HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1987Tuesday, November 10, 1987
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
November 10, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman;
Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also
present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and County
Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock advised that Commissioner Wheeler had re-
quested that an emergency item be added in regard to the 12th
Street Road Improvement Project, the emergency being that the
holiday season soon will be upon us.
The Chairman had felt there was an item to be added re the
Sheriff's Administration Building, but Administrator Balczun
advised that although they had sent it down to be added, they
have decided to wait until Mr. Dean returns to put this on the
agenda.
Chairman Scurlock wished to add under his matters a
discussion in regard to the new Assistant Administrator and the
compensation level offered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the above
items to today's agenda.
NOV 10 1987 Boa 70 a ;� 38
N O V 10 1987 7
BOOK 70 PA;E 39
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested that Items E, G and K, be
removed for discussion, and Commissioner Bird requested that Item
H be removed for discussion also.
A. 43rd Ave. Ext. N. Gifford Rd. (R/W Acquisition - Carter)
The Board reviewed memo of R/W Agent Finney:
J&E HONORABLE MEMBERS OF
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
=;
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
r County Administrator
DATE:October 23, 1987 FILE:
SUBJECT:North Gifford Road R/W
43rd Avenue Extension
r: James W. Davis, P.E. tj Parcel #100/Carter
Public Works Director
'"s REFERENCES:
FROKonald G. Finney, S
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
To complete the 43rd Avenue paving north of N. Gifford Road, the
county requires a 101x900.5' additional right-of-way. The appraised
value as of February 16, 1987 was $4,953.00. The property owner would
settle for $10,000.00. The Board authorized condemnation on April 21,
1987. After further lengthy negotiations, the property owner is now
willing to sell the above right-of-way to I.R.C. for $7,500.00.
At the present time, the County Road and Bridge Dept. is 30%
complete with 43rd Avenue construction. Construction cannot proceed
until the right-of-way is acquired. If the County does not settle this
acquistion, a further 2 month delay will transpire.
RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING
Realizing the time element to get an Order of Taking, and the time
since the appraisal and the following costs, staff requests authoriza-
tion to purchase the 101x900.5' right-of-way at $7,500.00.
Appraised Value $4,953.00
Minimum condem. costs 5,858.00
Minimum total $10,811.00 by eminant domain
Sufficient funds are available in Fund
109- Local Option Gas Tax to underwrite
costs of this right-of-way acquisition.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
purchase of the above described Right -of -Way at
$7,500 as recommended by staff.
2
B. Appointment to I.R. Emergency Outreach Board (Bowman)
The Board reviewed the following letter:
October 27, 1981
Don Scurlock, Chairman
Indian River County
Board of Commissioners
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
Unibed Way
of Indian River County
2001 9th Avenue
Suite 313, 2001 Building
P.O. Box 1960
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1960
Phone (305) 567-8900
The United Way of Indian River County has-been informed that a -Phase VI
grant from the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program has been
awarded to this county in the amount of $5,120.00.
Federal regulations call for the establishment of a local board to .
oversee the expenditure of funds. The Indian River Emergency Outreach Board
has fulfilled that function locally for the past several years. It is
suggested that one of the Board positions be filled by someone from county
government.
Would you please consider appointing Maggy Bowman to serve in that
capacity? She has served during all previous grant periods, and is
knowledgeable about FEMA policies and procedures. The first meeting under
Phase VI will be held on Tuesday, November 10, at 8:30 AM, at the United Way
office, and we hope to see Maggy'there. Thank you for your assistance in
this,matter.
Sincerely,
Kay Y ngbl t ,
Exec ive D r ct r
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously appointed
Commissioner Margaret Bowman to the Indian River
Emergency Outreach Board.
C. Final PRD Plat Approval - Timber Ridge Village it (Tract G)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Wiegers:
NOV 101987 3 BOOK .70 FACE 40
N O V 10 1987 BOOK 1.0 PAGE
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 26, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
-�'SUBJECT: AL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Robert M. Cea ng, CP FIN
Planning & Develop nt Director TIMBER RIDGE VILLAGE II
Ag(TRACT G) SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: Stan Bolin =_ -
Chief, Current Development
_
FROM: Robert E. Wieg er z -W REFERENCES: timridtractg
Staff Planner BWIEG2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 10, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Timber Ridge Village II is a plat of a ±13 acre condominium
project tract located in the eastern portion of the Timber Ridge
PRD project, situated north of Oslo Road on the east side of the
Lateral "J" Canal. The property is zoned RM -6 (Multi -Family
Residential, up to 6 units/- acre) and has a land use designation
of LD -2 (Low Density Residential, up to 6 units/acre). At its
regular meeting of January 6, 1987, the Board of County Commis-
sioners granted conceptual PRD approval for the entire Timber
Ridge project, which includes the Village II tract (Tract G).
On April 9, 1987, the Planning _and Zoning Commission granted
Preliminary PRD plan approval for the Village II (Tract G) devel-
opment. Although no lots are being created within this tract
(normal condominium ownership will be established, the same as.for
many non -PRD multiple family projects), the PRD ordinance requires
that the tract be platted. A land development permit has been
issued and improvements are being constructed in accordance with
the approved site plan and the land development permit.
The Village II development is adjacent to and interconnected with
the recently approved Fox Ridge Subdivision. All conditions of
preliminary PRD approval have been satisfied and the owner, Andrew
Mustapick, is now requesting final PRD plat approval for Tract G
and has submitted:
1. a final PRD plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
PRD plat.
ANALYSIS:
The approved site plan and issued land development permit control
the development of this project. All required site improvements
will be constructed and inspected on a phased basis, prior to the
issuance of C.O.'s for units within each phase area. All require-
ments for final PRD plat approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final PRD plat approval to the Village II development.
4
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted Final
PRD Plat Approval to Timber Ridge Village II ( Tract G)
Subdivision.
D. Purchase of Copy Machines for Mailroom/Switchboard
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
`T+ TO: Members of the Board
.:•+'v of County Commissioners
THROUGH William A. Blankenship
Personnel Director
DATE: November 4, 1987
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF COPY MACHINES
FOR MAILROOM/SWITCHBOARD
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Description of Conditions
The IBM copier, purchased in 1984, has undergone such a
tremendous amount of use over the past three (3) years that it has now
become necessary to replace it two (2) years short of its projected
life. Mechanical problems are occurring with increasing frequency.
5
OV 10 1987 Boa 70 PAGE 42
BOOK 70 pnr1 43
Copier volume, now at well over 100,000 per month, threatens to
prematurely erode the quality of the copies due to heavy wear on the
equipment. The resulting downtimes create delays which are not only
frustrating but potentially expensive.
IBM recently ran a promotion involving a special volume discount
for the State of Florida. To be eligible, the County was required to
declare its intent to purchase a copier by a letter dated no later than
October 1, 1987. A letter was sent out September 29, 1987 indicating
an interest in the Model 85 and Model 50 copier but with a disclaimer
informing IBM that the letter was not an intent to purchase, as this
could not be done without prior approval of the Board of County
Commissioners. IBM, in a'letter dated October 7, 1987, confirmed that
they would put a copier for the County "on hold" pending the approval
of the Board.
Funds were authorized in the 1987/88 budget to purchase two (2)
copiers for $40,000. Our present monthly maintenance costs are
$1,052.20 based on a monthly maintenance charge of $313.00 on the
hardware alone and a copy cost of $739.20 based on 112,000 copies
at .0066 per copy. Purchasing and maintenance costs for the Model 85
and Model 50 units are provided below:
OUTRIGHT PURCHASE
Model 85 Model 50 Combined
Purchase Price 42,500 16,000 58,500
s
Less V.P.A. Discount (9,775) (4,000) (13,775)
Less Trade In (8,700) (2,750) (11,450)
Less Typewriter Promo.* (2,390) ----- ------
Final cost to the County 21,635 9,250 30,885
------- ------- --------
------- ------- --------
*(County receives two (2) free typewriters or a credit for $2,390)
It should be noted that the Model 85 has a monthly maintenance cost of $943.80, -_•_
compared with our current unit at $1,052.20. The first six months of maintenance are
free as part of this promotion)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
the purchase of one (1) Model 85 and one (1) Model 50 copier. Our
recommendations are based on several factors:
1. The favorable discount rate that IBM is offering us on the
two (2) machines.
6
MAINTENANCE
COSTS
Model 85
Model 50
Monthly Availability:
Monthly Availability:
Model 85
$254.00
Model 50
$156.00-
Stapler
29.00
Collator
48.00-
$283.00
$204.00
Per Copy Charge
660.80
Per Copy Charge
295.00
(.0059 x 112,000 copies)
(.0059 x 50,000 copies)
Monthly Cost/Model 85
$943.80
Monthly Costs/Model 50
$499.00
It should be noted that the Model 85 has a monthly maintenance cost of $943.80, -_•_
compared with our current unit at $1,052.20. The first six months of maintenance are
free as part of this promotion)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
the purchase of one (1) Model 85 and one (1) Model 50 copier. Our
recommendations are based on several factors:
1. The favorable discount rate that IBM is offering us on the
two (2) machines.
6
2. The excellent service that IBM provides for equipment
purchased through them. It should be mentioned that the
county has not gone out to bid on this contract. Because of
the paralyzing effect that copier downtime has on work
output, service is nearly as important a consideration as
price. From prior experience, staff regards IBM's service as
unparalleled in the industry.
3. Trade-in allowance on the county's old machines.
4. The reduced maintenance cost on the Model 85 compared with
the county's current unit - the Model 60.
.5. 'The typewriter promotion credit.
6. The six (6) months free maintenance that will be thrown in
by IBM as part of the purchase package.
Further, it is recommended that the county consider the outright
purchase of the two (2) units rather than a lease arrangement. IBM's
leases currently average 12% interest - a cost which will exceed what
we can earn elsewhere.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the
outright purchase of the two copier units described
above as recommended by staff.
E. Budget Amendment - Automobile for County Staff
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 4, 1987
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT - AUTOMOBILE
FOR COUNTY STAFF
FROM: Joseph A. Baird -
OMB Director
ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT TITLE INCREASE DECREASE',
Revenue
001-000-364-041.00 Sale of Surplus Property $14,500
Expense
001-201-512-066.42 County Admin. -Automobile $14,500
Explanation
The.county staff feels that an automobile needs to be purchased
as an all-around vehicle for administrative purposes. Such a vehicle
can be used for inspecting large road projects, application for site
Nov i o.17
7 BOOK 70 f,1GE 44
L_
""'NOV
1 � f �987 �ooK 70 PAr,E 45.
plans, large utility projects, and long distance travel to seminars
and meetings.
The estimated cost of a new automobile is $14,500. Funds for
this purchase can be acquired through the sale of surplus property in
the general fund.
Commissioner Eggert believed we had a very lengthy discus-
sion about this vehicle at budget hearing time and voted not to
put it in the budget, and she expressed her distress on finding
this brought back again. She believed we have four-wheel drive
vehicles in our inventory and did not feel this is necessary.
Chairman Scurlock noted that he voted against this before
and will vote against it again. He further noted that he still
has a question about mileage versus car allowance and how we
handle that and believes we need a list of everyone that is
receiving either or both.
Commissioner Bird felt that at budgettime he had suggested
we check to see if there were possibly any confiscated vehicles
the Sheriff might have that might suffice and could be
transferred for this purpose.
ON NOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied the
request for a budget amendment to purchase a vehicle
for administrative purposes as described above.
F. Bid #375 - Grapefruit Crop
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
8
L�
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Steve Futch - Ag. ExtensionP
H. T. "Sonny"_Dean - Citrus r ve _
DATE: October 30, 1987
SUBJECT: BID NUMBER 375 - GRAPEFRUIT CROP '
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Description and Condition
The "Grapefruit Crop" bids were opened on Wednesday, October
21, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. Thirty-three (33) bid requests were sent
out and four (4) proposals were received. The four proposals
were as follows:
} - Vendor Price
Egan, Fickett and Company $32,500.00
Hubert Graves Packing Company $55,300.00
Graves Brothers Company $71,041.00
Dole Citrus Packing House "No Bid"
Mr. Steve Futch, Agriculture Extension Director, and Sonny
Dean have reviewed the proposals and are satisfied with the high
bid received from Graves Brothers Company.
Funding
The revenue from the Grapefruit Crop exceeds the budget
revenue.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners award the
sale of the Grapefruit Crop to Graves Brothers Company.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#375 for the County Grapefruit Crop to Graves Brothers
Company in the amount of $71,041.
G. Albamar, Inc., Request to Lease_ County_ Right -of -Way
The Board reviewed memo of Administrator Balczun:
10V 10 1987 9 BOOK 70 f'D.GE 46
BOOK 70 P" -UF .41
'+ T0- Board of County Commission CATE•October 30, 1987 FILE.
,." .. _
ALBAMAR, INC. REQUEST
SUBJECT. TO LEASE COUNTY RIGHT-
OF-WAY
FROM: Charles P. Bal czun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
Qnrvr_oniimn
Albamar, Inc. wishes to lease a 1 foot by 60 foot strip of County right-of-
way on 14th Avenue at Marian Plaza on which an advertising sign would be
constructed. This request is made because our existing right-of-way is 200
ft. wide thereby causing signage to be nearly 65 feet from the roadway.
ANALYSIS
Our right-of-way at this location is unusually wide and we have no current
plans for improvements which would be impaired if we grant the request.
The Department of Community Development by memorandum dated October 14,
1987 recommends against such a lease while the Department of Public Works,
by memorandum dated October 14, 1987 makes a favorable recommendation.
Following my review of the two staff reports, I directed that a licensing
agreement be drafted by which the County would grant to Albamar, Inc. a
license to use the 1 ft. by 60 ft. strip.
RECOMMENDATION
I concur with
the
position
taken by the Department of Public Works and
recommend that
the
Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to
execute such an
agreement with Albamar, Inc.
Our best estimate
of the
reasonable value of the property approximates
some $300/yr.
The proposed
agreement is
for a term of five years, requires that the
property be used in
a lawful
manner only and provides for revocation by the
County upon 90
days
notice and
by the Licensee upon 30 days notice.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about leasing R/W to a
business for a term of five years with no option to renew or any
other such provision, and wondered why there was not such an
option.
Administrator Balczun advised that Public Works Director
Davis developed this agreement based upon what, to his knowledge,
is the only prior agreement of this kind approved by the Board,
and he believed this is almost a replication of that document.
The Administrator merely thought five years was a reasonable
10
V
period of time and did not have any problem with an alternative
reopener or some kind of extension.
Chairman Scurlock had a question relating to the original
cost of the sign and whether or not it can be depreciated over
the period of this agreement.
Commissioner Wheeler believed the City of Vero Beach in
their sign ordinance, figured a sign could be depreciated in five
years regardless of its cost. He pointed out that we can cancel
this agreement on 90 days' notice, and he, therefore, did not
have a problem with an option to renew.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed agreement with the modification of an
option to renew as discussed.
Administrator Balczun informed the Board that yesterday
Albamar's representative proposed by letter an alternative to our
licensing fee and felt we should at least put his offer, which is
as follows, on the record:
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, F1. 32960
Attn: Mr. Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
November 9, 1987
Albamar, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Michael C. Durwin, Manager agrees
as consideration under the proposed license agreement for county
property abutting the South property line of 1238-1248 16th Street,
Vero Beach, F1., it will pay County one dollar ($1.00) per year and
maintain current landscaping (mowing, edging) of County right of way
in front (south side) of above property.
),It eL'� ,Sc�
Michael C. Durvin
Manager
Albamar, Inc.
N VI
11
BOOK d O P'.,E 4S
NOV 10 1987 BOOK 70 rHGE 49
Commissioner Eggert believed Albamar is required to maintain
the landscaping in any event, and Chairman Scurlock was opposed
to Albamar's proposal as he did not want to.have to be involved
in a policing action in regard to when the R/W is mowed, etc.; he
would rather just take the money.
It was agreed the Motion would stand as carried.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FIDE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOA.RDI
H. F.E.C. Railway___ Agreement to Transfer CR512 RR Crossing to
County Jurisdiction
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director:
--------------
TO: The Honorable Meyers of the DATE: September 8, 1987 FILE:
Board of County commissioners
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. (
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: Florida East Coast Railway -
License Agreement to Transfer
CR512 Railroad Crossing frau
the Florida DOT to Indian -
River County Jurisdiction
REFERENCgR. ?-. Fondren, FBC, to. James
Davis dated March 16, 1983
The FEC Railway has transmitted to the County a License Agreement to
transfer the CR512 Railroad crossing frau the State of Florida DOT to the
County. The agreement is a standard FEC crossing agreement, and the
Railroad is requesting execution by the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The agreement proposed for transfer of the crossing contains the following
major provision:
1) Grants right of County for road to cross FEC right-of-way and any
facility placement requires a FEC Railroad Permit.
2) Any work by the County under/over/or across the right-of-way is to be
paid for by the County, whether by reimbursing the Railroad or by
direct payment by County. -
3) If the Railroad makes changes that effect paving or County facilities,
the County must bear the cost.
4) The County will not take action to prevent operation of trains over
crossings.
5) If the County fails to comply with the agreement, it loses the
privilege to cross the FEC right-of-way.
6) The agreement is for one (1) year, automatically renewed unless 60 -day
notice of termination by Railroad is given.
7) If the County terminates agreement it must remove all improvements in
FEC right-of-way.
8) Cost for maintenance of signals shall be the responsibility of the
County.
12
� r �
The only alternative as per Chapter 77-165 of the Legislature of the State
of Florida is to approve the execution of the agreements and adoption of
the authorizing resolution.
R CKME DATIONS AND FUNDING
Based upon mandate by Florida Legislature, Chapter 77-165, it is
recommended that the County accept transfer of the CR512 crossing, that the
authorizing resolution be approved, and that the Chairman execute the
agreement.
Commissioner Bird questioned the reason that the corre-
spondence on this request goes all the way back to 1983, and
Director Davis explained that he sent this request to a former
County Attorney and it got misplaced in the files. The F.E.C.
Railway called about two months ago to see what happened, and
staff tracked it down.
Commissioner Bird wished to know, when we accept a crossing
such as this from the F.E.C., whether we have the right to expect
them to bring it up to some standards before we accept it.
Director Davis advised that the F.E.C. informed us several
years ago that they were going to rebuild the crossing and bill
the county, but we looked into our records and found we did not
have the transfer giving us jurisdiction; so, we sent the bill to
the D.O.T., who refused to pay it, and it went back and forth for
some time. The crossing has been rebuilt in the meantime, and he
believed the D.O.T. did pay.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 87-138 approving the License Agreement
accepting the transfer of the CR512 railroad
crossing.
87 13 Boos 70 Pac£ 50
BOOK 70 PAG5 51
RESOLUTION NO. 87-138
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA SIGNIFYING ITS INTENT TO ENTER
INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY BY ACCEPTING
THE TRANSFER OF THE CR512 RAILROAD
CROSSING FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND FURTHER DESIGNATI14C
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AS THE COUNTY
LIAISON FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA intends to enter into a license
agreement with the Florida East Coast Railway by accepting
the transfer of the CR512 Railroad Crossing from the
Department of Transportation of the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the agreement grants to the County the right
to cross a Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way; and
WHEREAS the Florida Statutes, Chapter 335 require the
counties to enter into such agreements of transfer with the
State of Florida Department of Transportation;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA which was
duly established by Special Act of the Florida Statutes
adopted on the 30th day of June, 192,5, that this official
document does hereby certify the Board of County
Commissioners intent to accept the conditions of and enter
into a License Agreement with the Florida East Coast Railway
by accepting the transfer of the CR512 Railroad Crossing
form the Department of Transportation of the State of
Florida,
AND FURTHER THAT, James W'. Davis, P.E., Public Works
Director of the Indian River County Public Works Division,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, phone (305)
567-8000, is hereby authorized to be the County Liaison
person charged with the responsibility to coordinate the
implementation of the License Agreement; and
14
BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that the foregoing resolution
was offered by Commissioner Bird and
seconded by Commissioner Wheeler
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
I
and being put
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 10th day of November ,
1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By _� G
Don C. Scurlock, r.
Chairman
I. Routine Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board Co my Commissioners
FROM: Chari s P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: November 3, 1987
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 11/10/87
ROUTINE RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
This office has processed the following matters and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release
forms:
(1) Partial Release of Lien Map 41
\ State Road 60 Sewers/Release 1 ERU
Paid by REALCOR OF VERO BEACH
Lot 269 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
(2) Partial.Release.of Lien Map 41
State Road 60 Sewers/Release 1 ERU
Paid by REALCOR OF VERO BEACH
Lot 284 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
(3) Partial Release of Lien Map 41
State Road.60 Sewers/Release 1 ERU
Paid by REALCOR OF VERO BEACH.
Lot 282 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
15
BOOK 70 PAGE 52
r NOV 10 1981
BOOK 10 pnf 53
(4) Partial Release of Lien - Map 41 .
State Road 60 Sewers/ Release 1 ERU
Paid by REALCOR OF VERO BEACH
Lot 243 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
(5) Partial Release of Lien - Map #B
State Road 60 Water/Release 12 ERUs
Paid by VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH
Building 432 of VISTA PLANTATION
(6) Partial Release of Lien - Map #B
State Road 60 Water/Release 12 ERUs
Paid by VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH
` Building #35 of VISTA PLANTATION
The back-up information for the above is on file in the
County Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler,, the Board unanimously approved Partial
Release of Liens as listed above.
COPY OF SAID RELEASE OF LIENS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO BOARD
J. Budget Amendm't - Purchase E-911 Central Communications Equip.
The Board reviewed memo of the Emergency Management
Director:
TO:Board of County CommissionerADATE:October 21, 1987 FILE:
IRU: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
Joseph A. Bair Budget Admendment to Purchase
OMB Director SUBJECT' E-911 Central Communications
Equipment
FROM: Doug Wright REFERENCES: Agenda Item Tabled at the
Director, Emergency Management 10/20/87 County Commission
Meeting
The request for a budget admendment to purchase E-911 Central
Communication equipment for Emergency Management was submitted
to the Board of County Commissioners without being sent out
for bids based on the following premise:
1. Sheriff Dobeck had already agreed/contractedlwith Communi-
cations of Vero to install E-911 equipment in the Sheriff's
Administration Building.
16
2. Except for the Data General hardward, other equipment
in the E-911 Center is GE equipment and compatability
as well as interfacing ability demanded use of similar
equipment in order to maintain reasonable costs.
3. Equipment prices quoted
proposal are in line with
equipment per GSA prices.
in the communications of Vero
or less expensive than similar
4. Time is of the essence inasmuch as installation of the
equipment could be accomplished prior to walls being
sealed and installers are on site preparing the equipment
to be brought on line.
Staff recommends approval of this budget admendment for the
same reasons cited in the initial request so the Executive Group
will be capable of communications with various emergency responders
in any given scenario of natural or manmade disaster.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
purchase of E-911 Central Communication equipment for
Emergency Management as recommended by staff.
K_ Highway_Safety Grant
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 4, 1987
SUBJECT: HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Description and Condition
Indian River County is requesting permission from the Board of
County Commissioners to apply to the state for a Highway Safety Grant.
This grant would be used by Traffic Engineering to purchase a•
thermoplastic material premelter, equipment which is used in pavement
markings. Traffic engineering's staff feels that this instrument will
increase highway safety and decrease maintenance schedules through the
use of long -life thermoplastic markings. Further, it will allow the
county to increase the quantity of signalized intersections having
thermoplastic markings from 53% in 1987 to 75% by September 30, 1988,
and finally to 100% by September 30, 1989 using current staffing
levels.
V 1
1987 17 BOOK 70 FA.�E 54
BOOK .70 N, P,,E 55
The grant will be awarded for 900 of the cost of the equipment
with the county required to contribute 10%. The cost of this
equipment is estimated at $12,500 of which $11,250 would be covered by
thegrant and $1,250 would be covered by the County. This $1,250 is
already budgeted in account 111-245=541-066.49.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to sign the Highway Safety Grant application.
Commissioner Eggert did not have a problem with the grant,
but she had a problem in that sometimes a prepaid invoice has to
be sent, and just so that nothing falls between the cracks, she
would like to see the doing of a project or the purchase of the
equipment made conditional on the grant being received.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize the Chairman to
sign the Highway Safety Grant application with the
proviso that there will be no purchase of equipment
until the grant is received.
Administrator Balczun pointed out that there are two kinds
of grants - one in which they send you the money and you go buy
whatever it is, and second, where they say you have a grant; you
buy it; send us the invoice; and we will send you the money. He
noted that all he is looking for is the Board's acknowledgment
that they are trying to cover both those bases. In the second
instance where we have to buy the equipment first, he wished to
confirm that we will be able to proceed if we have written
confirmation from the agency.
In discussion, it was generally agreed that an item can be
purchased when acknowledgment of the grant approval has been
received.
OMB Director Baird advised the Board that we budgeted for
the full cost of this particular piece of equipment and now have
found out that we can receive a grant to purchase it. He,
18
therefore, already has the full amount in the budget, and
if the Board desires, he can transfer that out, but he will
have to have a budget amendment showing that we recorded the
grant.
COMMISSIONERS EGGERT AND BOWMAN AGREED TO REWORD THEIR
MOTION AS FOLLOWS:
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize the Chairman to
sign the Highway Safety Grant application, to approve
the necessary budget amendment, and to direct staff to
be sure we have the grant in hand before we spend it.
Commissioner Eggert clarified that the policy with any grant
is that we must know we have received it before any purchases are
made.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
CLERK'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE AND SECURITY
The Board reviewed letters from Clerk Freda Wright:
FREDA WRIGHT
CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT AND RECORDER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
P. O. BOX 1028
Mr. Charles P. Balczun, VER.O BEACH • FLORIDA
County Administrator 32961-1028
Indian River County
1840 25th Street October 1, 1987
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Balczun:
Reference.is made to our telephone conversation today,
regarding additional space and providing adequate security for
the -operation of the Clerk's operations.
Due to several revisions of the Florida Statutes enacted
by the 1987 Legislature, including Section 61.14(5)(a), pertaining
to child support, all of which mandated additional and time con-
suming work, it is imperative that I have sufficient space to
NOV 10.19 ?
19 Boa 70 f A:,E 56
1% OV 101987
do the job I am required to do.
Court activity brought on by the
of the jails has left us with an
being able to support the .needs
clerk when a good portion of the
BOOK 10 F-Klf. 57.
Furthermore, the increase in
added caseload and overcrowding
almost impossible situation -of not
of the publicaccess to the Court
personnel is in the Courtroom.
When the plans were being developed years ago for the
new quarters for the Sheriff, I was told at that time I would
be able to have the offices vacated by the Sheriff. Included in
these offices is a vaulted room and safe which would provide an
area to store contraband, such as drugs and firearms, which,
by law, remains with the custody of the Clerk for retention until
authorized to destroy. As you are aware, there are several offices
throughout the state that has come to the surface, where there
was either tampering, loss of, or burglary of criminal evidence.
I certainly want to safeguard that possibility. My tentative
plans at this time would be to move all of the criminal courts,
both county and circuit into that area, together with my cashier
operations which addresses the subject of more and better security.
I am enclosing copies of previous correspondence in this
regard.
Mr. Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Balczun:
Sincerely,
Freda Wright
FREDA WRIGHT
CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT AND RECORDER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(305) 567-8000 P. O. BOX 1028
VERO BEACH • FLORIDA
32961-1028
October 21, 1987
Freda has asked me to.make further inquiry
into our request for additional space; i.e., the office
to be vacated by the Sheriff. This was addressed to you
in her letter of October 1, 1987.
We are also still very much concerned with the
security situation, both in the main Courthouse and the
Annex in the rear. As you are probably aware, the front
door of the Courthouse was forcibly broken into either
Friday night or early Saturday morning this past weekend,
by the use of a concrete block. This was reported to the
Vero Beach Police Department by Judge Smith at approximately
9:00 a.m. Saturday. Upon learning of the breakin, I, along
with our Security Officer, Roland Wirth, checked all the
offices of the Clerk and found no damage or entry. However,
it would have been no problem had the culprit been serious
with either damaging or stealing valuable equipment or
contraband evidence_
Please let us hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
FR�DA WRIGHT, CLERK
20 '-Chief Deputy Clerk
Administrator Balczun recalled that about a year ago Mrs.
Wright appeared before the Board asking for an allotment of
additional space. Mrs. Wright has now requested specific space,
and he advised that he has no difficulty whatever with the
Clerk's request. He further reported that the Clerk's basic
security problem is almost resolved.
Clerk Wright advised that the problem is not yet resolved,
but she has heard that it will be. She confirmed that they are
asking for the space in the Annex that the Sheriff will be
vacating.
Administrator Balczun then referred to the following memo
and informed the Board that staff recommends the Clerk's request
be granted.
TO: James W. Davis, P.E., Director DATE: October 30, 1987 FILE:
Public Works Department
SUBJECT: COURTHOUSE SECURITY
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
I spoke with Clerk of Court Freda Wright today concerning Courthouse
security.
It is her opinion that her security concerns can be met if the following
actions are taken/approved:
.. Board of County Commission approves her request to utilize space
on the first floor of the Annex being vacated by the Sheriff's
Department since the existing vault at that location should
provide sufficient secure storage space.
.. We install a buzzer system by which she and her personnel would
be able to summon bailiffs for assistance in the event of an
altercation or crime.
Please insure that Lynn Williams installs the buzzer system as soon as
possible.
21 BOOK 7® FA,F. 50
NOV 10.1987
t,wG,V 198
BOOK .70 FAGE 59
Chairman Scurlock commented that if the Clerk moves into
this space, the potential fifth courtroom would be scheduled to
take the space of the Public Defender with the result that we
would be looking for additional space for him, most likely
somewhere in the downtown area.
Commissioner Wheeler believed that probably would be the
most convenient and stated that he would like to see Mrs. Wright
have the Sheriff's space because there is a large vault there.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Clerk's request to utilize the space on the
first floor of the Annex being vacated by the Sheriff
and also approved the installation of a buzzer system
to solve the Clerk's security problems.
REPORT ON SEEDLINGS PROJECT
Brian Barnett of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission came before the Board to report on the success of
their seedling planting project which was initiated a year ago to
pursue the feasibility of establishing coastal hammock vegetation
on spoil islands in the Indian River. He submitted the following
report:
22
Progress Report - November 10, 1987
ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE HAMMOCK VEGETATION ON SPOIL
1ITES DOMINATED BY AUSTRALIAN PINE
Fact Sheet
1. In response to a proposal by the Office of Environmental Services
of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC), Indian
River County provided $2,151.00 from tree ordinance violation fines
toward the purchase of tree and shrub seedlings to be planted on
three county -owned dredge spoil sites.
2. The GFC used this money to purchase approximately 5,000 seedlings
from three native plant nurseries.
3. The GFC, with the assistance of a work crew supplied by the Indian
River Correctional Institute, planted the seedlings from September
22-25, 1986. The sites were planted as follows:
Round Island - 2 sites, 1 acre and 1/3 acre - 2,059 trees
Little Round Island (east of R.I.) - 1 acre - 1,342 trees
Wabasso Island - 2 sites, total nearly 3/4 acre - 1,595 trees
4. Thirty-one species of trees and shrubs were planted, with a total
of 4,996 seedlings on the three sites. From the originally
proposed species list, strangler fig was added while marlberry,
inkwood, wild coffee, saw palmetto, and yellow elder were
unavailable at the time of purchase.
5. An experimental planting grid was established on Wabssso Island to
allow growth and survival monitoring of a representative sample.
Twenty seedlings each of thirty species were planted in the
monitoring grid. All other plantings at the three sites were
random.
6. After one year, the survival rate of the planted seedlings is 69%.
When the nine species with less than 50% survival are deleted, the
remaining twenty-one species had an 87% survival rate. Growth has
been good, especially among those species with high survival rates.
7. The GFC's original test planting on a spoil island near Oslo. Road
is now 4 -years -old. Survival at that site is 54%, and many trees
exceed 4 meters in height.
SPECIES CONDITION SUMMARY
WABASSO ISLAND HAMMOCK RESTORATION PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 1986 — SEPTEMBER 1987
20- 19-
18 zo 20 20 so t t 0 o a >o
>z
>z
U
u >s n zo 00
7
17-
16 to to to
16-
80
is-
5
14 >6
14-
70
o, 13-
3 12 a
12-
60
to 11
0
a
0 10 t2
9—CDm
50 5
E 8 to
CL
40
z' 7-
6
6-
5-
54
4-
s 20
3-
2- -
4 3 10
1
lie �+� 101
4` Sr V44& , dole 0.
t
Cly `'Si
SOP co'� , i cnL
Q�"�aAF JAN fid% y� +W �
lt°
Healthy Distressed
Dead
r�eeswe�
23 BOOK 70 PACE s®
N O 1® .1987
OV 10 1987
BOOK IO I'q0c 61
Mr. Barnett informed the Board that they are very much
encouraged by the survival rate, particularly since there was so
little rain. They are trying to plant a community that will
succeed the Australian pine monoculture, and it seems that it is
succeeding. He advised that he will not request more funds
today, but he may be back next summer asking for funds from the
Tree Ordinance violation monies to expand the project.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - PROPOSED ROAD GRID ORDINANCE
Staff Planner DeBlois made the following presentation in
regard to the financial impact of the proposed ordinance:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 30, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County -
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
PROPOSED ROAD ADDRESSING
SUBJECT: SYSTEM ORDINANCE; STUDY OF... -_
ert M. Kea i , A FINANCIAL IMPACT
Community Develo men Director
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller, Chief
Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois -44,0 REFERENCES:
Staff Environmental Planner
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal --
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 10, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
At a public hearing for the proposed Road Addressing System
Ordinance, held on October 13, 1987, the Board of County
Commissioners voted to table ordinance adoption until a study of
financial impact was presented to the Board. Moreover, minutes of
the October 13th hearing reflect the Board's support for building
number requirements, but also indicate the Board's concern as to
the need and utility of road "number" designations in addition to,
and/or instead of, road "name" designations.
The information herein is provided for the Board's further
consideration regarding adoption of the proposed Road Addressing
System Ordinance.
24
� r �
M M
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
As presented, the proposed ordinance has only two requirements
which produce a Tinancial impact. These are: (1) building number
requirements; and (2) road "number" designation requirements.
Each of these two requirements impose certain costs and confer
various benefits on one or more of the following groups: County
administration; property owners associations; developers;
individual homeowners; existing businesses; emergency services;
and the Postal Service.
(1) IMPACT OF BUILDING NUMBER REQUIREMENTS
The proposed Road Addressing System Ordinance would require that
all buildings in the County have address numbers displayed that
are visible from the public or private road on which the building
fronts, such numbers to be in sequence with the surrounding
building number pattern. In that respect, building number
requirements would primarily affect existing buildings with no
numbers, or numbers that are out of sequence.
County Administration
(N/A) COSTS: There would be no direct costs to County
administration; enforcement and field
inspections would be conducted by code
enforcement staff as part of routine
duties.
(+) BENEFITS: The requirement of sequential building
numbers would result in better public
service response, and minimize complaints
received concerning address inadequacies.
Adoption of the ordinance would authorize
the County to require needed changes.
— Property Owners Associations
(N/A) COSTS: Building number requirements would not
result in cost to a property owners -
association, except as may apply to
individual landowners whose building _
numbers are not in conformance (see
"individual homeowners" heading).
(+) BENEFITS: Consistent, sequential building numbers
within a private development would result
in efficient emergency services response,
and other address -dependent services
(i.e. postal delivery).
Developers
(N/A) COSTS: The proposed ordinance would not result
in any additional costs to new
development beyond what is already
required.
(+) BENEFITS: No substantial benefits over present
circumstances.
Individual Homeowners
COSTS: The proposed building numbering
requirement would have minimal costz only
to homeowners whose present address is
out of sequence or whose house number is
25 BOOK 70 f -AIDE 62
Boaz 70 r, ,F
nonexistent. Cost of address change
would include:
*Price of 3" building numbers:
$.75 to 2.00 (per number, X 4) = $8.00
**Reorder of personal checks:
(per 200) $10.00
**Personal letterhead:
(per 25U sheets) $15.00
**Notice of address change: (unquantified)
± $35.00
NOTE: *Required changes
**Potential costs (as applicable)
It should be noted that the Postal
Service would forward mail for up to 12
months, during which time supply
reordering (i.e. personal checks,
letterhead) would normally occur, even
without an address change.
(+) BENEFITS: For those homeowners whose address would
change as a result of the ordinance, the
benefits would be a needed improvement in
emergency service response, and in other
address -dependent services.
Existing Businesses
(-) COSTS:
Costs related to the proposed ordinance
would only apply to businesses with
addresses out of sequence with the
proposed ordinance requirements. Costs
would be similar to individual
homeowners, but with added expenses- such
as advertisement changes, business cards,
etc. An estimate would be:
*Cost of 3" building numbers:
($2.00-$5.00 per no. X 4) _ $20.00
**Reorder of business
checks = $20.00 - 50.00
**Stationery = $25.00
(per 250 letterhead; envelopes)
**Business cards = $35.00
(per 1,000, X no. of employees)
**Notice of address change = Unquantified
**Advertisement of address
change = Unquantified
$130.00+
NOTE: *Required change
**Potential costs (as applicable)
As with individual homeowners, the Postal
Service would allow for up to a 12 month
forwarding period, although it is
acknowledged that it is in the best
26
- M M
interest of businesses to finalize
address change tasks within a short
period of time.
(+) BENEFITS: An address in sequence with surrounding
address patterns would allow for quicker
emergency service response, and would
result in the business being more easily
located by potential customers.
Emergency -Services:
(N/A) COSTS: Building number requirements would result
in no cost to emergency services.
(+) BENEFITS: Emergency services response to calls
would be greatly enhanced, with field
personnel able to follow logical building
number patterns.
Postal Service:
(N/A) COSTS: Building number requirements would result
in no additional costs to the Postal
Service.
(+) BENEFITS: The Postal Service would be able to
provide better service to those buildings
with addresses presently difficult to
locate.
(2) IMPACT OF PROPOSED ROAD DESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS
The ordinance as proposed would require that roads in the County
be identified by a "number" designation, instead of or in addition
to "name" designations. With reference to existing "name" roads,
the ordinance would require that road signs presently without
"number" designations be brought into conformance over time as the
signs deteriorate or become missing.
County Administration
H COSTS: The County would undergo additional costs
to what is already spent on public road
signs, but only in cases where dual (name
and number) designations occur. There
are an estimated 1,500± intersections of
public roads in the County, of which
approximately 500 exist that would be
subject to signs with dual designations.
Under the proposed ordinance, the County
would retain the option of issuing dual
designations (i.e.: memorial and/or
historic road names), though it is
anticipated that most public roads would
continue to be designated with a number
only. In using cost estimates provided
by the County Traffic Engineer the
following cost estimates are presented:
Present Estimated Sign Budget:
1,500 intersections (total) @ 1.5 blades
per intersection =
2,250 blades at $5.77 = $12,982.50
Annual budget based on 5 yr.
life of sign = $2,596.50
27 Boor 70 64
Nov 10 1987
BOOK 70 F��E ' f 5
Additional Cost for Dual Designations:
500 intersections @ 1.5 blades per
intersection =
750 blades at $6.00 = $4,500.00
Additional annual budget cost based on
5 yr. life of sign = $900.00
(+) BENEFITS: In that the County's main function is to
serve the citizens in the interest of
health, safety, and welfare, the
requirement of road "number" designations
would be a benefit in helping to provide
quicker emergency service response.
Property Owners Association
(-) COSTS A private.development's property owners
association (P.O.A.) would be
responsible for replacing any road signs _
in a subdivision, where signs either
deteriorate_ or are missing. Therefore,
any costs to a P.O.A. would occur
incrementally, when any particular sign
requires replacement. The expense of
replacing a sign would be a determination
of the P.O.A., providing that the
replacement sign meets minimum standards
set by the County Traffic
(COSTS) cont'd.: Engineer. If a road within a private
subdivision/development has a number
designation only, the proposed ordinance
would not result in any additional costs
to a P.O.A. than what is presently
required.
(+) BENEFITS: The requirement of road "number"
designations in addition to or in place
of road "name" designations would provide
field reference for emergency services
personnel, and therefore more efficient
emergency service response for residents
and members of a P.O.A. -
Developers
(-) COSTS: Road "number" designations requirements
would result in added expense to
developers who wish to plat subdivisions
with aesthetic road "names". However,
the developer would still have the option
of designating a road with a "number"
only, which would result in no additional
cost beyond what is already required.
(N/A) BENEFITS: The road designation requirements would
not result in any direct benefit to the
developer.
Individual Homeowners
(-) COSTS: Cost to the individual homeowner, based
on the requirement of road number
designations, would only affect those
homeowners who presently live on a road
with a "name" designation. The cost
would be the homeowners contribution to
28
_ M
(+) BENEFITS:
Existing Businesses:
the P.O.A.'s expense of replacing
nonconforming (deteriorated) or missing
road signs. The proposed road
designation requirement would not have an
impact on present addresses; homeowners
would be able to continue using their
present road designations.
Road "number" designation requirements
would result in more efficient emergency
service response.
(N/A) COSTS: Existing businesses would not have any
direct costs due to the proposed' road
designation requirements.
(+) BENEFITS: More efficient emergency service and
other address dependent service response.
Emergency Services:
(N/A) COSTS: Cost to Emergency Services would consist
of staff time needed to update data bases
with reference to roads in the County
that presently have "name" designations
only. Such an update would occur over a
period of time, thus minimizing staff
time beyond normal tasks and duties.
Emergency Services Cont'd.
(+) BENEFITS: The requirement of road "number"
designations would aid emergency service
field personnel (i.e. ambulance drivers)
in locating addresses more readily.
Postal Service
(-) COSTS: The Postal Service (Vero Beach) has
expressed concern that the proliferation
of roads with dual designations would
result in confusion and difficulty
regarding postal delivery. While the
Postal Service has mastered delivery on
existing roads with two designations
(i.e.: Glendale Road, 8th Street), the
Vero Beach Postmaster has recently
indicated that the Postal Service would
prefer that roads have one designation
only, either a "number" or a "name".
(+) BENEFITS: The Postal Service has acknowledged that
the requirement of road "number"
designations (only) would be beneficial
regarding the delivery of mail.
29 BOOK 70 F.,,X 66
-7
Nov 10`d97
BOOK 1 O PA GF. 67
To summarize the estimated costs/benefits of the proposed Road
Addressing Ordinance on various entities in the County, the
following matrix is provided: -.
BUILDING NO. REQUIREMENT RD. NO. DESIGNATION REQ.
County Entities (-) Costs (+)Benefits (-) Costs (+)Benefits
County N/A Improved No Addi- Improved
Administration public tional public
service costs for service
roads with
no. only
Complaints Double road
minimized sign costs
for dual
designations
(Approx. $900/
yr.)
Property Owners N/A Improved Replacement Improved
Assoc. emergency costs services
service of road to resi-
to individ. signs where dents
homeowners deteriorated
or missing.
Developers N/A N/A Initial costs N/A
for road signs
with two designa-
tions (optional)
Individual/ Address change
Improved
Cost contri-
Improved
Homeowners for existing
address-
bution to
address-
non-confor-
dependent
P.O.A. to
dependent
mities.
services
replace road
services
(approx. $8.00
ers
signs
tions
to $33.00±)
Exist. Address change
Improved N/A
Improved
Businesses for existing
address-
address-
non-confor-
dependent
dependent
mities;
services
services
(approx.$8.00
to roads with
to deliver -
to $130.00±)
two designa-
ers
Emergency N/A Improved Incremental Improved
Services response incorporation public
to emer- of designa- service
gency calls tion additions
into data base
Postal N/A Able to
Additional
"Number"
Service locate
confusion/
designation
addresses
costs for
(only) -
easier for
delivery
beneficial
postal
to roads with
to deliver -
delivery
two designa-
ers
tions
30
Planning staff estimates that approximately 5% of the residences
in the unincorporated County have building numbers that are either
out of sequence or nonexistent. Areas of concern are Gifford
(approx. 650 residences would be subject to change), Tropicolony
Subdivision (approx. 140), Vero Beach Country Club (20), and
approximately twelve (12) businesses in the area of south Old
Dixie Highway. -_
The cost estimates provided herein for residential and business
building number changes would only apply to the estimated 5% of
total locations in the County. Also, considering that a residence
or business has up to 12 months during which mail would be
forwarded, actual address -change costs would most likely be less
than the conservative figures previously referenced. Following is
a total cost estimate of required changes based on the number of
nonconforming residences and businesses identified:
Residences:
Gifford - 650
Tropicolony - 140
Vero Beach - 20
Country Club
810 x $8.00 (bldg. nos.) = $6,480.00
Businesses:
S. Old Dixie Hwy. - 12 x $20.00 (bldg. nos.) _ $240.00
Area
In that the Postal Service has expressed concern that dual road
designations would be confusing and result in a substantial
increase in workload, staff recommends that, if roads are to be
limited to one designation only,' that. -designation should be a
"number". While road "names" are aesthetic, they do not provide
information as to the location of a particular address.
The benefits of
requiring
building numbers and road designations
to conform to 1
logical
grid pattern is
not easily quantified.
However, it is
staff's
position that
the requirements would
enhance timely
life-saving emergency
service response, and
therefore substantially
outweigh any
minimal costs and
inconveniences.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed Road Addressing System Ordinance.
Planner DeBlois emphasized that the cost to the home owner
would be minimal; it would not really affect the address of an
individual property owner because they would still maintain the
street name.
Chairman Scurlock asked how this would affect the 911 system
if, for instance, there were two 1936's.
Planner DeBlois di.d not anticipate any duplications of
building numbers. He noted there will be a name and.a number,
and the purpose of the number is for grid reference.
Planning Director Keating believed the two 1936's is a good
example of why the ordinance has been requested because the
V 10* 1987 31
BOOK ,70 PAGE 6�
N 0 V 10 1997
Boa
70 PA-IJE
09
proposed ordinance would give
the county the opportunity
to
require that any duplicated numbers be changed.
Commissioner Wheeler questioned how you address a develop-
ment such as Vista Royale that is large and established with
winding roads, and also wished to know how the grid system would
address private. subdivisions that have taken on a particular
theme in the naming of their roads.
Director Keating explained that the proposed ordinance will
not require new development coming in to be a perfect grid with
nothing but straight roads. It just sets up a logical method
whereby a circle or winding road will have a consistent approach
for the numbering. In regard to existing subdivisions - the
requirement would be that when their road signs deteriorate and
need to be replaced, they will then have to have both name and
number. There will not be any immediate cost.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
William Koolage, 815 26th Ave., wished to know if the big
problem with numbering in Summerplace was ever resolved.
Director Keating advised that staff looked at that subdivi-
sion this morning and determined that a change was made some
years ago so that the numbers now are logical, in sequence and
consistent with the grid.
Mr. Koolage advised that in the subdivision in which he
lives, on some of the avenues the numbers start at 801 and on
others, they start at 815. When it was proposed at one point in
to change all the numbers so the first house number on an avenue
would consistently start at 801, for instance, it meant a whole
lot of changes, and he objected because of the problem this would
cause with mail being delivered, newspapers, stocks, bonds, etc.
Mr. Koolage, therefore, encouraged the Board not to make
arbitrary changes if the number sequences on a street are
logical.
Planner DeBlois advised that they did not anticipate any
mass changes.
32
Fred Mensing, Roseland, stated that he was impressed with
everything in the ordinance except Sec. 18-61 a, b and c, which
he felt can be sharpened up for the benefit of emergency
services. He felt there should be a requirement that the
lettering on the signs should be of a size that is readily
readable at night with a spotlight and in a certain location near
the front door. He also felt homes on large tracts should be
required to have their identification signs at their driveway
entrance, and did not believe the ordinance addresses that. Mr.
Mensing did not really like the idea of renumbering Roseland, but
he hoped staff could take a real futuristic look at the whole
unique conglomeration of roads there to see if something might be
done to help emergency services locate places more easily.
Director Keating agreed the Fleming Grant area is unique in
that the roads there run from southeast to northwest so they are
about in the middle of whether they could be called avenues,
which run north and south, or streets which run east and west,
and staff has looked at this very closely. As to visible numbers
and the location of identification signs on a large tract,
Director Keating felt the proposed ordinance deals with that by
requiring that "All buildings shall have an assigned building
number displayed in a manner such that the numbers are visible
from the public or private road on which the building fronts."
Anthony Cueto, Postmaster, Vero Beach, informed the Board
that he and Ms. Doody, Postmaster, Sebastian, who are responsible
for delivery of mail in 950 of the county, are here today to
share their concerns with the Board, and they have also asked
Maxwell Scott, Postmaster of the Melbourne area, to come with
them to speak about the problems he encountered with the proposed
system in the Palm Bay area. Mr. Cueto read the following
letter aloud and circulated to the Commissioners a copy of the
Mail Distribution Scheme that their employees have to memorize
and work from:
33
BOOK 70 F,,A,E 70
NOV 10 1987
„p.TES POST,
C N
W T
F p
Z �� n
� LLSMAII n1
•aura+
United States
Postal Service
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-9998
November 10, 1987
Boa 70 Fa;E 71
THE POSTMASTER OF VERO BEACH HALED DELIVERED A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO THE
FOLLOWING AT THE REGULAR BOAM OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING ON
NOVEMBER 10, 1987, PRIOR TO THE FINALIZATION OF THE ROAD ADDRESSIM
SYSTEM1 PROPOSAL.
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird Gary C. Wheeler Karen K. Eggert
The U.S. Postal Service appreciates the opportunity to appear before the
Indian River County Commission regarding the proposed Road Addressing
System Ordinance; Study of Financial Impact. Based upon our current
understanding of the grid development process and the fact that it may
not tie into the City of Vero Beach numbering system and that dual street
names are a part of the consideration, the U.S. Postal Service objects to
the proposed road addressing system ordinance.
1. We are the only service organization that will have to deal
with this problem on a daily and massive scale. We object
very strongly to tying our service credibility to this challenge.
2. Page 6 of the letter from Roland M. DeBlois dated 10-30-87
appears to indicate that the U.S. Postal Service employees
have learned and the U.S. Postal Service is willing to accept
dual addresses as a routine way of doing business. 'vie do
not accept that philosophy.
3. in addition to a service deterioration that would be caused
I
y the use of dual street names, consideration has not been
given to the cost to organizations involved. U.S. Postal Service
cost for the first year would be a minimum of $150,000. While
we do not object to county efforts to improve the address
system on a permanent basis, we believe that the cost would be
lost and we still would not be able to deliver the mail properly.
4. The control of our customer's mail and a timely delivery is based
upon the purity of customer addresses and many other internal
activities. Our Postai Operations Manual, Section 122.2,
restricts the addressing format for the purposes of machine
readability and employee handling. The options do not include
dual street names. The options address the use of a post office
box and a street address. The address shown above the city name
is the way mail is to be delivered. Carrier casing equipment is
designed for single street names. Dual street names will not be
shown on post office sorting equipment.
of multi -line character readers will sort
upon the shown immediately above th
use a naJ4 n our data bank that mail is
addressed and will be returned to sender.
34
Eventually, machinery in the way
mail to delivery routes based
e city. If the custaner opts to
considered undeliverable as
5. Our position will be that we will not recognize any street
addresses beyond those currently carried in our schemes unless
the county adopts a traditional grid system, ties into the City
of Vero Beach numbering system and the county takes the position
Of single street addresses.
Finally, we want to assure you that we will cooperate in every way with
the new numbering changes or name changes as long as they represent the
logic that has been considered traditional by all service organizations,
maps and post office addressing. Our biggest concern, if the county
adopts their present proposal, is that many of our custaners would
experience problems with undeliverable mail. lhfortunately our reponse
to our custaners would have to be that the U.S. Postal Service did not
participate in this decision and very strongly objected to the
implementation of the use of dual street names.
Thank you.
zle�l G5&
A. Cueto, jr.
Postmaster
Vero Beach, F1. 32960-9998
L. S. Doody
Postmaster
Sebastian, F1. 32978-9998
Commissioner Eggert asked if she may assume that the Post
Office is not objecting to the house numbering, and Postmaster
Cueto clarified that they are not - they will support the Board
on the grid system but not dual addresses.
Commissioner Bird asked if instead of the dual addresses,
they would prefer that we stay with name designations rather than
numerical designations because he feels strongly about names, and
if he has to make a choice, he will stay with the names.
Postmaster Cueto stated that the way it is now is fine; they
just can't have dual designations for roads.
Postmaster Doody informed the Board that they will adjust to
whatever the Board proposes - if the desire is to maintain the
historical names, there is no problem with that, and if the Board
wishes to go with the grid system, they will adjust to that
though the Board will have to bear with them taking some time to
retrain their employees. What they cannot go along with, for
instance, is 300 Cardinal Drive also being 300 30th Avenue.
Director Keating noted that the original intent.was to
change everything to numbers but that proved unworkable; so, they
pursued a compromise where 911 agreed they could overlay a dual
system.
He pointed out that there
are a lot of streetsthat
NOV
1 1987
3 5
BOOK 70 P�,E
72
Nov 10 "1987 Boou 70 F-A,E 73
presently have dual designations, i.e., 4th_Street or Citrus; 8th
Street or Glendale; 58th Avenue or King's Highway, etc.
Postmaster Cueto agreed that there are.some dual designa-
tions that have been in existence for many years, but stressed
that they don't want to keep on compounding the problem.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there is any p-roblem with
using the grid system but grandfathering whatever is here now.
He pointed out that specific subdivisions may have a specific
theme. For instance, those who live here know that on the beach
north of Beachland Boulevard, the streets are named for trees
while south of Beachland Boulevard, they are named .for flowers.
He believed a grid system can also cause a problem; for instance,
29th Avenue stops at 4th Street and picks up again at 15th
Street, and you need local information to answer that emergency
call.
Postmaster Cueto introduced Postmaster Scott of Melbourne.
Postmaster Scott informed the Board that the Melbourne area
has seven post offices, one of which is Palm Bay where about
three years ago they changed every lot number to relocate the
center of town, and some 7,000 street numbers were changed.
Unfortunately they also changed 400 street names, and in the
first year trying to adjust to these changes cost the Post Office
about $75,000, the main reason being that they had people who
would not participate and notify everyone involved. They had
customer problems as well as internal problems and found they
simply could not deliver the mail. Postmaster Scott, therefore,
believed it would be a very good choice to grandfather in the old
names.
Director Keating pointed out that, in essence, is what staff
is proposing, but in addition, overlaying the numbering. The
ordinance would allow new developments to use the name and put
the dual name and number on it. If it is desired to go with the
Post Office's recommendation, future developments would have to
be limited to one or -the other - names or numbers. A second
36
alternative is whether or not the Board wants all the existing
named roads just to remain named and not overlay a number system.
As to having a system different than Vero Beach, staff worked
with the City staff a great deal, and while they recognized
politically it would not be feasible to change a lot of the
street names, they were amenable to overlaying a number system.
Director Keating further reported that the City does their house
numbering in a unique manner quite different than our system re
the odd and even numbers, and he felt our system is more
rational.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if it is allowable currently for
someone in a development on a cul de sac to have a name instead
of a number, and it was confirmed that this is allowed.
Planner DeBlois advised that if the road is to be dedicated
to the county, we generally ask for numbers. Privately
maintained roads generally have name designations.
Commissioner Wheeler favored a system where new subdivisions
could have names if they have a specific theme or are consistent
in some way.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowman commented that the proposed ordinance
provides that "where further division requires roads to be
located between two sequentially numbered 'Streets' north of 1st
Street, such road shall be identified, in order, from south to
north as 'Place,' 'Lane,' and 'Manor." She asked why this
sequence is not done alphabetically which would be easier.
Director Keating explained that this is the system that has
been used over the years, and leaving it the same would prevent
having to change a lot of designations that are already in place.
Commissioner Bird had a problem with the provision on Page 6
that public roads shall be designated by number only, except that
road names of historic significance shall be preserved in
addition to the assigned number designation. He personally felt
NOV 10 1987 37
BOOK 7D FA uF 74
OV
10 1987
Boa
70 pnf
75
that Indian River
Boulevard is a good name and would hate
to
think that if we were to do that project today, we would have to
call it Third Avenue or something like that. The proposed
provision sounds as if it is mandatory.
Planner DeBlois felt that the intent was to allow
flexibility for the County Commission to use names if they felt
that was appropriate, and that provision could be changed to
reflect that it would be the Board's discretion to use names for
public roads if they wished.
In the continuing discussion, the Chairman believed we want
to accommodate the Post Office and still achieve our objectives.
Director Keating believed to do that we should require any
new public or private roads to have a number designation.
Commissioner Bird stated that he will not vote for that.
Commissioner Wheeler suggested it be worded that "any new
roads other than those designated by the County Commission will
have a number designation."
Director Keating suggested the wording should be "to require
any new public or private roads other than those specific roads
the County Commission wishes to assign a name to have a number
designation in conformance with the existing grid system."
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the ordinance
as proposed with the addition of the wording such
as suggested above.
Commissioner Bird stated that he plans to vote against the
Motion. He understood the purpose behind the ordinance, but
questioned whether our county is that big or sophisticated that
we have to do away with the charm of the area. He believed there
are some large cities that function with named streets.
Postmaster Cueto continued to stress that the Post Office
does not object to names; they just object to the the dual system
38
® a �
where one street would have two names. They can live with the
few dual names that are traditional, but they don't want to keep
on adding more.
Commissioner Bird felt he could support the staff recommen-
dation for a grid system if it were to encourage developers to go
along with this voluntarily rather than making it mandatory.
Commissioner Wheeler believed the private developer would
have the ability to come to the Commission if he wished to name
the streets in his project.
Nancy Offutt, although she realized the public hearing has
been closed, wished to comment on staff's suggested wording. She
would ask that private subdivisions be allowed the latitude to
have their theme carried forward in their roads because she felt
to require them to come before the Commission for permission to
designate internal roads in a subdivision seems like a lot of
unnecessary trouble.
Chairman Scurlock believed we go through that process in the
site plan review and felt we could vest authority in Planning &
Zoning Commission to handle this and then it could be appealed to
the County Commission.
Discussion continued re clarification of the Board's intent,
which Commissioner Eggert believed was grandfathering whatever is
existing and'then new roads would be designated by number
according to the grid unless during site plan procedure, they ask
for those roads to be specific names and it is approved as part
of their site plan.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on approval
of the ordinance amended as discussed. It was
voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bird
voting in opposition.
Director Keating suggested that staff make the recommended
changes and then bring the ordinance back for final approval.
NOV 101997 39 BOOK 70 FAGS 76
rNOV 10 1987
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, the Board
unanimously tabled final action on the revised
road numbering ordinance until the Regular
Meeting of November 24, 1987, at 9:05 A.M.
COUNTY JAIL, PHASE II, ARCHITECT
70, Pnl 77'." Iu
Attorney Vitunac reported that the Attorney's office, along
with Commissioner Wheeler and Administrator Balczun, has been
trying to get more space in our jail. There have been enormous
problems with opening Phase II, and the problem is that one of
the sub -contractors has been holding up one of the electronic
boards. Schopke Construction has made the following proposal:
1. That the electronic -detention portion of these damages be reduced
to $10,500.00.
2. That the balance of these damages ($4,500.00) be borne by Schopke
Construction & Engineering, Inc.
*
This represents half of the total damages, per our discussion. We believe that we
could successfully prevail for more than this reduction but are willing to settle
for this and get this job behind us.
Per our further discussion, continued liquidated damages will be terminated as of
this date pending substantial completion of the job by November 18, 1987. Should
Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc. be unable to complete by November 18,
1987, damages will begin being assessed as defined in ARTICLE 3 of the contract
documents.
Should the above be accepted, Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc. agrees to
waive its rights to time -delay claims prior to this date on the above referenced
project.
*3. The graphics enunciator locking and lighting lower level panel must be.
physically on the project site no later than 12 noon Thursday, November
12, 1987 or this entire agreement is void.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that while he had some serious
problems with the proposal, he was willing to support it because
it seems to be the practical thing to do.
Administrator Balczun agreed that staff would prefer to play
hard ball and say abide by the terms of the contract. The
obvious problem, however, is that without this equipment, we will
continue to have over -capacity problems at the jail. There might
be some opportunity for us to go out and have the missing compo-
nents built outside of the existing contract, but unfortunately
40
we do not have any electronic engineers on staff and would have
to hire one.
Commissioner Eggert asked what costs we are facing in not
opening this building.
Commissioner Wheeler felt we probably are looking at a mini-
mum of 120 days to have this piece of equipment built some place
else.
County Attorney Vitunac emphasized that we are looking at a
3 million dollar building, 15 guards hired and in training, plus
the cost of putting prisoners somewhere else, all of which would
cost far more than the $15,000. Also if we went to court on the
$15,000, Schopke feels he is going to win and we feel we are
going to win. No one is thrilled with this settlement, but if we
sign the proposed agreement, we will still get $15,000 damages;
we will have the equipment Thursday; and the jail will be open
the week after that.
Chairman Scurlock remembered the great debate we had with
Schopke, and the economic decision made by Schopke to choose the
other supplier. He did believe it is a reasonable settlement
and the only problem is the additional potential damages. He
wished to know what happens if they don't perform in the future
after they deliver the equipment.
Attorney Vitunac advised that from November 18th on there
will be $250 a day additional for every day the jail is not
substantially complete. They have, in essence, bought another
30 days.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the agreement proposed by Schopke
Construction and authorized the signature of
the Chairman.
41 pp
Nov 10 1� BOOK 70 PAGE 70
%A101181iler
Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc.
General Conrracrinq and Engine>enr q Srroc-,
1620 Tangr,nne ST, Molbounit,
Lic. 12794
November 9, 1987
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Attention: Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
Reference: Indian River County Jail - Phase II
Dear Sir:
BOOK 70 PA UF 79
f
Per our discussion of November 9, 1987, Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc.
in an attempt to settle the $15,000.00 -alleged damages assessed proposes the
following:
1. That the electronic -detention portion of these damages be reduced
to $10,500.00.
2. That the balance of these damages ($4,500.00) be borne by Schopke
Construction & Engineering, Inc.
*
This represents half of the total damages, per our discussion. We believe that we
could successfully prevail for more than this reduction but are willing to settle
for this and get this job behind us.
Per our further discussion, continued liquidated damages will be terminated as of
this date pending substantial completion of the job by November 18, 1987. Should
Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc. be unable to complete by November 18,
1987, damages will begin being assessed as defined in ARTICLE 3 of the contract
documents.
Should the above be accepted, Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc. agrees to
waive its rights to time -delay claims prior to this date on the above referenced
project.
*3. The graphics enunciator locking and lighting lower level panel must be
physically on the project site no later than 12 noon Thursday, November
12, 1987 or this entire agreement is void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the'undersigned COUNTY and SCHOPKE have executed this
document on the date shown below.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, ClenY
Approved by the Board:
November 10, 1987
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
C.0,0Z &-I,
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., C tirpn
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION &
ENGINEERING, INC.
c
Neil Schopke, P sident
DISCUSSION RE HIRING OF ASSISTANT_ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Chairman Scurlock advised that he has had expressed to him
both by Commission members and by the general public that there
may be some misunderstanding and differences of opinion regarding
the hiring of the Assistant County Administrator. He noted that
he went back and Listened to the tapes of the budget sessions,
and as may be remembered, he voted not to hire any assistant but
was overruled by the majority, and a level of compensation was
set at $41,400. He then supported the majority view. The
Chairman further noted that the tapes of the workshop sessions
also reflect that the intention of the Board was to hire a risk
manager prior to an assistant administrator being hired. He
believed we need some discussion on the present situation because
while there is no question that Mr. Balczun has the authority to
hire his own assistant without conferring with the Board, it
seems that the terms offered are in question because apparently
the amount offered was quite a bit in excess of the $41,400 that
was budgeted. We have had approximately five pay periods in
this budget year; so, that $41,400 as an annual salary would be
reduced by that amount, if that were the intention of the Board.
The Chairman believed we need to clear up this matter and move
forward.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board has not had a formal
presentation re the terms offered the assistant administrator in
the letter of employment, and he requested that Administrator
Balczun outline just what he has offered, including compensation
level, fringe benefits, travel expenses, etc.
Administrator Balczun reported that essentially he offered a
salary of $51,000 yearly to start, and typically in those kinds
of employment letters,.you stipulate the conditions under which
that can be increased over a period of time, i.e., annual raises,
evaluations, etc. He stated that there will not be any costs
arising from relocation other than the mileage of getting from A
to B. There will be no on-site costs such as hotel, motel. The
Nov 1 � 197
43 BOOK ,70 . PAGE 80
N 0�
101987-7
BOOK
7G PAM=
''
letter does say he would be subject
to all other rules,
regula-
tions and benefits afforded other employees, including car
allowance. Administrator Balczun noted that he needs to have a
discussion with OMB Director Baird about this as to what is
really budgeted and what is not. He believed we had a discussion
about systemwide increases in the car allowances, and he was not
sure how we really treated any of that.
Administrator Balczun wished to assure the Board that he is
very confident in his new assistant's ability. He certainly
recognizes the risks one faces when he recruits and hires someone
he has worked with before, and if he were not that confident, he
certainly would not have done it. However, if it is the Board's
policy that those kinds of decisions be run by them, informally
or formally, they are the ones who make the rules, and if that is
the rule they want, he will follow it. He stated that he just
did what he thought was normal procedure.
Chairman Scurlock asked with the $51,000 offered, if there
would be a probation period with an anticipated 5% raise at the
end of six months, and Administrator Balczun stated that as a
generality every new employee after completion of six months goes
up 5% automatically.
Commissioner Eggert noted that her problem is that during
budget hearings we discussed this position, set an amount, and
asked the Administrator if felt he could get someone for that
amount. He confirmed that he believed he could, but with some
room for negotiation. With negotiation in a situation such as
this, she would not be surprised to see possibly a thousand or so
dollars difference, but she was amazed at a $10,000 difference.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the Chairman sat here during
the public hearings on the budget and assured people that we go
over everything line item by line item and lay out positions with
their salaries, etc.; so, with something this different from the
amount set at budget time, she felt very strongly that it should
be brought back to the Commission because she felt we set a
44
policy in setting that salary amount when we did the budget in
the first place. Apparently it is a misunderstanding, but she
believed there is a lot of policy set in the budget that doesn't
necessarily have to be laid out every time something comes up.
Administrator Balczun noted that, certainly everyone has
their own philosophy, but budgets normally are a financing plan
to underwrite the cost of goods and services, etc., for the
fiscal year, and with respect to salaries, the cost of that
position for the fiscal year. He has always operated on the
basis that wherever a level of compensation fits on a salary
schedule, and multiplied times that portion of the year that the
job is going to be filled, is the budget amount. However, it is
becoming apparent that the Board's belief is that a budgetary
number with respect to a position actually mandates the salary.
Normally it is a two step procedure.
Commissioner Eggert confirmed that to her a budget level the
way we have been doing it mandates a salary, (the same as a
capital item and its cost), and if we see a difference, we come
back with a budget amendment. That is why she has a problem with
the concept of program budgeting. It is very difficult for us to
know exactly what is going on and tell a taxpayer this is what we
are doing unless the budget is laid out and followed.
Chairman Scurlock believed there is a little different
philosophy in Indian River County, and possibly the Board has not
been communicating as well as we should have with a new person
who has operated under a different system. For example, Mr.
Balczun just came from a county that has 38 Commissioners spread
all over; the meetings are extremely short; and they totally rely
on the administrative division to run the whole show - they are
not involved to the extent this Commission historically always
has been. Our make-up is that the five County Commissioners are
intimately involved in the running of the county government, and
possibly that is where we are a little awry in this situation,
especially when we are talking about a second in command, who, if
NOV �1 V 101987 45 BOOK 70. P'cr. . 02
L6�
V 10 1987 BOOK .70 F -AGE 83
something should happen to the Administrator, would be taking
over. The Chairman did not know what flexibility the
Administrator has and would not want to put him in an untenable
position, but noted that he is going have a hard time voting for
$53,000 when we budgeted $41,400, which means to him that the
amount remaining after five pay periods would be less than
$40,000.
Commissioner Bird concurred that we need to clarify for the
future. He agreed the Administrator has the ability to hire and
fire and the Board works with him to set the salary levels for
some of the key department heads, and he believed the Board felt
we had done so at budgettime. Commissioner Bird felt if the
Administrator had gone out to fill this position and found he
couldn't acquire a person of the caliber he needed at that price
range, he should have come back to the Commission with that
information and possibly the Commission would have reconsidered.
Certainly this is the way it should be done in the future.
Administrator Balczun stated that he could certainly assure
the Board that this will not happen again - (a) because the Board
has enunciated the rules and (b) because he has never thought of
himself as being overly stupid about making the same mistake
twice. He continued that he would like to suggest that our
personnel professional do further study on the issue, and, of
course, whatever the Board decides will be followed, but the
Administrator pointed out that at a salary of $41,400, the
assistant administrator would be the 8 or 9th person in salary
stacking in the county ratings.
Chairman Scurlock did not believe he necessarily has to be
the second highest paid in the county, and Commissioner Bird
agreed that you do not necessarily need the compensation to have
the authority, as recently proved by Col. Oliver North.
Chairman Scurlock further noted that Palm Beach County has 7
or 8 assistant administrators. Also, he felt the salary depends
on where exactly the assistant administrator is to be put in the
46
r � �
county structure, what exactly he will do, and what assignments
he has.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that until we see just what the
job entails, it makes a difference, i.e., if he is to replace
former Intergovernmental Coordinator "Tommy" Thomas, for
instance.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that in the near future we
will have a personnel study completed, and since we are paying
for this, he is going to feel strongly about adopting some kind
of uniform salary range procedure, job classification, etc.,
which may well involve some salaries being raised and some
reduced.
Commissioner Eggert agreed and stated that she would hate to
put someone in at too high a level and then chop it down that
fast.
Commissioner Bird commented that even if the Administrator.
had followed the suggested procedure, he personally would have
had a difficult time being convinced to approve a salary as high
as $51,00; although, he might have been agreeable to exceeding
the $41,000. He asked if it is possible we can go back to the
$41,400 figure which was approved at budgettime and compensate
the Assistant Administrator for the remaining pay periods of this
year, with the automatic increase in six months if he works out
all right, and do that until we get the study completed by the
consultant.
Administrator Balczun did not see that we can't. He noted
that frankly there is no alternative, and if that is what the
Board wants to do, that is what we will do. His only concern in
the circumstances is to be as reasonable and fair as possible.
Commissioner Eggert suggested a Motion to establish the
compensation for the Assistant Administrator at $41,400 for the
remaining pay periods of this fiscal year with the ability to
have a 5% raise at.the end of the probation period.
47 BOOK 1U PAGE 84
OV 10 197 BOOK iO f`A,GE. 85
Chairman Scurlock made the point that, figuring this out
mathematically, if the Board approved the $41,400 for the
remaining pay periods, we would, in effect, have approved the
$51,000 salary offered by the Administrator.
ON MOTION by.Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved an
annual salary of $41,400 for the Assistant Adminis-
tor with the normal 5 percent increase after the
six month probationary period.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she has something else she
wished to ask the Commission about. Possibly she stands alone in
this, but she is very concerned about costs and budgeting, and as
she has sat in the audience over the years, there has been
discussion on and off about whom the Budget Officer should report
to. She felt we should review whether he should report to the
County Commission or to the Administrator as he is doing now.
Commissioner Eggert wished to make sure we have a direct conduit,
that we are understanding where everything is going, and that
nobody's job is made more difficult, be that a county
commissioner, administrator or budget officer, by internal
politics or anything else that might be going on.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he is very clear on this
subject. It was his absolute belief at the time that Mr. Balczun
came aboard that Mr. Baird should report directly to the County
Commission, possibly because of our bad experience with Mr.
Wright, and he still feels Mr. Baird should report directly to
the Board. The person Mr. Balczun is hiring apparently has a
very good financial background so that those project numbers,
etc., that need to be run directly for the Administrator can be
done by him.
Commissioner Eggert confirmed she has come to that same con-
clusion but did not know what we do about proceeding with this.
48
Chairman Scurlock noted that if she believes she can get a
majority that feels the same way, she could just make a Motion to
that effect.
Commissioner Wheeler expressed his personal feeling that
before any action is taken in this regard, he would like to have
the matter tabled at least a week so he can research it, and
Commissioner Bird concurred.
Administrator Balczun asked if this could be tabled for at
least 30 days because it will require some staff study and
analysis.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he did not want to table it
and would vote against a motion to table.
MOTION MADE by Commissioner Wheeler to table action
on the above matter until the next Commission meeting
carried on a 3 to 2 vote with Chairman Scurlock and
Commissioner Eggert voting in opposition.
FELLSMERE LIBRARY LEASE
Commissioner Eggert announced that the Lease with The
Fellsmere Library Association finally has been completed and is
ready to be signed. She advised that it is pretty much what was
talked about before - they will continue to carry their $500
share of the all- peril insurance on their building and they will
be seeing that the janitorial and grounds work is done, etc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
Lease with The Fellsmere Library Association and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
NOV 10 1987 49 BOOK 70 P,.,UF 86.
BOOK 70 PAGE ''87
BUSINESS LEASE
November
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 10th day of 9[�— f
1987, between THE FELLSMERE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, hereinafter called
the lessor, party of the first part, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, in
the State of Florida, hereinafter called the lessee or tenant,
party of the second part:
WITNESSETH, that the said lessor does this da,y lease unto
said lessee, and said lessee does hereby hire and take as tenant
under said lessor, Lots 16 through 26, inclusive, Block 101, Town
of Fellsmere, situate in Indian River County, Fellsmere, Florida,
to be used and occupied by the lessee for a Public Library and for
no other purposes or uses whatsoever, for the term of five (5)
years subject and conditioned on the provisions of clauses of this
lease beginning the 10th day of November , 1987, at
and for the agreed total rental of TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS, payable as
follows: Five Dollars ($5.00) each year payable on the first day of
each year, all payments to be made to the lessor on the First day
of each Year and every year in advance without demand at
or at such other place and to such other person, as the lessor may
from time to time designate in writing, and for additional
considerations as set forth herein to be performed by lessee.
The following express stipulations and conditions are made a
part of this lease and are hereby assented to by the lessee:
FIRST: The lessee shall not assign this lease, nor
sublet the premises, or any part thereof nor use the same, or any
part thereof, nor permit the same, or any part thereof, to be used
for any other purpose than as above stipulated, nor make any
alterations therein, and all additions, fixtures or improvements
which may be made by lessee, except movable office furniture, shall
become the property of the lessor and remain upon the premises as a
part thereof, and be surrendered with the premises at the
termination of this lease.
SECOND: All personal property located or moved into
the premises above described shall be at the risk of the lessee or
owner thereof. Lessor shall not be liable for any damage to said
personal property of the lessee or owner thereof arising from the
bursting or leaking of water pipes, or from any act of negligence
of any co -tenant or occupants of the building or of any other
person whomsoever.
THIRD: The tenant shall promptly execute and comply
with all statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations and
requirements of the Federal, State, and City Government and of any
and all their Departments and Bureaus applicable to said premises,
for the correction, Prevention, and abatemenr of nuisances or other
grievances, in, upon, or connected with said nrenises during said
50
term;
orders
for the
and shall also promptly comply with and execute all rules,
and regulations of the Southeastern Underwriters Association
prevention of fires, at his own cost and expense.
FOURTH: In the event the premises shall be destroyed
or so damaged or injured by fire or other -casualty during the life
of this agreement, whereby the same shall be rendered untenantable,
then the lessor shall have the right to render said premises
tenantable by repairs within ninety. days therefrom. If said
premises are not rendered tenantable within said time, it shall be
optional with either party hereto to cancel this lease, and in the
event of such cancellation the rent shall be paid only to the date
of such fire or casualty. The cancellation herein mentioned shall
be evidence in writing.
FIFTH: The prompt payment of the rent for said
premises upon the dates named, and the faithful observance of the
rules and regulations printed upon this lease, and which are hereby
made part of this covenant, and of such other and further rules or
regulations as may be hereafter made by the lessor, are the
conditions upon which the lease is made and accepted and any
failure on the part of the lessee to comply with the terms of said
lease, or any of said rules and regulations now in existence, or
which may be hereafter prescribed by the lessor, shall at the
option of the lessor, work a forfeiture of this contract, and all
of the rights of the lessee hereunder.
SIXTH: If the lessee shall abandon or vacate said
premises before. the end of the term of this lease, the lessor may,
at his option, forthwith cancel this lease or he may enter the
premises as the agent of the lessee, and-relet the premises with or
without any furniture that may be therein, as the agent of the
lessee, at such price and upon such terms and.for such duration of
time as the lessor may determine, and receive the rent therefor,
applying the same to the payment of -the rent due by these presents,
and if the full rental herein provided shall not be realized by
lessor over and above the expense to lessor in such re -letting, the
said lessee shall pay an deficient, and if more than the full
rental is realized lessor will pay over to said lessee the excess
of demand.
SEVENTH: The lessor, or any of his agents, shall have
the right to enter said premises during all reasonable hours, to
examine the same to make such repairs, additions or alterations as
may be deemed necessary for the safety, comfort or preservation
thereof.
EIGHTH: Lessee hereby accepts the premises in the
condition they are in the beginning of this lease and agrees to
maintain said premises in the same condition, order and repair as
they are at the commencement of said term, excepting only
reasonable wear and tear arising from the use thereof under this
agreement.
NINTH: This contract shall bind the lessor and its
agents or successors, and the heirs, assigns, administrators, legal
representatives, executors or successors as the.case may be,' of the
lease.
TENTH: It is understood and agreed between the parties
hereto that time is of the, essence of this contract and this
applies to all terms and conditions contained herein.
ELEVENTH: It is understood and agreed between the
parties hereto that written notice mailed or delivered to the
premises leased hereunder shall constitute sufficient notice to the
lessee and written notice mailed or delivered to the office of the
lessor shall constitute sufficient notice to the lessor, to comply
with the terms of this contract.
TWELFTH: The rights of the lessor under the foregoing
shall be.cumulative, and failure on the part of the lessor to
51
0V 10'901 BOOK 70 PAGE 88
BOOK 70,A
,A89
exercise promptly any rights given hereunder shall not operate to
forfeit any of said rights.
THIRTEENTH: It is further understood and agreed
between the parties hereto that any charges against the lessee by
the lessor for services or for work done on the premises by order
of the lessee or otherwise accruing under this contract shall be
due and unpaid.
FOURTEENTH: Lessee will provide personal property and
fire and casualty insurance on the building on the premises in
their full insurable value. Lessor shall continue to hold its
existing Commercial Property Coverage and Commercial General
Liability Coverage Policy, Number 77 -PR -546-424-8000, with
Nationwide Insurance Company, Columbus, Ohio. Lessor shall pay
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) toward the purchase of this policy
and Lessee will pay any remaining balance. Lessor will designate
Lessee as a Named Insured on the Nationwide policy. Lessor shall
Provide Lessee with a Certificate of Insurance within 14 days of
the effective date of the policy and shall obtain in writing an
obligation from the insurer to notify Lessee in writing at least
20 days prior to cancellation or refusal to renew any such policy.
Lessee shall further procure and maintain during the term of the
lease public liability. insurance with. coverage of One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for each person injured and Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) for any one accident, such
limits to be adjusted from time to time to match the waiver of
Sovereign Immunity limits in Section 768.28 Florida Statutes.
Lessor shall be named as an additional insured on all such policies
and lessee agrees to obtain in writing an obligation from the
insurers to notify lessor in writing at least twenty (20) days
prior to cancellation or refusal to renew any such policy. To the
extent permitted by law, lessee will be responsible for all claims,
demands, suits, liabilities, damages and losses arising out of or
resulting from the negligent acts of its employees, agents, or
representatives and hold the landlord harmless and indemnify the
landlord therefor. The lessee shall not use the premises in any
manner that will increase risk covered by insurance on the building
where the premises are located in such a manner as to increase the
rate -of insurance premium covering the building. Lessor shall pay
the first Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) of each annual premium due
for the insurance described herein and lessee shall pay the balance
of the premium over and above Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) each
year.
FIFTEENTH: Lessee expressly agrees that the lessor will not
be responsible for any -repairs or maintenance to the building or
— g-r-a;a-e4s or any part of the leased premises. Lessee agrees to
maintain the leased premises in clean, sanitary and safe conditions
at all times and all grounds and building maintenance necessary,
provided that Lessee should not be required by this paragraph to
perform any structural repairs to the building costing more than
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Lessor shall provide all necessary
janitorial services for the building and grounds maintenance. �/�
SIXTEENTH: Lessee shall not make any improvemenTs or
alterations to the leased premises without the prior consent of
lessor which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Lessee shall
submit any plans and designs for such improvements to the lessor
for approval and any improvements or alterations erected on the
leased premises shall upon expiration or termination of the lease
belong to the lessor without compensation to the lessee.
SEVENTEENTH: The lessee shall pay for all utilities
furnished to the premises for the term of this lease including
electricity, gas, telephone service, and water consumption but not
costs of installation of public water or sewer service or impact
fees or assessments therefor.
EIGHTEENTH: Either party may terminate this lease for good
cause shown by providing sixty (60) days notice to the other party.
52
M M M
NINETEENTH: Lessor retains the right to conduct meetings
for the Fellsmere Library Association or its successor
organizations at all reasonable hours after reasonable notice to
lessee.
TWENTIETH: Any books belong to the lessor that remain on
the premises may be used by the lessee as part of the books of the
public library but the lessor shall retain title to all such books
during or after the term of the lease. Lessee shall not be
responsible for any loss of books or damage to books belonging to
Lessor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
executed this instrument for the purposes herein expressed, the day
and year above written.
WITNESSES
� w
FELLS ERE LIBRAR AS CI ON
BY:
INDIAN I_ EE- COOY..
BY: V�ueGKGL"MZ
DISCUSSION RE COMPLETION OF 12TH STREET ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo from Commissioner Wheeler:
TO: County Commissioners ®ATE: November 9, 1987 FILE:
SUBJECT: 12th Street Road
Improvement Project
FROM: Gary C. Wheeler REFERENCES:
Commissioner
I have received numerous complaints from business people on 12th
Street in the vicinity of Old Dixie Avenue, and from people
traveling through that area. I would like to discuss the
possibility of the County Commission looking at some solution to
cleaning up and expediting construction of this project. With
the Christmas holidays and the increase in traffic, the situation
is becoming intolerable. One suggestion might be for the County
to hire a coordinator to expedite the construction.
It is my personal opinion that this is the sloppiest, most
disorganized road improvement project I have over seen.
NOV10 1987 53 'AOOK 70 PAGE - 90
jq 0V 1®` 987 Boa 70 PA GE 9 Y
Commissioner Wheeler advised that he has received various
complaints about this project and has talked with Public Works
Director Davis about it. He understood we are paying a fee to
Kimley-Horn & Associates to manage and coordinate this project,
and it seems very obvious to him that the level of coordination
has not been sufficient to mitigate the problems caused. In
addition, the upcoming holidays will make this situation really
impossible, and we are talking of serious financial problems for
businesses in this area.
The Chairman suggested Commissioner Wheeler offer a Motion
to authorize Administrator Balczun and Director Davis to meet
with Kimley-Horn and express our concern and dissatisfaction and
report back.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he also would like to look
at the possibility of putting a crew on additional time.
Chairman Scurlock did not feel he could support that as he
was not sure whose expense it would be, and Commissioner Bowman
also was concerned about the expense.
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that the time
of completion on the project has not been exceeded. The project
began in about August of 1986 and the time of completion is over
one calendar year, but there have been change orders due to
�arious utility problems, and most times a Change Order is
approved, there is a time extension associated with it. At this
point we have been told that they are going to do the final
striping on 12th St. east of U.S.I next week. They are working
very hard on the section west of U.S.I., but they have had
intermittent delays due to the weather, and also the railroad was
two weeks late working on the crossing. The actual crossing is
handled by the F.E.C., and they are very difficult to work with.
Discussion continued re the year timetable, and Director
Davis explained that the whole 4 million plus project involving
the Boulevard extension south, the 12th Street widening, and the
8th Street connection, was bid at once. It was indicated we did
54
not want the contractor to tear up the 12th St. corridor prior to
the Boulevard extension being completed, and the project was
phased accordingly. It had been hoped to have everything done
prior to the season, which actually begins about December.
Commissioner Bird inquired what the current estimate for
completion is.
Kevin MacAdam of Kimley-Horn & Associates informed the Board
that the contract as written was about a 450 day contract, and
through change orders is now about 529 days, which would bring it
somewhere around mid January. They are looking to be on schedule
and have the majority to where it is open by Christmastime.
Within the next week they hope to try to open 12th Street
approaching U.S.I between Keen's and the Mail to 4 lanes as it
hits U.S.I and basically develop the U.S.1 intersection, and they
also are looking by next week to stripe 12th St. including U.S.I
on through to 6th Ave. and Indian River Boulevard and open that
whole section as well as to stripe and open up 8th Street from
6th Avenue to the Boulevard. The signalizations at 6th Avenue
and at Indian River Blvd. should all be in operation by that
time. Mr. MacAdam believed that will open up the traffic and
clean that area up.
In regard to 12th. St. between the railroad and Old Dixie,
Mr. MacAdam reported that he has talked at some length with Mr.
Weiss, owner of Weiss Meat Market, and while this has been a
major inconvenience for him, it is on the downhill side now.
One of Mr. Weiss' concerns was that there is a sign on Old Dixie
that says "NO THRU TRAFFIC." That is incorrectly signed and
that will be corrected before the day is out. Otherwise, the
contract is proceeding pretty much to schedule.
Commissioner Bird asked if it there is any time when it is
anticipated the traffic will be completely stopped, and Mr.
MacAdam advised that when they pave at the tracks there may be a
four hour period where it may be necessary to close the traffic
off to finish off the base; there is temporary asphalt there now.
55 Boas 70 PAcf ..
NOV 10 1987
NOV 10m Boa 0 DGE 93
They will try to coordinate this to have the least harmful
effect.
Commissioner Wheeler believed there have been barricades
with non-functional lights, some barricades tipped over, large
drop offs, etc., and stressed that although all this is a bit
late, he was very glad to hear that they are well on the way to
solving the problem.
Commissioner Bird noted that the roadwork on U.S.1 to the
north was a pet peeve of his when Dickerson was working up by
Scotty's, and he wished to know who is supposed to ride herd over
a contractor to make sure they do everything possible to protect
the safety of the motorist.
Chairman Scurlock believed it should have been Kimley-Horn's
inspector. He felt we paid $70,000 for that, but he understood
the inspector has been sick and apparently there have been some
problems.
Mr. MacAdam confirmed that their inspector had been sick,
but that was seven months ago; it has not been a recent problem
at all. As to whose responsibility this is, it is the contrac-
tor's responsibility to take care of the traffic situation.
Kimley-Horn's responsibility was to provide a resident project
representative to observe the construction, the quality of the
construction, and the progress, and should they observe anything
not in accordance with the contract or out of the ordinary, they
bring this to the contractor's attention or to the county's
attention.
Chairman Scurlock believed the Board is telling everyone
involved to get their act together and expedite as much as
possible.
Commissioner Wheeler noted this isn't something that just
occurred; it has been going on for a very long time.
Public Works Director Davis pointed out that not all the
activity on 12th Street has been associated just with this road
job. Southern Bell has been involved with a major relocation,
56
and also there has been other utility work; it has been one job
piggybacking another. He noted that D.O.T. has a seven year
schedule for this kind of project, and we have done it in about 3
years.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
Amendment of Lease with Shopping Centers, Ltd., re space for
the Sheriff's North County office at Washington Plaza, Sebastian,
is hereby made a part of the Minutes as approved at the Regular
Meeting of October 27, 1987.
This agreement made as of the
by and between SHOPPING C
called LANDLORD and IN
hereinafter called TENANT.
LEASE AMENDMENT
25th day of September , 19 87 ,
ERS, LTD. , hereinafter
WHEREAS both parties are desirous of amending a certain lease for
the premise being described as Washington Plaza, Spaces #9 & #10, 71U
Washington Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 , said lease being dated July 16 ,
1985 for the term of One Year & 3Months commencing on August 1 ,
1985 and further extended until November 3U, 1987
NOW THEREFORE both parties agree for mutual good and valuable con-
sideration to forever amend the aftersaid described lease term or provi-sions
as follows:
This Lease Agreement shall be extended for One (1) additional year from
December 1, 1987 until November 30, 1988 upon the same terms and con-
ditions as the above mentioned Lease Agreement.
WITNESSES:
61VA
SHOPPLNG--CENTERS,, LTD.
� / J •Y
R v
KINGSWOOD WEST, INC.
GENERAL PARTNER
Approved: 10-27-87
B y TENANT V
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOOK 70 m -GE. 94
NOV 10 1987 BOOK 70 PAGE 9
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:45 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
___G ___
Clerk Chairman
58
� � i