HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/2/1988Tuesday, February 2, 1988
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,
February 2, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present
were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Dr. John Few, Christ by the Sea United Methodist, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock advised that the Budget Director wished to
add as an emergency item an amendment to the Sheriff's Service of
Process Contract as the county will not receive any reimbursement
from those fees until the state receives the amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added the above
emergency item to today's agenda as requested by the
OMB Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1988.
There were none.
FEB 21988
�oaK 7E 730
,SEB 21988
BOOK 70 rAu 131
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1988,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wheeler requested that Item A be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Bird asked
that item B be removed also.
A. Change Order #3-9 Sheriff's Administration Building
The Board reviewed memo from Owner's Representative Dean:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINIS ' TOR
H. T. DE
OWNER'S AUTHO
ZED REPRESENTATIVE
SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3-9
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1988
C. E. Block Architect, Inc. has submitted the subject change order
,for board approval.
Item 1. This was deducted from the contract because
operations in the old communications center had to continue with
available emergency power until the new facility could be completed.
Arrangements have been made to move the old generator after the new
center is operational.
Item 2-7. These were small items that needed prompt
action. It has been the policy to submit items such as this at one
time rather than separately.
Item 8. The air conditioning unit was recommended by a
independent consultant hired by the Architect. Installation was
carried out by the general contractor as specified. The Sheriff,
along with this writer, advised Mr. Block that we would not accept
the building based on the amount of noise the specified air
conditioner generated inside the Communications Center. The
Architect and consultant instructed the general contractor to
construct a soundproof partition around this unit. Authorization
for payment was not granted to the Architect by the Sheriff or the
Owner's Authorized Representative. This item was added tb4„ this
change order without prior approval.
Staff recommends approval of items 1-7 based on the above
information. Staff feels that item 8 should have been discussed as
to alternatives, and brought to the board for approval prior to
construction and/or submittal.
2
Commissioner Wheeler asked about the cost of Item 8 and
wished to know if the noise level is now tolerable inside the
Communications Center.
Mr. Dean confirmed that it is. He continued that the cost
of the correction is $1,505.97, and since this was not approved
prior to construction, it was felt it should be brought to the
Board.
The Chairman suggested a Motion to approve everything except
Item 8.
Discussion ensued as to the amount deducted, and Commis-
sioner Eggert believed we end up with a deduction of $1,570 as
she multiplied it out.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order 3-9 Sheriff's Administration Building
(PWR Corporation) Items 1 - 7 as recommended by
staff.
CHANGE
ORDER
AIA DOCUMENT C701
Distribution to:
OWNER 0
ARCHITECT ❑
CONTRACTOR 0
FIELD 0
OTHER . 0
PROJECT: Sheriff's Administration Building CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: I.R.C. 3-9
(name, address) 4800 S. Gifford Road October DATE: 21 , 1987
TO (Contractor):
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8528
PWR Corporation CONTRACT FOR: one story block office buildir
P.O. Box 249
Highland City, Florida 33846 CONTRACT DATE: October 13, 1986
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
1. Delete relocation of existing emerengency generator: Deduct - ($1,500.00)
2. Increase the size of the supervisor's platform in 911
per the Sheriff's office request: Add - • $166.00
3. Provide and install soap dishes in Room 608 & 610: Add - $71.00
4. Balance of deleting mail slots in room 603 and adding
mail slots in detectives area: Deduct - ($240.00)
5. Add closures to office doors in 911 room per
Fire Department request: Add - $168.00
6. Add acoustical ceiling to phone room 111 per
Southern Bell request: Add - $150.00
7. Delete wallpaper in 911 equipment room: Deduct - ($385.00)
8. Construct A/C unit enclosure in 911: _ Add - $1,505.97
TOTAL DEDUCTS (64.03)
FEB 21988
3
ROOK ` 0 F,1GE 7:32
Pr -
FEB 21988
BOOK 70 F' 'E 733
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time.
The original (Contract Sum) AtAJ(a EKdra 4l6yt@ftXt1'rii?Ooii) was .$ 2,106,155 00
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 424,560. 37
7+Xi�r)Ed(
The (Contract Sum)(id(KIui�(�YiibYQrcYsl6Xprior to this Change Order was $ 2,530,715. 37
The (Contract Sum) (GiXiE i140:0Xdb)iXA CXs j(will be (MiXA (decreased) (fir iii i =
by this Change Order • $ 64.03
The new (Contract Sum) jetwrxt)Cml;j(444 (a(rj(i j$iQ including this Change Order will be $ 2,530,651.34
The Contract Trine will be 4(1X'X)1K (d(t ( 0) (unchanged) by December 7, 1987 ( 0 ) Days.
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
Authprtzed: •
Chairman I.R.C. Commission
C.E. Block Architect, Inc. PWR Corporation
ARCHITECT
Address
BY
DATE
AIA DO MEM 6701
CONTRACTOR
Address
BY (//7
(p /1168 DATE //d
erg
OWNER
Address
BY
DATE
• CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1975 EDITION ' • AIA• •
a
B. Change Order #3-10 Sheriff's Administration Building
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO:
THRU:
COUNTY ADMINIS TOR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JANUARY 19, 1988
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
FROM: H. T. DEAN
OWNER'S A
ED REPRESENTATIVE
SUBJECT: SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3-10
The subject Change Order is for the purpose of reimbursement of the
General Contractor's portion of monies generated in sales tax
savings as specified in Addendum Number 4 of the contract documents.
It should be noted that the County's share of this savings was
$25,875.43.
Staff recommends board approval and authorization for the Chairman
to execute the Change Order document.
Commissioner Bird felt it is fine that we were able to have
a savings in sales tax of $25,875.43, but hoped in the future we
could negotiate with the contractor and work out a way so that we
got the entire amount saved.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that one of the problems is
that the contractor has to handle a lot of the paperwork, and
Commissioner Wheeler believed the actual cost of all the
accounting involved may add up to more than we save.
4
Owner's Representative Dean confirmed that there is a
tremendous amount of paperwork involved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Change
Order #3-10 Sheriff's Administration Building (PWR
Corporation) Sales Tax Saved.
CHANGE
ORDER
AlA DOCUMENT G701
Distribution to:
OWNER ❑
ARCHITECT ❑•
CONTRACTOR ❑
' FIELD 0
OTHER 0
PROJECT: Sheriffta Administration Building CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 1,R,C, 3T1r
(name, address) 4800 S. Gifford Road
INITIATION DATE: January 6, 1987
TO (Contractor):
1 PWR Corporation ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 8528
P.O. Box 249 CONTRACT FOR: one story block office
Highland City, Florida. 33846 building
CONTRACT DATE: October 13, 19.86
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
Provide tax saving credit per addendum #4
(See Attached)
Add - $25,875.43
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time.
The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) was ' $ 2,106 e155. 00.
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 424,496. 34
The (Contract Sum)(g)QiC'kR)F'kfXX')Q7RJPi('XR3(<) prior to this Change Order was $ 2,530,651. 34
The (Contract Sum) (fmcsvnexIxaktnixixonakt will be (increased) q 1(rXXIOXIQ` MOXiX
-
by this Change Order $ 25,875. 43
The new (Contract Sum) (fig5eXiXtrgle )¢ ttME)R) including this Change Order will be $ 2, 556, 526. 77
The Contract Time will be (r b)0XdAx(x1p�g(r )(*X1) (unchanged) by ( 0 ') Days.
The Date of Substantial Com"p'letion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
C.E.Block Architect, Inc. PWR Corporation
ARCHITECT
Address
0-eAtt ot-atzst
DATE / /1/85
•
,L. Commission
CONTRACTOR OWNER
Address Address
BYE/ C/
BY
DATE f f �J,a' DATE
AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIM
FEB 21988
5
• 03978
BOOK 70 HU 7:34
7
PP -
FEB 2 1988
ENGINEERS
•
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
P.O. BOX 249
January 8, 1988
C.E. Block Architect, Inc.
P.O. Box 1206
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BOOK 70 F',,€735
PWR CORPORATION
HIGHLAND CITY, FLORIDA33846-0249 813/646-1408
Re: IRC Tax Savings
Sheriff's Administration Building
Dear Tony:
In accordance to addendum #4 of the specifications, the sales
tax savings for the owner should be calculated as follows:
1) Value of material purchased direct
by IRC $1,035,017.12
2) Sales tax saved by IRC (item 1 x 5%)$51,750.86
3) Tax savings exceeding $15,000 but not
exceeding $30,000 is credited to PWR
@ 100% (ref. 4.6.3.2) $15,000.00
Tax savings exceeding $30,000 will be
credited 50% to owner & 50% to PWR
(ref. 4.6.3.3) $51,750.86 - $30,000.00$10,875.43
2
$25,875.43
Total tax savings due PWR
Please issue change order #10 accordingly.
Sincerely,
PWR CORPORAT
William G. Issitt
President
C. Jail Project, Phase 1! - Substantial Completion
The Board reviewed memo of Owner's Representative:
6
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMIN TRATOR
H. T. DEAN
OWNER'S AU ORI D REPRESENTATIVE
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1988
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PROJECT - PHASE II
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
On Thursday, January 14, 1988, the Architect and Owner's
Representative, along with all concerned parties, inspected the
subject project to ascertain substantial completion.
It was determined that the facility met all requirements as
specified in the contract documents for substantial completion. The
General Contractor now has thirty days to complete all punch -list
items or liquidated damages will recommence as outlined in the
Certificate of Substantial Completion.
The Florida Department of Corrections has been notified that final
inspection can be made the week of February 15, 1988. Jail
administrators are making arrangements to train their personnel and
be ready to move in.
Staff recommends board approval and authorization for the Chairman
to execute the Certificate of Substantial Completion. This action
will not allow the release of retained funds. A final change order,
along with record documents and Liquidated Damages recommendation,
will be brought back to the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute Certificate of Substantial
Completion for Phase II, County Jail.
COPY OF SAID CERTIFICATE WITH PUNCH LIST ATTACHED IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
D. Acceptance of Resignation from Firearms Range Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Eugene duPont, III, from the
Firearms Range Committee.
7
FEB 21988
,
BOOK 70 F'4uE 7.:6
Pr -
FEE 2195
BOOK 70 E E 737
E. Proclamation - Mentally Handicapped Week
PROCLAMATION
PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING
MARCH 3 THROUGH MARCH 5, 1988 AS
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus, Vero Beach Council
5629, will be conducting its annual Tootsie Roll Drive to help
the handicapped and mentally retarded citizens, on March 3
through March 5, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the donations will be used by
the Knights of Columbus for local programs and activities such as
the mentally retarded workshop and special olympics program; and
WHEREAS, on a nationwide basis, the Knights of Columbus
Councils will be conducting similar events during the same time
span; and
WHEREAS, with the help of many friends and local
organizations who have volunteered to assist the Knights of -
Columbus in this year's endeavor, it is anticipated that the.
proceeds generated will be far in excess of last year's total;
and
WHEREAS, it is altogether fitting and proper to
officially recognize this worthy cause, and to help create a
'public awareness and appreciation for all those who will be
"aproned and canistered" on March 3 through March 5, 1988 and
most of all, for all those who will contribute what they can from
their hearts and pockets to assist the mentally handicapped;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that March 3
through March 5, 1988 be officially observed as
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
in Indian River County, and that special recognition be given to
the dates of March 3 through March 5, 1988 in support of this
worthwhile endeavor.
,Adopted February 2, 1988
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
8
DON C. SCU OCK, J
Chairman
F. Release of Easement - Roseland Pines Subdv. (C. Gifford)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner DeBlois:
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Ke tirle7 AICP
Community Devel' ment Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois
Staff Planner
DATEtecember 28, 1987
SUBJECT:
FILE:
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY CHARLES &.
JANICE GIFFORD; LOT 11,
ROSELAND PINES SUBDIVISION
FRC1..odeles W. Heath Enforcement Officer REFERENCES:
Gifford R/E
DISK:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 2, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Charles and Janice Gifford,
owners of the subject property, for release of a portion of the
southeasterly twenty-five (25) foot utility and drainage ease-
ment, being the northwesterly five (5) feet of the southwesterly
twenty-five (25) feet of Lot 11, Roseland Pines Subdivision,
Section 22, Township 30, Range 38, Indian River County, Florida;
according to the Plat thereof as recorded in the Official Record
Book 703, Page 2671. It is Mr. & Mrs. Gifford's'intention to
construct a single-family residence on the subject property.
The current zoning classification is RS -1, Single -Family Residen-
tial District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low Density
Residential, one (1) unit per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone, Florida
Power and Light Company, Jones Intercable Corporation, and the
Indian. River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based
upon their review, there were no objections to the release of the
five (5) foot portion of the utility and drainage easement. The
zoning staff analysis showed that the drainage would be adequate-
ly handled on the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the northwesterly five (5) feet ofthe
southeasterly twenty-five (25) foot drainage and utility easement
of Lot 11, Roseland Pines Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book
10, Page 24, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
FEB 219
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-8 releasing easements in Roseland Pine
Subdv., as requested by Charles and Janice Gifford.
•
BOOK
70
ACE 7.38
Pr -
FEB 21988
�0�12� �6`,6:,9i
4 88
FEB19O
N RECEIVEn
coununrty
fse�3._ Development
44
DepartmentcleazatOc'''4i
538672
RESOLUTION NO. 88-8
BOOK 70 DcE739
Gifford R/E - REMS
Heath/Jefferson
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CER
EASEMENTS IN THE Roseland P
Subdivision.
1 '0,
4 4%s
,.. N Ff91988 v+
ties RjC-1tED o
c C' uni(Y �r
cQ'�+ D`D opmeat .t`
ic)rarimem
,c `�
4c
Z
WHEREAS, Indian River County has eas
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves
no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian
River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Charles H. & Janice M.
Gifford, whose mailing address is 5 Sunset Drive, Sebastian,
Florida 32958, Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
described easements:
SEE EXHIBIT °A° ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED'BEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was *moved for adoption by Commis-
sioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted on the 2nd day of
February , 1988, by the following vote:
Commissioner Scurlock Aye
Commissioner Bowman Aye
Commissioner Bird. Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
.11 Commissioner Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 2nd
1988.
, day of February
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By
Don C. Scuflock,:;
Chairman
EXHIBIT °-A°
The northwesterly five (5) feet of the southeasterly twen-
ty-five (25) foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 11,
Roseland Pines Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 10,
Page 24, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
10
G. Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo of the County Attorney:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
January 26, 1988
CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 2/2/88
RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
This office has processed the following matters and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release
forms:
RELEASE of 3 sewer ERUs paid by REALCOR-VERO
BEACH ASSOCIATES for Lots 95, 27, and 120 in
COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH (Map #41)
The back-up information for the above is on file in the
County Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Partial Release of Residential Wastewater Reservation
and Assessment Lien for property as described above.
State Road 60 SEWER Project
Map #41 (285 ERUs Reserved)
Release of THREE ERU
PARTIAL RELEASE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT
WASTEWATER RESERVATION AND ASSESSMENT LIEN
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of $3,890.25 from
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby releases the
property hereinafter described from that certain Certificate
of Wastewater Reservation recorded in O. R. Book 721, Page
985, public records of Indian River County, Florida, and
from that certain Special Assessment Roll included in
Resolution No. 84-107 recorded in O. R. Book 700, Page 298,
public records of Indian River County, Florida, which is
more particularly described as:
FEB 21988
L
11
5001 7Q Fa E 740
►FEB 2 1888
BOOK 70 F[iE 741
Lot No. 95 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, which is
owned by REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES, more
particularly described as being part of the
property legally described in:
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Lot No. 27s of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, which is
owned by REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES, more
particularly described as being part of the
property legally described in:
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Lot No. 120 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, which is
owned by REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES, more
particularly described as being part of the
property legally described in:
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
EXECUTED bythe Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested
and countersigned by the CI'erk of such Board this 2nd day
of February, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
CLERK
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST - REZONE 42.5 ACRES IN WINTER BEACH
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
12
VERO BEACH I:LESS-JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal. a dally newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County. Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement. being
a
in the matter of icff P 4
in the n Court. was pub -
/.J' /5P
lished in said newspaper its the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County. Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun"
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and al tient further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund 10 the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Swom to and subscribed bet
(SEAL)
day o
fr
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cougyt Yndlan River County, Florida)
1. iIRM��
1i1;3y
FEB 21988
13
a•
j:ONINO:.EOujj_DAR.!E
sios4 T' PIIOPEPTY
,./.0 UNDARIE
• t . •{" rl l : i''. ', • NOTICE-
- NOOae et heanne inttlated by Indian Rirar Countytdmneider the 541
rez r*g the tWlowhlg parcel "1" from IG, G m8rel QI6VICtte
n....Parcc "1 described asfollowa •
w Srt
That pardon of Om fiilowing described Pinel weffi a(Ore.lraslflgM�.
• That N1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW Sea B,Twpr
elate W tight -of -way Me of HIgghhwwa�y U.S. 1. lest of
f',•".And t0 co raider rezoning the fo1owirtg peroei '1" a4General
'•' - 8. Multi -Family Residential District.
Parcel' 2" being described asfollows:
•'The N 1/2 of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the Solt/4 !Ong west of tie FEC
way, lying in Sea 3, Twp. 328, Range 39E, less dQrof-way of record.
And to Cormiller rezoning th lrIct. bg Parcel '3 from Iii, (We
InInduffirtal OlefriGSo RM- ",?
8, Multi -Family Reaiderltlal District
• Parcel "3" being described as follows • :': ' pgs>BfE•.n. 'tf #+� ��+ �'ka eF'a,4;.
The 1/2 of the 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the S/V(�west oftui!- CR tOMfipM.o(•
way, less the west 150 feet of the south 150 lying In Sea 3,Teip. 325,
39E, less right-of"way of record. W ...
And toconsiderrm
consider rezoning the folia" parcel from IO, General ill District to RAC
-: P Multi -Fame_ y Re 0801* el 101011. • '
4^ de9cribedrfolbws '-_:l<-.�' Ak. ak..-,. z♦(5. D,.�o�•- ..
_:=. enlro"ilce
at pointot 25 feet north Otero pet offro NE t/1 Of the SW 1/4 of Sea ',
3, Twp 32S, Range 398. where the same intercepts the west right-of-way One of the FEC
.Railroad, thence run west of 144.93 feet to a Point of Beginning, thence continue west a
distance of 150 feet thence run north 150 feet drench run east on aline pere0et to the -
south the of said NE 1/4 er SW 1/4 a distance of 150 feet, thence run south 150 feet to the • -
• PWM of Beginning.
And to consider rezoNng ere nig parcel X71tS from*, General Industrial District to RM-
8, Multi -Family Residential District-
. Parcel "5" beln9 descdhetl as louowa: ' : } ".. -.
The easternmost portion of the following described parcel as measured 300 fairest Of and •
parallel to the west righty line of the PEC Railroad right-of-way:
The NW 1/4 of the SW 1/44 o Sec. 3, Twp. 32S. Range 398, !sae the west 10 acres, and less.
rightwof+ray of record.
And to Consider rezoning parcel "8" from IL;yiLg t Industrial Dietriat. 0 RM.e,.Muti-FmNy
-Parcell "8" being described as follows:y 'r• t..rC. _ '. :i
The easternmost 300 feet W the following described parcel as measured paragelto the west
right-of-way litre W the FEC Railroad right-of-way. .. •
The N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 W the SW 1/4 of Sec. 3, Twp. 323. Range 39E, less the west 10
acres. also the S 1 /2 of the N 1/2 of the SE 1 /4 of the SW 1/4 west of the FEC RalIrded
rigMof"way and the S 1/2 W the SE 1 /4 W the SW 1/4 west of the FEC Railroad. leas a
parcel es recorded -nn R BK 141, PP 848, and less the 30u11211 feel of thea 1/2 W the SE
1/4o100 SW 1/4 of Sec. 3 Twp. 325, Range 39E, lying wast of the FECRallroad tgMof-
way less the west 308.45 feet thereof. and Tess nghtsof-way of record. • •
And to =nestles the rezoning of parcel "r from RS -6, Single-FamO9 Reapental Disrkt to
RS -3, Single"Famiy Residential DfsWet • r• - :
,FEB 1988
BOOK 70 E743
Planning Director Keating made the staff presentation:
TO: Charles P. Balzcun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keats g,y P SUBJECT:
Community Developm--'Director
THRU: Gary Schindler 4,0,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
C44
FROM:
Staff Planner, Long-RangEtEffERFiNCES:
DATE: January 21, 1988 FILE:
David C. Nearing
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
42.5 ACRES IN WINTER
BEACH FROM IG, IL, CL,
& RS -6 TO RM -6 & RS -3
it is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 2, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
The County planning staff is initiating this request to consider
rezoning 12 parcels of land located in the Winter Beach area.
All 12 parcels are located north of North Winter Beach Road, and
west of the FEC R.R. Please refer to the attached location map
for exact locations. The specific action being requested for
each parcel is as follows:
Parcel #1: (that portion lying west of the FEC R.R.) from
IG, General Industrial District to RM -6,
Multi -family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre).
Parcel #2: IG to RM -6
Parcel #3: IG to RM -6
Parcel #4: IG to RM -6
Parcel #5: (that portion lying within 300 feet of the FEC
R.R.) IG to RM -6
Parcel #6: (that portion lying within 300 feet of the FEC
R.R.) IL to RM -6
Parcel #7: RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre) to RS -3, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 3 units/acre)
Parcel #8: RS -6 to RS -3
Parcel #9: RS -6 to RS -3
Parcel #10: (the south 600 feet) CL, Limited Commercial
District to RM -6
Parcel #11: CL to RM -6
Parcel #12: CL to RM -6
The purpose of this rezoning is to bring these parcels into
conformance with the Winter Beach Small Area Plan (SAP) as
amended through June, 1986. That plan, which includes the
Precise Land Use Map (PLUM) that was prepared in conjunction with
the SAP, identifies the appropriate land use and zoning
designation for each parcel in the Winter Beach area. A copy of
the original Winter Beach PLUM and the amended PLUM have been
attached to this item.
The intent of the Winter Beach SAP was to create a more specific
development guide for that portion of the U.S. 1 Mixed Use
14
District existing in Winter Beach. This development guide is to
supplement the more general County Land Use Map which was created
in conjunction with the County's comprehensive plan in 1982.
Since the MXD land use designation reflected a mixture of
different types of uses existing at the time that the comp plan
was prepared, the comp plan assigned the mixed use designation to
these areas, indicating a need for a more detailed analysis of
these areas. The preparation of the small area plan was to serve
that purpose in Winter Beach with the objective of establishing a
compatible and orderly development pattern in the Winter Beach
area.
On November 13, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the original SAP and PLUM, both of which had the concurrence of
the residents of Winter Beach. However, in April, 1986, after
several requests for multi -family rezonings had been submitted
for consideration, and subsequently withdrawn due to overwhelming
opposition from the Winter Beach residents, the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to revisit the SAP. Instead of
being limited to the MXD Corridor, the SAP was to be expanded to
incorporate the entire geographic area considered as Winter
Beach.
Following the direction of the Board, the staff held several
public workshops with the the Winter Beach residents. As a,
result of workshops, the staff and Winter Beach residents
developed different proposals for amending the SAP and PLUM.
While the staff recommended retaining existing six unit per acre
densities in the area, the residents proposed substantial
reductions in density.
In June, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 2-2 to
recommend adoption of the staff alternative. However, on July
23, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the
residents' alternative. As a result of the adoption of this
alternative, the scope of the SAP now includes the MXD Corridor
and all property lying between U.S. 1 and Kings Highway and
between Hobart Road and the Bent Pine development, south of South
Winter Beach Road. As indicated on the attached amended PLUM,
not only is the permitted land use shown, but= also the maximum
permissible zoning.
While action has been taken in the past to change the land use
and zoning designations of much of the residential land in the
area to conform to the SAP, no action has yet been taken to
ensure that the parcels located in the MXD area of Winter Beach
conform to the SAP. To ensure that the land use and zoning
designations are consistent with the original SAP and PLUM as
well as the 1986 amendments, the following parcels must be
addressed:
Original SAP & PLUM 1986 Amended SAP & PLUM
Parcel # 1
Parcel # 2
Parcel # 3
Parcel # 4
Parcel # 5
Parcel # 6
Parcel # 10
Parcel # 11
Parcel # 12
Parcel # 6
Parcel # 7
Parcel # 8
Parcel # 9
The proposed rezonings will implement the original SAP and PLUM
and will ensure that incompatible and inconsistent land uses are
not established on the now vacant properties. This action will
also ensure compliance with the wishes and desires of the local
residents.
15
FEB 2 1988
Boor 70 F",E 744
FEE 2 1988
BOOK 70 F'..uF 745
If the proposed rezonings are approved, staff over the next
several months will propose additional rezonings to the Planning
and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The
purpose of the proposed rezonings is to bring the zoning into
compliance with both the SAP and the PLUM.
On December 10, 1987, the Planning Zoning Commission voted
4-0 to deny this request. It was the :.inion of the Commission
that due to location, size, or =guration, the parcels
involved in the proposed reconir_c from nonresidential to
residential were not suited tc residential use. The
Commissioners did agree with staff that those parcels proposed
for rezoning from RS -6 to RS -3 were a_: opriately zoned at RS -6
and suited for higher densities.
Furthermore, the Commissioners felt that in light of this public
hearing and the opinions expressed by -he owners and public, the
portion of the Winter Beach SAP . i;c west of the FEC Railroad
east to U.S. 1, should be revisited. rte aforementioned area is
the area of primary concern addressed - the original 1985 SAP.
Since this rezoning request is fc= implementation of the
resolution created by the Board of Z.::ty Commissioners which
created the Winter Beach SAP, the pia --Lig staff felt that this
request should be brought before the Board for their
consideration. In order to transmit he Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation to revsat the SAP, it is also
necessary to bring this to the Board'sattention
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adTarse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Patterns
Parcel 1 (that part lying west of the E::J
Current use zoning: Grove/IG
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: parcel
West: part cf _.rcel 5
East: FEC R.=.
South: Parcel
Parcel 2
Current use/zoning: grove/IG
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: parcel
South: parcel
West: part c= a. cel 5
South: parcel
Parcel 3
Current use/zoning: single-family/IG
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: parcel =
South: parcel 4. 71st St.
West: part cf _arcel 5 and parcel 4
East: FEC R.=.
16
Parcel 4
Current use/zoning: abandoned residence _G
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: parcel
South: 71st S.
West: par: cf 7.arce1 5
East: parce.
Parcel 5 (within 300 feet of FEC R.R.)
Current use/zoning: groves/IG
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: concrete plant/1G
South: 71st St.
West: remainder of parcel 5/RM-6 & A-1
East: parcels 1-4, FEC R.R.
Parcel 6 (within 300 feet of FEC R.R.)
Current use/zoning: vacant/IL
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: site planned parcel/IL
South: residence/CH
East: FEC R.R.
West: remainder of parcel 6*
vacant/RM-6 & RS -6
* NOTE: That portion of parcel #6 currently zoned RS -6 will be
included in a future rezoning. This area was omitted from the
current request due to an inaccurate legal description.
Parcel 7
Current use/zoning: vacant/RS-6
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: 71st St.
South: residences & vacant/RS-3
East: vacant/RS-6 (portion of parcel 6)
West: vacant/RS-6
Parcel 8
Current use/zoning: vacant/RS-6
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: portion of parcel 6 /RS -6
South: South Winter Beach Road
East: parcel 9
West: residences & vacant/RS-3
Parcel 9
Current use/zoning: vacant/RS-6
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: portion of parcel 6/RS-6
East: portion of parcel 6/RM-6
South: South Winter Beach Road
West: residences & vacant/RS-3
Parcel 10 (south 620 feet only)
Current use/zoning: vacant/IL
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: vacant/CL
South: Old Dixie Hwy., FEC R.R.
East: 39th Ave, parcels 11 & 12
West: Old Dixie Hwy, FEC R.R.
Parcel 11
Current use/zoning: residence/CL
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: parcel 12
East: parcel 12.
South: 73rd St. vacant/RM-6
West: parcel 10
FEB 21988.
17
BOOK T® F'HE 746
FEB 2 1988
BOOK 70
JE 747
Parcel 12
Current use/zoning: vacant/CL
Surrounding uses/zoning: North: restaurant/CL
South: parcel 11, 73rd St., vacant/RM-6
East: U.S. 1
West: 39th Ave. parcel 10
Future Land Use Patterns
Parcel 1
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP): MXD, Mixed Use District
Winter Beach SAP & PLUM: LD -2, Low -Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre)
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: parcel 5
South: parcel 2
West: parcel 5
Parcel 2
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: LD -2
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: parcel 1
South: parcel 3
West: parcel 5
Parcel 3
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: LD -2
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: parcel 2
West: parcel 5
South: parcel 4, 71st St.
Parcel 4
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: LD -2
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: parcel 3
South: 71st St.
West: parcel 5
East: parcel 3
Parcel 5 (within 300 feet of FEC R.R.)
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: LD -2
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: MXD/MXD
South: LD-2/LD-2
East: parcels 1-4
West: LD-2/LD-2
Parcel 6 (within 300 feet of FEC R.R.)
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: LD -2
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: parcels 3 and 4
South: MXD/MXD
West: LD-2/LD-2
Parcel 7
CLUP: LD -2
WBSP: LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (allowing up to 3
units/acre)
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: LD-2/LD-2
South: LD-1/LD-1
East: LD-2/LD-1
West: LD-2/LD-1
18
Parcel 8
CLUP: LD -2
WBSP: LD -1
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: LD-2/LD-1, parcel 7
South: LD-2/LD-1
East: parcel 9
West: LD-1/LD-1
Parcel 9
CLUP: LD -2
WBSP: LD -1
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: LD-2/LD-1
South: LD-2/LD-1
East: LD-2/LD-2
West: parcel 8
Parcel 10 (south 620 feet)
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: residential
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: MXD/Commercial
East: MXD/parcels 11 & 12
Parcel 11
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: residential
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: parcel 12
South: MXD/residential
West: parcel 10
East: Parcel 12
Parcel 12
CLUP: MXD
WBSP: residential
Surrounding CLUP/WBSP: North: MXD/Commercial
South: MXD/residential
West: parcel 10
Due to the residential nature of and the amount of vacant land in
the Winter Beach area, the SAP's policy is that the undeveloped
parcels of land, which are located in the MXD area and currently
zoned for nonresidential use, should be zoned for multi -family
residential use. Rezoning these parcels will prevent additional
encroachment of nonresidential uses into the area and preserve
its residential nature. The original SAP also intended to
confine future nonresidential development to the 100 acre South
Winter Beach Industrial Node, the Hobart Road/U.S. 1
Commercial/Industrial Node, the Storm Grove Road Commercial Node,
and those portions of the MXD Corridor immediately adjacent to
these nodes. Therefore, rezoning the vacant commercial and
industrial properties included within this request will not
totally eliminate nonresidential uses in the area, and the
resulting multi -family zoning along the FEC railroad will provide
a 600' wide buffer area between the railroad and the
single-family zoning to the west.
Three of the parcels proposed for rezoning involve residential
rezonings. To ensure consistency with the SAP, parcels #7, #8, &
#9 would have to be rezoned from RS -6 to RS -3. Due to the many
aspects of Winter Beach which make it ideal for the densities
permitted under the LD -2 land use designation, staff has
consistently opposed decreasing the density of this area.
Therefore, the staff's position on these parcels reflects its
continued disagreement with that policy of the SAP.
19
FEB 219$
804 70 F:, r 748
FEB 2 1988
BOOK 70 p,ki,F 749
The specific reasons for the staff's density reduction opposition
have been identified many times in the past, but basically they
relate to the fact that Winter Beach lies within close proximity
to --the U.S. 1 corridor. Historically, the growth patterns of the
County have occurred in a linear pattern along this corridor,
with the higher density residential development occurring along
U.S. 1. To the west, densities are generally lower. As indicated
by the future land use map, such a development pattern has been
encouraged by the County.
A linear growth pattern promotes compact development instead of
urban sprawl. As a result, urban services can be provided in a
more efficient and economically feasible manner. Consequently,
the comprehensive plan indicates that areas where urban services
are to be provided should maintain higher permissible densities
and be located close to areas already characterized by higher
densities. Decreasing densities in an area where urban services
are available makes it less economically feasible to provide such
services to the area, increasing costs for both the County and
the public.
In addition to its potential for receiving urban services, the
Winter Beach area is characterized by a good transportation
network, With accessability to two main east/west collector
roads as well as to major north/south routes, the system is
capable of carrying a large volume of traffic through the north
county area. These factors indicate that this area has the
potential to accommodate higher residential densities than the
proposed three units per acre.
Changed Conditions
The action of the Planning and Zoning Commission in denying the
proposed rezonings reflects changes which have occured in Winter
Beach since approval of the Small Area Plan. Since approval of
the SAP, three events have occured which have changed the use
pattern in the area and affect the integrity and applicability of
the SAP. In fact, because of these projects, amendment of the
SAP should be considered.
Attachment 7 depicts three parcels in Winter Beach all of which
have changed since adoption of the SAP. Parcel A on attachment 7
is the Russell Concrete facility. This project has been built
since approval of the SAP, and although the use does not conflict
with the SAP, its influence on Winter Beach is substantial,
affecting the decision to limit the parcel to the south of the
Russell site to multi -family.
The second event affecting the SAP was the approval of a
warehouse site plan for parcel B. This project was approved
because the site, located in the MXD, was zoned CH, a district
allowing warehouses. Although the SAP indicated that the subject
site should be zoned RM -6, the SAP's stated purpose was to serve
as a guide for future rezoning of the area. Therefore, the
proposed RM -6 zoning in the SAP did not override the CH zoning in
place. The project then, even though in conflict with the SAP,
had to be approved. The effect of a warehouse on parcel B is to
change the area from vacant property to an area with commercial
intrusion.
Finally, there is parcel C, the Gurian property. This site was
rezoned during the past year to CL, a district in conflict with
the RM -6 designation proposed by the SAP. At the time of
rezoning, the staff's position was that the proposed CL district
would be appropriate, despite the SAP's proposed designation for
20
RM -6. Now with CL zoning on the Gurian property, the SAP has
less validity.
All of these actions provide a reason for reconsideration of the
Small Area Plan. Becuase of the changes in the area, indications
are that more commercial zoning would be warranted. Because the
SAP conflicts with that, formal revision of the SAP would be
necessary.
Transportation System
Except for parcels 1 and 2, all parcels involved in this request
have road frontage. Parcels 3-7 have access to 71st St.,
classified as a local road by the County Thoroughfare Plan.
Parcels 8 and 9 have access to 69th Street, classified as a
primary collector. Parcel 10 has frontage on Old Dixie Highway,
classified as a secondary collector, and 39th Avenue, classified
as a local road. Parcel 11 fronts on 39th Avenue and 73rd Street
which is classified as a secondary collector. Parcel 12 fronts
on 39th Avenue, 73rd St., and U.S. 1 classified as an arterial.
Environment
The Comprehensive Plan does not classify any of the property
involved in this request as environmentally sensitive, nor is any
of the property located in a flood prone area. Lying within
parcels 8 and 9, however, are some potential forested wetlands.
RECOMMENDATION
To ensure consistency with the Winter Beach Small Area Plan, the
following action would need to be taken:
1. That portion of parcel 1 lying west of the FEC be rezoned
from IG to RM -6;
2. All of parcels 2,3,4, and that portion of parcel 5 lying
within 300 feet of the FEC be rezoned from IG to RM -6;
3. That portion of parcel 6 lying within 300 feet of the FEC
be rezoned from IL to RM -6;
4. The south 620 feet of parcel 10, and all of parcels 11
and 12 be rezoned from CL to RM -6;
5. Parcels 7,8, and 9 be rezoned from RS -6 to RS -3.
Because of changed conditions in this area, staff concurs with
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and
recommends that the proposed rezonings be denied and that the
Winter Beach Small Area Plan be amended.
21
FEB 2 1988
BOOK
750
FEB 2 1988
BOOK 7Q DSF 751
N.WINTE;'BEACH R
-- ZONING BOUNDARIES
SUBJECT PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
ATTACHMENT 2
22
Director Keating stressed that the current zoning is not
consistent with the Winter Beach Small Area Plan (WBSAP), and
staff doesn't have any ability to stop people from moving ahead
with what is there because the plan is just advisory. Several
things have happened since that plan was approved that really
affect the integrity of the whole plan. For instance, Russell
Concrete, which is located west of the railroad tracks across
from Parcels 10, 11 and 12, is going to put in a railroad spur.
This business was not in place when the first Winter Beach Plan
was approved, and one of the reasons this really changes the
Small Area Plan is that Russell is getting access from Cemetery
Road up along the railroad tracks and the parcel it goes through
is proposed for RM -6.
Chairman Scurlock felt this is quite confusing. He believed
that Planning originally had developed a good plan taking into
consideration that this was an extremely good area for Light
Industrial with access to the railroad tracks and U.S.I. and then
provided transition by scaling on down from the high intensity
use to RM -6, RS -6, etc. In his opinion, we have gone about
circle now and just created another problem because we haven't
listened to the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendations.
We got all excited about low density because of the few residents
in the area, and we still get back to the constraining factors of
U.S.I and the railroad tracks. The Chairman continued that a lot
of that property has changed hands recently. The Mooney property
has been sold, and now all the way from Wabasso to South Winter
Beach Road you have John's Island property. We downzoned to
RS -3, and now are we going to rezone to RS -6 by the railroad
tracks and then have a bunch of people there who will come back
and complain.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she had not envisioned
anything east of the railroad tracks being touched.
Discussion ensued at length regarding what exactly was
included in the Winter Beach Small Area Plan (WBSAP) and the
23
LIEB 2 i988
ETU 70 A[,E 752
TEE 1988
BOOK 7Q PAJE 753
Precise Land Use Map (PLUM), what was looked at, and the possible
need to look at the WBSAP again.
Director Keating noted that when the plan was developed and
amended in 1985 and 1986, it was non -controversial, and he
believed the reason it was non -controversial is that staff was
working with the Winter Beach Progressive League which did not
include a lot of the absentee owners.
Commissioner Wheeler had no problem with the commercial,
industrial or multi -family use in the MXD along that corridor the
way it is now except that it is not what the SAP represents based
on the action we took last year in downzoning to RS -3. As he
understood it, what the planners are saying is that we need to go
back and readdress the Small Area Plan.
Chairman Scurlock again emphasized that good planning would
dictate that you transition from the light industrial type of
development that is going to occur near U.S.! and the railroad,
and you don't transition from Tight industrial by going immedi-
ately to the lowest density single family use. We had a bunch of
people who pushed on the Commission for the lowest density
without any transition, and now we are facing how we deal with
the railroad track and U.S.I.
Commissioner Eggert did not believe we are facing anything.
It is there; it works just fine the way it is; and she felt in
many cases low density and light industrial get along just fine.
Commissioner Wheeler also felt that good planning strictly
according to the textbook does not always go along with how the
people in the neighborhood want to live. He personally would
prefer to live next to commercial and Tight industrial rather
than some multi -family neighborhoods.
Chairman Scurlock noted that obviously he is not going to
win this argument because he didn't win it last time, but he
wished to make his comments for the record because he personally
felt we should have listened to the Planning Department's
24
recommendations and not the few residents who came in to complain
and did not own the majority of the property in the area.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing
Mr. and Mrs. Sam Ferraguti, owners of Parcel 12, which is located
west of the railroad tracks. They are bordered on the north by
Mama Mia's restaurant and on the east across U.S., by the Polish
American Club. He stressed that this property is a narrow strip
between the railroad and U.S.!, and to think that property is
ever going to be usable as residential property is not reason-
able. Attorney O'Haire urged the Board to deny the rezoning,
which was voted down unanimously by the PAZ Commission, and leave
things as they are up there.
Commissioner Eggert believed we worked hard to try to see if
we could get the node to stretch down that far and that is why
there is the MXD.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that he certainly would have no
intention of changing any of parcels 10, 11, 12, or 1, 2, 3 and R
- the only question in his mind may be regarding the western
portions of parcels 5, 7 and 8. He felt the property right
along the railroad and U.S.! should be commercial.
Dir. Keating contended that if the idea is that everything
along U.S.I. and the railroad should not be residential, there
then was no reason to put MXD in the Comprehensive Plan, and we
will have strip development from county line to county line. He
noted that the reason this SAP was not that bad when it was done
was that the area was undeveloped. He did agree we should go
back and take another look, butdid not agree everything along
U.S.I. should be commercial.
Commissioner Bird believed there are some predominantly
commercial and light industrial uses in this area, and he felt
that is what fits best here.
Chairman Scurlock also noted that this is probably one of
the narrower pieces between the tracks and U.S.I.
25
FEB 2 i9F
BOOK 70 FAC 754
rfEB
2 1938
BOOT( 70 cr c. 755
Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing
Leonard Hatala, owner of Parcels 6 and 7. He informed the Board
that there was an error in the way the property was advertised
for the P&Z meeting. He did not know if it was repeated for this
meeting, but if
is described as
basically takes
so, objections are made by the owner. Parcel 6
the easterly 300' of the parcel and that
in only the lands adjacent to the railroad track.
There is an existing industrial use on the north side of the
parcel and a commercial/industrial use on the south, and he felt
RM -6 zoning just will not work with existing commercial uses on
either side, which would allow no transition whatever.
Attorney Henderson noted that the remainder of Parcel 6 is
not involved in this rezoning. The petition skips right over to
Parcel 7, which is requested to be rezoned from RS -6 to RS -3, and
for the reasons stated by staff and others, his client feels the
reductions in density that have taken place in the past have been
enough. It would seem that staff is doing its job pursuing
rezoning in accordance with the Small Area Plan, but it would
also seem the SAP has some flaws in it, and he urged the Board to
deny the rezonings, and if necessary, to review or possibly
repeal the Plan.
Commissioner Bird asked what zoning Attorney Henderson's
client wants on his Parcel 7.
Attorney Henderson advised
it RS -6 at this point in time.
to go back to RM -6, but he will
Commissioner Eggert wished
that M
. Hatala desires to keep
There are good reasons it ought
argue that at another time.
to know why part of Parcel 6 was
left out, and Planner Nearing explained that it was difficult to
come up with a legal description for that portion because of its
configuration.
Attorney Henderson further explained that the zoning cuts
across the parcel at an angle following the railroad track, and
this would create a serious development problem. He continued
26
that they are just asking the Board to deny any rezoning at this
time and look at it again some time later.
Donald Line informed the Board that he owns property north
of parcel 10, the Busy Bee Nursery, which is commercial and
agricultural. He bought this quite some time ago just because it
was zoned commercial and -agricultural, and his home is on the
property facing Old Dixie. Mr. Line was against not only the
rezoning of parcels 10, 11 or 12, but was against any rezoning in
that area, which is all commercial. He felt it is a good setup
the way it is, and if it is rezoned, it will be a mish-mash and
would result in a devaluation of the property. Mr. Line informed
the Board that he is also speaking for Mr. Simmons, owner of a
little plot in this area.
Attorney B. T. Cooksey came before the Board representing C.
Reed Knight and Robert Bageley, owners of Parcels 8 and 9 located
in the southwest corner of the area proposed for rezoning. For
the purpose of the record, he advised that they would like to
object to the consideration of this request based on the fact
that the application for the rezoning does not meet the require-
ments of Sec. 27 of the County's Zoning Code. The grounds would
be the same as those put forth in the P&Z meeting held December
10, 1987. He did believe that staff is presently correcting that
problem.
Attorney Vitunac stated for the record that Asst. County
Attorney Collins has answered that contention to our satisfac-
tion. Mr. Cooksey does make a good point, however, and Mr.
Keating is working on changing the ordinance, but he was quite
comfortable that we can proceed legally today.
Attorney Cooksey continued that Mr. Knight and Mr. Bageley
feel the present zoning of 6 upa is a proper zoning. He pointed
out that the SAP is not a Comprehensive Plan but only a guide,
and, therefore, it is not mandated that it be followed. They
feel the SAP should be revisited as recommended by staff and by
the PBZ. Attorney Cooksey believed a review would show that the
27
FE3 2 `966
ROGF ` 0 € .A.756
FEB 21988
BOOK 70 PAGE 757
county has a buffer zone area in the land owned by his clients.
He felt the recommendation of staff not to rezone this is proper
and felt it is vital to revisit the Winter Beach Small Area Pian
and also catch up on the procedural problems.
Thomas DeBarry, 4305 69th St., did not object to the
rezoning of the property between U.S.I and Old Dixie, but was in
favor of lower densities to the west. He agreed that the
neighborhood is changing and that there is quite a difference
between the last time the Commission addressed this area and
today. Mr. DeBarry was surprised that Lost Tree or John's
Island, whoever owns the property next to him, didn't speak today
as he believed they favor a low density to the west, and he did
know that the people who adjoin the property to the west of
Parcels 7, 8 and 9, would like to see a lower density and felt
they would be willing to revisit the SAP also.
The Chairman advised that letters speaking in favor of
down -zoning to RS -3 have been received from Buz and Carmella
Hudson and from R. L. Kirk.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously denied the
proposed rezoning and directed that the Winter Beach
Small Area Plan be revisited.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROVIDING FOR CONNECTION OF UTILITIES OPERATING
UNDER EXISTING OR FUTURE FRANCHISES TO CONNECT TO COUNTY -OPERATED
UTILITY SYSTEM WHEN AVAILABLE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
28
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement. being
in the matter of At
in the 4
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of (-,_/ 1,4; 6.`r • �5 /7(1
Gf,
Aftient further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously pLblished in said Indian River County, Florida,_ each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of, the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befpr
(SEAL)
aPred A D 19 ,,,,
sine
•
ss Manager)
j.
(Clerk of the Circuit CourtMdian River County, Florida)
NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of
a Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on
February 2, 1988. to discuss a proposed ordi-
nance relating to Indian River County entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REOUIRING CERTAIN UTILITIES OP-
ERATING UNDER EXISTING OR FUTURE
FRANCHIES TO CONNECT TO COUNTY -OPER-
ATED PUBLIC WATER OR SEWER SYSTEM OR
BOTH WHEN AVAILABLE; PROVIDING FOR
PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES OVER TIME;
PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
. inga Is made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal Is based.
January 14,1988
Utilities Director Terry Pinto came before the Board in
regard to the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto, Director
Utility Services Departmet
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
January 22, 1988
BOARD MEETING - FEBRUARY 2, 1988
The attached proposed ordinance has been
facilitate the Utility Master Plan for Indian
which is that public services are preferable,
circumstances dictate that private utilities
that the utility franchise be only a temporary
phased out when public services are available.
FEB 21988
29
BOOK
written to
River County,
and that when
be allowed,
measure to be
PAGE 758
1` f
9 �� )
mu 70 Dr,E 759
In particular this ordinance will assist the North County
Sewer Project by allowing the Whispering Palms Mobile Home
Park to participate in the time payment program for impact
fees.
The language of this ordinance has been approved by all
offices concerned and is recommended for adoption by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Director Pinto explained that in following the direction of
the Board, staff is trying to proceed with taking as many of the
small package plants out of service as we can. At the same time,
we want to be sure where new package plants are being built
because of the absence of countywide facilities, that everyone
understands clearly that as county facilities become available,
those plants will be abandoned and connected into the county
system. Also, some of the existing facilities have specific
requirements within their franchises to connect, but the way the
franchise is written together with the way our assessment
ordinance is written eliminates the possibility of them partici-
pating voluntarily in our assessment program. When staff put
together the voluntary program, one of the areas looked at
specifically was mobile home parks because of the impact of the
connection fee and impact fees on those dwellings-, and they
accordingly created an assessment program whereby the tenants of
the park would be allowed to pay the impact fee over a 10 year
period. The way it is written now requires the park owner to
connect, but if he voluntarily agrees to the assessment charge,
he can't pass it through on the same basis to his customers, and
we want that to come out of the ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert believed the non -franchised people are
still on a voluntary basis, and that was confirmed.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if there is any way for us
to avoid the Commission wearing a black hat when we take over a
system and have to raise the rates because they are so tow as a
result of being subsidized by the developer.
Director Pinto noted that most of the new franchises contain
Language requiring that they inform the customers annually that
30
the system is being subsidized, and they are supposed to show
their true rate on the utility bills.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that we really took the gaff in
Vero Highlands when we took over and had to have some dramatic
increases. We now are requiring these various utilities to have
a proper rate structure from the beginning, and, as an example,
North Beach Water Company has a base facility charge three times
as high as the the county's because we have required them to make
the system carry itself.
Commissioner Bird expressed concern about the possibility of
our taking over a small system that is being operated well and
providing service cheaply and efficiently.
Director Pinto explained that a developer builds his plant
and pays for it as part of the development cost, but then when he
comes in for his rates, he doesn't have a rate base; so, he has a
real true low rate. What the people don't understand, however,
is that plant is a short term plant, with probably a ten year
life, and when the time comes for replacement of the plant, the
total cost becomes their cost. They then have to face the choice
of abandoning the plant or spending all the money; they don't
want to spend the money; and then the county has to come in and
spend a lot of money. The developers creates the problem - they
don't want to be in the utility business; so, they pull out, and
we are left with the problem.
Chairman Scurlock believed one of the major impacts we are
going to see is the new Safe Water Drinking Act. That will bring
about a demand for many existing systems to be retro -fitted, and
he felt we accordingly will see a dramatic increase of approaches
made to the county by various little companies.
Utilities Director Pinto agreed they will bail out and just
leave, and River's Edge is an example.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
31
FEB 21988
LIN7® FADE 76O
IP" -
FEB
2 1988
BOOK 70 FA UE 161
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis -
Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 88-8,
requiring certain utilities operating under existing or
future franchises to connect to the county system, etc.
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 8
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REQUIRING CERTAIN UTILITIES
OPERATING UNDER EXISTING OR FUTURE
FRANCHISES TO CONNECT TO COUNTY -OPERATED
PUBLIC WATER OR SEWER SYSTEM OR BOTH
WHEN AVAILABLE; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF
IMPACT FEES OVER TIME; PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, ACTING
THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT:
SECTION 1. UTILITIES REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO
COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM
It shall be a condition of any franchise issued in
the future by the Board of County Commissioners to any
water and/or sewer utility that if and when a
County -operated water and/or sewer system is available, as
that term is defined in Ordinance No._ 84-18, that the
utility connect its system to the County system regardless
of the means by which it has been providing water and/or
sewer service to its customers. This connection shall be at
the standard county rates, fees, and charges, including
impact fees, without regard to the fact that the utility or
owners or both may have constructed and paid for, or are
paying for, an alternate water and sewer system, even one in
good operating condition.
32
SECTION 2. REQUIREMENT TO APPLY TO EXISTING
UILITY FRANCHISES WHERE APPROPRIATE
Where consistent with law existing Utilities with
franchises issued by Indian River County which require the
connection under certain conditions are authorized by this
ordinance to pay the requisite fees, charges, and rates,
including, impact fees, over time as specified by the County
in its financing plan for the expansion of the County
Utilities System.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY
If any part of this ordinance is found to be
unenforceable, the unenforceable part shall be considered to
be severable and the rest of this ordinance shall be
continued to be enforced.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
• This ordinance shall become effective upon final
passage.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 2nd
day of February , 1988.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press Journal on the 14th day of January , 1988, for a
public hearing to be held on the 2nd day of February ,
1988, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
33
FEB 21°88
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Don C.
Chairman
BOOK 70 F'A E 762
Boor 70 F,i- ut 763
ACQUISITION OF R/W 53RD ST. W. OF RR (JENKINS)
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
TO:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
THROUGH:
Jim Davis P.E.
Public Works Director
DATE: January 6, 1988 FELE:
SUBJECT:
Right -of -Way 53rd Street
West of FEC Railroad
FROM:, , REFERENCES:
Donald G. Finney, RA
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The county has been in negotiation with Mr. Bud Jenkins to
acquire a 150' wide by 1800' right-of-way for 53rd Street west of
and joining the FEC Railway property. The r/w corridor is shown
on the Thoroughfare Plan as a primary collector from the northern
terminus of Indian River Boulevard to 82nd Avenue with a possible
future extension to an I-95 interchange and thus becoming a major
east -west corridor.
The property has been mined by Mr. Jenkins and part of the
proposed r/w consist of a lake. The Board previously requested
that we work with Mr. Jenkins to arrive at a settlement whereby
he would cooperate to sell the r/w property and fill in the 150'
wide corridor thru the lake.
The July 1986 appraisal of the r/w was $59,000. Mr. Jenkins
originally offered to sell & fill the roa4way_ for $225,000.
Staff offered $169,000.
Mr. Robert Pegg, attorney for Mr. Jenkins, has submitted a
recent counter offer indicating that his client will settle for
$185,000 with three equal payments.
Computation of the costs are as follows:
1) Land 150'x1800' 6.2 acres ($ 9,710/acre
2) 85,555 cubic yards fill at $1.46
Filled (completed) equates to $29,838. per acre
$185,000.
$ 60,202
124,910
$185,112
total cost
Staff has reviewed the negotiated offer and recommends approval.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff request authorization to purchase at $185,000 with
funding to be from account zone 4 Traffic Impact Fees and local
option gas tax revenue.
Director Davis noted that if we don't acquire this now,
later on we probably would have to import the fill rather than
utilizing the existing fill currently on the site that will be
mined and sold to a private interest unless we purchase it.
34
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if this property in its
present state is in compliance with the requirements of the
Mining Ordinance.
Director Davis advised that staff did not do an investiga-
tion for this particular item. Mining operations are required to
file a report yearly, and Planning monitors that.
Commissioner Bird believed letting someone dig a lake in
future R/W is a prime example of "hindsight." He wished to know
how vital this land is to us at this time as he did not believe
the property is worth $30,000 an acre even if it were raw land.
Most of the cost is in refilling the lake.
Dir. Davin reported that staff began talking to "Bud"
Jenkins a couple of years ago, and we did not have a Thoroughfare
Plan when that mining operation began. When we developed the
plan, it was felt that 53rd Street was the most likely terminus
point for the Boulevard since it is halfway between SR60 and 85th
Street (Wabasso Road), with the possibility of an interchange on
1-95, and it would serve the county best as a major E/W corridor.
Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of Lindsey Road
(49th St.) being continued on to 1-95. That would be only a 4
block difference for the interchange, and he did not believe we
have a railroad crossing at 53rd.
Director Davis agreed we do not have one now, but we have
some in the North County that could be transferred.
Commissioner Wheeler inquired about the cost of R/W on
Lindsey Road, and Director Davis advised that there are many
individual property owners along Lindsey Road and the cost of
appraisals would be considerable. He continued to explain in
detail the reasons 53rd St. is felt to be the best corridor
rather than North or South Gifford Rd., Lindsey Rd., etc., and
explained how it would let us begin to sort of "Beltway" the
urban area.
FEB 21988
35
t dOK 70 ME 764
FEB
1988
BOOK 70 FAGS 765
Discussion continued as to various possibilities, i.e.,
buying just the land and hauling in the fill, having the road go
around the lake, a bridge over the lake, etc.
Chairman Scurlock believed that staff has looked into this
and feels what they have recommended is the best alternative,
which is why they presented it this way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board by a 3 to 2 vote, Commis-
sioners Bird and Bowman voting in opposition, authorized
the purchase of the Jenkins' property at $185,000, as
recommended by staff.
APPRAISAL FEES 47TH ST. R/W - I.R.BLVD. NORTH
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
TO:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
THROUGH:
Ralph N. Brescia, P.E.
County Engineer
DATE. January 21, 1988 FIL
SUBJECT: Appraisal fees 47th Street
R/W, I.R. Blvd. North R/W
FROM: :A1 -261r, REFERENCES:
Donald G. Finney, SRA
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Real Estate appraisals are needed to determine the market
value of six parcels. The property owners have indicated they
will sell the R/W at the market value. Two of the R/W parcels
have already been donated and the deeds recorded. The property
owner has requested an appraisal of the R/W donated for tax
purposes.
I have obtained quoted appraisal fees from two appraisal
firms in the area. Mr. Fleming stated he does not wish to
appraise parcels with possible condemnation court work.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff request approval that William Fleeing, SRA, appraise
two Barnes parcels (47th Street and I.R. Boulevard) at quoted fee
36
not to exceed $1,100 for purposes of providing the property owner
the tax appraisals for the donated property and authorize
Armfield & Wagner, MAI to appraise four Indian River Boulevard
parcels #12 Kennedy, #17 Lawton, #18 Davis and #19 Luther at his
firms quoted fee, not to exceed $6,900 ($1,725 each parcel) with
a $1,000 reduction of the fee for each parcel that might be
settled before the appraisal is completed.
Funding to be from Account #309-214-541
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved appraisal
fees for William Fleming, SRA, and Armfield & Wagner,
MAI, as set out in the above staff recommendation.
PURCHASE OF ACREAGE ADJOINING BENT PINE UTILITY SITE
Utilities Director Terry Pinto made the staff presentation:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S'VICES
WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECT ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICE
DATE: JANUARY 22, 1988
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF A 13.47 + ACRE PARCEL ADJOINING BENT PINE
UTILITY SITE
BACKGROUND
With the construction of the one (1) million gallons per day
(M.G.D.) wastewater treatment facility in Gifford which is.
underway, the problem of effluent disposal and or storage arises.
An effluent transmission system is currently being constructed to
serve Grand Harbor golf course and green belt -areas. A similar
transmission system is proposed to service both Hawks Nest and Bent
Pine golf courses in the near future.
When irrigation is used for effluent disposal the Department of
Environmental Regulations requires that an alternative disposal site
be available and or three (3) days of storage for the treatment
plants maximum daily flow.
ANALYSIS
The 13.47 + Acre parcel adjoining the Bent Pine Utility site
appears to Be well suited for either of the aforementioned purposes.
The site is large enough (allowing for D.E.R. required set back) to
be used as a three (3) day plus storage facility for the entire
1 (M.G.D.) per day plant flow. Also, based on preliminary
investigation and computer analysis is appears that the site is more
than adequate as an alternative percolation pond disposal site. A
percolation pond system at this site should be able to accept the
golf course flows in the event that conditions prevented effluent
application on the golf courses.
37
L_ FEB21988
I:QOK 70 fM E 766
MOK
0=;[767
The property was appraised by Armfield-Wagner Appraisal and
Research, Inc. of Vero Beach. The appraisal company (using a market
approach) stated the Market Value of the fee simple interest to the
property on October 13, 1987 was $150,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the purchase of the 13.47 + Acre
parcel of land adjoining the Bent Pine utility site for the
afformentioned reasons.
Director Pinto informed the Board that after he had written
the above memo, the County Attorney informed him that there is a
new state law which requires advertisement for 30 days before the
action he is recommending can be taken. He can provide the
Board with maps, etc., but no action can be taken for 30 days
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to authorize advertisement of
the proposed purchase as required by law and bring
this matter back to the Board.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if any thought has been
given to using an impoundment since it seems this area is being
proposed as an area for emergency use only.
Director Pinto explained that the actual use itself is only
for periods of time when you can't irrigate, but when you develop
an irrigation system, it is required that you provide an
alternative percolation site. The problem with going into
wetlands is that then you come under the Wetlands Act, and you
have to permit it entirely separately; you don't permit
irrigation of golf courses and impoundments together. The new
law kind of says it prohibits the use of any existing wetlands
for effluent disposal; however, you can create new artificial
wetlands.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
38
BEUTTELL SOD FARM ACQUISITION (EFFLUENT & SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE)
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following:
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN / 1 DATE: JANUARY 22, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE VICES
FROM: JOHN FREDERICK LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIAI.tIjST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BEUTTELL SOD FARM ACQU
ON
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Service's West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant is rated at one million gallons per day. Our
current site can comfortably dispose of .13 million gallons per day.
The absolute maximum that can be disposed of on-site is .33 million
gallons per day. The wastewater treatment plant is slated for
expansion, a doubling of its capacity, within five years.
ANALYSIS
The West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant needs a home for its
effluent. There is a 150 acre sod farm directly west of the plant
that has been soil tested to have a water disposal capacity of .58
million gallons. This property is also currently our sludge
disposal site. The Department is also looking at other methods of
effluent disposal. Storage facilities and pumping facilities would
need to be built for a "Conserve II" type of operation which would
pump effluent to groves west of I-95. Acquisition of this land would
better the wastewater plant's blowers and pumping facilities noise
pollution.
A possible plus would be some minor profits from sale of sod to
developers. A large plus would be to prevent acquiring close
residential neighbors as well as to guarantee a sludge .disposal
site.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends acquisition of this
strategic acreage. The effluent and sludge disposal opportunities
mandate serious consideration for the Board of County Commissioners
to authorize negotiations for outright purchase.
Director Pinto urged that the Board authorize appropriate
staff to enter into hard negotiations for purchase of the subject
property and also investigate financing aspects. He clarified
that he is not asking the Board to buy the property at this time,
but is saying there is a need in the West County treatment system
to accommodate effluent disposal up to as much as 6 million gpd,
and it is felt it would be wise for us to buy it at this time.
The owners are willing to sell under the right conditions, and we
would have to negotiate those conditions.
39
FEB 2 1988
fk00r 76 PA E768
FEB 2 1988
BOOK 70 F''r,E 769
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize staff to enter into
negotiations for purchase of the Beuttell sod farm
property as recommended above.
Commissioner Bird inquired if staff is looking at other
alternatives for disposal in the west county, and Director Pinto
advised they are looking at possibly 1,000 acres; however, not as
an alternative but in addition to the Beuttell acreage.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZE BIDDING FOR DUMP TRUCK FOR DEPT. OF UTILITIES
Director Pinto reviewed the following and believed it is
self-explanatory:
TO:
THRU:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITYII4 ICES
FROM: JOHN F. LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL S'ECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF U ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DUMP TRUCK
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1988
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services with its recent acquisition of the
Bent Pine and Rivers Edge utility systems has become a county -wide
utility. Our dump truck is a 1979 model Ford and was acquired from
the Road & Bridge Department. The original intention was to have a
flat bed dump truck in next year's budget; however, due to the
deteriorating condition of our old unit and the distances it must
travel, we need another unit now.
ANALYSIS
A flat bed dump truck would have the capability of moving men,
equipment, and machinery to our county -wide job sites. We currently
only have the old dump truck that is capable of towing our two
backhoes, ditch digger, and soon to be acquired tractor with
implements. The cost is estimated to be less than $27,00.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the bidding out of this piece of
equipment and the use of funds from account #471-218-536-066.42.
This is the Equipment Fund account for West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
40
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
bidding for a flat bed dump truck and use of funds
as set out in the above recommendation.
UTILITY RELOCATION - FURNITURE & WORK STATION ACQUISITION
Director Pinto made the staff recommendation, as follows:
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1988
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
162%281!;*
�YY r �4N iPJ 8j)
Ree;eiiiP
Mitot :7
;rt
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S CES
STEELCASE FURNITURE SPECIFICATIONS
Below is an itemized description of the area the Utility Department
proposes to install modular furniture. For simplicity we have broken
the stations into Area 1 and 2, respectively.
AREA 1 - SECRETARIAL WORKSTATIONS
This area consists of four (4) workstations, which are panel
dependent, ie, the workstations physically hang onto the panel. All
the panels are 53" in height, which allows seated privacy and
standing visual contact. Each station has 3 circuit power
capabilities, taking into consideration dedicated lines for the
computer terminals. Each stations worksurface is 60" X 30" with a
42" X 25" return. Each station contains i box drawer, 30" deep, for
housing envelopes, labels, etc., and 1 file drawer, 30" deep, which
may be utilized for legal or letter size files. All internal
components such as, support stand for legal size files, are included.
The end panels furthest from the solid wall houses a mail flow
station with 12 slots for mail, personnel messages, and letters.
AREA 2 - TECHNICAL/ENGINEERING WORKSTATIONS
For further simplicity Area 2 hasbeen broken-down into four (4)
workstations labeled WS 2.1, WS 2.2, WS 2.3, and WS 2.4,
respectively.
WS 2.1: This workstation has been configured as a computer station,
where the tech/engineer will be able to calculate certain engineering
requirements for the Department. The station consists of 1 - 25" X
30" worksurface to the left of the computer station, a computer
station with dimensions of 42" X 42" X 23", and a right-hand return
of 25" X 60". The right-hand return will house 1 box drawer, 25"
deep, for housing mechanical drawing instruments, pens, etc., and 1
file drawer, 25" deep, which may be utilized for legal or letter size
files. All internal components such as, support stand for legal size
files, are included.
41
FEB 2 1988
BOOK ' 70 fV,E ?7O
Pr"
- 2 1988
BOOK 70 ME 771
Please note: WS 2.1 and WS 2.2 are panel dependent upon the 65"
high panel which runs from point A to B, as noted on the attached
drawing. A modular panel is preferred over a structural wall for
future expansion flexability.
WS 2.2: This workstation has .been configured for a technical
employee who will utilize extra space for .the plans, drawings, and
specifications that constantly flow through the Department. The
station consists of 1 - 25" X 60" left-hand worksurface which houses
1 box drawer, 25" deep, and 1 file drawer, 25" deep. The adjoining
right-hand worksurface is 25" X 90" and houses 2 file drawers, 25"
deep. This station is equipped with 2 - 60" open -face bookshelves
for housing engineering proposals, manuals, reference books, etc.
One shelf will be panel dependent upon the 65" high structural panel
located from point A to B, beginning with the left-most corner of WS
.2.2, see attached drawing, and one will be mounted directly onto the
wall.
WS 2.1 and WS 2.2 will be separated by 1 - 65" high X 25" wide
structural panel for the division and privacy of the two
workstations.
WS 2.3: This workstation is designed for the engineer who requires
space to view blueprints, mylars, and to utilize a computer terminal
for various engineering calculations. WS 2.3 is a replica of WS 2.1
with the exception of the left and right-hand returns. The left-hand
return is 25" X 90" and houses 1 box drawer, 25" deep, and 1 file
drawer, 25" deep. The right-hand return is 25" X 75" and houses 1
box drawer, 25" deep, and 1 file drawer, 25" deep. WS 2.3 is
end -panel dependent which allows the station to support itself
against the wall and against the end -panels. The end panels are 65"
high X 25" wide for the division and privacy between WS 2.2 and WS
2.4.
WS 2.4: This workstation is designed for a technical/field employee
who requires a station to process his/her paperwork. This station
will house the Departments computer printer which allows
accessibility and ease of use for the Secretarial and
Technical/Engineering personnel. The station is 25" X 75" and houses
1 box drawer, 25" deep, and 1 file drawer, 25" deep.
Area 2's workstations will be powered through the existing structural.
wall, rather than through the panels.
Both Area 1 and 2's panels will be fabric covered, purchasers choice
of color. Steelcase offers with their product a lifetime warranty
against defects/repairs or replacement.
Both Area 1 and 2 and the Customer Service Area will be equipped with
ergonomically designed secretarial and technical chairs. The
ergonomically chair is designed specifically for the employee who
remains at his/her station for long periods of time. The chair is
contoured for continuous support, reduces under -thigh pressure,
encourages posture that relieves stress without interfering with
freedom of movement. The chairs comes with a lifetime guarantee.
We believe the Steelcase furniture will best
and well into the future.
Should you have any questions, please do not
office at extension 465.
42
suit our needs for today
hesitate to contact this
THIS ISA SPECIAL FACTORY
ORDER NOT SUBJECT TO
CANCELLATION
4.
Mreewr II \V r.. r.. Mr m• v... •.r .�...
U Unutt•I
Vile..•.. VM.
2015 South Waverly Place • Melbourne, FL 32901 A/E ORDER NO.
Mailing Address: -P.O. Box 2048 • Melbourne, FL 32902-2048
723.5003 ' •s . 800-432-0893• ' ' ' TERMS 0 NET 10 DAYS . 0 COD
0 SEE REVERSE SIDE '❑ DEPOSIT RECEIVED
SOLO
roIndian
River County Utilities Department '
CUSTOMERS
P.o. NO. ail '
C
PAGE
ADDRESS
1840 25th Street
STOCK DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
: UNIT
PRICE •
SHIP
TO 1840 25th Street
•
..
Vero Beach, FL
32960
Vero Beach. FL
32960
BY
•
Area 1: 4 secretary work stations w/power •.
POs
TOT
RDS
F
L
C
E C'O `
DATE
REO'D
OTY
STOCK DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
: UNIT
PRICE •
EXTENSION '
,
It
..
•'
Area 1: 4 secretary work stations w/power •.
work surface 60 X 30 each w/ 42" returns
-
.
box—file ped. each station
`
-.
m.• ..
power to approp: area w/3 cir. syste•
•
•
"
•• - ' ' panels 53" high, incl.. 12 station mail slots
•• :
- ..
a:'
•. .
Area 2: -4. workstations, free standing panel/panel .:
>.
y '
_ ' • • " system, box -file ped..each station
•
_• .'" work surface free standing where appl., see
-•.`_
'�—-
• ' ' attached drawing for dimensions '
.
T
; . fl .--lo 13 Pa ri fLI .5 " ti;" h cep cox.
•
..
SUBTOTAL PG.1
•
TOTALALLPGS
$12,155.00
T.C.ACTUAL
FREIGHT TO BE BILLED AFTER CHARGES ,
• ARE RECEIVED PLUS 10% PROCESSING FEE
PLUS FREIGHT CHARGES
int -1_
.
GM - •_
PICKED UP .DROP SHIP .
INSTALLATION CHARGES
incl.
Pumas note
for freight
30% Deoosit
end teed the terms and conditions
damage of furniture dropped
of this olfensale which ere printed on the back o1 this form Seiler is not respons•bla -
stupped - -
•
SALE TOTAL
$12,155.00
EXEMPT
N
SALES TAX
TOTAL
$12,155.00
Accepted By Title Date
INTERIOR DESIGN
FURNISHINGS
SYSTEMS
SPACE PLANNING
american business interiors . 0 -QUOTATION QUOTATION DATE
OORDER ORDER DATE
2015 South Waverly Place • Melbourne, FL 32901 A/E ORDER NO.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2048 • Melbourne, FL -32902-2048
723-5003 ' 800-432-0893 ' •TERMS 0 NET 10 DAYS . 0 COD
0 SEE REVERSE SIDE 0 DEPOSIT RECEIVED
•
THIS ISA SPECIAL FACTORY
ORDER NOT SUBJECT TO
CANCELLATION •
SOLD , •..
'-
Indian River County Utilities Department
CUSTOMERS•
P.O. NO
PAC:.TO
ADDRESS
1B40 25th Street
SHIP
TO
1840 25th Street
,
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Vero Beach, FL 32960
BY
IN
TOT
P 0• RDS
F
L
c
EXT'O
C
DATE
REOD
{
OTY
STOCK DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
UNIT
PRICE
EXTENSION
chairs
210.00
2'10.00
.•
9Secretarial chairs and 4 Technical
.
•
•
•
sun •; , PG.1
12155.00
.
TOTAL ALL PGS
15095.00
T.C.
ACTUAL
ARE RECEIVED POBE LUS t0I! LED AFTER PROCESSING FEEES
PLUS FREIGHT CHARGES
nr -
GM
PICKED UP . DROP SHIP
INSTALLATION CHARGES
incl.
Please note and read the terms
for freight damage of furniture
and conditions
dropped
of this offer,sale which are printed on the beck of this form Seller is not responsible
shipped
SALE TOTAL
EXEMP1
M
SALES TAX
TOTAL
15095.00
errantad Rv Title Date
0 vcuvan
,INTERIOR DESIGN
FURNISHINGS
SYSTEMS
SPACE PLANNING
.a
0
x
.r5..
41—'1
tt " (-I sc, r+ Str4D4nel
•X
T
,. ,
FIREA.
•
. I.
7NVd -4I1nimv1S N11q 5i
+!gyp ..."adO . .,,._•.
:k
• au -
X_ L:
IL IC I I
Dir. Pinto informed the Board that this equipment was
"specced" out and turned over to the Purchasing Department, who
in turn was requested to purchase this equipment in the most cost
effective and quickest way because they need it as quickly as
possible.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he believed the Commission
had been pushing the Utility Department pretty hard in regard to
getting this relocation accomplished; so, he believed the
Commission is saying let's keep moving.
Commissioner Eggert believed some modular equipment had
already been purchased, and she wished to know how that figures
into this.
FEB 2198
45
BOOK • 70 OCE 774
•
. .,
►E� `988
BOOK 7( fK,E 775
Dir. Pinto explained that the equipment already purchased is
for the lobby area where the public will come in to pay bills.
Commissioner Eggert. commented that from her experience, the
Steelcase equipment is excellent equipment.
Purchasing Manager Ambler concurred with Commissioner Eggert.
He suggested the best way to proceed in this case would be to
waive bids and negotiate with the company recommended as they are
offering GSA pricing and it is highly unlikely if we went to bid
that we would be able to beat those prices. Mr. Ambler further
advised that he would not be able to deliver the product on time
for the department if we went through the formal bid routine.
It was confirmed that there is no legal problem with
proceeding this way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with the purchase of the Steelcase
furniture and equipment for the Utility Department
as recommended above.
AGREEMENT W/AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERIORS RE PURCHASE OF STEELCASE
OFFICE EQUIPMENT IS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
BID #382 - ONE DITCH BANK CUTTER & ONE TANDEM DISK
Asst. Administrator Mattes reviewed the following:
46
TO. Board of County Commissioners DATE: Jan. 25, 1988 FILE:
THRU: P.J. Mattes
SUBJECT: IRC BID #382 -ONE DITCH BANK CUTTER
Ass't County Administrator AND ONE TANDEM DISK
FROM:'I-REFERENCES:
Gus bler, C.P.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received Wednesday, Dec. 30, 1987 at 2:00 p.m. for
IRC Bid #382.
11 Bid Proposals were sent out. 2 Bids were received and one
"NO BID".
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Ditch Bank Cutter: Low Bid meeting specification was submitted
by Sunrise Ford at $3450.00.
The Bid submitted by Berggren Equipment (alternate) does not
indicate that it is Heavy Duty and capable of cutting 2" material
as required in the specifications and should therefore be rejected.
Tandem Disk: Low bid meeting specifications was submitted by
Sunrise Ford at $3030.00.
The Bid submitted by Berggren Equipment must be rejected for its
inability to cross the Berms surrounding the percolation ponds.
(Letter from Vendor).
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that IRC BID #382 be awarded and that the purchase
be accomplished from Sunrise Ford Tractor Co. The total cost will
be $6818.00.
Budgetary Funds have been confirmed for expenditure from Account
Number #706-000-169-017.00.
$7000.00 was originally budgeted.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #382
for a ditch bank cutter and a tandem disk to Sunrise
Ford Tractor Co., as being the lowest bid meeting
specifications, in the total amount of $6,818.00, as
recommended by staff
47
FEB 2 1988
BOOK 70 FAQ[ 776
FEB 2`988
NORTH COUNTY COMMUNITY LIBRARY
BOOK 70 WI 777
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following:
Boar o County anuary•FILE:
TO• Commissioners DATE:
SUBJECT: North County Community
Library
FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert 0 REFERENCES:
County Commissioner
The Public Library Advisory Board has reviewed the final
draft of the North County Library Building Program dated January,
1988, which has been distributed to you.
On Page V1 an estimated gross 17,405 square feet has been
recommended. This should serve North County adequately for many
years. At $70 a square foot construction, which includes
architect fees, site work, building construction and landscaping
(but not furnishings), the construction cost should be
$1,218,350. Other expenses include:
Traffic Impact $ 82,000
Sewer Impact 5,000 (up to)
Pipe moving 16,000 (up to)
Furnishings 100,000 (app)
Computer ?
Land . 78,000
Total $281,000 + computer
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners
approve the Building Program for the North County Library
Building and its recommendation of a 17,405 square foot building,
and ask the County Administrator to send out a RFP for an
architect to design this library.
LIBRARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
UPDATED FEBRUARY 1, 1988
SCENARIO ONE SCENARIO TWO SCENARIO THREE
Main Library (39,415*) Main Library (35,000*) Main Library (35,000*)
North Cty. Library (17,405*) North Cty. Library (15,000*) North Cty. Library (17,405*)
Bond Issue 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000
Issuance Cost (250,000) (250,000) (250,000)
Sub -Total 5,650,000 5,650.000 5,650,000
Computer System (300,000) (300 000) (300,000)
Sub-Tota3. 5,350,000 5,350,000 5,350,000
Consultant (Waters) (38,000) (38,000) (38,000)
Sub -Total 5,312,000 5,312,000 5,312,000
Main Library (4,167,000) (3,843,000) (3,843,000)
Sub -Total 1,145,000 1,469,000 1,469,000
North County (1,568,350) (1,392,300) (1,568,350)
Surplus (Deficit) (423,350) 76,700 (99,350)
*square feet
48
COST OF EACH LIBRARY
UPDATED FEBRUARY 1, 1988
SCENARIO ONE
Main Library (39,415*)
North Cty. Library (17,405*)
SCENARIO TWO
Main Library (35,000*)
North Cty. Library (15,000*)
Main Library
Land (4 acres) 700,000 700,000
Traffic Impact Fees 138,000 138,000
Construction of Library 2,759,050 2,450,000
Furnishings 300,000 300,000
Sub -Total 3,897,050 3,588,000
Contingency 270,000 255,000
TOTAL 4,167,050 3,843,000
North County Library
Land 78,000
Land Improvements (Line moved) 16,000
Traffic Impact Fees 82,000
Construction of Library 1,218,350
Furnishings 100,000
Sub -Total 1,494,350
Contingency 74,000
TOTAL 1,568,350
MMMMMM 10.3.19
LAND COST ANALYSIS
Land
North County Site
North County Site Improvement (Line Moved)
North County Impact Fees
Main Library Impact Fees
TOTAL
The above numbers do not include books.
78,000
16,000
82,000
1,050,000
100,000
1,326,000
66,300
1,392,300
1,000,000
(78,000)
(16,000)
(83,000)
(122,000)
701,000
SCENARIO THREE
Main Library (35,000*)
North Cty. Library (17,405*)
700,000
138,000
2,450.000
300,000
3,588,000
255,000
3,843,000
78,000
16,000
82,000
1,218,350
100,000
1,494,350
74,000
1,568,350
Commissioner Eggert did not want to ask the Board to approve
a building plan until she could show them what the whole
situation was in both libraries. She first wished to review the
estimated costs for the three different scenarios set out above,
and then if it is possible, and if the Board is willing, she
would very much like to give North County the full 17,405 square
feet. The problem, however, is money.
Commissioner Eggert continued that after deducting the
issuance costs plus the costs of the computer system and the
consultant, there is 5.312 million to build both libraries. Her
thinking right now in regard to Scenario Two is as follows - we
need 3.08 acres for a 35,000 sq. library with the kind of parking
they would like to see. With 4 acres, we could expand to 50,000
sq. ft. if needed, and she would like to build the 35,000 sq. ft.
library in South County on not more than 4 acres, if they can
find a piece of property. In Scenario Three, which is what she
would like to do, we are $99,350 over the bond issue. We do have
an additional $150,000 from the Lowenstein Estate, but that is
supposed to be for something that wouldn't normally be in the
building plan or they have also said that money could be put
FEB 2 1S88
49
BooF ` 0 PACE 778
FE 3 2 1988
against the MacArthur site
Works Director Davis
BOOK 70 F"`F ??9
if we chose it. However, Public
feels we have $150,000 in road paving
associated with that site.
Commissioner Eggert then
putting in a 28 terminal
costs
addressed the estimated figures
for
computer system, noting that they feel
they would need to expand to 48 terminals in time:
TAKEN FROM
.PLANS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AND SERVICES
FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
TABLE 1-7 28 -Terminal System
EQUIPMENT
Purchase Of system
Preparation of computer
host site
Installation of tele-
communications network •
Preparation of sites for
terminals
1 -TIME LABOR COSTS
(6) Labor for labeling
(7) Labor for conversion
MONTHLY COSTS
(11) i•la i ntenance
(12) Telecommunication
network
(13) i)r'rf.nnrl
(14) Automation office
(15) Electricity
(16) Contingency
188,524
95,000
5r6
8,400
292,440
20,873
16,667
37, f,540
1,631
SUPPLIES
Purchase of machine-
readable date 45,505
Patron ID card stock 7,500
Machine-readable
labels - patrons 5.000
Machine-readable
labels - mat. 8,850
TOTALS .OF 1 -TIME COSTS
Equipment
1 -Time Labor
Supplies
66,855
292,440
37,540
66,855
396,835
�a-
131 `3J
4,267 ar14;- , .
1,000
300
250
7,871
50
,342, 02:;
/ .'40
151/ 93 %'
-4, 351.r
Commissioner Eggert informed the Board that there are three
ways the computer can go.
1) We can hook onto our current system, but she has been informed
by Data Processing Manager Don Hylton that it is 70-80% full.
2) The Library can have a stand-alone computer, or
3) The Library and the Board of County Commissioners could share
a computer since our needs will be increasing, the present system
is 3/4 full, and the Clerk will need some place to expand.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if the Board would be
willing to help the Library system by taking on the computer
project in part or in toto as she believed we are very close to
the need for a computer system anyway.
Commissioner Bird commented that this is an area where he
must rely on someone with more expertise than he has; although,
he did feel the system proposed seems quite elaborate.
Commissioner Eggert stated that from what she understands, a
28 terminal system is "bare bones" for the library, and this
includes the hook-up between the two libraries.
Chairman Scurlock stated that his first reaction is that we
passed a bond issue that we down -sized from the original; the
community supported that; and he felt we should work within it
and not play some games to get to another figure. He continued
that even looking at Scenario Two, there is still going to be a
shortfall unless a piece of land is used that we already own
since none of the properties being offered right now meet the
$700,000 figure allowed for land cost. In regard to the computer
issue, the Chairman stated he would hate to see the tail wag the
dog. He has heard Data Processing Manager Hylton say he is
about finished with all his computer people. The need for this
next 38 system is his recommendation, and then he will move the
people he has no more need for over to the library to start up
that new system. We have yet to hear any consensus from the
Administrator as to what our computer program ought to be. He
also got the impression that Mr. Hylton already has his mind made
up about IBM or IBM compatible.
51
FEB 21988
coEK 70 PAGE 780
rJ
BOOK 70 DriE 781
Commissioner Eggert advised that the state library requires
we have IBM compatible, but Chairman Scurlock noted that is if we
want to interface with them.
Chairman Scurlock continued to stress the need to work
within the bond issue and stated his unwillingness to provide
library computers from the County Commission budget. He brought
up the possibility of using the county -owned land either by the
Administration Building or by the old jail, and pointed out that
if the library were put on the old jail site, you then would have
the $700,000 land costs to buy the computers and books since
apparently books are not included in the figures presented.
Commissioner Eggert stated that they have some books, and
while .the Friends of the Library feet they can have a drive and
raise funds for buying a book or a tree, they don't feel a "buy a
computer" drive would have the same appeal.
Commissioner Bird realized we need to work into the modern
age, but he felt the cost of this system plus the cost to operate
it, which is estimated at about $8,000 a month, is amazing,
especially when we are operating the library now without such a
system.
Discussion ensued as to whether they are trying to cram too
much into the amount of the bond issue, and Commissioner Eggert
noted her only question as to the way the library bond was
presented is whether the computer was presented as part of it or
whether it was intended strictly for building of the buildings.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the county doesn't need
the computer, the library needs it, and reiterated that his
solution was to use a piece of county -owned property and have the
$700,000 to work with.
Commissioner Bowman asked how many acres there are at the
jail site, and Commissioner Eggert stated there are 4.6 acres not
including the Ambulance Squad site.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he has always felt the old
jail would be a good site for a library, even though they say it
52
is not good to have it by the schools, and he would like to know
if it is possible for Director Davis to look at that site and see
what it would cost to address the traffic problem.
Commissioner Eggert advised that information will be
presented when she brings all the options back.
Chairman Scurlock felt the only answer that Commissioner
Eggert can get from the Commission is that Scenario Two is the
only option to stay within the budget, and that is assuming the
land can be acquired for $700,000 or Tess.
Commissioner Bird commented that he had not realized that a
figure for books was not being included in the overall budget,
and he would hate to see half empty shelves with a bunch of old
books transferred from the old library.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that there will be
partially empty shelves in any event because there will be more
space and also we want to be able to expand.
Commissioner Bowman believed that the Friends of the Library
will be able to develop a lot more enthusiasm for a funding drive
when we have a new building.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that another element that will
be changed in any of the scenarios is that the traffic impact
fees will be doubled.
Commissioner Bird inquired about utility fees, and Commis-
sioner Eggert advised that connection fees in the North County
are $5,000, and she has had trouble getting figures from the City
of Vero. Beach.
Chairman Scurlock made the further point that if the old
jail site were used, utilities are already available and the
$138,000 allowed for impact fees could be saved.
Commissioner Bird wished to know what it is that Commis-
sioner Eggert wants the Board to do at this time.
Commissioner Eggert noted that they need to approve a
library building plan and going out with a request for a proposal
for an architect. If the Board's feeling is that we cannot do
53
FEB 21985
aaoK 70 782
EL3 '
L
BOOK 70 E E 783
the 17,405 sq. ft., then they will go for 15,000 sq. ft. for the
North County Library.
Chairman Scurlock indicated that he would like to go with
Scenario Two - 15,000 sq. ft. North County and 35,000 South
County.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would feel a lot more
comfortable locking down our property costs for the South County
library along with the North County library before we start
spending money in the North County as he would hate to see it get
out of balance.
Chairman Scurlock believed Commissioner Eggert has provided
a specific budget so you know the framework you have to work
within.. He continued to stress his preference for going with
Scenario Two, and the Board generally agreed that is the only
option.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Building Program for the North County Library
building at 15,000 sq. ft., and directed that
proposals go out for an architect.
AMENDMENT SHERIFF'S SERVICE OF PROCESS CONTRACT
OMB Director Baird reviewed the following memos:
54
TO:
Liz Forlani
DATE: February 2, 1988
SUBJECT: EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM
CONTRACT # IE050
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
The attached amendment to "Contract # IE050 Sheriff's
Service of Process Contract" is being added to the February 2,
1988 Board of County Commissioners agenda as an "emergency item"
at the request of the Indian River County Sheriff's Department.
the agenda.
The reason for the request is as follows:
(1). The amendment should have been sent to the state
by January 15, 1988.
(2). The county will not receive any reimbursement of
until the state receives the amendment.
money
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: February 1, 1988
SUBJECT: CONTRACT NUMBER IE050 -
SHERIFF'S SERVICE IN
PROCESS CONTRACT
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In the past Indian River County has received a reimbursement
of seventy (70 percent) of the twelve dollar fee for serving civil
process papers relating to H.R.S. matters. The attached
amendment reduces the reimbursement from seventy percent to
sixty-eight percent.
The Indian River County Sheriff has reviewed and signed the
amendment. We will not receive reimbursement for serving civil
papers until this amendment is returned to the state.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve
this amendment.
Director Baird noted we don't have much choice because if we
don't sign, they won't reimburse us what they owe now.
In dollar
terms, we usually get about $4,000, and that will be reduced 2%.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to sign the amendment to Contract #IE050,
Sheriff's Service of Process Contract.
55
FEB 21988
BOOK 70 FA[E 784
BOOK 70 DGE. !O5
AMENDMENT #001
THIS AMENDMENT, is entered into by and between the State of
Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
hereinafter referred to as the "department" and the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as the
"county", and the Indian River County Sheriff's Department,
hereinafter referred to as the "sheriff", amends contract #IE050.
1. Section III, Paragraphs A 1 & 2 are hereby amended to read:
1. That reimbursement will be made for original service of
process on title IV -D case actions by the sheriff. The county will
be reimbursed for service of process in IV -D cases only at the
prevailing Grate of federal financial participation, which is
currently 68%.
2. That the county will bill the department monthly, on a
form to be provided by the department, or an equivalent form
developed by the sheriff and containing all information required by
the department, for an amount equal to the prevailing rate of federal
financial participation, which is currently 68% of the total $12.00
fee allowed by law. w -
2. Attachment I, Part D,
hereto.
Page 11 is hereby revised and y gtached
3. This amendment shall begin on October 1, 1987.
All provisions in the contract and any attachments th ereo ii
conflict with this amendment shall be and are hereby changed-otoA
conform with this amendment. cn
c.71
All provisions not in conflict with this amendment are still in
effect and are to be performed at the level specified in the
contract.
This amendment and all its attachments are hereby made a part of
the contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this 2 page
amendment to be executed by their officials thereunto duly
authorized.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMEAT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIV
Approved 2/2/88 SERVICES
SIGNATURE:
NAME: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TITLE: Chairman
SHERIFF'S DEPAR
INDIAN RIVER
Ji., Chairman
NAME:
TITLE:
DATE:
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck
Sheriff, Indian River County
January 15, 1988
56
SIGNATU
NAME:
TITLE: D trict
DATE:
Administiator
Approved as to form
and gal Suf,iency
By
Sharon Phillips Brennan
Asst. County Attornay
ATTACHMENT 1
PART D
CONTRACT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS WITH
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND
SHERRIFF'S DEPARTMENT
METHOD OF PAYMENT —FIXED RATE
1. Subject to the terms of this contract and the provisions of
45 CFR Part 74, the department shall reimburse the county for no more
than a total dollar amount of $5,000.00 for expenditures made in
accordance with the attached Reimbursement Flow Chart (ATTACHMENT 1,
Part E), subject to the availability of funds. Reimbursement shall
be made on the basis of a monthly itemized report of requests to
serve original service of process. The request for reimbursement
shall be made on a form provided by the department or an equivalent
form developed by the sheriff containing all information required by
the department. The county will be reimbursed at the prevailing rate
of federal financial participation, which is currently 68%, of the
$12.00 fee it pays the sheriff for original service of process in
IV -D cases.
2. Request for reimbursement shall be made monthly bythe county
with an accompanying certification that a total payment of -the $12.00
fee for each request of service by the sheriff has been paid to the
sheriff's service of process fee account. A copy of each request for
service of process which was provided to the sheriff shall be
submitted with the request for reimbursement.
3. If the court orders the absent parent to pay for the service,
the payment should be to the county who will retain the prevailing
local match rate, which is currently 32%, of the payment and use the
remaining match rate, which is currently 68%, to reduce the total
service of process bill to the department for the month in which the
absent parent actually made the payment. The bill must show the
names of all absent parents who made payments so that costs records
can be updated by district Child Support Enforcement units.
4. Any payment due for services under this contract shall be
submitted in detail for a proper preaudit and postaudit.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board of County Commissioners would reconvene acting as the
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River
County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately..
57
FEB 21988
aocr 70 FA F 786
FEE 2 1988
BOOK 70 FGF. 787
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:35 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
58