Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/28/1987
Tuesday, July 28, 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, July 28, 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; Bruce Barkett, Assistant County Attorney; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of an item dealing with Bids #349 and #350 under Utilities Department matters as 11A. Assistant County Attorney Barkett requested the addition of an emergency item in regard to a settlement offer in the Howell - Chapman condemnation case, as 13A. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above items to the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert requested that Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. I.R.Blvd. South - Addtl.. Engineering Serv. (Kimley Horn) The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: BOOK 69 f'�,'E 01 JUL 28 1997 BOOK L- 9 F' F jF TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 16, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator SUBJECT: Additional Engineering Services- Indian River Boulevard South - Kimley Horn Assoc., Inc. FROM James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County has requested additional Engineering services for the subject project to include the following: V. 1) Redesign of the. Super Elevation on Indian River Blvd'- Walmart cost $ 770.00 2) Redesign of U.S. 1 at Indian River Blvd. due to recent pavement widening by Walmart Cost $2,540.00 3) Design of Visita Gardens Wall Extension Cost $800.00 4) Assist in coordination and design of Wall along Fairlane Harbor MHP Cost $500.00 TOTAL $4,610.00 MOMI4EIDATION AND FUNDING Since the above work was not a part of the original scope -of -work for the Engineering Services, staff reccaumnds approval. Funding to be from Funds 304 - Indian River Blvd. South construction account. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the additional engineering services for Indian River Blvd. South w/Kimley Horn Assoc. as de- scribed above in the amount of $4,610. B. Indian River Blvd. South - Change Order #8 The Board reviewed the following memo: 2 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 20, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard South - FROM: James W. Davis, P. Public Works DiLt Change Order # 8 _ REFERENCES: D1IPTION AND CONDITIONS Due to a change in material specifications for the 36" storm sewer pipe = being installed at the FEC railroad along 12th Street, a "no cost" Change Order is required. ' RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING - It is recommended that Change Order No. 8 be approved. No funding considerations are applicable. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #8, Indian River Blvd. South, with Dickerson Florida, Inc. at "no cost." Dated ,July 11.. 1987. CIiANGE ORDER No. OWNER's Project No.....840 ................ ENGINEER's Project No. 4395.03..... _ , . , ... , , . Babcock Street Traffic & Pedestrian Improvements Project , with Indian River. Boulevard, .Southerly Extension .. . ....... ....... ... CONTRACTOR „ _Dickerson Florida, Inc .................. Contract For .,Road.Construction._,,,,,_,,,, Contract Date July Z,, O,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .... . To : ....... Dickerson Florida, , Inc; , _ , Post, Office Box .719 ...Stt1art.,. Florida ..3349.5..... . CONTRACTOR You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject Contract: The completion date, contract price and Indian River Count all other terms, covenants and conditions y " " ' O«'NER of the above referenced contract, except as duly modified by this and previous �� Change Orders, if any, remain In full By .�:../' C. .... Don C. Scurlock r.� Ch airman a I, ,force and effect. - Dated July, 28x,1987„ „ .,19........ 3 L . �� BOOK F'AGt FJUIMMM� BOOK FF1GE 04 Nature of the Changes Substitute PVC carrier pipe for Class IV RCP in casing for FEC railway crossing. Enclosures: See attachment These changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Contract Time: Original Contract Price S 3;973,809.36 Change Order 1 thru 668 837.20 .. Subtotal S 4�,b42;64�.�6..._........ This Change Order No. 7 -0- . ... .... .... ... Adjusted Contract Price S 41042,646.56._.,..._.... 471 days starting August 4, 1983 Contract Time Prior to This Change Order ................................. ............. . (Days or Date) Net (Increase) (Decrease) Resulting from This Change Order .........-0. ... ...... .............. . •(Days) Current Contract Time Including This Change Order . , . 492 ,days starting. August 1,. 1986. _ .. . .. (Days or Date) The Above Changes Are Approved: K: ml ey—Horn and Associates, , Inc.... . .... • ENGINEER By. .... .. .... Date..�.,19.2 The Above Changes Are Accepted: • . _ ... Dickerson Florida, Inc :. . .. . .. . .... . CONTRACTOR . By ... .. - -, Q. ............... . Date . ..7�� �........... ...... I9. 7: C. I.R.Blvd. North, Phase IV (Engineering) The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: 4 M M M r TO: The Honorable Members of the * DATE: July 20, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners k _ THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Ac L-iistrator - SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard North Extension - Phase IV - Barber Avenue (37th Street) to - 53rd Street - FROMJames W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: Michael - Public Works Director & Assoc., a Div.of orf & J. Davis dated 7-15-87 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Grand Harbor developers are requesting County authorization to contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates for the design of the North Extension of Indian River Boulevard from 37th Street to 53rd Street. Grand Harbor would pay for the engineering design and are requesting Traffic Impact Fee Credits for the design services. The design fee would be approved by the County. In addition, the consultants would coordinate the design with the County Public Works Department. ALTEPIWIVFS AMID ANALYSIS The Indian River County Fair Share Roadway Improvement ordinance provides for impact fee credit due to engineering services. This request is therefore, in compliance with County policy. Although the design is not yet complete for the Phase III Extension south of Barber Avenue, staff has no objections to expediting the Phase IV design. PECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that Grand Harbor be advised that the County has no objection to granting a Traffic Impact Fee Credit for providing acceptable engineering design drawings for the Phase IV Extension of Indian River Boulevard. Commissioner Eggert understood the need to expedite but had a problem with the developer entering into the contract with the engineers rather than us entering into the contract. She believed this actually is a change in procedure. Chairman Scurlock also understood the need to facilitate the work, but could not see us having developers contract to build public roads. He believed the recommendation has been revised and is now four -fold, as follows. 5 BUOK JUL 2 M V rr�lUL U4 Fr- -I AUL 2 8 i,987 nN.� Boa 69 06 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: July 26, 1987ft Board of County Commissioners, THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator SUBJECT; Ins3iau Riveg Boulevard North EKteMJon - Phase IV - Engineering Services FROM: - REFERENCES: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director To complement staff's July 20, 1987 memo to the Board on Engineering Services for the design of the Phase IV North Extension of Indian River Boulevard, the following procedure is recommended: 1) Indian River County would enter into a developer's agreement with Grand Harbor whereby Grand Harbor would agree to provide funding for the Engineering design services. This funding would be eligible for future Traffic Impact Fee credits attributable to the Project. 2) The County staff would develop a Request for Proposals and competitively select an Engineering firm to perform the work. 3) The County would enter into a Contract with the selected Consultant to perform the design services. Prior to execution of the contract, the Developer would deposit the funds for the Engineering work in the County's escrow account. 4) The County staff would supervise and manage the project. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the recommendation as amended and set out in the Public Works Director's memo of July 26, 1987. D. Final Plat Approval - Waverly Place, Phase Ill The Board reviewed memo of Chief Planner Boling: 6 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 20, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Xeat1.nJ,-_4XqPSUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR Community DevelopmeM Division WAVERLY PLACE PHASE 3 Director FROM: Stan Boling .4.6. REFERENCES: waverly place Chief, Current Development STAN2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 28, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Waverly Place•Phase.3 is a 40 unit/40 lot ±2.60 acre portion of the Waverly Place project located on'.the east side of 6th Avenue, south of 10th Street. The owner, Catalina. Homes, Inc., is now requesting final plat.approval for Phase 3. At their regular meeting of October 13, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the Waverly Place project, which included Waverly Place Phase 3. The preliminary plat corresponded with the approved site plan for the entire Waverly Place project so that the developer could "plat over" the project units and, in essence, sell fee simple multiple family units. Recently, at the March 24, 1987 regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted to terminate the approved site plans for all remaining phases of Waverly Place, except for Phase 3. Approval of this plat will facilitate the Board's expressed desire to have the developer complete this phase. The applicant has submitted a final plat that is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat and the approved Phase 3 site plan. ANALYSIS: Although the site plan development process controls all con- struction on site, and the issuance of C.O.'s, the final plat is necessary for the establishment of fee simple lots. The Utilities and Public Works departments have no objections to granting final plat approval. The County Attorney's office has verified that the submitted final plat is legally sufficient and acceptable. All County regulations regarding final plat approval for Waverly Place Phase 3 have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the Waverly Place Phase 3 plat. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted Final Plat Approval for Waverly Place Phase 3. JUL 28 1987 7 a0aK E 0 A ���� BOOK F'AGE JUL 2 8, 1987 Release of Easement - Vero Lake Estates (Harbour Mgmt.) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 13, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE ' SUBJECT: Robert M. Keatfnh, A Planning & Iopme t Director THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois Code Enforcement ' Coordinator RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY HARBOUR MANAGEMENT & MARKETING, INC. - SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 11, 12, 13 AND PART OF LOTS 1 & 21 BLOCK D, UNIT H-4, VERO LAKE _ ESTATES SUBDIVISION FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: Code Enforcement Officer HARBOUR MEMO DISK. BETTY It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 28, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County "has" been -.petitioned' by Harbour Management and Marketing, Inc., owners of the subject property, for the release of the rear lot 10 foot utility drainage easement of lots 12 and 13, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates Subdi- vision, along with the rear lot 10 foot easement located on the westerly 25 feet of lot 1, Block D, Unit H -4, -.Vero Lake Estates Subdivision. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the release of the rear lot .10 foot easements located on the northerly 63 feet of lots 2 and 11, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 6, page 31, of the public records of Indian River County Florida. It is the applicants' intention to combine the lots to create one large building parcel. The current -zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low Density Residential, up to three (3) unit per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, Jones Intercable, and Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to the release of the easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the rear lot 10 foot drainage and utility easements of lots 12 and 13, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates, along with the rear lot 10 foot easement located on the westerly 25 feet of lot 1, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates, and the 10 foot rear lot easements located on the northerly 63 feet of lots 2 and 11, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 6, page 31, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. 8 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-78, releasing easements in Vero Lake Estates Subdv., as requested by Harbour Mgmt. 8 Marketing, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 87-78 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE VERO LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LOTS 11, 1.2, 13,, 1 AND 21 BLOCK D, UNIT H-4 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 Harbour Management and Marketing, Inc., whose mailing address is 10725 U.S. #1, Sebastian, Florida 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 Commis- sioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird , and adopted on the 28th day of July , 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Aye Commissioner Bowman Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Commissioner Eggert Aye Commissioner Wheeler Aye - 9 UL 2 8 BOOK ��� � J•UL 2 8 1987 BOOK 69 F4.,E 10. 7 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 28th , day of July I 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By iG Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman ', _ EXHIBIT "A" The rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 12 and 13, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates Subdivision, being the southerly 10 feet thereof, along with the rear lot 10 foot easement located on the westerly_ 25 feet,_of lot 1, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates, being the southerly 10 feet thereof, and the rear lot 10 foot -easement located in the northerly 63 feet of lots 2 and 11, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates, being the easterly 10 feet of lot 11 -and the westerly 10 feet of lot 2, Block D, Unit H-4, Vero Lake Estates Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 6, page 31 of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. F. Release of Easement - Roseland Gardens Sub. (Finlaw) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 28, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY DAVID W. SUBJECT: FINLAW & NANCY J. FINLAW Ro ert M. Keati g,_ SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOT Planning & Deve opm nt Director 21, BLOCK 8, ROSELAND _ GARDENS SUBDIVISION THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlo s "T> - /�11Cp�� Code Enforcement Coordinator FROM: Betty D(Daavis REFERENCES: FINLAW Code Enforcement Officer DISK. BETTY It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 28, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by*David E. Finlaw and Nancy J. Finlaw, owners of the subject property, for the release of the 5 foot common side lot utility and drainage easement of lot 21, block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, being further described as the southerly 5 feet of lot 21, block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 8, page 25, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida.iIt is the applicants intention to construct a screen enclosure adjacent to his pool. The current zoning classifi-__ 10 cation is RS -6, Single -Family Residential District. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density Residential, up to 6 units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light, Jones Intercable, and Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there. were no objections to the release of the easement. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the common side lot 5 foot easement of lot 21, block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 8, page 25 of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-79, releasing the 5' common side lot utility and drainage easement Lot 21, Block 8, Roseland Gardens Subd., as requested by David and Nancy Finlaw. RESOLUTION NO. 87-79 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING A CERTAIN EASEMENT IN THE ROSELAND GARDENS SUBDIVISION, LOT 21, BLOCK 8 WHEREAS, Indian River County has a easement as described below, and WHEREAS, the retention of that easement 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 David W. Finlaw and Nancy J. Finlaw, whose mailing address is 11066 Roseland Road, Roseland, Florida 32957, Grantee, as follows: �JUL 200 BOOK JUL 2 8 1987 BOOK Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easement: / SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commis- sioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird , and adopted on the 28th day of July , 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Ate_ Commissioner Bowman Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Commissioner Eggert Aye Commissioner Wheeler Aye i The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution =� i duly passed and adopted this 28th day of July 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By , G .401A Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman k !. EXHIBIT "A" The southern 5 feet of lot 21, block 81 Roseland Gardens. Subdivision, according -to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 8, page 25, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. G. Release of Easement - King's Music Land Subdv. (Webb) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis: 12 r__' TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 10, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD COCURRENCE RELEASE OF EASEMENT r , REQUEST BY JUDSON WEBB; SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS Ro ert . Keati , A SUBJECT: 25, 26, AND 27, Planning & Developme t Director BLOCK 11 KING'S MUSIC LANDS SUBDIVISION THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois'iZMD Code -Enforcement Coordinator = FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: - Code Enforcement Officer DISK. BETTY It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 28, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County Pias 'been _petitioned by Judson Webb, owner of the subject property, for the release of the 3 foot common side lot utility and drainage easements of lots 25, 26, and 27, block 1, King's Music Lands Subdivision, being further described as the southerly 3 feet of lots 27 and 26, and the northerly 3 feet of lots 26 -and 25, block 1, King's Music Lands Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, page 17, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. It is the applicants' intention to combine the lots to create one large building parcel. The current zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The land use desig- nation is LD -1, Low Density Residential, up to 3 units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light, Jones Intercable, and Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to the release of the easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the common side lot 3 foot utility and drainage easements of lots 25, 26, and 27, block 1, King's Music Lands Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 6, page 17 of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-80, releasing the 3' common side lot utility and drainage easements of certain lots in King's Music Land Subdv., as requested by Judson Webb. 13 6-, 'JUL 28 1987 BOOK � f'a.�� `�� UUL 2 8 1987 BOOK ["�-u RESOLUTION NO. 87-80 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE KING'S MUSIC LAND SUBDIVISION, LOTS 25, 26, AND 27, BLOCK 1 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, Judson Webb, whose mailing address is, 3951 45th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantee, as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easements: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commis- _ sioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird , and adopted on the 28th day of July 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Aye Commissioner Bowman Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Commitsioner Eggert Aye Commissioner Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution 87=80 duly passed and adopted this 28th day of July 1987• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 14 By C Don Scu oc`k, Jr. _ Chairman I EXHIBIT "A"' The northerly (3) feet of lots 25 and 26, and the southerly. (3) feet of lots- 26 and 27, block 1, Kings Music Lands Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded -in plat book 6, page 17, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. - H. Release of Easement - Subdv. (Della-Cioppa) lat Narania Tract, Shellmound Beach The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis: TO: The Honorable Members DATE;7uly 10, 1987 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY MICHAEL ` SUBJECT: DELLA-CIOPPA Ro�. Keati , P SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 4 Planning & Deve ogpm nt Director & 51 REPEAT PORTION OF NARANJA TRACT, SHELLMOUND THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois 90 BEACH SUBDIVISION Code Enforcement Coordinator FROM: Betty Davis REFERENCES: CIOPPA MEMO Code Enforcement Officer DISK. BETTY It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 28, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Michael Della-Cioppa, owner of the subject property, for the release of the 5 foot common side lot utility and drainage easements of lots 4 and 5, Shell - mound Beach Subdivision, being further described as the northerly 5 feet of lot 5 and the southerly 5 feet of lot 4, Replat Portion of Naranja Tract, Shellmound Beach Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 10, page 92, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. It is the applicants' intention to combine the lots to create one large building parcel. The current zoning classification is RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density Residential, up to 6 units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light, Jones Intercable, and Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to the release of the easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. 15 BOOK D J�� JUL 2S ` S87 BOOK RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the common side lot 5 foot drainage and utility easements of lots 4, and 5, Replat Portion of Naranja Tract, Shellmound Beach Subdivision, as recorded in plat book 10, page 92, of the public records of Indian River County Florida. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 87-81, releasing the 5' common side lot utility and drainage easements Lots 4 8 5, Shell - mound Beach Subdv., as requested by Michael Della- Cioppa. RESOLUTION NO. 87-81 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE REPLAT PORTION OF NARANJA TRACT, SHELLMOUND BEACH SUBDIVISION, LOTS 4 and 5 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 Michael Della-Cioppa whose mailing address is 1816 Riverview Drive,* Melbourne, Florida 32901, Grantee, as follows: �. 16 7 - 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 Commis- sioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird , and adopted on the 28th day of July , 1987, by the following vote: Commissioner Scurlock Aye Commissioner Bowman Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Commissioner Eggert Aye Commissioner Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 28th day of July 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By t G Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman: EXHIBIT "A" The northerly 5 feet -of lot 5 and the southerly 5 feet of lot 4, Replat portion of Naranja Tract, Shellmound Beach Subdi- vision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 10, page 92, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida. FUNDING FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY Finance Director Ed Fry came before the Board and reviewed the following: JUL 8 1987 17 BOOK 6 9 F,�,6E 17 TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: July 15, 19.87 COMMISSIONERS BOOK � ,,E is SUBJECT. Funding for Housing Authority -. a Finance Director - FROM: REFERENCES: Fi For the 1986-1987 fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to transfer $51,025.00 to the Housing Authority to help fund their operating expenditures. The Housing Authority also anticipated receiving two grants, one for $6,295.00 and one for $12,000.00. Total anticipated revenues for the fiscal year are $69,320.00 and total appropriations for the fiscal year are $69,320.00. ,• • i As of July 15, 1987, the Housing Authority has been notified that they would receive the $6,295.00 grant. The Board has also -transferred $50,672.00 of the $51,025 agreed to in the budget workshops. 'I am not aware if the Housing Authority is going to receive the $12,000.00 grant. If the Housing Authority does not receive the $12,000.00 grants they will exhaust all of their financial resources either by the end of July or the middle of August, 1987. I would like to know what the Board wants the Clerk to do once the Housing Authority has used all of their financial resources. Finance Director Fry advised that last year the Housing Authority had budgeted a $12,000 grant, of which they had received $6,100. In the budget hearings for the 187 year, they budgeted that $12,000 grant as anticipated revenue for this year, but it appears at this time they are not going to receive that $12,000 grant which will cause a shortfall in their budget. In addition, they now have been informed that the DCA wants back the $6,100 of the $12,000 grant that they received and spent on rehabilitating retired farmers houses since the DCA says the grant was only to be used for active farmers. The Board had authorized $51,025 to be transferred over to the HA to help pay for their operations based on their receiving the $12,000 grant as well as a grant of $6,295. At this time, the entire $51,025 has been transferred over; the $6,295 grant has been approved and they have started to receive those funds, but they do not appear 18 to be in line to get the $12,000 grant. The Clerk, therefore, would Like the Board's direction. Commissioner Eggert recommended that we grant the $12,000, being that this is the last time we are going to run into this situation because they have got this year to get this worked out. They have the money to pay back the $6,100, and she was assured by Attorney Collins that they will do so. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman to grant the Housing Authority up to $12,000 out of contingency as a draw. .5 Commissioner Bird asked if this is what the Housing Authority wants - is it their consensus that it is necessary. Finance Director Fry confirmed that the Housing Authority is going to need some funds to make it through the rest of the year. He did feel this a unique situation and a one-time problem as they did have every right to anticipate they would receive the $12,000. Commissioner Eggert noted that they should be through with their lots by the end of September, which should give them a little cushion. She confirmed that the rules have been changing and while she did not like the situation, she felt it is a situation that we must face and take care of this one time. Chairman Scurlock noted that he has voted against this for seven years and he will continue to do so. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with the Chairman voting in opposition. PRESENTATION OF CANDIDATE FOR COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR Edith Hoppe, District Administrator for DHRS, came before Board, reviewed the long diligent search for a new County Health 19 L—IJUL„�.Boos � F���ct 8 `� �� JUL 2 8 1987 BOOK PAGE Director, and advised that they heartily recommend Dr. Bernard Berman. Ms. Hoppe then reviewed Dr. Berman's considerable qualifications, stressing that he is Board certified in preven- tive medicine and has a great desire to settle in this area, and the state officials were impressed with his interview and background. She noted that he is getting his Florida license now and would be available to take over as Director as soon as September 10th. Chairman Scurlock believed the Board members all were extremely impressed with this candidate. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the state's appointment of Dr. Bernard Berman as Indian River County Public Health Director. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS (RIVER CLUB SUBDIVISION - GRAND HARBOR) 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: 20 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 L�'!/�/ �. 7 3 •' in the / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian Rjver 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 marl 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 pur se of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed eforeql t i day of A.D. Oe� �. A � • . A 1 4 ,l / 'dsusines�-Pankgdo Ile -. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING =Y'' i . lice of hearing to consider a waiver "in :.Section 10(9x1) of the subdivision ordinance (Ord. No. 83-24, as amended) for the following subject properties described as: .THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST'S QUARTER OF SECTION .14 LYING . J.; SOUTH OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS . WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SEDT- ' MENTATION BASIN AND SOUTH OF ' THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ..-.-.,THE NORTH RELIEF CANAL, AND T = NORTHEA4 23, AND A .. TUF sni r =R OF SECTIO HALF OF TH :R OF SE HALF OF THE 'I 'ER • OF THE R OF SECTION HALF OF THE ER OF THE ! R OF SECTION ! LAND LYING IN...r F THE NORTH -=1 HE NORTHEAST l N 23, AND IN THE E NORTHWEST SEC 24. THE PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE RUN NORTH 89°51'37" WEST, ALONG THE- NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH- EAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER 'A DISTANCE OF 736.01 - FEET. THENCE SOUTH 52°10"16" EAST, 53.92 FEET: THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT: HAVING A RADIUS OF 51.11 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 22°00'33", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 19.63 'FEET. THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT :.HAVING A RADIUS OF 155.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33'46'31 ", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 91.37 FEET: THENCE ON A CURVE TO -THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.54 FEET AND CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47°14'58", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 190.12 FEET: THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 155.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53"55'37". RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 145.89 FEET. THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 370.00 FEET AND CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°17'59", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 215.04 FEET: THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 65.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48"46'48", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 55.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. THENCE FOLLOWING SAID SECTION LINE. RUN SOUTH 00"00'40" WEST, 131.62 FEET: THENCE INTO SECTION 24, RUN SOUTH 89°5920" EAST, 100.00 FEET: THENCE' NORTH 00°00'40" EAST, 325.00 , FEET, THENCE NORTH 44°59'24" WEST, 141.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 24, THENCE FOLLOWING SAID SECTION LINE, RUN SOUTH 00°00'40" WEST, 275.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL LYING AND BEING IN TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUN- TY. FLORIDA. CONTAINING 179.97 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. The Board of County Commissioners will torr duct a public hearing regarding the request to waive the requirement that sidewalks be pro- vided on bath sides of local streets as applied to the River Club Subdivision. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shag have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Florida in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Buildup. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida. on Tuesday, July 28, 1987, at 9:05 a.m. If any person decides to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ByChDoon C. Scurlock, Jr. July 13.1987 Chief Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation in which staff recommended denial: 21 JUL 28.987 BOOK Ga r J U L 2 81 -7 80ox 6 9, N ToThe Honorable -Members of • DATE•July 20, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ' SUBJECT - Robert M. Keat , A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUB - Community Developmen Division DIVISION SIDEWALK REQUIRE - Director MENTS FOR RIVER CLUB SUBDIVISION (GRAND HARBOR) - FROM: ,446 REFERENCES: Stan Boling river club Chief, Current Development STAN2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 28, 1987. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On May 14, 198.7+ the Planning and . Zoning Commission 'granted conditional preliminary - plat approval for the River Club subdivision. The subdivision, which is part of the entire River Club project (145 acres of golf course; 35 acres of subdivision), .consists of 71 single family lots served by a central roadway and a series of cul-de-sac roads. The River Club .golf course and subdivision are part of the Grand Harbor D.R.I. project. However, this portion of Grand Harbor is not included within the Grand Harbor PRD, and is being developed under the normal site plan (for the golf course) and subdivision requirements. 'One of the normal subdivision requirements applied to the River Club subdivision is construction of sidewalks on both sides of local residential streets [reference section 10(e) of the subdivision ordinance]. Recently, in October 1986, the Board adopted revisions to the subdivision ordinance which included a waiver of the sidewalk requirement on certain cul-de-sac segments. Staff has applied the new ordinance provisions to the project and has determined that sidewalks are only required on both sides of a central roadway which provides access to several cul-de-sac segments. (see attachment #4). Attorney Steve Henderson, on behalf of the owner/developer River Club of Indian River, Inc., is now requesting a waiver from the subdivision sidewalk requirement, asking that a sidewalk be required on only one side of the central roadway. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Section 11(b) of the subdivision ordinance requires that the Board of County Commissioners find all of the following before granting any subdivision waiver request: "1. The particular physical conditions, shape or topography of the specific property involved would cause an undue hardship to the applicant if the strict letter of the ordinance is carried out; 2. The granting of the waiver will not cause injury to adjacent property or any natural resource; 22 � _ J 3. The conditions upon which a request are unique to the property for which are not generally applicable to adjacent areas and do not result applicant; and for a waiver are based the waiver is sought and other property in the from actions of the 4. The waiver is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance, the Indian River County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and this ordinance". In his application,the applicant.contends that providing sidewalks on one side of the central. roadway is sufficient to handle the pedestrian traffic of the subdivision, that the subdivision is unique (as the only single family subdivision in Grand Harbor), and that the variance is needed to cut-down on unnecessary construction costs. However, it is staff's opinion that 3 of the -_ 4 variance criteria are not satisfied by the request, and therefore the request cannot be granted. 1. (item #1) Applying the strict letter of the ordinance would not cause undue hardship to the applicant. Provision of sidewalks on both sides of the central roadway is possible and has actually been shown, for purposes of compliance only, on the River Club subdivision land development permit plans. Therefore, it is clear that the requirement would not alter the general subdivision layout and can be compatible with the development of the project: 2. (item #3). The applicant proposes to subdivide raw land (former- citrus_ grove) which is not peculiar in either physical condition, shape, or topography. Many other subdivisions in the county have been developed on properties physically similar to the River Club site. All of these other subdivisions have complied with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. 1. 3. (item #4) The waiver request is inconsistent with the sub- division ordinance. The recent ordinance amendment takes into account the low level of pedestrian traffic from dead- end cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the County has, appropriately, already waived the sidewalk requirement for a substantial portion of the roads within the subdivision. However, the central roadway connects all of the cul-de-sacs and pedes- trian through -traffic to the bikeway/sidewalk which is to run through the golf course from the terminus of 53rd Street to the proposed Harbor Center. The result of the normal sub- division requirement would be the provision of a proper sidewalk system that connects into a planned major pedestrian thoroughfare. Based on the above analysis, it is staff's conclusion that the subdivision project is not unique, that no special privelege is warranted for the River Club subdivision, and that the cul-de-sac sidewalk waiver already granted to the applicant via the recent ordinance amendment adequately addresses all of the applicant's contentions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to waive the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the central roadway requiring sidewalks on only one side of the central roadway, for the River Club subdivision. 23 JUL 2 8 � � BOOK 9 r,;t��21 L J \ PROPOSED SIDEWALK: �` ,,n• -Q ,; One side of roadway L LJ 20 0, J1 '• 4 3 variance request 39 41 4 0 _: ��U I STA., �. . ' • ': 9 J• ji,o C • e V`v ��e,y. r.3Y: tl�, r�• f ,'. O , .n ,•t.-. dV pai �+' .O ��'•N•bf' 10` pi YUJtt�� ' r C°� ` 44 nl 1 wi V46 45 Sr �: J. a 1 W til• 47 Sbs p 48 " _ r y ,- REC tt I7 -- -- REA— 5 -FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED TION r„ WITHIN THIS 5 -FOOT DRAINAGE, UTILITY 4N0 I SIDEWALK EASEMENTAS SHOWN. TRACT Ila y C! �• /G,°� ,r�. 1 /b, • 'y/ �. 16a 51000 e• ', a al /' ,Lo e• �, � ' �:'�- - 51 g 15 Cn . 50 P t•Zt © °1 J��> O n '.TvH SIDEWALK TO EDGE PAVEMENT. OF ; 2 c� 49 b4/ ; r1. REQUIRED SIDEWALKS: i, BIKEWAY/SIDEWALK both sides of roadway 3 .z '� 'f" I through entire ° River Club AZ �z ti 13 �;-' / s•:s� project. 5 Yc�' '" `;•,, `ry ` o�n 12 �� a6 ' J';s,.. t' �,; ��,y Ahs 'h D. ♦... ..� 6 M Commissioner Eggert inquired if the plan shown was exactly what is required, and it is not necessary to go deeper into the cul de sacs. Chief Planner Boling confirmed that the plan is based on the Subdivision Ordinance and it is correct. Essentially, they worked with the Public Works Department to determine exactly what was needed as far as what was the central through street and what would be considered cul de sac segments. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing Grand Harbor. He pointed out that Grand Harbor and River Club have 'already agreed to sidewalks on one side of the street there; so, the request is a variance that will negate the requirement for sidewalks to be installed on the south side of the road (Paseo del Lago). If installed, such sidewalks would only serve eight lots which are to the west. Attorney Henderson then expressed concern about staff's interpretation as to what these roads are. He advised that they asked staff if they couldn't define the street in question as a secondary collector street, which would qualify for a sidewalk only on one side of the street. He noted that a secondary collector is defined as a street which carries traffic from minor streets to arterial streets as indicated on the Indian River Thoroughfare Plan. The arterial street would be the main drag going through the River Club Subdivision (Paseo del Lago). Attorney Henderson felt that although this may not be shown on the County's Transportation Plan at this time, it very likely will be in.the future, and he. - did not feel the Board should have its hand tied by what is shown on the plan and what is not, but should be able to use common sense. He further noted that the requirement for sidewalks on both sides would necessitate their going outside the road right-of-way originally planned by an additional 5', and he felt the situation is unique because this is a single family subdivision within Grand Harbor, completely surrounded by the 25 ►JUL 2 8 1987 BOOK 6 9. �. C JUL 28 1987 Igo v !tL'l. i�,0 River Club golf course. He did not feel that public safety considerations are necessarily present here as they would be in a subdivision in a busy school district, for example, and he believed this must be looked at from a practical point of view. Commissioner Bird inquired about the financial impact of this requirement, and Attorney Henderson stated that it would be ..roughly $10,000. Chairman Scurlock asked staff what benefit is derived spending this amount of money to have sidewalks benefiting 8 lots as he felt this is a prime example of cost versus benefit. Chief Planner Boling noted this requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street was made part of the ordinance before he came to the county, but he believed it is essentially meant to provide convenient access for those lot owners or children to use without having to cross the street. Planning Director Keating commented that if you go PRD, there can be a good deal more flexibility. Commissioner Eggert stated that what she has trouble with is that the plan shows such a big space with no sidewalks, and all of a sudden, we are asking for two, and Commissioner Bird wished to know just where we require sidewalks. Chief Planner Boling advised that sidewalks are required on both sides of the roadway where it is determined that it is not a dead-end cul de sac segment. On secondary collectors, sidewalks are only required on one side of the street. Commissioner Bird did not understand why we only require sidewalks on one side of thoroughfares which he felt constitutes a more dangerous situation. Commissioner Eggert noted that when you look at the plan of River Club, it seems the whole thing consists of cul de sacs. 26 M M I Chief Planner Boling confirmed that every one of them does dead end, but there is a central roadway leading to them and the ordinance requires that it have sidewalks on both sides. Attorney Henderson stated that they originally took the position with staff that every road in there was a dead end cul de sac, but staff pointed out there was a safety consideration and they agreed to sidewalks on one side; they did not feel sidewalks on the south side are serving a safety purpose. The Chairman upon determining that no one further wished to be heard, declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Eggert did feel we have a unique situation in this instance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted a waiver of the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the central roadway for the River Club Subdivision and agreed to allow them to put a sidewalk on only one side. 27 , ; JUL 2 8 1987 Discussion ensued re the possible need for a change in the ordinance, and Chairman Scurlock emphasized the need to get more information relative to economic impact when we pass an ordinance. He felt staff should look into this. REQUEST BY VISA BUILDERS RE PAVING UNDER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ORD. The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis: TO: The Honorable Manbers of the DATE: July 15, 1987 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P. . Public Works Directc Request by Visa Builders, SUBJECT: Developer, to Contract with a Paving Contractor for Paving and Drainage Improvements to 21st Ave - 2nd St to 4th St 22nd Ave - 2nd St to 4th St 2nd St - 21st Ave to 22nd Ave and Apply Special Assessment REFERENCM�ing Ronald E. Mitchell, Visa dated 7/1/87 Mr. Ron Mitchell, President. of Visa Builders, has purchased a 10 acre parcel of land bounded on three sides by county maintained, unpaved roads (see attached map).-- The developer has submitted a petition requesting the County to pave the three roads and assess him in accordance with the Special Assessment Ordinance. The funding would be as follows: Visa Builders 371 % of cost Other Benefited Owners along subject Streets 371 % of cost (platted & developed) Indian River County 25 % of cost Total 100% The petition is on file in the Public Works Department and staff is of the opinion that due to currently approved projects, the paving by County crews could not be scheduled until mid or late 1988. Mr. Mitchell does not wish to wait that long, so he is requesting that his consultant design the paving and drainage project, a contractor would construct the improvements, and that the County pay 621% of the cost to the Contractor and assess 370 of the cost to the other benefitted owners. ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS The project will mutually benefit the developer and County residents. Staff has no objection to a cooperative agreement, however, the following program is proposed: Phase I - The Developer would fund the engineering and survey cost in designing the project. The work would be performed by the developer's engineer with review approval by the County. The cost would not be reimbursed. Once the plans are approved, the County would bid the project and identify the construction cost. 28 Phase II- County staff would take the approved low bid amount and develop an assessment roll for the project. A public hearing would be held and the regular petition paving process would take place. Phase III -If the Board of County Cam issioners approved the project, the County would, upon completion, fund 62$% of the cost from the petition paving fund and assess the other benefited owners the remaining 37}x. The actual contract for the paving would be between the County and the Contractor. Proper insurance and a Performance bond would be required. The Developer would fund his 37}% prior to construction. Staff does not recommend that the Developer contract with a private company and bill the County for the 62J% not funded by the Developer. Staff reccmmends the above Three Phase Program be approved. Funding to be addressed at the time of Public Hearing. Commissioner Eggert realized they wish to expedite and felt it is great to go outside to get this work done since we can't take care of everything, but had a problem with the developer doing the contracting when we want control. Chairman Scurlock agreed that he also could understand the need to expedite, but brought up the example of Apple Way, where years ago the residents got the work done quickly; however, 4 or 5 years later, the road crumbled because it wasn't properly inspected and wasn't done to county specs, and then the residents were angry and looking for someone to blame. He felt by not having control of these improvements, we let ourselves in for future problems. Administrator Balczun advised that the thrust of the issue is to have the developer pay the cost of the engineering to expedite the project, and he wished to know if the Board would have a problem with the proposal have'a developer's agreement. if it were reoriented for us to Chairman Scurlock believed this should be handled similar to the approach we took on Item C on the Consent Agenda where the contract will be with us; this will facilitate getting the work done, but we will have control. 29 BOOK f'rF:ut 4Qu JUL 2 8 1997 BOOK - [,s c 30 Administrator Balczun stated that from now on when staff gets proposals such as this, the people will be informed that a developer's agreement is necessary. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted the modified recommendation to enter into a developer's agreement. BIDS #349 & #350 - SMALL S LARGE WHEEL LOADERS Purchasing Manager Goodrich reviewed the following memo: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JULY 23, 1987 FILE: THRU: Joseph A. Baird Director, Budget 0 •fice FROM: Carolyn ffoodrich, Manager PurchasVng Department Recommendation SUBJECT: IRC B I D #349 -Small Wheel Loader IRC BID #350 -Large Wheel Loader REFERENCES: Per the attached analysis from Sonny Dean, the Purchasing Department concurs with the recommendation to award IRC #349 to M. D. Moody Equipment Co. for a Trojan 1500Z with a direct purchase price of $52,797.00. The Purchasing Department also concurs with the recommendation to award IRC #350 to Kelly Tractor for a Caterpillar 966D based on the total cost purchase with guaranteed buy back. Intended Use of Capital Equipment The small wheel.loader will be used to clean out the new air curtain incinerator at the landfill. The large wheel loader will be used to load the air curtain incinerator. Source of Funds This equipment was funded for FY86/87 as part of the air curtain incinerator equipment. Bid Data -Bids#349-350 were advertised on June 15, 16, 22, 23, 1987. Bids were received on Wednesday, July 8, 1987 at 2 P.M. 4 Bids were received. 30 L_ I L—� TO: ..BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JULY 21, 1987 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: H. T. DEAN MANAGER 0 OL D WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: EQUIPMENT BIDS: NO. 349 -SMALL WHEEL LOADER NO. 350 -LARGE WHEEL LOADER Bid No. 349 is for a small wheel loader to be used in cleaning out the' - new air curtain incinerator at the landfill. Staff recommends awarding of the low bid M. D. Moody Equipment Company for a TROJAN Model 1500 Z with a direct purchase price of $52,797.00. Bid No. 350 is for a large wheel loader to be used in loading the air curtain incinerator. This machine was bid in six different ways to allow the County best choice for the best price: It is Anticipated this machine will operate on a two shift a day basis, seven flays per week in order to get caught up with the amount of debris stored',on site. The amount of operation hours plus abnormal conditions shouldldictate consideration in the type machine that should be purchased as well as the cost. In landfill operations, 6,000 hours of operation is considered a cost effective life for the machine. Based on the described scenario it is anticipated that the cost effective life of this machine would be approximately two years. At a recent state Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association meeting of landfill operators it was noted that most entities are using the guaranteed buy back with total cost repair bids in purchasing their equipment. This procedure is due. to the high maintenance problems associated with landfill operations. In bidding the large wheel loader we specifically requested total cost repairs and guaranteed buy back. One company bid total cost repairs but only Catepillar submitted a price for guaranteed buy back. A break down of all bids submitted is attached for your persual. Each bid was calculated at a cost per month to enable a fair comparison from all vendors. Using this scenario, we find that Catepillar has a total monthly cost of $3,109.71 per month for the two year period. This is a guaranteed price which no other company would provide. Based on this data staff recommends Kelly Tractor Company be awarded the biid for a Catepillar Model 966D. Solid Waste Manager Sonny Dean explained that the emergency is that the air curtain incinerator will be in, and we cannot operate it without these machines. Question arose about the time it took for this matter to get to the Board, and staff explained the delay was due to budget hearings and the agenda cut-off date. Commissioner Bird asked if the material that is cleaned out of the incinerator is stockpiled and then moved. 31 BOOK JUL . Fait 31 ,JUL 2 81997'a BOOK 69 F'" JL e�01.1 Manager Dean advised that it is necessary to clean the burner out every day and then move that material up onto the Landfill itself. The small wheeler loader takes the material out and puts it in the area where we are hauling with the large pan scraper. Commissioner Bird asked why the big loader can't empty the _incinerator once a day, and Manager Dean explained that it is too large to get inside the incinerator. Chairman Scurlock believed we also have to be careful not to damage the equipment in the bottom of the incinerator. Commissioner Bird asked if the reasoning behind recommending going with Caterpillar for the large loader with guaranteed repairs and total cost buy back is that with the heavy use that machine gets, it is believed its life expectancy is only about two years before it will have to be replaced. Manager Dean reported that in going to meetings around the state, he has found that they have gone to a standard of 6,000 operating hours before replacement. Chairman Scurlock felt the emphasis from the administrative level has been to turn equipment over a little faster rather than experience the huge repair bills we have had in the past. Administrator Balczun confirmed that in some cases, it would appear that we can replace the equipment for what we have been paying to maintain it. Commissioner Bird wished to know what the cost works out to per month if we go with a straight lease, and Manager Dean advised that.if we leased the Fiat Allis for 24 months, it would work out to $5,882 per month. With the Caterpillar on the straight 24 month lease, it works out to about $7,010 monthly; with the Trojan $4,324 a month, and with the Dresser $5,180; and those are without total cost repairs. We don't know what it would cost us to maintain the equipment. He calculated that in 24 months on the guaranteed buy-back with total cost repairs, we 32 J -1 would have paid $3,109.71 a month for the Caterpillar, which is actually cheaper than leasing one. Commissioner Eggert asked if it is her understanding that this new burner is able to run a great deal longer than the old one, and Manager Dean confirmed that it will be running a good deal longer. He noted that since this burner has been down for a considerable time, we now have a tremendous backlog of material covering about 20 acres. Chairman Scurlock reported that we even have been looking at a huge drum chipper as an option, and the salesman demonstrating the chipper gave us an estimate of six months to clear the back log and get us current.. Commissioner Bird noted that it is very difficult when you only receive information on big items of equipment such as this the day of the meeting, and he is'taking staff's word that they have worked all the numbers out. Manager Dean assured the Board that he went over all this with the OMB Director. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #349 for a Trojan 150OZ to M. D. Moody Equipment Co. at a direct purchase price of $52,797.00 and awarded Bid #350 for a Caterpillar 966D to Kelly Tractor based on the total cost purchase with guaranteed buy-back per the following bid tabulation. 33 soot; JL 8 198 f'a,c P J'UL 2 8 1937 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BOOK FACE e� 4 �l Q� 4^ a J 1 L �pn .0 - a - f4 m Q3�1 BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC #349 July 8, 1987 BID TITLE ONE (1) WHEEL LOADER 4 Z 3 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT -24 MONTH LEASE ONE WHEEL LOADER ITEM 1 24 MONTH LEASE ONE WHEEL NB Dresser NB Trojan Cate pil ar Fi tal is 1. Cost of Wheel Loader Per LOADER INCLUDING TOTAL Month on 24 Month Lease COST RFPAIRS I MR MR MR Iq27 00 2098 00 I. Cot of Wheel Loader per 2. Guaranteed Maximum Cost of Month on 24 Mnnth 1pani- Repairs for.. ears or 6,000 hours whichever occur first MR NR NB 6660 00 12,500 00 ITEM (2) -24 mnNT FASF PURrHASE ONE Opt88u 0000 01 7.D5 t uc Cost of Wheel Loader er OADE of Repairs for 2 years or Month Monthly Lease 6,000 operating hours Purchase $ MR Whichever occurs first." gtzhq nn 3228 00 2800 00 NO TRADE D IRECT PURCHASE TEM - nNF wHFFi I nAnrgj 8600 00 15,OOC 00 00 71.838 00 61.73 00 45 Da s Total Cost Repairs NB NB 90-120 Days NB 45-60' Days No Dellve y Stated 330 da Deliv ry BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 4� /'?" �-omBID TABULATION s, 0 1° se/3,71, BID NO. DATE OF OPENING oc �u �' C Qa e I RC B I D #350• BID TITLE ONE (1) NEW WHEEL LOADER 4~ Z a ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE NO. UNIT PRICE UN R PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRI( ITEM 1 24 MONTH LEASE ONE WHEEL NB NB NB M 2OBfl:lis lis LOADER INCLUDING TOTAL COST RFPAIRS I. Cot of Wheel Loader per Month on 24 Mnnth 1pani- 3373 00 4407 0 2. "Guaranteed Maximum Cost Opt88u 0000 01 7.D5 t uc eer mo of Repairs for 2 years or 6,000 operating hours Whichever occurs first." 8600 00 15,OOC 00 ITEM 2 24 MONTH LEASE PURCHASE dnr Total Cost Repairs NB NB NB 1. Cost of Wheel Loader per 7010 00 5882 00 Month on 24 Month Lease opt kuckft opt buc et S Per Per Mo 34 ® � r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach. Florida 32880 �q+ - .�4 o? ao d3 BID. TABULATION �� BID NO. DATE OF OPENING o°j ~� h IRC BID 1350 July 8, 1987 �m �� a �mF Z e Q BID TITLE ONE(1) NEW WHEEL LOADER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PR CONTID ITEM 2 24 MONTH LEASE PURL SE o� c BID NO. OPENINGIRC TDAT:EOF BID 0 �`• v;� Q BID TITLE s ONE WHEEL LOADER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRIG CONT'D - ITEM 3 REPAIRSCOST 2. Guaranteed Maximum Cost of 2- nuaranteed Maximum 5 Repairs for yearsor 7- 6,000 o eratin hours 6,000 operating hours whichever occurs first. 00 00 ITEM (3) ONE WHEEL LOADER -2 mnum LFAqF PURCHASE WITH Kin MR MR 7nIn nn NR Opt GUARANTEED BUY BACK uc e 00 Per M 1. Cost of Wheel Loader per Mon h Monthly Lease Purchase a- CuarantpAd Buy Rack $ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32860 c a `° BID TABULATION �°� o� o� c BID NO. OPENINGIRC TDAT:EOF BID 0 �`• v;� Q BID TITLE s ONE (1) NEW WHEEL LOADER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRIG CONT'D - ITEM 3 2. Guaranteed Maximum Cost of Repairs for 6,000 operating hours whichever occurs first. 8600 00 a- CuarantpAd Buy Rack $ Q7 nnn nn ITEM 4 ONE WHEEL LOADER -TOTAL NR NR NR COST NO TRADE DIRECT PURCHASIF 1. Cost of Wheel Loader 12996 00 i =46 1 00 2. Guaranteed Maximum Cost of Opt Opt Repairs for 2 years or 6,000 Bucket Buck t operating hours, whichever occurs first $ 860 00 15,00 00 35 AUL 2 �� BUl1� `rAur JUL '2 A87 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BOOK 4 �C Q� L j C 4 b cQ1 IRC BID #350 July 8, 1987 BID NO. DATE OF OPENING iuc �� moo°"�' / BID TITLE m� Z ONE 1 NEW WHEEL LOADER ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT NB ITFm -ONE WHEEL LOADER NB NB NO TRADE DIRECT PURCHASE DIRECT PURCHASE WITH GUARA Cost eel Loader 1. Cost of Wheel Loader 158033 00 NB 124339 00 103785 00 15803 Opt Rurkpl 2. Guaranteed Maximum Cost of O do al_QDti 1 801 001 1 Repairs for 2 years or nal 0 nal 4.5Cu A nno op ting hours - 4.5 4.5 4.5 whichever occurs first. Bucket Bucke t Bucket Bucket 8600 00 4750 QQ- 8010 46m an 3. Guaranteed Buy Back -0 512000 -0 Coup! 3185 0 I IT I-RnAQn no not WTV rtnAAAA1Qe1nk1e0e I 1840 25th Street 1 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 QF0* IVp BID TABULATION oc wL o° b u 3 BID NO. DATE OF OPENING i �a R° tiL� hu IRC BID 0 Jul 8 1987 mo 4,' BID TITLE C r� Q ONE 1 NEW WHEEL LOADER ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT P ITFm -ONE WHEEL LOADER DIRECT PURCHASE 1. Cost of Wheel Loader 124339 00 103785 00 15803 00.12996! 00 O do al_QDti n 1 i nal 0 nal 4.5Cu 4.5 4.5 4.5 Bucket Bucke t Bucket Bucket 405 4750 QQ- 8010 46m an -0 L Coup! 3185 0 Da Daw Day Da Deliv ry Delivery Deliv ry 36 OFFER OF SETTLEMENT - HOWELL-CHAPMAN BEACHFRONT PROPERTY Assistant County Attorney Barkett believed everyone is familiar with the background involved with the possible acquisi- tion of the Howell -Chapman property. He reported that after our appraisal came in at 2.7 million, we made an offer to the owner at that amount, but could not get him to come up with a counter offer. It was then submitted to the court for eminent domain proceedings. He continued that after meeting with representa- tives of the owner.in West Palm, they have now come up with the following offer to settle: HOWELL-CHAPMAN PARCEL Characteristics: 18.06 acres vacant oceanfront - N. A -1-A 1461 front feet along ocean Save Our Coast Contribution: $2,490,600 (Ours) Armfield-Wagner Appraisal: 2,700,000 (Theirs) Phillip Pickens Appraisal: 3,883,330 Difference between our appraisal and theirs: Price If split difference: Offer to settle including costs s atty's fees: Less State contribution Total cost to County 1,183,330 3,291,665 3,215,000 2,490,600 $ 724,400 Options and Alternatives: 1. Accept offer to settle for $3,215,000, which includes costs and attorney's fees. 2. Reject offer with no counter-offer; go to trial, accept jury verdict. 3. Reject offer, propose counter-offer, with or without costs and attorney's fees. Give time certain for acceptance: 24 hours. Recommendation: Accept offer to settle for $3,215,000. Total cost to the County would be $724,000, which includes costs and attorney's fees. If we go to trial, a jury could go with our appraisal, their appraisal, or split the difference, assuming each side puts on a reasonable case. If jury splits the difference ($3,291,665), County's cost would be $801,065 PLUS costs and attorney's fees, which could also be in six_T'igures. If this offer is rejected, a counter -proposal should be authorized today. _ 37 BOOK 7 . � f'Ai;F JUL 28 1987 FF'_ BOOK F. Chairman Scurlock wished to know where the money is going to come from if we accept the offer to settle, and he asked Attorney Barkett if there was discussion of any terms for payment and the possibility of spreading it over more than one year. Attorney Barkett advised that was discussed. He was not sure we could do it that way; possibly we could legally do it in .two payments, but in any event, they were not amenable. OMB Director Baird believed he could find a funding mechanism for the $724,000 difference, but wanted the Board to realize fully that buying something of this magnitude that is not budgeted would have a large impact on the fund balance flowing into next year. Chairman Scurlock continued to discuss the possibility of making one payment in this budget year and one in the next. He felt possibly we could make a counter offer to that effect, especially as we are only two months from the beginning of the new fiscal year. Discussion continued in regard to the $724,000 including costs and attorney's fees, and Commissioner Bird could not under- stand how two M.A.I. appraisers can be so far apart in their appraisals when they are based on comparable sales. Attorney Barkett stated that he had a hard time justifying that much of a difference also. He noted, however, that there is a lot of subjectivity in appraisals, and our appraiser determined that this property is at the low end of the scale because of the Coastal Construction Line and the potential of the COBRA Bill, which has not been reflected in sales so far. Their appraisal was at the high end in spite of those factors as they felt they still would be able to develop the property to the same extent. Commissioner Bird felt it actually is a toss-up and both attorneys can make their case in court; we estimated $1,800 per front foot, and this works out to about $2,200 per front foot. Attorney Barkett tried to look at this from a juror's point of view and felt they will see the county taking this person's 38 M f property; his opinion was that a reasonable juror would most likely split the difference. The proposal does better than splitting the difference by $81,000 and includes attorneys' fees; so, we have a price certain in front of us. Chairman Scurlock noted that when we talked about acquiring this property, we were thinking in the range of $250-300,000 for the county to come up with, and his question is do we really want that property for over $724,000. Commissioner Bird wished to know if we go to court and the jury comes up with a price we cannot afford and we do not exercise our option to buy the property, what costs we have incurre'd at that time. 'Attorney Barkett advised they will come back to court and try to prove the amount of legal fees and costs they are entitled to, which he felt could be considerable. He noted another cost we must consider.is the loss of the state funding. Commissioner Bird agreed we worked hard to obtain that funding, and he would hate to just give it back. Commissioner Wheeler believed with our costs, which it seems work out to about $4,000 an acre, it is a reasonable piece of property, especially with the state money coming in, and he believed the attitude of the community, demonstrated by their backing of the Beach Bonds, is to preserve ocean front as much as possible. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to accept the offer to settle for $3,215,000 as recom- mended by the County Attorney's office. DISCUSS ADMINISTRATOR FOR NORTR COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 'Chairman Scurlock noted that he had been asked to draft a description of the major functions and duties of an administrator 39 BOOK �� F,,,uC ►.� JUL 2 8,196-1 IIUL 0 1987 BOOK � r. 40 for the North County Fire District, and he has prepared the following with the help of Doug Wright, Director of Emergency Management. MAJOR FUNCTION This is responsible administrative and management work directing and coordinating functions and activities of the North Indian River County Fire Taxing District under the jurisdiction of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners which comprise the North Indian River County Fire Taxing District Board. ILLUSTRATIVE DUTIES Administers and carries out the directives and policies of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners which acts in the capacity of the North Indian River County Fire District Board. Enforces all orders, resolutions, ordinances, and regulations to insure they are faithfully executed. Reports to the Board regarding actions or programs deemed necessary for the improvement of the North Indian River County Fire District and the residents served. This position does not supervise on -scene fire fighting or rescue operations, but does work in a cooperative effort to provide internal and external training programs to enhance fire -fighting techniques of the various volunteer fire departments in order to keep pace with advances in technology. Supervise and administer the budgeting process for the North Indian River County Fire District and prepares the annual budget upon rec- ommendation of the North Indian River County Fire Taxing District Advisory Board for submission to the County Budget Director and Board of County Commissioners for action as deemed appropriate. Supervise the care and custody of county property and maintains a current inventory of property. Establish and administer an orderly process for the purchase of and timely payment for equipment and supplies for the various departments of the North Indian River County Fire Taxing District. Administer and coordinate overall communications and the communica- tions network in the North Indian River County Fire Taxing District to insure optimum effective use of communication equipment. Receives department reports and maintains statistical information to identify trends, problem areas, and significant accomplishments. Perform such other duties as may be required by the Indian River County_Board of County Commissioners. y . 40 Chairman Scurlock advised that it is proposed that this person would administer what was approved in the budget, and Mr. Baird would be the person at our end. Commissioner Bird felt it is a good job description. He stressed that he would like to keep the lines of communication open and would like to submit this job description to the North County Fire Advisory Board to get their input. Chairman Scurlock felt one of the major benefits of doing this is that it provides a mechanism for reporting to the Commission. He believed the reason the recent incident came immediately before the Comnission is that there was not that person there to handle it. Having an administrator provides a channel. The way it is now would be like having all our department heads report directly to the Commission rather than through Mr. Balczun. The Chairman reaffirmed that this is his recommendation, and he assumed Commissioner Bowman would take it back to the Advisory Committee. Commissioner Eggert believed some mention had been made of a part time salary and asked if the thought was to relate it to hours of time spent on this. Chairman Scurlock advised that he thought of two things - $5,000 part time salary, trying to equate that to the amount of time the individual would have to spend, and also, quite frankly, the ability of the District to pay. He believed we already gave Mr. Balczun direction during the budget hearings to look at all of our personnel in terms of car allowance vs. mileage, and he believed he would do that with Mr. Wright, if we eventually - approve the position. Commissioner Bird asked if this would be paid by the Fire District and would be in addition to Mr. Wright's present salary. Chairman Scurlock confirmed it would be paid by the District and would be an increase of Mr. Wright's salary from $29,000 to about $34,000, plus fringes, etc. JUL 2 �9�7 4' BOOK roc. Fr- UUL 2 8 1987 BOOR 69 PAA- 42 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to recommend to the North County Fire Advisory Committee the establishment of the above described position of Administrator of the District proposed to be filled by Emergency Management Director Wright. Commissioner Bird commented that Doug Wright obviously is now doing a job for the County for $29,000 and this would be another $5,000, but since this additional responsibility would detract some from what he is already doing, he wondered if it is justified to pay him the extra. Chairman Scurlock believed what Mr. Wright is presently doing is far beyond what the position originally called for. For instance, he works closely with Commissioner Eggert on her emergency medical services and is attending a lot of meetings and doing a lot that was not required. Commissioner Bird just wanted the Administrator to be able to assure him this is a justifiable $34,000 position and that he is comfortable with it within the structure of our other salaries in the county. Administrator Wright stated that there _is no doubt in his mind that Mr. Wright can do this new job effectively, but he noted that OMB Director Baird and he must have some discussion about how some of Mr. Baird's responsibilities, as well as Mr. Wright's, can be shifted elsewhere. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. NORTH COUNTY FIRE The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire A 42 1 ' Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. i There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:02 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman I JUL 2 8 197 43 BOOK U PAGE