocation, and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of an emergency
item under Utilities relating to Bent Pine lodging an appeal with
the DER re our effluent disposal method for the Gifford Sewer
plant expansion project.
Chairman Scurlock advised that under his items, he will
report on the Medical Examiner's Commission meeting as well as
give an update on North Beach Water Company.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to add an item in regard to a
replat of Shorelands Subdivision. This was requested by Carter &
Associates who apparently had to make some minor changes in lot
lines on an approved plat to make provision for utility access.
It was recently approved with the minor changes, and this is
simply so they can close on a piece of property that has been
held up due to getting this error straightened out.
it
BOOP( Ub f'k�U � 1_C)
APR 2 1.1997
BOOK 68 PAGE x.16
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the above described items to the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 24,
1987. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 24, 1987, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert and Chairman Scurlock both wished to
have Item I removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A.- B. - C. and D. - Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in
the Office of Clerk to the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of
March, 1987 - $52,871.15
Month to Date Report by Last Name - Month of March, 1987.
Report of Convictions, Month of March, 1987.
Florida Inland Navigational District:
Audit Report for FY ending September 30, 1986
Annual Financial Report of Units of Local Gov't. 1986
Statement of Conditions, September 30, 1986.
E. Proclamation - Volunteer Week
2
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, each year, many citizens of our community
and county volunteer countless hours of service in
order to help others; and
WHEREAS, these VOLUNTEERS work to build strong
community organizations, promote issues in the public
interest, and help their fellow citizens in need; and
WHEREAS, VOLUNTEERS come from every age group from
youth to senior citizens and from all walks of life;
VOLUNTEERS give assistance in countless ways and a
multitude of avocations; and
WHEREAS, volunteering plays a vital role in any
community, with neighbors showing their concern for one
another - both friends and strangers alike; and
WHEREAS, those VOLUNTEERS who give so unselfishly
of their time and themselves to improve the quality of
life for all deserve special recognition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that the week of April 26th through May 2nd, 19871 be
observed as
VOLUNTEER WEEK
in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board invites
all citizens to honor and emulate the fine individuals
who help their communities by opening up their hearts.
Adopted this 21st day of April, 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
/-, -4
BY
Don C. Scurlock, Jrj /
Chairman V
�
APP 2 1987
3 BOOK 68 mat 117
APR 21 M7 BOOP( b8 PAGE�.�
F. Authorization to Advertise Amendment to Transient Merchant
OF nance '
The Board reviewed memo of Planning Director Keating:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 10, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION
SUBJECT: TO ADVERTISE FOR AMEND-
MENT TO THE TRANSIENT
MERCHANT ORDINANCE
Robert M. Keating, AICP 010 TM ORD. MEMO.
FROM: Planning and Development REFERENCES: DISK. MISC1
Director
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of April 21, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
At the meeting of March 10, 1987, the Board of County Com-
missioners approved the proposed transient merchant ordinance.
This ordinance restricted temporary uses to seasonal sales and
agricultural sales. It effectively excludes all other temporary
uses.
In approving that ordinance, the Board directed the staff to
address the issue of temporary automobile sales events. That
use had become an issue several weeks earlier when such an
event was held contrary to County regulations. Subsequently,
the question arose as to whether such events could be allowed
as temporary or transient uses.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
On April 9, 1987, the staff had a workshop meeting with local
automobile dealers. At that time, a number of issues were
discussed, and both the staff and car dealers presented their
positions.
Based upon the results of that workshop meeting, the staff
agreed to draft a proposed amendment to the transient merchant
ordinance. While several legal and site plan issues need to be
researched further, the staff feels that the special sales
events issue should be addressed by the Board to set policy.
To readdress this issue, the staff must do additional research,
draft proposed ordinance revisions, and advertise and hold
public hearings before both the Planning & Zoning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners. To initiate this
activity, the staff needs authorization from the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
The.staff
for public
ordinance.
recommends that.the Board authorize staff to advertise
hearings to consider amending the transient merchant
4
r � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise a public hearing to consider amend-
ing the transient merchant ordinance.
G. Consultant
BeacF Noor i sh
greement w/Coastal Tech - DNR Fundi
nt Proiect
Iication
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: April 14, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement
Beach Nourishment Project - DNR
State Funding Application -
James W. Davis, P.E. Letter: Agreement
FROM: public Works Director REFERENCES: Coastal Tech Corp, and
Indian River County
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County commissioners during the regular April 7, 1987
meeting authorized the staff to prepare and negotiate an agreement with
a consulting firm for the preparation of a Florida D.N.R. Erosion
Control Program Grant Application for the Beach Nourishment project.
Staff has met with Mike Walther, Coastal Tech, and negotiated the
attached agreement.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the agreement and authorization for
the Chairman to execute the agreement. Funding in the amount of
$1,800.00 to be as follows: Transfer from 102-199-581-099.91 (Federal
Revenue Sharing Contingencies) to Fund 102-210-515-33.19.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
agreement with Coastal Technology Corporation for
engineering services relative to application to the
DNR for Erosion Control Program Funds.
5
BOOK PAGE is
APR, 2-11987
APR 21 1987 BOOK 68 FAGUE 190®
COAS'T'AL, TECH COASTAL, STRUCTURAL. CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 800 20TH PL., SUITE 6. VERO BEACH. FL 32960 (305) 562.8580
5010
April 9, 1987
Mr. James Davis
Public Works Director
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATIVE TO APPLICATION
FOR STATE EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM FUNDS
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is to submit a proposed agreement for Engineering Services
relative to application for State Department of Natural Resources
Erosion Control Program Funds for the Beach Restoration Project
proposed to include a portion of the City of Vero Beach and the
County's "Tracking Station Park". Per our discussions, the
following are proposed terms of agreement for services to be
provided by Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) for
Indian River County (County):
In general, Coastal Tech will prepare a completed "Application
for Funds Under Provisions of Chapter 161.091, Florida Statutes"
for Erosion Control Program for fiscal years 1988/89. Based on
the Beach Restoration Project designed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Tech will prepare a formal applicaticn
including; a narrative description of the project and project
need, projected costs, the design life of the proposed project
and maintenance costs.
With the application Coastal Tech will compile; a) detailed plans
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (or sketches of the
proposed construction prepared by Coastal Tech); b) a Resolution
passed by. the County Commission (Coastal Tech will draft a
rets,o ution); c) location map identifying County owned beachfront
properties ar.d, d) aerials illustrating public access locations
with "cross walks", parking and other upland improvements noted.
Coastal Tech will modify existing drawings prepared by the City of
Vero Beach to meet the Requirements of items "c" and "d" above.
Coastal Tech will make informal contact with the Department of
Natural Resources to expedite the review of these applications and
to provide any additional information that may be required to
evaluate the request for Erosion Control Trust Funds for Indian
River County.
Engineering fees for this work are estimated at ..........$ 1800.
We propose to perform these services at our attached Hourly Rate
Schedule. We expect that a draft Resolution (for consideration by
the County Commission) may be prepared within one week of your
authorization to proceed with this work. We expect a completed
application may be prepared within two weeks of your authorization
to proceed. If you wish us to proceed with this work, please sign
below and return a signed copy to us which will serve' as our
authorization and notice to proceed.
6
We look forward to the opportunity to work with Indian River
County in providing these services and towards preserving and
enhancing the beaches within our County. If you have any
questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
Michael P. Walther, P.E.
President
i
SIGNED: DATE: - 2.
James Davis
SIGNED: c. DATE:
Don C. Scurl d Jr., WPM
Board of County Commis ' ners
RATE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 12, 1984
TITLE
Chief Engineer $ 65.00
Project Engineer $ 45.00
Office Engineer $ 35.00
Engineer Technician $ 25.00
Draftsperson $ 25.00
Clerical $ 15.00
2 -Man Crew $ 55.00
3 -Man Crew $ 65.00
EQUIPMENT
Computer $ 30.00
Word Processor (with operator) $ 30.00
PRINTING CHARGES - per sheet
Blueprints (sizes up to and including 24 X 36) $ 2.00
Mylars (not available except as required by governments) $ 10.00
Xerox copies
DIRECT EXPENSES
Shipping charges
Telephone calls
Film/Processing
Miscellaneous Supplies 7
APR 2 11987 BOCK
$ .10
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
�l1
PAGE ���
H. Williamson, Inc., - Reservation U.S.1 Road R/W
BOOK 68 PAGE
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Nearing:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 7, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. KeirF
ng,.,, CP SUBJECT: WILLIAMSON, INC.'S RESER-
Community Dev lopment Division VATION OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1
Director ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
9'6_CTHROUGH: Stan Boling 19'6-
Chief,
hief, Current Development
FROM: + David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Williamson, Inc.
Staff Planner �-�,/� DAVE3
It is requested that data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 21, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On February 25, 1987, Williamson, Inc., owner of Vero Beach
Lincoln Mercury was granted minor site plan approval to construct
an addition to the existing automobile dealership. The dealership
is located at 1066 U.S. 1.
As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant agreed to the
requi&ent that prior to the release of the site plan, he would
reserve the west 10 feet of the site's frontage on U.S. 1 for the
future dedication of road right-of-way. Pursuant to Ordinance
#86-63, adopted by the Board in August of 1986, the applicant was
offered the. option, during site plan review, to either dedicate
the additional right-of-way or reserve it for future dedication.
Ordinance #86-63 amended the site plan requirements to allow
applicants requesting minor site plan approval to reserve portions
of their property for future road right-of-way in lieu of
dedication. Reservation of the property will assure that it will
be available in the future for additional right-of-way at such
time as the County, or the FDOT, may require it for expansion or
road improvements. The attached reservation document (Attachment
#3) precludes the applicant or his successors from constructing
additional permanent site improvements such as paved parking or
stormwater management tracts within that area reserved for future
right-of-way. The applicant may, however, utilize the reserved
area for temporary non -required improvements and for any existing
improvements within it until such time as dedication is necessary.
ANALYSIS:
Per Section 23.3(D) (1) (a) of the site plan review standards,
Relationship to the Transportation System, the applicant has
submitted an executed "Reservation of Road Right -of -Way" document
for approval by the County. This document:
1. specifies the portion of the site to be reserved for
future road right-of-way,
2. requires.the sale of said property to the County at such
time as it is deemed necessary for roadway improvements,
and
8
3. specifies that no new improvements, which
to serve the principal use or will increase
the reservation area will be installed in
vation area.
are required
the value of
the reser-
Upon the approval of the reservation agreement; by the Board of
County, Commissioners, the condition requiring the. reservation of
right-of-way per Section 2.3.3(D) (1) (c) will be satisfied, and the
applicant will be able to .receive. his building 'permit once. all
other.conditions of site plan approval have been met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners accept the attached "Reservation of Road
Right -of -Way" (Attachment #3), and authorize the chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to affix his signature thereto.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Reservation of Road R/W Agreement with Williamson,
Inc., doing business as Dorwill Corp.
RESERVATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of 1987, by and between Indian RTv r
County, a po iticaT subdivision of the State of Florida, and
Williamson Inc., doing business as Dorwill Corp., a Delaware
corporation, its successors, and assigns;
WHEREAS, Williamson Inc., doing business as
Dorwill Corp., is the owner of .certain property within
Indian River County located on land more particularly
described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated
herein; and
WHEREAS, Williamson Inc., doing business as
Dorwiil Corp., wishes to further develop said property in
accordance with a site plan requiring Indian River County
approval; and
WHEREAS, as part of the site plan approval, Indian
River County desires certain assurances regarding the
reservation of a portion of the aforementioned property,
more particularly described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto
and incorporated herein, for future right-of-way purposes;
and
WHEREAS, Williamson Inc., doing business as
Dorwill Corp., recognizes that the County will acquire said
property as described in Exhibit "B" when such acquisition
becomes necessary for roadway expansion or improvements
incidental to roadway expansion; and
WHEREAS, Williamson Inc., doing business as
Dorwill Corp., desiring that this Reservation of
Right -Of -Way resolve certain questions pertaining to said
property, is willing to cooperate in obtaining, site plan
approval by committing to the covenants, conditions, and
terms further described herein;
9
I APR 21 1r"J8
BOOK 68 PAGE 1
BOOK6 F'AGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of issuance of
site plan approval by Indian River County, as an express
condition of such approval, and in an effort to accomplish
the above -stated objectives, Williamson Inc., doing business
as Dorwill Corp., expressly represents and agrees on behalf
of itself, its successors, its legal representatives and
assigns, as follows:
1. Williamson Inc., doing business as Dorwill
Corp., will not construct or cause to be constructed, built
or placed upon the reserved parcel of land described herein,
any improvement which would increase the value of said
parcel or of the remaining property described in Exhibit "A"
herein or any site -related improvement which is required by
law to serve the principle use on the property. All future
structures §hall be set back from the reserved parcel in
conforliiah6@ With setbacks established in the zoning code as
if thb F@§@FV@d Pei'e61 were part of the right-of-way.
2: Williamson inc., doing business as Dorwill
Corp..; a@kh@Wledges and agrees with Indian River County that
the purpose of this Agreement is to prevent improvements or
encroachments into the property reserved for future
*/ aaagnaph ( AAall not paevent GULIl LamAon Inc., d6a 1)oltwL11
Co. - f aom nepl acLn2 the prteient fl odRie pol eA wLtA new l LteA
and pol e'l. 1
right-of-way, and Williamson Inc., doing business as Dorwill
Corp., further agrees to forego and waive any and all
damages or compensation for the value of any intentional or
incidental improvements which are made to the reserved
property, except normal appreciation.
3. Indian River County recognizes that Williamson
Inc., doing business as Dorwill Corp., may continue to make
such use of the reserved property as will not cause an
increase in the value of the reserved property or of the
remaining site, until such time as the County acquires the
reserved property for right-of-way improvements.
4. Both parties agree
business as Dorwill Corp. does
have to compensation for the
improvements currently thereon,
determined according to law at
the County.
that Williamson Inc., doing
not waive any right it may
reserved property and any
the value thereof to be
the date of acquisition by
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer has caused this
Agreement to be executed this _� C) day of 0'4� 1987
by the below authorized representatives. --
( r�a e Seal)
i
10
WILLIAMSON INC.
doing business as Dorwill
Corp.
r•' 01
By
—
Press a—�.nt
ATTEST: ,
r --- 4R!7
ecrtar.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By_G
on cur ock,
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
Boundary and topography established on the west 1/2 of Lot 3, of
Vero Land Company Subdivision, according to plat filed in the
office of clerk of circuit court of St. Lucie County, Florida,
plat book 3, page 19; said land now lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida; less and except the following: "From the
NE corner of the NE 1/4 of section 12-33-39, run west a distance
of 663.80' to a point, said point being in the centerline of 10th
Street; thence run a deflection angle to the right of 90010' a
distance of 494.93' to the point of beginning; thence run a
deflection angle of 90013' to the left a distance of 124.00';
thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°±3' run a distance
of 155.41' to a point, said point, said point being 12.0' south of
the north line of Lot 3 of the Vero Land Company Subdivision;
thence run easterly parallel to the north line of said Lot 3 a
distance of 123.85' to a point; thence run south 155.68' to the
point of beginning;" less and except the rights-of-w�y for S.R. :;:k)6
(U.S. #1) .
EXHIBIT "B"
The westerly 10 feet, measured normal to the right-of-way line of
U.S. 1, of the following described property:
Boundary and topography established on the west 1/2 of Lot 3, of
Vero Land Company Subdivision, according to plat filed in the
office of clerk of circuit court of St. Lucie County, Florida,
plat book 3, page 19; said land now lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida; less and except the following: "From the
NE corner of the NE 1/4 of section 12-33-39, run west a distance
of 663.80' to a point, said point being in the centerline of 10th
Street; thence run a deflection angle to the right of 90010' a
distance of 494.93' to the point of beginning; thence .run a
deflection angle of 90113' to the left a distance of 124.001;
thence on a deflection angle to the right of 90°±3' run a distance
of 155.41' to a point, said point, said point being 12.0' south of
the north line of Lot 3 of the Vero Land Company Subdivision;
thence run easterly parallel to the north line of said Lot 3 a
distance of 123.85' to a point; thence run south 155.68' to the
point of beginning;" less and except the rights-of-way for S.R. #5
(U.S. #1) .
Bou I68 PAGE
APR 2 119-87
I
APP 2 11987
I. Request to Establish_ Citizen Advisory Committee for Comp. Plan
Development
The Board reviewed memo of Planning Director Keating:
TO: The Honorable Members of thepATE: April 13, 1987 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
FROM: Robert M Keating, AICA"k
FERENCES: comp Plan
Planning & Development Director IBMIRD
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 21, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In 1985, the Florida Legislature enacted the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act
(LGCPLDRA). During the 1986 legislative session, that legislation
was modified to some extent through passage of a Glitch Bill.
Subsequently, the Department of Community Affairs developed
specific administrative rules further clarifying the Act.
As a result of the LGCPLDRA and the implementing agency rules,
Indian River County must prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan
meeting the state's requirements as outlined in rule. 9J-5. To
comply with this mandate by the submission date of August, 1989,
the County will have to spend a considerable amount of staff time
and effort. At this time, work is already underway on the plan.
Working through a Department of Community Affairs Planning Assis-
tance Grant, the staff is collecting data and preparing inven-
tories as the first step in the planning process.
While this data gathering activity will continue at least through
September of 1987, other aspects of the planning program will be
undertaken concurrently. These will include preparation of staff
analyses, development of issue papers, and compilation of back-
ground reports. During this period, it will also be necessary to
initiate citizen participation activities.
State regulations mandate public participation during the plan
preparation process. While rule 9J-5 specifies that certain
requirements relating to notice, public meetings, availability of
documents and other similar matters be met, state regulations are
not specific as to how public participation should be accom-
plished. For that reason, the Planning and Zoning Commission
[designated by ordinance as the local planning agency (LPA)] with
the concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners has the
ability to structure an acceptable public participation process
for comprehensive pian preparation. Even though Indian River
county's August, 1989 comprehensive plan submittal deadline
appears far off, the plan preparation process will take consider-
able time, and it is necessary to develop an adequate public
participation process at this time.
12
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
There are a number of alternatives available for structuring a
public participation process. Basically, public participation can
involve workshops, public meetings, public hearings, committee or
subcommittee meetings, charettes, community surveys, and other
mechanisms. In fact, a successful public. participation process
will probably involve a combination of some, if not all, of these
activities.
most important, however, is identifying the primary public par-
ticipation entity. It is necessary that some committee, agency,
commission, or group be designated as the prime public participa-
tion entity. In its capacity, the designated group would work
with the staff to secure adequate community input during the
comprehensive plan preparation process.
Several major options exist for establishing a public partici-
pation entity. First, the LPA (the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion) can also function as the County's comprehensive plan citizen
advisory committee. Under this alternative, the P&Z would be
responsible for conducting meetings and obtaining publi input for
each of the eleven required comp plan elements. The disadvantages
of this option are the time demands on the P&Z members and the
limitation on the number of residents who would be on the advisory
committee.
A second alternative would be to appoint a separate citizens
advisory committee which would be responsible for as fisting the
staff in plan preparation and in obtaining public Nput. With
this scenario, the CAC would still make recommendations to the
Planning & Zoning Commission which would still be responsible for
making final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
The citizens advisory committee could be structured in one of
several ways. The CAC could be a separate group of individuals
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners; alternatively, the
CAC could be formed with the P&Z as its nucleus and other inter-
ested persons appointed to serve. By having a relatively large
CAC with the P&Z as its nucleus, subcommittees could be formed to
work with the staff on each element, and one P&Z member could be
appointed to each subcommittee; this method disperses work and
time demands, maintains liaison between the P&Z and the advisory
subcommittees, and allows broad representation from a wide variety
of interests.
Supplementing either alternative should be a technical advisory
committee. Composed of planners (or representatives) from other
jurisdictions and various other technical -type persons, the TAC
would provide assistance to the staff and, like the citizens
advisory committee, submit recommendations to the P&Z. Through
the TAC mechanism, the County can obtain input from the municipal-
ities within the County, adjacent counties, other governmental
entities, private sector technical interests, and various groups
with expertise in certain fields. Also included in the technical
advisory process should be the various standing committees (e.g.
Parks & Recreation, Beach Preservation, and Finance Advisory)
related to required comprehensive plan elements.
An important aspect of a Citizens Advisory Committee is that it be
representative of the community. For that reason the CAC should
include representatives from all geographic parts of the County as
well as representatives from a variety of occupations, profes-
sions, special interest groups, and community organizations. On
March 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unani-
mously, 7-0, to recommend that the Board establish la citizens
advisory committee comprised of the seven Planning and Zoning
Commission members and twenty other concerned citizens.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners establish
13
APR 2 1 °937
BOOK
rAPR 2 Z M7
BOOK 68 PA JE 128
a comprehensive plan citizen advisory committee with the Planning
& zoning Commission comprising the core of the committee and the
remainder of the committee being composed of approximately twenty
County residents representing a cross-section of the County. it
is recommended that the Board direct the Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee to establish subcommittees and work with staff to develop a
specific public participation plan for comprehensive plan develop-
ment. Staff also recommends that the Board establish a technical
advisory committee to work with the staff on plan development.
Commissioner Eggert commented that if they must have a com-
mittee this large, she felt it must have a definite leader and
she would like John Tippin to chair it, if we are going to do
this at all. Her first choice, however, would be for the
Planning & Zoning Commission to cam/ this on just as was done
before through the whole Comp Plan hearings.
Commissioner Bowman stated that her first choice would be to
kick it off with an American assembly where you would get a big
turnout; then you could organize and see how this goes.
Chairman Scurlock was against forming any big committee.
Commissioner Eggert believed Alternative I is for the
Planning & Zoning Commission to handle this, and that is what she
felt we should go ahead with.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to approve Alternative I.
Planning Director Keating advised that the state rules
basically just state you have to come up with a public participa-
tion plan to be sure citizens have access to the process and have
the ability to give input. He believed this time there will be a
lot more focus on elements other than just Land Use, and the idea
was to take some of the burden off the Planning & Zoning
Commission by having a separate citizen's advisory committee that
included the Planning & Zoning Commission, and then you could
break it into sub -committees that could work on the individual
elements.
Commissioner Eggert felt you do not have continuity when
you have so many people and no central thrust.
14
Commissioner Wheeler expressed his belief that something of
this type may be needed as he felt times may have changed and
there is more interest and more awareness of what the Comprehen-
sive Plan does to the County as a whole than there was five or
six years ago.
Commissioner Eggert, Commissioner Bowman, and Chairman
Scurlock, all stated emphatically that there was extensive
participation by the public when the Comprehensive Plan was
created; in fact, the entire plan was gone through element by
element at public hearings which had such large attendance they
had to be held at the high school auditorium.
Commissioner Bird felt if you put 27 people on an advisory
committee, it will slow the whole process down, and Commissioner
Eggert believed that when there is a committee, the temptation is
to let the committee do it. She realized the department's
problem, but did not feel this is the answer.
Chairman Scurlock believed our professional staff prepares
the basic document, and he did not want a committee voting on how
we do this all the way through it because that is too cumbersome.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
J. Budget Amendment_- Library
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
15 BOOK
APR 2 1 19987
APR 2 11987
TO: Honorable Members of
the Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Josep -Baird
OMB Director
ACCOUNT NUMBER
001-112-571-011.12
001-112-571-011.13
001-112-571-011.14
001-112-571-012.11
001-112-571-012.12
001-112-571-012.13
001-112-571-012.14
001-112-571-034.42
001-109-571-035.45
EXPLANATION
BOOK 6 Fr�rC e
DATE: April 7, 1987
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT -
LIBRARY
ACCOUNT TITLE INCREASE
Regular Salary
Other Salaries & Wages
Overtime 300
Social Security Matching
Retirement Contribution
Insurance -Life & Health
Workman's Compensation 100
Rent - Buildings
Books
DECREASE
4,135
814
332
686
791
2,000
At budget hearings the Board of County Commissioners reduced
Indian River County Library's budget drastically leaving very little
money for books. The above budget amendment transfers funds from
Sebastian Library to the Indian River County Library -to purchase books.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment transferring library funds.
K._R/W Acquisition N. Gifford Road at 43rd Ave_
The Board reviewed memo of R/W Agent Don Finney:
16
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: Ap r i 1 7, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Acquisition
North Gifford Road at 43rd
James W. Davis, P.E. Avenue, Parcel #100
Public Works Director
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA REFERENCES:
Right-of-Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County requires a 10 feet x 900.5' additional road right-of-way
along the north side of North Gifford Road. The property owner, Bryant
Carter, has stated he will sell the right-of-way property for $10,000.
The appraised value of the additional right-of-way parcel- is
$4,953.00 (which equates to $.55 per square footj.
The county previously purchased right-of-way for !143rd Avenue from
Mr. Carter at $.52 per square foot in 1986.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff requests authorization to condemn the parcel so as not to
delay the road construction and relocation of FP & L utility poles.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with condemnation of the above parcel.
L. Designee to Act on Board's Behalf in Executing Reservation of
Road R -M PAgreement s
--------------- -----------------------
The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney
Barkett:
17 BOOK I 6 8 F'A-UE jP3-
APR 11)07
r-
APR 21 ilu7
BOOK 68
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members of April 14, 1987
the Board of County Commissioners
APPOINTMENT OF A DESIGNEE
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO ACT ON
• SUBJECT: THEIR BEHALF IN EXECUTING
RESERVATION OF ROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
DEVELOPERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED
PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY
FROM: REFERENCES:
Bruce Barkett board row
Assistant Count Attorney DAVE
It is requested that data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 21, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On August 20, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance #86-63 which amended Section 23.1 "Site Plan Review and
Approval Procedures" and Section 23.3 "Site Plan Review
Standards", of Appendix A of The Code of Laws and Ordinances,
known as the Zoning Code. That portion of the Ordinance which
amended Section 23.3 permits applicants for minor site plans who
are proposing developments along streets and roads lacking
sufficient right-of-way as required in Sec. 23.3(D), Relationship
to Transportation System, to make arrangements for the provision
of their share of the deficient right-of-way through reservation
of the needed right-of-way in lieu of dedication.
In reserving the right-of-way the owner of the property involved in
the s i to p I an agrees to se 1 I the reserved port i on of the s i to to
the County at such time as the additional right-of-way becomes
necessary for roadway improvements or widening. The owner further
agrees not to place within the reserved portion of the site any
improvements which would add additional value to the property, or
which -are required for the principal use of the site. Such uses
might include parking and drainage facilities. The owner may
continue to utilize and maintain any existing site related
improvements located in the reserved area at the time it is
reserved.
ANALYSIS:
The reservation of right-of-way is a bindingagreement between the
Developer and the county which requires that the agreement must be
accepted by the County and acknowledged by the signature of an
official representative of the County prior to the recording of
the.document.
Up to this time the acknowledgement was sought from the Board of
County Commissioners. Because most applicants are hesitant to
reserve right-of-way prior to site plan approval, and the time
involved in arranging for the agreement to be reviewed by the
Board, a considerable delay between the time the site plan is
approved and actual construction may commence can be lengthened by
as much as two weeks to a month, or more.
It would be possible to accelerate the acceptance of road
reservations by the County through the appointment by the Board of
a Designee authorized to enter into reservation agreements on
behalf of the County. Two possible designees would .be the County
Administrator or the Community Development Division Director.
The County Administrator would probably wish to discuss particular
cases with the Community Development Division Director.
18
Because the Community Development Division Director directly
oversees the Planning Staff who review site plans, he would be
knowledgeable of each case, and immediately available for a swift
turnaround on acceptance of reservation agreements. Such
agreements are currently overseen and coordinated by his staff,
therefore such designation would be viewed as a logical extension
of his current duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners instruct
the Chairman to affix his signature to the attached resolution
designating the Community Development Division Director as
official representative of the County, and empowering the Director
to enter into reservation of road right-of-way agreements with
owners of property involved in minor site plans.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 87-39 designating the Community Develop-
ment Division Director an official representative
of the county and empowering him to enter into
Reservation of Road R/W Agreements with owners of
property involved in minor site plans.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR AS AN OFFICIAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENABLED TO ENTER
INTO AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR THE
RESERVATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has adopted Ordinance #86-63 which amended Section 23.3
"Site Plan Review Standards", of Appendix "A" of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances, known as the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,, Ordinance #86-63 permits owners of land involved in
minor site plans which lie on County streets and roads lacking
sufficient right-of-way as required in the Indian River County
Thoroughfare Plan, to place their share of deficient right-of-way
in reserve for future acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined
that it would be beneficial to expedite the acceptance process for
APS 2`�. fro
L
19
BOOK 68 FA.E X33
BOOK68F9,I-)
reservation of road right-of-way agreements by designating the
Director of the Community Development Division as an authorized
representative of Indian River County for accepting and executing
said agreements on behalf of Indian River County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in their
entirety.
2. The Director of the Community Development Division is
designated an official of Indian River County empowered to accept
and execute reservation of road right-of-way agreements on behalf
of Indian River County between the owners of land involved in
minor site plan projects and Indian River County, for the purpose
of reserving right-of-way for future acquisition.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert
Commissioner Gary Wheeler
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman there upon declared Resolution No. 87- 39
adopted and duly passed this 21st day of
April
, 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY L
DON C. SCURLLOCCK, JR. IRMAN
ATTEST: fit/
FREDA WRIGHT CLE
20
HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RE PHASE If VICTORY PARK
It was noted that the Housing Authority has found itself in
a "Catch 22" situation in that the anticipated funding for Phase
II of Victory Park is hinging on the completion of Phase 1, which
will not be completed until after the date the DCA is saying
their mortgage must be paid, and they have asked the County for
assistance in meeting the $83,000 payment. Action on this was
tabled from previous meetings while Commissioner Wheeler did
research to become better informed on the history of the Housing
Authority and its finances.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that what he can live with is
the County outright purchasing the property offered as security
and giving the Housing Authority a two-year option to purchase
the property back at market value in two years or establish a set
interest rate somewhere above prime and they would have the two
year option to exercise whichever one we choose, and after two
years, if they haven't exercised the option, then we could market
the property.
Commissioner Eggert had a problem with market value. She
did believe we should take over the property for the money they
are asking ($83,000), give them a loan with an equitable interest
rate, and they will be able to get the property back for the loan
plus the interest within two years. She was hesitant about what
the market value of the land might be two years from now and
would like to see us at least get our money back plus interest.
Attorney Collins, representing the Housing Authority,
confirmed that they can live that. He noted the $83,000 may be
plus or minus a few dollars depending on the estoppel letter from
the DCA. Actually the market value right now is $110,000. As
far as interest is concerned, he believed prime plus 1% is
probably a commercial rate and something they can live with.
Commissioner Eggert believed her Motion at the earlier
meeting was to take the property over for the $83,000 at prime
plus 1% for two years, and she would be glad to repeat it.
21
APR .1; 'i1j" BUUr b� f'AGE 1 5
APR 2 11987
BOOK
68 FACE -136
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED
by Commis-
sioner Bowman, to take the property over from the Housing
Authority for $83,000 (or estoppel amount set by DCA) at 1% above
prime for two years, contingent on the county securing the land
with free and clear title.
Administrator Balczun wished to suggest that t -he interest
rate be prime plus 2%. He noted banks charge prime plus 1% only
to their most creditworthy customers.
OMB Director Baird noted that petition paving is at 120.
Chairman Scurlock believed the private sector should be
doing this in the first place, and we never should have been
involved in it.
Administrator Balczun noted that another consideration is
that in the transition from purchasing medical insurance to a
self-insurance trust fund, it appears the Housing Authority
employees were retained as risks on our self-insurance trust.
Staff is prepared to recommend that Housing Authority personnel
be insured by the Housing Authority in the marketplace for that
type insurance.
Chairman Scurlock explained that this personnel is a unique
breed because we are using part of the Housing Authority staff to
administer other programs, i.e., Section 8 Rental Assistance
which is a county function.
Attorney Collins felt the topic of insurance is worth
discussion, but he would like to have it reviewed administra-
tively first and then come back to the Board.
Discussion continued as to whether the Motion would be
changed to make the interest rate prime plus 20, and Commissioner
Wheeler stated that he would be happier with 2%.
Commissioner Eggert agreed to change her Motion to state
prime plus 2%, as did Commissioner Bowman.
Attorney Collins asked that there be a provision that the
interest not exceed 100, and Administrator Balczun believed he
22
was talking about an adjustable rate loan triggered by the prime
interest rate.
In the following discussion, it was noted that it will be
necessary to pick either a specific bank to set the rate or the
Wall Street Journal, and Commissioners Eggert and Bowman agreed
the Motion would call for prime plus 2% adjustable by the Wall
Street Journal.
OMB Director Baird informed the Board that he will have to
transfer funds from Board Contingency at this time to purchase
the property; so, it will need to be added to the Motion that the
funds be transferred from General Fund Contingency.
Commissioners Eggert and Bowman agreed to the above
addition, and the Motion was reworded as follows:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to take over the property from
the Housing Authority for $83,000 (or estoppel amount
set by the DCA) at 2% above prime for two years;
contingent on the county securing the land with free
and secure title; prime to be determined from the Wall
Street Journal; and the necessary funds to be trans-
ferred from General Fund Contingency.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there is no private institution
that will handle this loan, and Attorney Collins stated that he
will go out into the market again, but first needed to be assured
of the Commission's support. He did not believe they can get a
competitive loan in the open market.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that philosophically he is
opposed to this, but he will support the Motion because hopefully
this will put the Housing Authority in a position in the next two
years where they will be self-sufficient, and the county will no
longer be supplying funds for their administrative costs to the
tune of $70-80,000 per year.
23 BOOK P"E13 7
ALAR 2 11937
APR 2 11987 Boa 68 138
Chairman Scurlock pointed out those figures are related not
just to Housing Authority administration, but also to the
administration of some programs which are county functions, and
unless we make a decision to say to the Housing Authority that we
no longer wish them to administer these programs and we are going
to assign this to our own staff, we always are going to be
co -mingling monies.
OMB Director Baird agreed that the employees show up in both
funds.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he understands that. He
believed these need to be separated so we can understand what the
costs are and pay our share, and possibly, we should readdress
who is doing what. He is simply saying that from everything he
could find out from the FHA, DCA, the Housing Authority, and what
has been said here, this allows them the opportunity to become
self-sufficient as far as their administration costs go.
Chairman Scurlock asked Commissioner Wheeler if he had seen
any budget items to actually demonstrate that with'100 units they
will be self-supporting, and he stated he had not.
Administrator Balczun wished it to be made clear to
everyone that the figure set in the Motion is the maximum value
of the County's participation in this, and it does not include
any closing costs or any other costs related to the loan.
Commissioner Eggert confirmed that the numbers in her Motion
do not include any closing costs, etc.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4-1 with Chairman
Scurlock voting in opposition.
PRESENTATION ON EXISTING SCRUB COMMUNITIES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Ray Fernald of the Florida Game and Fish Division advised
the Board that he is now part of the non -game program of this
division, and his project for the last year or so has been
24
inventorying the scrub habitats in the four -county area. The
initial intent of the project was to develop guidelines on how to
go into a scrub community and permit development and still retain
as much of the natural community as possible; however, the more
he got into this project, the more it became obvious that you
can't do both - you either preserve the scrub habitat or develop
it. There are certain minimums involved and you can't just set
aside 15 acres or so and preserve it.
Commissioner Eggert requested that scrub community be de-
fined.
Mr. Fernald explained that basically we are talking about
sand pine scrub and its associated communities. The sand pine is
a very short -needled pine growing primarily along the Atlantic
coastal ridge, and it is kind of the pinnacle of the community.
There is a scrubby oak flat woods that is essentially I treeless
scrub; it has very much the same vegetation but does not have the
sand pine canopy. There is also a scrub pine flat woods with
slash pine in the canopy. The scrub communities are differenti-
ated from flat woods by the nature of the scrub layer and the
ground cover. Flat woods have an understory dominated by grasses
and palmettos whereas scrubs have lower layers dominated by
prickly pear, etc., with very little grass cover.
Mr. Fernald advised that Indian River County has scrub
communities in three primary regions - along the Atlantic coastal
ridge parallel to Old Dixie and the FEC Railroad; along both
shorelines of the Sebastian River; and along the Ten Mile Ridge
which basically parallels 1-95 and the FP&L corridor. All three
areas are being impacted severely by development and encroaching
development.
Chairman Scurlock believed Ten Mile Ridge is where we are
looking at acquiring some land for effluent disposal, and
possibly we can work out a positive relationship from the utility
standpoint since the ridge is very good for effluent disposal
because of the perc rate.
Pr R 24 1987 25 BOOK 6 8 Ft E 1,39
APR 2 11987
BOOK 68 FACE 140
Mr. Fernald advised that some of this type land is used in
St. Lucie County for effluent disposal, but he cannot report
conclusively on how this is working out. The scrub still has
some flora, but the soil is much wetter; it is definitely
changing the entire community, but he did not know how
dramatically.
Mr. Fernald informed the Board that an additional problem is
that scrub must burn every so many years to remain a scrub
community; so, in order to preserve this community, it has to be
prLserved in chunks. He would recommend an.absolute minimum of
50 acres, and 100 acres would be greatly preferable. The
characteristic animals in these communities (the Florida scrub
lizard, the gopher tortoise, gopher frog, etc.) require open
sandy areas, and if you had 100 acres, you would be burning 20-30
acres every 10-15 years or so. This is handled naturally by
lightning strikes, and the scrub community actually will not burn
in its early stages. Mr. Fernald stressed that this community is
unique to Florida.
Chairman Scurlock inquired why this wouldn't be put on an
endangered list, and Mr. Fernald advised there is a state list of
endangered species, but no state list of legally endangered
communities. He further noted that the Florida endangered plant
list does not prevent destruction by the private owner. Mr.
Fernald explained that his project is simply to inform the county
of the scrub communities it has, and then it is up to the Board
to reach a decision as to what to do about them..
Chairman Scurlock felt the most optimistic approach we have
is through utilities as the sandy soils are the best site for
that purpose, and we must find a plan with some dollars attached.
Commissioner Bowman believed the worst case scenario in this
regard is Palm Beach County, and Mr. Fernald confirmed that.Palm
Beach County has completely destroyed over 980 of their scrub.
Palm Beach County, however, has conceptually approved a
wilderness island program, and scrub habitats are the first
26
communities being looked at for acquisition under that program.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Fernald will be working with
our planners, and he confirmed that he will. He further advised
that he will be taking his maps to Tallahassee tomorrow and then
will come back and talk to each County Planning Department.
Patricia Brown, representative of Pelican Island Audubon
Society, wished to express their support of the ideas and
concepts presented by Mr. Fernald. She informed the Board that
the Audubon Society is in the starting stages steps of a
wilderness island program similar to the one described in Palm
Beach County and hoped the Board will be receptive to Mr.
Fernald's ideas.
PROPOSED PARKING LOT AGREEMENT WITH FIRST BAPTIST_CHURH
Administrator Balczun advised that he had been prepared to
discuss the proposed agreement with First Baptist Church as to
use of their parking lot rather intensively, but Public Works
Director Davis suggested some more technical work be done first.
The Administrator, therefore, requested this matter be tabled
until another meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
discussion of the proposed agreement until a
later meeting.
REPLAT OF SHORELANDS WEST SUBDV.
The Board reviewed memo of Chief Planner Boling:
27
Boca 68 ,E 141
Boa 68 F IJE1402
TCroHonorable Commissioner DAIM April 20, 1987
Gary Wheeler
,SUBJECT.- REPLAT OF SHOREL
WEST SUBDIVISION
FG.%J: Stan Boling 10' 4 REFERENCES:
Chief, Current Development
Staff has received blueprint copies of the replat of Shorelands
West subdivision. The replat represents minor changes to the
original plat which was recently approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and recorded. The changes include some minor lot
line adjustments and increased provisions for utilities access.
There are some revisions needed to the replat to meet County final
plat standards. Also, since the original plat was approved by
"bonding -out", the construction contract and letter of credit that
guaranteed the provision of subdivision improvements for the
original plat needs to be tied -to this replat.
Since this is a unique situation (recently approved project with
minor re -platting changes), approval could be given with the
following conditions:
1) That the applicant submit a re -plat that.meets all final
plat standards and is approved by staff; and
2) That the contract for construction of required
improvements and corresponding security accepted for the
approval of the original Shorelands West plat be
attached to approval of the replat. The Chairman of the
B.C.C. is authorized to sign any documents to effect
this attachment of the construction contract and
security.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the replat of Shorelands West Subdivision with
the conditions set out in the above memo.
12TH STREET 8 6TH AVENUE INTERSECTION UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Director Pinto reviewed the following recommendation:
28
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORCICES
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTDIRECTOR OF UTI TY
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE
ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: 12TH STREET AND 6TH AVENUE
INTERSECTION UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND
DATE: APRIL 20, 1987
As you know the Division of Utility Services is currently constructing
major water system improvements along 12th Street, east of Old Dixie
Highway. At the same time, the Division of Public Works is
constructing major roadway improvements in the same location. These
roadway improvements cannot be initiated until completion of the water
system improvements and relocation of existing water and wastewater
facilities, in the intersection of 12th Street and 6th Avenue, which
were not identified as being in conflict with the road improvements.
Attached for your review and approval is Change Order No. 2
as submitted by Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc., for additional
engineering services.
Since time is of the essence and to avoid further delays in the Public
Works road improvements, it was not feasible to go through customary
bid procedures, but rather, the Division of Utility Services solicited
quotations from a number of local contractors for the subject utility
construction.
ANALYSIS
The Division of Utility Services has negotiated with several
contractors to lower construction costs for the project, we feel it
necessary to proceed at this time, with the net result of the subject
improvements being an addition of $3,185.00 for engineering services
and 30,918.50 for additional construction costs which will be done by
Coastline Utilities, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize the subject utility improvements by executing
Change Order No. 1, for Coastline Utilities, Inc., and by executing
Change Order No. 2, for Masteller and Moler Associates.
Director Pinto reported that further negotiations took place
after staff had submitted their original recommendation to the
Board, and the above memo sets out their amended recommendation.
He explained that they lowered the cost and are utilizing the
existing contract we have with the firm of Coastline Utilities.
They, therefore, recommend the Board approve Change Order No. 1
for Coastline Utilities.
APR 2 1227 29
r APR 21 193Y
BOOK
Chairman Scurlock asked if there is any reduction in
engineering services, and Director Pinto stated that the
engineering will stay the same.
68 r "w,'F1_ 144
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to approve Change Order No. 1
with Coastline Utilities in the amount of $30,918.50
and Change Order No. 2 Masteller 8 Moler in the amount
of $3,185 as recommended by staff in memo dated April 20,
1987.
Commissioner Bird asked if there is any lesson to be learned
here about possibly having better coordination between Public
Works and Utilities on these projects. He noted that 6th Avenue
has been torn up for months.
Director Pinto informed the Board that he and Public Works
Director Davis have been discussing this with a little bit of
difference in opinion. When Public Works is going to do a road
project such as this, Director Pinto felt the relocation of
utilities, even if it is to be paid for by Utilities, should be
part of that project, and not go out to bid, do the road project,
and then call Utilities and say move your utility lines. In this
particular case, however, Utilities did look at it and made
provisions for some relocations, but during the construction
engineering process for the road, they lowered a lot of their
storm drains and Utility had to go back and revamp all their
plans.
Discussion continued re the need for better coordination in
the future, and Director Pinto noted that this involves a
combination of all utilities, cable N, electric, telephone, etc.
One of the problems the Utility Department faces is that these
things are unbudgeted items. Probably $300,000 has been spent in
relocation, and Director Pinto did not know how you allow for
this.
30
Chairman Scurlock felt if the road impacts a utility
easement, then it becomes a part of the road project, and in the
budgetary process, we need to try to start looking into this.
There are times when Utilities doesn't need to be doing anything,
but because of the road project they are incurring large
expenditure that do not necessarily relate to additional revenue.
Director Pinto agreed and noted that impact fees can't be
used to do this either because you are not picking up one new
customer.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Public Works Director Davis
agrees that if we have the utility easement and the road work
interferes with the utility line, it should be part of the cost
of the road project.
Director Pinto believed they are coming to an understanding.
He felt there are areas where Utilities should share in the cost.
Sometimes just because the roadwork is being done, we go ahead
and enlarge the lines simply because it makes sense to do it at
that time.
Discussion continued at length about accounting for all
this, and Director Pinto stated that it is a difficult situation,
but Public Works Director Davis always has been more than
cooperative.
Commissioner Bird believed we just agreed to have his
department add a project manager and that may help.
Director Pinto felt we certainly can look forward to closer
coordination in designing new lines and putting them in according
to the road master plan. This instance involved old lines.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
31
BOOK x'.UE
AIPR 2 11987
APR 2 11987
BDOK68 Fac 146
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $261.371.50
DATE: April 16 1987 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $292,292.00
JOB NAME Indian River County Project No. UW86-11-DS
Potable Water Main/12th Street & Commerce Avenue
OWNER: Indian River County
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
ORIGINA
UNITS
ORIGINAL
,TOTAL
•PRICE
UNIT
CHANGE
PRICE
CHANGE
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
1.
Mobilization
LS
1.0
15,000.00
--
--
15,000.00
2.
16"0 Water Main
31.60/LF
3000 LF
94,800.00
--
--
94,800.00
3.
12"0 Water Main
23.90/LF
1500 LF
35,850.00
--
--
35,850.00
4.
10"0 Water Main
21.25/LF
15 LF
318.75
--
--
318.75
5.
8"0 Water Main
17.00/LF
150 LF
2,550.00
--
--
2,550.00
6.
6"'0 Water Main
14.65/LF
265 LF
3,882.25
--
--
3,882.25
7.
2"0 Water Main
4.50/LF
150 LF
675.00
--
--
675.00
8.
16"0 BF Valve
1700.00
3 Units
5,100.00
--
--
5,100.00
9.
12"0 Gate Valve
1650.00
3 Units
4,950.00
--
--
4,950.00
10.
8"0 Gate Valve
473.00
3 Units
1,419.00
--
--
1,419.00
11.
6"0 Gate Valve
310.00
9 Units
2,790.00
--
--
2,790.00
12.
Fire Hydrant
700.00
7 Units
4,900.00
--
--
4,900.00
13.
12x12 Wet Tap w/12"O
2350.00
1 Unit
2,350.00
--
--
2,350.00
Tapping Valve
14.
10x10 Wet Tap w/10110
1930.00
1 Unit
1,930.00
--
--
1,930.00
Tapping Valve
15.
6x6 Wet Tap w/6" 0
1130.00
2 Units
2,260.00
--
--
2,260.00
Tapping -Valve
16..
30`0 Steel Casing w/
LS
1.0
20,120.00
--
--
20,120.00
16"0 WM/12th St. &
FEC RR
'
17.
30"0 Steel Casing w/
LS
1.0
21,880.00
--
--
.21,880.00
16"15 WM/12th St. &
U.S. #1
18.
1" 0 "Long" Svc.Later.
411.00
26 Units
10,686.00
--
--
10,686.00
19.
2" 0"Long" Svc.Later.
465.00
13 Units
6,045.00
--
--
6,045.00
20.
Pvd. Rd Restoration
14.00/LF
430 LF
6,020.00
--
--
6,020.00
21.
Non-Pvd Rd. Restor.
5.00/LF
30 LF
150.00
--
--
150.00
22.
Pvd Driveway Restor.
14.00/LF
830 LF
11,620.00
--
--
11,620.00
23.
Non-Pvd Drwy Restor.
5.00/LF
265 LF
1,325.00
--
--
1,325.00
24.
Seed & Mulch
0.50/LF
3375 LF
1,687.50
--
--
1,687.50
25.
6" Thk, Concrete En-
9.00/LF
100 LF
900.00
--
--
900.00
casement of 16" Thk
Diam. Water Main
26.
Remove Ex. Fire
250.00
4 Units
1,000.00
--
--
1,000.00
Hydrant Assembly
27.
8x8 Wet Tap w/8" 0
1165.00
1 Unit
1,165.00
--
--
1,165.00
Tapping Valve
28.
Modifications To
Lump Sum
(+)1.0
(+)30,918.
0 30,918.50
Existing Utility Linds
at 12th St. & 6th Ave.
Intersection in
Accordance w/ Plans.
W30,918.150
292,292.00
Amount of the Contract will be Increased by the sum of: Thirty Thousand,
Nine Hundred Eighteen and 50/100 Dollars. ($30,918.50).
The Contract Total including.this and previous Change Orders will be: Two
Hundred Ninety Two Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Two and 00/100 Dollars.
($292,292.00)
32
The Contract Period provided for completion will be (increased): 15 (fifteen)
days.
This document will become a supplement to the contract and all provisions
will apply hereto.
Contractor: ��Wag Date: / " Z'5 , v
Coastline Utilities, Inc. /
Engineer: v Date:_ Vj/ 7
Masteller & Moler Associates Inc.
Owner: G Date: -
Indian River County bl
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO: 2 -
DATE: March 31, 1987
CONTRACT FOR: Work Authorization #7 for Consulting Services
Potable Water Main/12th St. & Commerce Avenue (UW86-16-DS)
OWNER: Indian River County
PR5uIOUS CONT. PRICE: $21,600.00 REVISED CONT. PRICE:
$24,785.00
I Decrease in (Increase in
Description of Changes I Cont. Price (Cont. Price
I I
Expansion of Engineering Services I I $3,185.00
i
I I
TOTALS: I [Zero] I $3,185.00
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 I
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: 1 1 $3,185.00
JUSTIFICATION:
Project modified to include emergency reconstruction of existing water and sewer lines
in the intersection of 12th Street & 6th Avenue to accommodate proposed storm drainage
system under construction. Consulting Services include surveying, design, drafting
and contract administration.
Amount of the Contract will be Wo:¢x ezW ( Increased ) by the sum of:
Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty-five and xx/100 Dollars ($3,185.00)
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be:
Twenty-four Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty -Five and xx/100 Dollars (24,785.00)
This document will be come a supplement
provisions will apply hereto.
Requested: MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Sign)
Accepted: Indian River County
(Sign) !�Uob. C_
33
APT 2 1 Wi
to the contract and all
J
Date: 31,31 167 i
Date: - o�/' /
80Gtt IS rA- 4 7
APR 2 11987 BOOK 148
BENT PtNE APPEAL WITH DER RE GtFFORD SEWER PLANT EXPANSION
Director Pinto reviewed the following memo:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMS NERS DATE: APRIL 20, 1987
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO/
DIRECTOR OF UTIL S RVICES
FROM: ERNESTINE W. WILLIAMS
MANAGER OF PROJECT AD INISTRATION
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: GIFFORD SEWER PROJECT
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - BENT PINE UTILITIES COMPANY
BACKGROUND
Bent Pine Utilities Company is protesting the issuance of the permit
for the Gifford Sewer Project. They have filed an objection with the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to their issuance of a
permit which will provide for -Indian River County to dispose of highly
.treated effluent by spray irrigation. Therefore, it may be necessary
for us to retain experts and legal defense to appear at the
administrative hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Division of Utility Services requests authorization
from the Board of County Commissioners to retain the necessary experts
to present our case.
Director Pinto explained that the DER through their normal
procedure had issued a letter of intent to issue us the permit
for construction of the Gifford wastewater treatment plant. Bent
Pine Utility Company has protested the issuance of that permit
based on their objection to our plans to dispose of treated
effluent by spray irrigation which they feel will adversely
affect the quality of water from their wells and has asked for an
administrative hearing. Bent Pine has not approached us at all
to ask any questions re mitigating the situation but simply filed
a complaint which could delay the project six months easily. We
do not really think there are any good grounds for this protest,
but we have to take a position and hire the experts we need as
this could cripple that entire project and result in making.it
much more expensive.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we haven't offered to hold them
harmless from any possible negative impact to their wellfields,
34
and Director Pinto noted we would be willing to have it in our
DER permit that if there is any effect, we would replace the
wells. He also noted that sometime in the near future, there
would be water lines within a close distance.
Commissioner Bird asked if Bent Pine Utility has been unco-
operative; he believed this is a holdover from the old Florida
Land deal.
Director Pinto stated they have been uncooperative in
everything we have ever done with them.
Discussion continued as to Bent Pine's intent, the fact that
this litigation could be very costly, and that the burden of
proof is on us. Chairman Scurlock felt if Bent Pine Utility were
dealing in good faith, they would be willing to accept an
agreement that we will not harm them and we will be responsible.
Commissioner Eggert asked whether they can withdraw this
claim once they have made it, or whether we have to go''through
the whole procedure once it is initiated. She was advised they
could withdraw their objection at any time and that would end the
procedure.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
staff recommendation in regard to retaining experts
to present our case, with the hope that continued
negotiations may be successful.
(Work Auth.#5(Camp, Dresser & McKee,Inc.,)for a valuation study of --Bent
Pine Utility Co. is on file in. Office of Clerk to the Board)
STORM GROVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
The Board reviewed memo of Attorney Barkett:
35
Bou 6gat 149
I
APP 21 19817 BOOK 68 f'.,� � F-�
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: April 15, 1987
SUBJECT: Storm Grove Road Right -Of -Nay
FROM: Bruce Barketty
Assistant County Attorney
During the October 14, 1986 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, the Board approved
staff's recommendation to negotiate a long-term (five- to
seven-year) contract to purchase land from Mr. Paul E.
Koehler for Storm Grove Road right-of-way, and to bring the
results of such negotiations back to the Board for approval.
Staff met with Mr. Koehler and his attorney and reached an
agreement for purchase of the subject right-of-way, subject
to Board approval. Because of the desire by the seller to
close on at least a portion of the sale prior to the
effective date of the new Federal tax law, there was a
closing in escrow regarding this transaction, and all
documents, including the check dated December 31, 1986 are
being held in escrow by the County Attorney's Office. The
transaction becomes effective only upon approval by the
Board of County Commissioners.
The original addendum to the contract was rendered
inaccurate as to purchase price by an amended purchase price
(of $5,000.00) to the original contract. Thus, there is an
amended addendum submitted for your approval.
The negotiated sale calls for the County to.purchase five
separate but adjacent parcels for right-of-way, one purchase
to be made each year. Approval of the first sale (now held
in escrow) wi I I seal for the County the option to purchase
the remaining four parcels at the contract price each year
until 1990. This method was preferred by the Public Works
Director to spread the expenditure over several years.
The sum of the purchases by the County would equal 8.917
acres of additional right-of-way along Storm Grove Road
between Kings Highway and U.S. 1. The County's thoroughfare
plan designates Storm Grove Road as a secondary collector
road with a minimum right-of-way width of 80 feet.
Presently the County has a 30 -foot wide right-of-way. The
terms of the contract call for Mr. Koehler to sell to the
County the additional 50 feet of right-of-way along a
7,600 -foot frontage for $4,000.00 per acre, plus interest to
compensate for the extended nature of the. contract. The
interest is 9% simple interest computed on the outstanding
balance at the end of each year. The County's Capital
Improvement Program does not provide improvements to this
road until: 1996-2000. Staff's original recommendation was
not ,to acquire the entire parcel. at the purchase pripe of
.$35,668.00, but to acquire the parcel if a long-term
purchase contract could -be, negotiated. The contract
presented here is agreeable to staff._ The total price
--- extended over five years-with interest is^$33,818.09, less
than the original proposed 1 -time payment of $35,668.00.
Staff recommends approval of the negotiated long-term
contract with the first amendment to the contract, which
amendment accurately reflects the acreage and purchase price
of each parcel. Staff recommends that the Board also
approve the original addendum to the contract as amended by
the first amendment mentioned above.
36
County Attorney Vitunac noted that all this is is a way to
buy.some R/W spread out over five years at a small cost each
year. The total cost including interest is less then we had to
spend originally.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
long-term contract with Paul Koehler for Storm Grove
Road R/W with the first amendment and also approved
the original addendum to the contract as amended by
the first amendment.
(SAID CONTRACT PLUS ADDENDUM AND AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
DESIGNATION OF OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS TO PARTS OF THE INDIAN
RIVER AQUATIC PRESERVE
The Board reviewed letter from the East Central Florida
Regional Planning Council, as follows:
37 BOOK S F ,�;E 151
APR 2 11987
APP 2 1 `68
BOOK uuE 15P2
f� �•„'.4r'�
moi-:^ .• ` �L::,x
WV"", f""A r • SYA'L! fOS • W jrg, Awm d*. F/eisd- 32789Te/ipbswa: j3051 At -3332
'6910 DISTRIBUTION UST
� Commissioners
APR ►yu/
April 7, 1987 �` Administrator L"',
C\j Attrney
_
Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr. RECEIVED Per4onel t/
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
C-2 eaUD aaut�rnr w Public Work
1840 25th Street COMMISSIONERS
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COM MUCi1t'.(
Utilities_ --
Finance
Dear Chairman Scurlock: 0 t, I e.-
As
:
As you • are undoubtedly aware, the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation is considering the designation of Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFW) status to those parts of the Indian River Aquatic Preserve which were
added to the existing preserve in 1985. The enclosed map shows the areas
proposed for OFW designation and their relationship to the boundaries of
your county.
The designation of these areas as OFW is -.consistent with the Indian River
Lagoon Management Plan prepared by a working group of the state Interagency
Mangement Committee on which the East Central Florida Regional Planning
Council staff participated. The Regional Planning Council, responding to a
request for comment from the FDER, took up a proposed resolution endorsing
the OFW designation (enclosed) at its regular meeting.on March 18, 1987.
However, the resolution was tabled until the position of individual local
governments affected by the designation could be heard.
To this end, please advise us whether or not your governing body has an
official position with regard to the proposed designation. Your comments
will be considered when the resolution is revisited by the Council at its
next meeting, April 22, 1987.
Sincerely,
38
.
BOANDMDIRECTORS
MS FRANCESS OWNONE
YS F41ANCESS MGNON!
COMMISSIONER JAMES R CARSON JR.
LOYMISSIONERD LEE CONSTANTIN!
�CDMWSEIONER
tN►D ALTYI{IF
COONCR WMJACA I3LMRL
--COYYO:SIDNlRJAMES! CARSON Jp.
•
LCYMISSIONEp VERA, CARTER
..a
COYWSSIONER4AA1pRASlitlNM
_ tOMWS010MLALARRTWNALET
COIlMCM1WNE►
- _
••"
...
.�
BRUCE
YAFORNIROLOF ENI4N1 SN
COMWSSWNEp 0.lEl CONSTANTINE
COYMCN.WOYAN ANN DUPEE-
COMWSSIONERR WET"AN lTNMOOE
.COMMISSIONERPATSCNWARTZ•
J
{OMMISEWMER JAMEB WLLLE d
- Y11 JOSEMlf NLOKL '+
MR CLIFvGYpolT
YB.MARR,TN! GROTTY
_ Jl
NA MS'LOR1N NAGSTROY
SYS CNIiIETTAL
MNLTDN
„
•
...
'
., ..
,NlB
WS LRIDA A STE FAR C
38
F
20 LOCATION
PALM BAY "S.CaL a f I Y.
2
A
33
Taftea
........ .
14
5
T 28S
x!
3
M A L'A 8 A R
to
NET WEST
MELBOURNE
K
It 13 )RES
... ........
t
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...
TRACKING
. . . . . . . . . . .
4
23 rLORIDANA 1 0.5 0 1 2
t t
BEACH
14 SCALE IN MILES
f
6 w
26 30 29 m 26
In
GR
M:ry„''c i. LEGEND
c*)
AIA...............
35
36 31 32 COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
CORPORATE LIMITS
T
S
MILITARY RESV
BOY.
T305
------ RAILROAD
4
PAVED ROAD NIGH TOPE
. �.I! - .., ... . t% 6
t....... ..
. . . . . . . . . . . ... ..
..........
—A–Z STATE PARK
U 5 HIGHWAY
f– ED
STATE HIGHWAY
12
on
C
wca It
Nta. -INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
tt
CFC90,
17 16 t.
ORIGINAL PRESEWE
04 N
1985 ADDITION
14
. . ....... '–
..................
19
zz
23 24
SEBASTIAN "LET
STATE P01K
2S/
26 w 25 11
A PELICAN ISLAND
56 NATIONAL
/ ` � WILDLIFE REFUGE+.
35 M1'
S BRE RD COUNTY \ �R \ 1
T31 S INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
2 MAP OF
�� \ �� _ INDIAN RIVER-MALABAR TO VERO BEACH
SEBASTIAN AQUATIC AC
RORH ;ALF
if 12 ( AQUTIPRESERVE NQ T
BREVARD AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES, FLORIDA
CPCATED By
1 3 STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF
PREPARED BY F J "ANSEN 17 TRUSTEES OF THE ►INTERNAL ImPROvEmENT TRUST FUND
DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT 15
OCTOBER 21. 1969APRIL. 1, ?o
RESOLUTION ADOPTED OCTOBER 21, 1969
LiPbayrz
39
APR 2 11987 BOOK IDJ
L- -."A
APR 21 a�
/.
Bou 68
• �� I. \ v! SEBASTIAN INLET
STATE PARK
...v sEeassi4N
23 '"LF' LOCATION
n PELICAN ISLAND •� '�� r
TIONAL WILDLIFE•
T
BREVARD COUNTY ~ '� t i , n
NVIAN RIVER C NTY rn ;
♦ M1' 6 �s 4r 10
3 x n
` \ 4
♦ B 94 ..:'. (i �IiT
'Lb M1t
5I2 IB LEGEND
A IB IS
��P� \ `�♦ 7 l..w W COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
1: ♦v`
I G lip 15
CORPORATE LIMITS
♦
19 ..""" MILITARY RESV BOY
RAILROAD
20
I
ZO• ZI „22 21 � ORCHID 23 waeow BwcA
SEBASTIAN'
PAVEo ROAo
Z
STATE PARK
I 29• 28 27 26 \ \..i u5 NiGNwAY
23 30 29 8 " O STATE HIGHWAY
25
V:�� INTRACDASTAL wATERwnY
S
ORIGINAL PRESERVE
i� 33 34 35 3636
34 32
1985 ADDITION
T31S // I
T 32S
3 4 3 2 1 6 S 4
5 1 OS O 1 2
j�—
I N f SCALE IN MILES
8+ 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 t0 It
INDIAN RIVER
1 SNORES
w
R' 16 IS 14 13 16 17 16 IS - W C.1
m m
i e
20 21 22 23 24 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 1\{
I I iii 1 -
t
WWII
2% 28 27 26 25 30 - 29 28 \ \ �- 26
25
33' 34 35 36 31 32 \ ♦ VERO BEACH `
\\`
s 4 3 z 1 T363S s 4 \ .0
} �_ l• Z)MAP OF. e0
1-GNDIAN RIVER—MALABAR TO VERO BEACH _.
AQUATIC PRESERVE SOUTH HALF " 9 to d Iz
(AQUATIC PRESERVE NO7) v
r BREVARD AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES. FLORIDA
CREATED PY14 is
`.
I STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES
I
1 OF THE, INTERNAL IMPROVMENT TRUST FUND , \ J` `i°•%\
OCTOBER 21,1969:1 C`
RESOLuT1ON ADOPTED OCTOBER 21.1969 21 � 22 ' I •'23' � a4 �. - :.o !11
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously supported
the proposed designation of Outstanding Florida
Waters status to those parts of the Indian River
Aquatic Preserve added to the preserve in 1985.
40
REPORT ON MEDICAL EXAMINER'S COMMISSION MEETING
Chairman Scurlock advised that he and County Attorney
Vitunac went to the Medical Examiner's Commission meeting in
Tampa, and they were successful in that the vote was 6 to 2 to
recommend that Leonard Walker not be reappointed Medical Examiner
for the four county area. That recommendation will be forwarded
to the Governor; we will continue making our opposition to Dr.
Walker's reappointment known to the various entities; and
.hopefully we will be in a position to look for a new Medical
Examiner. Chairman Scurlock assumed from what the Commission
has said in the past that we are still looking for a full time
forensic pathologist to take that position.
County Attorney Vitunac believed if the contingent from the
four counties had not been there, that Dr. Walker would have been
reappointed without any question.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bird reported they are hopeful that at today's
meeting of the Governor and Cabinet, they will approve the
$150,000 grant for Golden Sands Park. He further advised that he
has been invited by the Mayor of Sebastian to come to their City
Council meeting to discuss the concern a few people had about
North County Recreation's free use of their community building.
He
had
felt the letter he wrote the
Mayor was self-explanatory,
but
the
Mayor wants him to attend.
Commissioner Bird noted that
basically his feeling is that the City is getting a very good
deal the way it is, and he will convey that as diplomatically as
he can. Hopefully, if he can explain this, and they can
understand the whole picture, it will all simmer down.
REPORT NORTH BARRIER ISLAND RESOURCES
Chairman Scurlock advised that the Natural Resource Act is
moving through Congress and he has met with a majority of those
owning property north of CR 510 on the Barrier Island.
APR 2 11987 41 800
There is
APR 21 `� BOOK 68 0�cE15
a desire to do something similar to the west county utility
expansion, and Director Pinto and he are developing some numbers
to meet with them again. They are in contact with North Beach
Water Company re possible acquisition, and our consultants have
indicated we could construct a new water system north of CR 520
within our impact fee structure, which information certainly
relates to those negotiations. They are meeting again Friday to
try to firm up where we are going, and he will come back to the
Commission to get guidance to determine if we should move ahead.
Utilities Director Pinto expressed conviction that we could
build a North County system under our existing rate structure,
and further noted that with our experience with private
utilities, North Beach Water Company is going to be hard pressed
to convince him we should be expanding their existing franchise.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she had a point on policy
re costs, etc. In working towards acquiring a library site, her
policy is to let staff negotiate entirely and then bring it back
to the Commissioners. She did not want to get involved and say
anything that can be misinterpreted. This is the way she works
with the Library, and she hoped it will be the same in Utilities.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he does participate with
Utilities and is a part of the negotiating team. Mr. Pinto in
the past has expressed a desire for him to participate at that
level, and he intends to do so unless the Commission takes a
formal vote to direct him differently.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she is just asking that
caution be exercised by all of us.
Director Pinto emphasized that he goes out of his way to
tell everyone with whom we negotiate that he is not the last
word; that this goes to the Board and he only makes the
recommendation.
Chairman Scurlock believed the position is always taken
42
that there are five County Commissioners who make the final
decision at a public meeting.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she gets phone calls from
land owners re the library site, for instance, in regard to
making a deal, and she does not want to discuss any negotiations
with them personally as she does not want anyone to feel she is
speaking for the five Commissioners. It is very difficult to be
put in this position.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that the acquisition of property is
particularly specific; the procedure is spelled out in detail;
and he believed Commissioner Eggert has handled the property
situation on the Library perfectly.
ROCKRIDGE SEWER EXPANSION
Chairman Scurlock announced that the public hearing
scheduled for 1:30 P.M..in regard to the proposed Rockridge sewer
expansion is simply a hearing required by the DER and EPA, and it
is not necessary that any of the Commissioners attend.
Utilities Director Pinto concurred and advised that he has
hired a court reporter to do the transcription.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
Lease Extension Agreement between Florida Inland Navigation
District and Indian River re Islands 24, 27A, 28 and 29, having
been fully executed and received is hereby made a part of the
Minutes as approved at the Regular Meeting of January 13th, 1987.
43
APP 1 087
BOOK 57
r,
APR 2 11937
LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
BOOK 68 F'1J- 458
WHEREAS, by Lease Agreement dated the 8th day of
May, 1974, and extended by Lease Extension Agreement dated
the 26th day of September, 1980, the Board of Commissioners
of the Florida Inland Navigation District, a special taxing
district organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Florida, did lease to the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, four parcels of land designated as
MSA IR -4A, MSA IR -6A, MSA IR -613 and MSA IR -6C, also
designated as Islands 24, 27A (a part of the island), 28 and
29 respectively, for recreation, conservation and research
purposes,
IT IS AGREED, between the parties hereto, subject
to the conditions stated herein, the aforementioned Lease
Agreement is extended for an additional term of nine (9)
years from 8 May 2004.
It is further agreed the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County shall pay a sum of one
dollar ($1.00) a year, payable in one nine dollar ($9.00)
payment upon the execution of this Lease Extension
Agreement.
In all other respects the terms and conditions of
the original Lease Agreement between the parties dated 8 May
1974 shall remain in full force and effect during this
extended term of the lease.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
hereunto set their hands and seals this 13th day of
January, 1987.
Signed, sealed and delivered BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
in the presence of- FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION
DISTRICT
By:
Ma
Atte
_
ec etar
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND AN RIVER 9OUN.
By: i c
airman
Attest: _
Clerk
e
There being no further business, on Motion duty made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:20 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
45
G'
Chairman
BOOK b6 pact ���