HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/12/1988Tuesday, April 12, 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,
April 12, 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; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition under her items
of consideration of supporting opposition to certain House and
Senate Bills.
County Attorney Vitunac asked that an item in regard to
authorizing appraisals of the South County Library site be added
to today's agenda.
The Chairman noted that a request has been received from
Personnel Director Blankenship to set up a Special Meeting of the
Board on Tuesday, April 19th at 3:00 P.M. to have a presentation
on the outcome of the Pay and Classification Study.
Several Board members had conflicts with that date and
alternative dates were suggested (either Monday, April 18th at
1:00 P.M. or Thursday, April 21st at 1:00 P.M.) as it will be
necessary for the Personnel Director to contact the consultants
who are coming over from Tampa to make the presentation to
confirm a date with them.
The Chairman determined that there were no further items to
be added or deleted.
APR 121986
cooK 72 Pa,E 01
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added items
to the agenda as requested.
Later in the meeting an emergency item was added in regard
to authorizing application for a grant for State Legalization
Impact Assistance for Refugees.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 15, 1988.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 15,
1988, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird asked that Item 5 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
(1) Out -of -County Travel - B.C.C. Administrator Aide
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for B.C.C. Administrative
Aide Liz Forlani to attend a Records Management
Seminar in Ocala June 1 & 2, 1988.
2
APR 121988
BOOK .72 RGE 02
(2) Proclamation - American Home Week
PROCLAMATI O N
WHEREAS, with property ownership comes the need to
protect our private property rights; and
WHEREAS, with these rights often comes the desire to
improve property - whether homes, farms, shopping centers,
industrial plants or office buildings - and by so doing, enhance
the value of such property; and
WHEREAS, as citizens OF Indian River County we also
should be mindful of this value, not only in a monetary sense,
but in the sense of the inherent worth of property as it pertains
to the enjoyment of life locally; and
WHEREAS, each year, REALTORS - members of a local Board
of REALTORS - call attention to the importance of private
property rights by celebrating AMERICAN HOME WEEK; and
WHEREAS, this year the Vero Beach - Indian River County
Board of REALTORS will emphasize the value of home ownership and
other property ownership, as well as property improvement within
the community:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the week of
April 24 - 30, 1988 be designated as
AMERICAN HOME WEEK
in Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board urges all
citizens of Indian River County to remember their freedom to own
private property, the importance to protect the rights that
accompany this ownership and their awareness of the value of
improving such property.
Adopted April 12, 1988
3
APR 12 1988
BOARD• OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOOK 72 ra F 03
� r �
(3) Reappointments to Marine Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed memo of Administrative Aide I, Alice
White:
TO: Board of County DATE: April 7, 1988 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT:
Reappointments to
Marine Advisory
Committee
FROM: Alice E. White REFERENCES:
Administrative Aide I
The following members have completed their first term on the
Marine Advisory Committee. It is recommended that they be
reappointed for another term to expire in April, 1990.
John E. Jackson
George Phreaner
Tim Adams
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously reappointed the
following to the Marine Advisory Committee for the
term which will expire in April, 1990:
John E. Jackson
George Phreaner
Tim Adams
(4) Appointment. to Bldg. Code Board of Adjustments & Appeals to
fill vacancy created—by resignation of Dorothy Huason
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-22 appointing John Kirchner to be
the member from the Board of Zoning Adjustments who
also sits as an appointed member of the Building
Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
APR 12 1988
BM 72 F yf 04
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA,
APPOINTING A MEMBER OF THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS, TO FILL A VACANCY CREATED BY
RESIGNATION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has established a Board
called the Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals by
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, that Ordinance calls for appointments to the
Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals to be by
Resolution of the County Commission; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-32 of the Indian River County Code
of Laws and Ordinance calls for one member of the Board to
also be a representative of the Board of Zoning Adjustments;
and
WHEREAS, Dorothy A. Hudson has served in the dual
capacity of a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and
also the representative to the Building Code Board of
Adjustment and Appeals; and
WHEREAS, Dorothy A. Hudson by letter of March 25, 1988
r•
•
has resigned from the Building Code Board of Adjustment and
Appeals prior to the end of her term of .office on that
Board;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
John Kirchner is hereby appointed to be the
representative from the Board of Zoning Adjustments who
shall also sit as an appointedmember of the Building Code
Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the balance of the term
of Dorothy A. Hudson, which term expires in January of 1991.
The foregoing resolution was' offered by Commissioner
Eggert
who moved Its adoption. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
5
APR 12 1988
and,
BOOK 72 rviE 05
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert -Axe
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed
and adopted this l2thday of April, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By c—
on
Chairman
(5) Approval for IRCVAS to purchase fuel at County Yard
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Management Director
Doug Wright:
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: April 4, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Agenda Item - Approval for
Indian River County
Volunteer Ambulance Squad
to purchase fuel at County
Yard
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
its next regular meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad is currently
utilizing the fuel pumps at the old jail site to provide fuel
to their emergency transport vehicles. Plans are being com-
pleted for the fuel pumps and underground tanks to be removed
by the Public Works Department at the site which will leave
the emergency response provider without an around the clock
source of fuel. Approval is being sought for IRCVAS to util-
ize the Fleet. Management cardlock fuel distributing system at
the County Yard.
6
APR 12 1988
BOOK .72 ME 06
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
This proposal has been discussed with Fleet Management, Public
Works, and staffed at the department head staff meeting on
March 28, 1988. Fleet Management will provide a specific card
for each emergency vehicle for accounting purposes and provide
an access route to the fuel island on a twenty-four hour basis.
The Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad will be billed
on a monthly basis for the fuel utilized at a price less than
the organization would have to pay if purchased from a retailer.
The alternatives would be for IRCVAS to purchase gas from a
local retail site or establish above the ground tanks at the
operating site of the squad. The first alternative is not
recommended since operating cost would increase 'for the squad
if the fuel is purchased on the open market combined with the
fact that available sources are not in close proximity to the
squad. Permitting for above or below ground fuel tanks is very
difficult due to environmental concerns which suggests the second
alternative is not feasible.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for the Indian River
County Volunteer Ambulance Squad to utilize the cardlock fuel
distributing system at the County Yard and requests authority
to integrate the emergency provider into the system.
Commissioner Bird noted that we have been looking at
possible other uses for the old Jail site, and he, therefore,
asked if we couldn't just leave the tanks in place and let them
continue to get their fuel there as it is a lot more convenient.
Administrator Balczun pointed out there is the possibility
we may have to turn off the power off at the old Jail site in the
event we experience any difficulties.
Chairman Scurlock suggested there be a Motion broad enough
to allow them to utilize the fuel at either or both locations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
IRCVAS to utilize the fuel pumps at the old Jail
site as long as the fuel is available, and if for
any reason, it is unavailable at that site,
authorized them to utilize the fuel pumps at the
County complex.
7
APR 121988
BOOK .72 Fa E 07
(6) Bid #412 - Backhoe and Tar Kettle
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO: CHARLES BALCZUM
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
/i.
!
AMBLER, C.P.M.
PURCHASING MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 23, 1988
SUBJECT: BACKHOE AND TAR
KETTLE
IRC BID #412
REFERENCES:
FILE:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
BIDS WERE RECEIVED WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30TH, 1988, AT 2:00 P.M.
FOR IRC BID #412.
31 INVITATIONS TO BID WERE SENT OUT. 14 BIDS WERE RECEIVED.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
THIS BID CONTAINS 2 ITEMS. BOTH SHOULD BE AWARDED NOW.
THE LOW BID MEETING THE INTENT OF OUR SPECIFICATIONS FOR ITEM
1 THE BACKHOE, WAS SUBMITTED BY LINDER INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY
COMPANY. THEY HAVE TAKEN MINOR EXCEPTIONS TO OUR
SPECIFICATIONS WHICH PURCHASING AND THE ROAD AND BRIDGE
DEPARTMENT BELIEVE SHOULD BE WAIVED(EXCEPTION LIST ATTACHED).
THEIR BID IS FOR $33,800.00.
A BID SUBMITTED BY BERRGGREN EQUIPMENT CO. SHOULD BE REJECTED
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TAKEN A MAJOR EXCEPTION TO OUR REQUIREMENT
FOR A 70 HORSE POWER ENGINE.
THEY HAVE BID A BACKHOE WITH ONLY 55 HP.
THE LOW BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TAR KETTLE WAS
SUBMITTED BY CIMLINE•INC AT $12,197.00. THEY HAVE TAKEN NO
EXCEPTIONS TO OUR SPECIFICATIONS.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT IRC BID #412, BE AWARDED AND THAT. THE
PURCHASE BE ACCOMPLISHED FROM THE VENDORS LISTED.
BUDGETARY APPROVAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED FOR EXPENDITURE FROM
ROAD AND BRIDGE. THE EXACT ACCOUNT NUMBER WILL BE ASSIGNED
BY BUDGET AT A LATER DATE.
$42,000.00 WAS BUDGETED FOR THE BACKHOE AND $14,000.00 FOR THE
TAR KETTLE.
STAFF REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED.
8
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 FA�E 00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to waive
minor exceptions to the specifications as recommended
by staff and awarded Bid #412 as follows:
Item I (Backhoe) to Linder Industrial Machinery
Company for $33,800.
Item 2 (Tar Kettle) to CimLine, Inc. for $12,197.
(7) Bid #409 - Term Contract for Utility Chemicals - Lots 4, 5
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO: CHARLES BALCZUM DATE: MARCH 23, 1988 FILE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT:
TERM CONTRACT FOR
UTILITY CHEMICALS
IRC BID #409
LOTS 4, 5
/) r r
FROM- 7 d '� REFERENCES:
GUS AMBLER, C.P.M.
PURCHASING MANAGER
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
BIDS WERE RECEIVED WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16TH, 1988, AT 2:00 P.M.
FOR IRC BID #409.
13 INVITATIONS TO BID WERE SENT OUT. 11 BIDS WERE RECEIVED.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
THIS BID CONTAINS 7 LOTS. LOTS 4 AND 5 SHOULD BE
AWARDED NOW.
THE LOW BIDDERS MEETING SPECIFICATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 4, SULFURIC ACID, APPERSON CHEMICAL AT $56.85 PER HUNDRED
POUNDS.
LOT 5, CAUSTIC SODA, P B &S CHEMICALS AT $265.00 PER HUNDRED
POUNDS.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT IRC BID #409, BE AWARDED AND THAT THE
PURCHASE BE ACCOMPLISHED FROM THE VENDORS LISTED.
BUDGETARY APPROVAL WILL BE CONFIRMED 'FOR EXPENDITURE FROM
UTILITIES SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS BEFORE ORDERS ARE
PLACED.
STAFF REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED.
9
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 PAGE 09
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#409 as recommended by staff:
Lot 4 - Sulfuric Acid to Apperson Chemical at
$56.85 per hundred.
Lot 5 - Caustic Soda to P B & S Chemicals at
$265.00 per hundred pounds.
(8) Final Plat Approval - Garden Grove PRD, Phase 1
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Wiegers:
TO:Charles Falczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE:March 25, 1988
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Ro ert M. Keating, SUBJECT: THE GARDEN GROVE PRD PHASE
Community Develoirector I PLAT
THROUGH: Stan Boling 4A
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers746j
REFERENCES: garden grove
Staff Planner CURDEV
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 12, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Garden Grove PRD Phase I Plat is a proposed 91 lot phase of a
total 240 lot subdivision located on the east side of U.S. #1,
north of Midway Estates Mobile Home Park and west of Vero Shores
Subdivision. The zoning classification of the site is RS-6/RM-6
(6 dwelling units/acre). The land use designation is LD -2 (6
dwelling units/acre). The proposed density for the overall Garden
Grove Development is 4.12 units/acre.
The Board of County Commissioners granted conceptual PRD plan
approval for the overall subdivision on August 25, 1988. At its
regular meeting of September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary PRD approval to the Garden Grove
PRD. Subsequently, the developer obtained a land development
permit from the Public Works Department to construct all
subdivision improvements.
The owner/developer, Garden Grove Associates, Inc., is now
requesting that final plat approval be granted to the Garden Grove
PRD Phase I plat with the understanding that the developer, shall,
prior to final plat approval being given by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of April 12, 1988:
APR 12 1988
10
BOOK 72 Fdce 10
1. submit a contract for construction of the remaining required
improvements, acceptable to the County Attorney's Office.
As of April 4, 1988, the developer has submitted:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PRD
plan;
2. a letter of credit, acceptable to the County Attorney's
office, guaranteeing the contract for construction of required
improvements.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
At the time this item was prepared for the April 12, 1988 Board of
County Conuiiissioners meeting, one issue concerning final plat
approval remained unresolved. This item is, as mentioned above,
the required submission of an acceptable contract for construction
of the remaining required improvements. In order to keep on
schedule, the developer has requested that the Phase I plat be
allowed to remain ori the April 12, 1988 Board meeting provided
that this outstanding item is resolved prior to the meeting date.
The subject subdivision is to be.provided with water by Indian
River County and sewer service by General Development Utilities
(GDU). A substantial portion of the required improvements have
been completed and the applicant proposes to contract to complete
the remaining required improvements and has submitted a cost
estimate, acceptable to the Public Works Department, for the
remaining improvements as well as an acceptable letter ofcredit
to guarantee the contract for construction of remaining
improvements. The County Attorney's office has reviewed the
letter of credit and found it to be acceptable subject to the
developer submitting an approvable contract for construction of
remaining improvements and it being signed by the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners. The Phase I final plat is in
conformance with the approved preliminary plat as well as with all
other applicable County regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Garden Grove Phase I Subdivision;
authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
sign the contract with the applicant committing the applicant to
completing the remaining required improvements, provided that the
contract is submitted and acceptable to the County Attorney's
Office prior to the April 12, 1988 meeting; and accept the
submitted letter of credit guaranteeing the contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval for Garden Grove PRD Phase I.
47TH AVENUE & 9TH PLACE, GLENDALE LAKES WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
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:
11
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 FADE 11
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 ofv
in the 11%� //Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of i�/ % 1 17 a;'3/ l f y2
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 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 eforme th'
(SEAL)
i . ?t / j , 1 .Business Manager)
i
(Clerk of the Circuit'Court,' Indian River County, Florida)
.19 i9
PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice is hereby given that the Department of
Utility Services will hold an Informational Meet-
ing on Tuesday, April 5, 1988 at 7;30 p.m.. in the -
Commission Chambers. The Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River Coui ty will hold
a Public Hearing on Tuesday, April 12, 1988 at
9:05 a.m. in the the Commission Chambers of •
the County Administration Building, 1840 25th '
Street, Vero. Beach, Florida, to discuss the
WATER IMPROVEMENTS TO 47TH AVENUE
AND 9TH PLACE, GLENDALE LAKES ESTATES
SUBDIVISION, that have been prepared by the ,
County's consultant, Masteller & Moler Associ-
ates, Inc. The Improvements are for a Potable
Water Distribution system and fire protection.
Copies of the plans will be available at the Infor-
mational Meeting for review as well as at the De-
partment of Utility Services office during normal
working hours after March 9th, 1988. All inter-
ested parties are invited to attend the Informa-
tional Meeting as well as the Public Hearing, and
all persons wishing to speak will be given an op-
portunity to do so following a brief presentation •
, by the consultant. For additional Information,
contact the Indian River County Utilities Depart-
ment at 567-8000: extension 460, or Ms. Rowena
Sommers at Masteller & Moler •Associates, Inc.
at 589-4800.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD 'OF -
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVE-
MENTS TO 47TH AVENUE AND 9TH
PLACE, GLENDALE LAKES ESTATES
SUBDIVISION,PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAY- . .
MENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF ' AREAS SPECIFI-
CALLY SERVED. .
Dated the 9th day of March, 1988
• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY •
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
CHAIRMAN
March 17, 24, 31, 1988
County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that the Utility
Department has requested that this item be tabled.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously tabled consid-
eration of the above matter as
Utility Department.
requested by the
NORTH BEACH WATER COMPANY ACQUISITION
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:
APR 12 1988
12
BOOK
72 rfricE 12
1
VENO ;; ,,, BEACH
rie
?'letr_A,�1'F .�
3ournat
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
TELEPHONE 562-2315
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 newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida; that
XXL/ , Ado/ tc)+ e displcjad
billed to &cd o4' (cLLn4L( C ornmtssianers
was published in said newspaper in the issue (s)
of 1 hursd&Li ✓hargil- 31 I9F8
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
day of A.D
Business
Manager
`•5:hm• :•a"„!ir C+ata of Fiond, of Largs
� r �eT:acdnn [spare. Sept. 26. 1950
BLIC i"!
' ktrce is,hereby given that a public hearing 'will
. be held before the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners at. 9:05 a.m., on Tues-
day April 12, :1988, at• the County `:Adminis-
Aration Building . located at 1840 25th Street,
Verol Beach;` Florida. The Commission will .con-
siderthe purchase of North Beach' Water Com-
pany by the County in accordance to the
Florida Statutes• section 1.25.3401, Purchase or
sale of water or sewer utility by county.
All interested parties will be heard.
Dated this 22nd day.of March, 1,988
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
'�. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA- ...: .
Don C: :Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Chairman Scurlock clarified that we did not finally receive
our documents back from North Beach Water Company. The reason
this is on this agenda, however, is because this acquisition
process has been going on for almost a year, and it was felt that
we want a chance to discuss it before summer gets here and many
of the residents have gone back North. Action can be deferred
until such time as we get our completed documents.
13
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 PAGE 13
Utilities Director Pinto assured the Board that staff
project engineer William McCain has followed to the letter the
requirements we have to look at under Statute 125.3401, and for
the record, these requirements are as follows:
1) The most recent available income and expense statements from
the utility under consideration. These have been supplied to OMB
Director Baird for review.
2) The most recent available balance sheet for the utility
clearly showing contributions -in -aid -of -constructions and
accumulated depreciation.
3) A statement of the existing rate base of the utility.
4) The physical condition of the utility facilities being
purchased. Staff has inspected the facility themselves and our
consultants, DSS Engineering, have done an evaluation.
5) The reasonableness of the purchase price and the terms.
6) Any additional investment required and the ability and
willingness of the purchaser to make that investment.
7) The alternatives to the purchase or sale and potential impact
to customers if the sale is not made. This is shown in staff's
evaluation.
8) The ability of the purchaser to provide and maintain a high
quality and cost effective service.
Director Pinto reported that staff has found all of these
things to be positive. As expressed to the Board previously, the
existing rate of North Beach Water for 10,000 gallons water
consumption per month would be $36.95. In the county existing
rate structure, it would be $40.06, which is a $3.11 change in
the rates. However, when you look at the balance sheets of the
water company, you will see they are running at a substantial
annual loss, and the only way they could continue to exist would
be to raise their rates considerably, to a point where they would
be higher than our present rates. Director Pinto further
explained that, because our cost per thousand gallons is less
than theirs, as consumption increases our rates would decrease
in comparison.
Chairman Scurlock advised that when he, Director Pinto, and
Attorney Vitunac structured this deal, they were looking at no
impact to existing customers and the ability to bring new ones on
as close as possible to the existing rate structure. He believed
APR 12 1988
14
BOOK 72 PAGE 14
the County has had a very stable rate, and, in fact, did not
think we have had a water rate increase in five years.
This was confirmed by Director Pinto, who explained that we
have had a stable rate because growth of the system brings in
revenues that are keeping up with inflationary problems, and he
further advised that he did not anticipate any rate increase in
the next year.
Chairman Scurlock asked if this acquisition has anything to
do with the acquisition of the wastewater system or if that is a
separate independent issue.
Director Pinto stated that they are supposed to be separate
and independent. We are presently negotiating the purchase of
the Sea Oaks Wastewater Company, and we hope very much they are
not mixing the two together.
The Chairman asked if acquisition of the wastewater system
would be on the same basis we are attempting here, and Director
Pinto confirmed that it would, i.e., that it would have no
detrimental effect on existing customers.
Chairman Scurlock asked what impact Director Pinto felt
coming onto the county system will have in terms of reliability.
Director Pinto pointed out that the county already operates
a reverse osmosis treatment plant, and we, therefore, have the
expertise. In addition, we have the entire county system to
depend on if there are any problems; so, he felt it will enhance
the operation considerably.
The Chairman asked if Director Pinto anticipates a more
stable rate structure because of the large customer base of the
county utility system, and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Eggert asked, re mixing these up, if it is felt
there is any problem with water versus sewer, and Director Pinto
did not know of anything specific, but noted it is his
understanding they can't mix the two. The one entity, North
Beach Water Company,is owned by several people, and Sea Oaks
wastewater plant is owned by one.
APR 12 198
15
BOOK .72 F',GE 15
Chairman Scurlock believed it would be fair to say that the
utility would prefer to dispose of both assets, and a meeting is
scheduled on the 21st of this month to propose a deal similar to
what we have structured here.
In continuing discussion re acquisition, Director Pinto
reported that staff has done a very, very extensive inventory.
Chairman Scurlock asked before the acquisition is complete,
which is a 9/1 closing date, do we anticipate through that
document to look again at the system to see that it is fully
within acceptable standards, and Director Pinto stated that we
will monitor the system until the day of purchase.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the system as it now stands
will have to be increased to serve the whole North Beach.
Director Pinto confirmed that it would. The system is
adequate for those it is presently serving, and the expansion of
the system for the rest of the North Beach would be paid for by
impact fees from those customers.
Commissioner Bird asked if they were saying that from this
location and with this expansion, the system has the capability
of taking care of the entire North Beach area from Indian River
Shores to Sebastian Inlet, and Director Pinto confirmed that it
would, noting that, of course, would mean new wells and the
addition of other membrane units. If, in fact, the Town of
Orchid builds, it could service that and Marsh Island.
Chairman Scurlock advised that both the Town of Orchid and
the Polo Club have indicated their interest in being serviced by
thecounty system.
Commissioner Bowman asked if this system as it sits without
any expansion could accommodate Summerplace and Oceanaire
Heights, and this was confirmed.
Discussion ensued re the pipe to John's Island that is
presently used for irrigation only and whether there is any
ability to tap into that and. possibly siphon off any of the water
and make it potable.
16
APR 12 1988
Booz i2 FACE 16
Chairman Scurlock commented that we have met with Lost Tree
Corp. over the years re these possibilities, and they have
evidenced no desire to dispose of that line. We have consis-
tently discussed joint use, and as long as they are able to
maintain their needs and that raw water supply will not be
interrupted, he believed there is definitely room to work
together in the future.
Commissioner Bowman inquired how deep the wells are that
service that line, and Director Pinto answered that there is a
shallow well, and they just installed a deep one and mixed the
two. They have had problems with permitting from the shallow
aquifer and they have to depend much heavier on the deeper
aquifer.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
A gentleman from the audience wished to know how the water
which is supplied by North Beach and would be supplied by the
county complies with the federal standards for carcinogens for a
community of 10,000 or more.
Director. Pinto advised that North Beach Water Company as it
operates now does not have to comply with that standard because
it is serving a community of Tess than 10,000. When the county
buys it, we will have to comply with that regulation, and we
would anyway as we meet all the Safe Water Drinking Act
requirements.
Another gentleman in the audience asked if this means that
the county take-over will improve the quality of the water.
Director Pinto noted that from the analysis he has seen of
the North Beach water, he believed they are meeting current
standards. If the county takes the system over, the type of
membrane presently used there eventually will be changed out.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the new membranes will cost
about $150,000, but that was considered in the purchase price
which we have negotiated from 6 million down to 3.1 million.
APR 12 1988
17
Boov 72 Fr.1 17
Director Pinto explained that the quality of water from an
R.O. plant is dependent on how much raw water they blend back
into the finished product water. The R.O. process removes
virtually everything, and the water exceeds standards to such a
degree it is not cost effective. We are evaluating a treatment
system that will get away from blending as much as possible.
Chairman Scurlock understood we do not want to take any
action today, but continue the hearing.
Attorney Vitunac believed they would like permission to sign
this contract if it is in the same form, but Commissioner Eggert
pointed out that this material was just received this morning,
and she did not want to act on the contract until she has read
it. She, therefore, wished to continue this hearing.
Attorney Vitunac felt at this point, since the requirements
of the statute have been met, the procedure would be to end -the
public hearing and make a finding of a public benefit and then
later on, sign the contract if desired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing since all the requirements of the Florida
Statutes in regard to finding that this acquisition is a
public benefit have been met and agreed to continue
action on the contract until the Utilities Director
brings it back to the Board.
REQUEST FUNDING FOR DREDGING OF 14TH STREET CANAL
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that a petition with
196 signatures has been received requesting a hearing in regard
to the problems with the 14th Street Canal. A sample of the
petition is as follows (The original petition is on file in the
Office of Clerk to the Board.)
APR 12 1988
18
BOOK 72 FACE 18
PE ri r1 D1'.T
WE,THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ROCKRIDGE AND FAIRLANE HARBOR REQUEST TO
BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGARDING THE NAVIGATION PROBLEM THAT EXISTS IN THE 14th STREET CANAL.
THE PROBLEM OF SILTING, CAUSED BY HURRICANE 'DAVID' IN 1979 WITH
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS BEING DEPOSITED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 17th ST.
BRIDGE AND RECENTLY THE INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD BRIDGE, MAKES THE CANAL
ESSENTIALLY NOT NAVIGABLE.
Name
Address Date
.2Sd /err'
,a Pi
r/r/f
Douglas Auty, 43 S. Harbor Drive, resident of Fairlane
Harbor for ten years, informed the Board that the canal known as
the South Canal runs in front of his house. In 1978 he had a
dock built and bought a boat, and at that time, could go out of
the canal into the lntraCoastal Waterway without any problem.
Shortly after Hurricane David, however, there was a build-up of
sand so that it was very hard to get out except at extremely high
tide, and now since the 17th Street Bridge was built, the
additional sand and silt have made it really impossible. As a
result two neighbors have sold their boats and two others now
rent docks in other parts of the park.
Mr. Auty continued that about a year ago Public Works
Director Jim Davis came to Fairlane to talk about the extension
of Indian River Boulevard, and during that discussion, the
question of dredging the canal was raised. Mr. Davis at that
time said he would have the dredge come down and dredge out the
canal, and he said a permit would not be necessary because there
was not that many cubic yards of sand involved. However, nothing
was ever done.
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that the
county staff did try to work with Coastal Marine Construction who
was doing work at the bridge, but because of their workload,
19
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 FAGE 19
Coastal Marine referred us to Prosperity Dredging. They were
contacted, but they were not available to do this work either.
In research staff found that there are some permitting exemptions
if the canal was constructed prior to 1970. Staff then contacted
Mr. Dan Noble who originally developed Rockridge and put in that
canal. Mr. Noble claimed that Mosquito Control put that canal
in about 1956 and stated he had asked them to widen it and dig it
deeper in the '60s. They had a problem hitting rock when they
dredged it in the late '50s, and Director Davis understood there
was a court case on the dredging of that land but was unable to
find any transcript of it. He emphasized that he has tried to
research and help get this accomplished, but it has been very
difficult to find a dredging contractor not only for this project
but also the one at the Wabasso Causeway.
Chairman Scurlock asked if it would be fair to say the
silting has been a consequence not only of natural happenings but
also possibly from construction of the 17th Street Bridge and
even the bridge across on Indian River Boulevard.
Director Davis didn't believe the Indian River Boulevard
bridge had a major impact because we profiled the channel before
the bridge was built and found the problem at the mouth of the
river. He felt there could have been some minor siltation from
that bridge, and we can certainly go in and clean it out in the
vicinity of the bridge, but he did not feel we can go into the
mouth of the river with our equipment and crews.
Commissioner Eggert asked about cost, and Director Davis
stated that based on bids for the Wabasso dredging, he believed
we are talking about $4 to $6 a cubic yard. He estimated to
dredge the canal would involve approximately 200 yards about 15'
wide and 3' deep, or about 9,000 cubic yards, which would be
around $50,000.
Robert Bogar, 52 S. Harbor Drive, Fairlane Harbor, noted
that he is one of those who sold aboat out of frustration. His
APR 12 1988
20
8001 72 PACE 20
boat, a Penn Yan cruiser drew only 14", but after Hurricane David
he began to experience difficulties, and he and a small delega-
tion went to Mr. Davis to see if the canal could be dredged as
part of the bridge construction. At that time Mr. Davis made it
clear why it was difficult to use monies appropriated for
highways to dredge a canal, but he also commented that since it
had been necessary to apply for a permit to build a bridge over a
navigable waterway, he was going to talk to the Coast Guard and
U.S.Army Engineering people about this; however, they never heard
anything further.
Director Davis informed the Board that he contacted a large
number of people looking for a possible grant. There are some
available, but this area does not qualify for the conditions the
grant would require.
William Nelson, 230 -14th St., submitted pictures of himself
standing in the canal to show where the blockage is. The
pictures are under the bridge now known as the 14th Street
Bridge. In front and back of the bridge, he is standing in about
3-4' of water and under the bridge in about 11' of water. Mr.
Nelson stated that it definitely filled in when they put in the
banks and the pilings for the bridge, and he felt this was the
responsibility of the county. He further pointed out that this
fill could have been taken out and used for fill on the Boulevard
as he reminded Mr. Davis on several occasions, but it is still
there. (All pictures submitted are on file in the Office of the
Clerk)
Mr. Nelson emphasized that the people bought their homes on
a canal that at the time had manatees, fishing and boating. When
the Boulevard extension was being planned, they met with Mr.
Davis and learned that there were plans for a bridge 9' high.
Although some of their boats couldn't clear it, they agreed to
accept a 9' bridge if the canal was dredged. All this is set out
in memo from Director Davis dated October 15, 1984, as follows:
Pl 121988
L
21
BOOK 72 FACE 21
I TO: The Honoratlfle Members of DATE: October 15, 1984
the Board Af County Commissioners "F.----.
ROUGH: Michael. Wright, 10 i•. • t3 . . �,_ r.
1' County Admi
1 j . Sa;
1FROM:•. w.,t•.:,..1._,�
• JamesW. Davis,
.Public W9rks Directo
FILE:
• SUBJECT: Bridging of 14th Street Canal East;
of Rockridge, South of Fairlane'*`.
' Harbor "
REFERENCES:
G
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Kimley Horn and Associates, Engineers for the Southerly
Extension of Indian River Boulevard, and County staff met
on October 8, 1984 with the property owners who own lots
along the Rockridge canal. Many of these owners have small
boats and Ilse the 14th Street canal for ingress/egress to
the Indian;River. •The purpose of the meeting was to inform ..
the boat owners that the bridge proposed for construction .
at Indian River Boulevard would provide approximately 9.2
ft. of vertical clearance at Mean High Water and approximately
9.96 feet of vertical clearance at Mean Low water. Once
this vertical clearance is established, the Engineers can
apply -for a Coast Guard Permit. The owners of approximately
13 lots wee represented..
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Two property owners expressed that•a 10' vertical clearance
at High Water is required for their boats to use the waterway.
This condition is required due to less than a'1 foot water . •
depth in the channel at low water and the fact that 2 boats
using thechannel have a vertical height of approximately:
10 •feet.. tl .:....4- i'. -,. -., ;...,
•
The consultants have indicated that for every 1 foot
increase in height,' the cost:of the approach fill and bridge•
cost would increase approximately $35,000 to $40,000. Also,
as the height increases it may be necessary to require the -
removal or.relocation of mobile homes encroaching in the
County right- f- at Fairlane Harbor Mobile Home Park.
It was'also mentioned that use of the waterway is
restricted:by.the shallow depth of water and the residents
request that the channel•be dredged. Drainage in the Rockridge
area would improve if the channel is dredged. The City and
County have designed and obtained permits to dredge the
nnel and are planning the work.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the County instruct the•consulting
Engineers. to include"4r4ging of the channel as a part of
the Indian"River Boulevard 7'ro ect and that the Bridge be
designed tp provide the 9.2 feet to 9.96 feet of vertical
clearance as proposed. The dred ing of the ch nel would
a lglcy. he boats to use the ri ge a ow tt a and t e •
approximat 1y 10 feet vertira-r-cTearance would be
available.
Mr. Nelson informed the Board that Director Davis did get
soundings of the canal, but then they were told the road monies
could not be used for this. Mr. Nelson then gave a lengthy list
of the agencies and officials the residents have contacted for
help, noting that a letter from former Commissioner Lyons
suggested they should tax the people on the canal. Mr. Nelson
advised that after research, it was found that the taxes paid by
the homes on the canal are 150 times higher than other homes in
the area. He then submitted pictures of comparable homes which
22
APR 12 1988
BOOK .72 PAGE 22
are paying only $5.00 taxes and that is for the street lights.
Mr. Nelson objected to paying high taxes on his land for a canal
that cannot be used and emphasized they do not want the county to
raise taxes in Rockridge where people are living on Social
Security and small incomes.
Mr. Nelson then spoke about concern for protecting the
manatees and enabling them to get back into the canal. He
advised that Mr. Joe Earman had been contacted in regard to the
possibility of obtaining some funds for this purpose from
F.I.N.D., and Mr. Earman has said that if the county would get
the permits and determine the cost involved, F.I.N.D. would fund
50% of the cost. Mr. Nelson felt if we could just get some
dredger to come in and get an estimate. then with the help of
F.I.N.D for 50% of the funding, maybe the people could get some
relief and some benefit from the canal they are paying taxes for.
He pointed out that people on the canal can't even sell their
homes because the canal can't be used and urged the Board to find
a solution for them.
Commissioner Bird confirmed that he has talked with Mr.
Earman who felt if we had proper permits, F.I.N.D. would consider
a grant. He suggested that the direction to take would be to ask
Director Davis to determine once and for all the magnitude of the
project and the permits required and make a more concerted effort
to contact dredging companies once we get some updated informa-
tion. We must have all the permits in hand and the information
to go to F.I.N.D., and Commissioner Bird felt we should proceed
in that direction without committing any money at this time.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to direct staff to proceed as
suggested above.
Commissioner Bowman believed it would be expeditious to go
to F.I.N.D. with the application before February or March of next
APR 121988
23
BOOM .72 FACE 23
year, and if we are going to have a dredge in that area, she
suggested we also take care of the Wabasso Causeway area, which
is serious condition.
Commissioner Bird agreed it would be advantageous to have
two projects, and Director Davis confirmed we have $40,000 in the
R&B budget for the dredging at Wabasso.
Commissioner Wheeler sympathized with these folks and their
dilemma, but noted that this is not a problem simply in this one
area. He felt there may be some leverage for the county to pay
the cost of getting the permits, but felt if we go in and dredge
canals that will be something we will have to look at
countywide.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that this is a big issue, and the
same situation exists in many other subdivisions along the river,
Vero Isles and Vero Shores being just two of them. The Chairman
was supportive of working with the group here today and did think
the County has some responsibility, which he believed we can
identify, but he agreed we need to do this carefully and in a
proper way because we cannot just jump in and set a precedent
that we maintain these canals.
Commissioner Eggert concurred that we don't want to get into
the canal dredging business, but she also felt that possibly the
bridge did bring us a responsibility we do not have in other
areas. Board members agreed.
Discussion continued re various alternatives, including an
MSTU, and Commissioner Wheeler noted that possibly we could
coordinate projects to make it more economical.
Mr. Nelson commented that since the people on the canal pay
taxes 100-150% higher, one solution would be to lower their
taxes, but the Board pointed out that is not under their
jurisdiction.
Nr. Nelson also continued to express concern about the
manatees, and Chairman Scurlock explained the Motion is for the
Board to authorize Director Davis to do the necessary work to be
24
APR 121988
72FACE 24
able to get permits to apply to F.I.N.D. and also identify what
the county's part in this will be, which is about the best we can
do today.
Fred Pafenbach, president of Fairlane Harbor Mobile Home
Owners Association, stated that he at one time worked in a boat
yard in New Hampshire which had a problem with fill-in. They had
a small barge come in with a shovel and it took care of the
problem in just a few hours.
Chairman Scurlock explained that one of the problems is that
since the state has cracked down on the small dredge and fill
operators, most of them have gone out of business and mainly only
the Targe operators are left.
Director Davis confirmed that we have had no success
advertising competitively for dredging operators to do a small
job.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION BY FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS ON JAIL PHASE III
John Silver, partner with Frizzell Architects and project
manager, and Dalas Disney of Frizzell were present. Mr. Disney
made the presentation, referring to the following color -coded
site plan:
APR 121988
25
Boa 72 PAGE 25
POD "E4 FirruAl
CD
rn
thm•TL I‘tncist taaD
••
re-
•
• :1
POD "D" - PROPOSED
ADDITION -
PROPOSED N.._
• \i„
K S HP4 beB AREAS (PRoPoSeb)
5LVE — CRoss- 14 Acre H Eta iRr imp b et)
YELkotl"" RCMP') 141,eR1 .
OF unlatiAb67) ARgAscexisTit*)
[PO 4- FuT ucg el
AREA jA" - ADMINISTRATION
EXISTING POD "B"
• • L., •;. 77-
„i.
MEL. !NS, /
:?f
REMODEL LAUNDRY TO
EXPANDED CLINIC /
- PROPOSED
POD 'C” - EXISTING
:04%.•Tt txtncist 'AND
I REMODEL KITCHEN
TO BOOKING - PROPOSED
•1
NEW KITCHEN - PROPOSED
\IN!\
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE 3
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
W. R. FR1ZZELL ARCHITECTS, INC.
41
February 19, 1988
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS
2140
RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE 3
ESTIMATED PROBABLE COST OF CONSTRUCTION - SCHEMATIC DESIGN
POD "D" 23500 SF @ $ 90
Chases 3150 SF @ $ 45
Connector 1600 SF @ $ 85
Classfication 831 SF @ $ 65
Corridor 185 SF @ $ 65
Prop. Storage 3500 SF @ $ 45
Visitation
Control 260 SF @ $ 85.
Stair 240 SF @ $100
SUBTOTAL "A"
$2,115,000.
141, 750.
136,000.
54,000.
12,000.
157,500.
22,000.
24,000.
Pre -Book
Remodel 860 SF @ $100 86,000.
Clinic, Etc.
Remodel 1765 SF @ $ 85 150,000.
Kitchen 6500 SF @ $ 50 325,000.
Kitchen Equipment Lump Sume 200,000.
2nd Floor HVAC 2700 SF @ $ 5 13,500.
SUBTOTAL
Exercise Yard
Second Tower
nB"
Lump Sum - $50,000
Lump Sum - $50,000
$2,662,250.
$ 688,500.
SUBTOTAL "C" 100.000.
TOTAL
ADD 15% Contingency +
$3,450,750.
517,750.
$3,968,500.
SAY $4,000,000.
Mr. Silver explained that the yellow (the unshaded area)
represents existing facilities - the square portion, Area
IIAft
is
the administration wing - the octagonal yellow shape is Pod !BI!
which is the pod they are repeating and modifying to make Pod
"Dn.
The other yellow rectangle Area "C" is the second phase
which was just completed. Pink (the shaded areas) represents
what is proposed, and Blue (the cross -hatched areas) are existing
areas that are proposed to be remodeled. Pods "A," "6," and "C"
have a capacity of 262 inmates; Pod "D" will bring that capacity
just short of 400, and future Pods "E" and "F" will house 400
each for a total future capacity of as many as 1200.
27
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 PAGE 27
Mr. Disney informed the Board that they are proposing in
this current project to provide new kitchen facilities. The old
kitchen will be remodeled and used to expand the pre -book holding
to facilitate handling and in -processing of inmates.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the original plan was to build a
kitchen to serve only two pods and then have to phase it out and
build a new kitchen.
Mr. Silver stated that kitchen was originally designed as a
full fledged kitchen, but because of cost restraints and
budgetary concerns, it was cut back to a smaller project. He
pointed out that as the facility grows, your booking needs to
expand also to support the increased inmate population, and the
remodeling use of that kitchen space provides that opportunity.
He believed they can provide a better operating kitchen facility
with construction of a new kitchen, and noted that while it is
designed at this juncture to be able to serve 1200 meals per
sitting, they are not proposing to put that quantity of kitchen
equipment in now.
Commissioner Bird asked if the present kitchen could be
expanded enough just to accommodate Pod "D."
Mr. Silver stated that they could put an addition off the
side of it, but they feel it would create a very undesirable
situation relative to deliveries.
Commissioner Bird believed we always contemplated those
three phases and could not believe we painted ourselves into that
much of a corner on the kitchen.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the Commission did. He noted that
the Jail Committee spent several years going through these plans,
and then towards the start of the bids, there apparently was a
"knee-jerk" reaction to the point that they even came back in
with another plan and wanted to change the whole design to cut
expenses. The Committee had quite an extensive meeting and
pointed out that the tabor intensiveness in the new plan, which
was supposed to cut the costs of the project down, actually would
APR 12 1988
28
BOOK 72 Du 28
result in millions more for the additional personnel over the 30
year life span.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the expense of shelling in an
area and then partially equipping the kitchen is must Tess than
if you keep on adding and adding.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if everything the
architects are showing on site is sufficient to accommodate the
eventual two final pods, more exercise area, more parking, etc.
Mr. Silver advised that there is an allowance for extra
parking area, and future Pods "E" and "F" are designed with
internal exercise yards. The booking area they are coming up
with now will suffice to get people into those pods.
Commissioner Bird asked about the dotted area shown
connecting the future pods, and was informed that was to be the
administration area for both pods and that they would anticipate
building Pod E and the center part at the same time.
Captain Bob Reese, Administrator of the Corrections
Division, informed the Board that they are serving 700-800 meats
a day now in a kitchen designed to serve 143 people. You can't
even turn around in there. He further noted that he had an
escape last night because the booking area was cut out of the
original plan. They cut these things out of the original plan,
and now we are having to replace them.
Chairman Scurlock did not understand this "we" and "they."
He did not believe this Board, or he, as a Commissioner, ever sat
here and specifically addressed all these items. He agreed the
Board may have said we want to build the jail for 4 million as
opposed to 10 million, but stressed that it was staff who was
selecting what to give up.
Capt. Reese agreed that the Board set the dollar amount and
the architect and the Committee had to choose what would be taken
out.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she would like to see us
go the other direction and put together what it would actually
APR 12 1988
29
BOOK 72 FACE 29
cost to do this correctly. She believed it is the same problem
as the libraries where suddenly the budget wasn't making it.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that we are going to pick
up additional room for booking and also additional cell space.
It is kind of a swap -off, not just a total expenditure.
Capt. Reese advised that the isolation cells they asked in
the first specs were deleted and they had a suicide last week
because they had no place to put these kind of people. Last
night they had an escape out of the booking area because they
don't have the facilities to put them where they should be. Some
of the problems probably are in the design. He did not want to
blame any one party specifically, but they just need certain
facilities to operate in really regardless of the cost.
Chairman Scurlock did not to hear anyone say "regardless of
the cost." He pointed out that they actually did an excellent
job working out of the old jail, and now they have this brand new
state-of-the-art facility and are painting this picture of how
awful it is.
Capt. Reese stated that it is not awful, but he can't put
ten men in a five man cell.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there isn't something statewide
now that would allow us to provide less than 63 sq. ft. per
prisoner, and Mr. Silver advised that you can put two people in a
90 sq. ft. cell, but you still have to provide the same day room,
recreation space, etc., per inmate.
Commissioner Eggert noted they are proposing to remodel the
laundry to expand the clinic, and she wished to know if the.
laundry will do everything they wish done on site.
Mr. Silver advised that Phase 11 has laundry facilities in
it which are designed to provide services for these 3 pods, and
they will have more laundry facilities in Pod "E" when that is
constructed. They propose to expand the clinics to help the
county cut down on the cost of supervising inmates who can't be
part of the normal population of the jail but are not at the
30
APR 121988
BOOK 72 PAGE 30
point where they need to be hospitalized. He then discussed
items of change in Pod "D" from the original Pod "B"; i.e.,
changing the angle of the walls to give better sight lines into
cells and redesigning the central control officers' station to
make it a smaller room and cut the staffing positions needed,
personnel being one of the biggest costs. He advised they will
be utilizing the existing exercise yard and are proposing
revision to one quadrant of the pod so they can house more and
varied classifications of women within the same pod area.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the acoustical problem is solved
now, and Mr. Silver stated that it will be handled as they get
into the more finite designs.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the reason we had this problem in
the first place was due to a design defect.
Mr. Disney reported that he determined in going through the
original designs that the acoustics had been addressed, but then
in a cost-cutting measure, the sheet vinyl flooring was taken out
and we went to a concrete flooring which increased the bounce and
consequently the acoustic problem. Mr. Disney informed the Board
that the acoustic requirements under 33-8 are simply a statement
that says "normal to human habitation," and the D.O.C. could not
even define that for them. The acoustic controls in Phase 1 have
been adequate in other areas of similar facilities with the sheet
vinyl flooring.
Chairman Scurlock asked if that particular rule has been
challenged, or if it even is a rule?
Mr. Disney could not answer that. He agreed that there is a
noise problem, but that noise can be reduced by softer flooring,
and this is just one solution that was investigated and given to
Mr. Dean.
Mr. Silver commented re the acoustic question that it is his
understanding that a part of the cost of that retrofit was due to
the fact that they had to be operating within an occupied
31
L...I.LIPR 121988
Bou 72 FA E 31
facility. He believed if they include acoustic treatment within
the design for Pod "D", that cost will be significantly less.
Mr. Silver continued the presentation, and advised that they
are now providing about 3500 sq. ft. of storage area for the
inmates' personal property on the first and second floors
combined, and this is geared to total build -out and 1200 inmates.
Capt. Reese noted that this would also include storage of
other things such as jail uniforms, etc.
Mr. Silver stressed that we are building very inexpensive
space at this point; it is completely unfinished except for
whatever air handling is needed to control humidity. The
expansion of the clinic will keep the same traffic flow of
reception of the inmates at the nurse's station and will provide
4 exam/holding rooms and two inmate sick bays with provisions to
house four inmates. He then explained the traffic flow of inmate
processing that would result from building the new kitchen
facility and remodeling the old kitchen into a booking and pre-
" booking holding area, noting that they would utilize the existing
corridor as connector to the kitchen and they anticipate half the
new kitchen would be utilized now and part would be for dry goods
storage. This allows for buck storage.
Commissioner Wheeler did not see why this couldn't be
designed in such a way that we could utilize outdoor storage and
outdoor coolers rather than use up valuable indoor space, but Mr.
Silver noted that what we are talking about are walk-in coolers
and freezers and if they are not housed inside there would be a
security problem in that there will be inmates working in the
area. The D.O.C. requires that you have to have doors that are
mechanically or electrically secure if any inmate has access to
the room itself.
Capt. Reese noted that security doors are $15,000 apiece.
Mr. Silver then reviewed the plans for the second floor,
emphasizing the difference in size of the proposed pod control
room, which is to be manned by one person rather than two. He
AP's 121988
32
BOOK 72 PAGE 32
also talked about the provision for contact visitation and non -
contact visitation and controls.
Commissioner Eggert inquired about access for someone
visiting in a wheelchair and was advised that they would go by
the corridor to the central elevator.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if we approve this plan and
Frizzell goes ahead with the design and the county then pays them
for the design, who owns the plans?
Mr. Silver advised that the county will have as -built
documents, but legally the tracings belong to the professional.
The county would not be licensed or permitted to serve as an
architect or an engineer.
Chairman Scurlock believed there are some utility questions
that need to be addressed.
Utilities Director Pinto informed the Board that we are
experiencing a major problem with grease and all kind of things
coming through the utility system from the jail and are presently
in the design of putting in a grinder unit. If the plan includes
relocation of a kitchen, we do not want to install something that
could be circumvented by any plumbing changes. Director Pinto
noted that the original design did a nice job of putting in a
grease trap that was subsequently by-passed by the kitchen, and
he is concerned because the major problem in our Gifford system
now is that jail.
Mr. Disney advised that the problem of the grease trap was
brought to his attention about six months ago. He investigated
the schematics of the original document as well as the as -built
drawings, and it appears the installation by-passed the grease
trap in contradiction to the drawings. As he understood it,
this was because of a local Building Department requirement that
we "safe -waste" a particular sink. He believed this has been
corrected.
33
APR 12 1988
'h._
BOOK 72 ME. 33
Utilities Director Pinto stressed that we want to be very
sure that the location we have chosen for the grinder unit does
not conflict with anything that is planned..
Commissioner Bird asked if some of the kitchen equipment
will be relocated to the new kitchen when the existing kitchen
gets completely renovated to another use.
Mr. Silver stated that whatever is re -usable will be
salvaged, and he is meeting with his new kitchen consultant and
will go through the existing kitchen and begin this exact
determination.
Commissioner Bird asked if the existing kitchen is adequate
for what we now have, and Mr. Silver stated it is awfully tight.
Capt. Reese reported that it is not adequate. They can only
fit two pots on the stove at the same time - they have a boiler
that stays down about 60% of the time because of the ignition
system on it - there is a roller system for trays that they have
never been able to use. He believed the architects paid someone
to design the kitchen for them and it is a designer's nightmare.
Mr. Disney confirmed they did have someone design the
kitchen; they are not using that person any longer; and they
accept responsibility for that.
Discussion ensued at length regarding the need for adequate
planning for the future so we don't underbuild, and Commissioner
Bird believed we were advised two years ago that what was planned
was sufficient, and he would hope that in another five years
someone isn't going to be coming back and saying sorry, fellows,
we fouled up again.
Mr. Silver believed that if what they recommended in the
first place had been built, we wouldn't have ended up with these
situations.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board hired Frizzell
specifically because of their great knowledge of this particular
type of construction, but we have had many problems and he felt
34
APR 121988
BOOK .72 FACE 34
the architects have to take responsibility somewhere along the
line for some of these problems.
Commissioner Wheeler felt it is a two-way street. They said
the project requires 5 million dollars, and somebody said take 4
million and make it work.
Commissioner Bowman asked if Frizzell is saying they hired a
"cheapo" kitchen consultant because we cut the budget.
Mr. Disney commented that he is just saying they hired the
consultant and the information presented was reviewed; it was
installed; the kitchen does not work as intended; and they are
not using that consultant again.
Chairman Scurlock asked who paid for that, and Mr. Disney
stated that indirectly the county ended up paying for it.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know why we are paying for it
when we hired a professional to design the whole project.
Mr. Silver believed we need to look at the total scope of
this issue and wished to address this in the next agenda item as
a separate issue.
Discussion continued regarding the present kitchen being
totally inadequate, and Commissioner Eggert asked if what is
proposed for booking would remain adequate.
Capt. Reese noted that what is proposed will cover 1200
inmates, which should be adequate for some years to come;
however, he pointed out that they already are 300% off of their
earlier projections.
Commissioner Eggert noted that they don't have any booking
area there now; it is just done in the hall; and Capt. Reese
agreed and noted that actually they had a better booking system
at the old jail.
Commissioner Bird asked why that design is so bad, and Capt.
Reese advised that some areas were cut out of the original plan.
Chairman Scurlock felt that somewhere along the line someone
would have come back and told the Board that it is impossible to
do this based on the budget you have established. If that was
35
APR 121988
BOO! 72 PAGE 35
said, he was sure the Board would have addressed the problem;
however, the Commission was told that it can be done and it is a
great jail.
Lieut. Bill Baird, former Administrator of the Corrections
Division, informed the Board that when the final plans were made
after a year and a half of planning and the Commission set a
budget, Frizzell brought in the final design and made a presenta-
tion, explaining that all of your support services have been
sanforized to this point and the options you have are less jail
beds or more support services. We had already reduced the number
of jail beds by over 50; so, the decision was reached through
committee and in here that the best course we could have was to
compromise the support services - booking, medical, etc., and
reach as many jail beds as we possibly could which was 146.
This question arose again in Phase 11 where they questioned if
the kitchen would be adequate for that phase, and they reduced
the number of isolation cells from 13 down to 4.
Commissioner Eggert did not want to put any money in
anything thatgives our prisoners a more country club atmosphere,
but felt that we do need adequate facilities for staff and
support services.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that we can continue to go
over this and throw stones, but he was one of the original
members of the Jail Study Committee who were in favor of doing
the entire complex at one time, which at that time was projected
at a cost of around 12 million. He was opposed to cutting back
then, and he is opposed to cutting it back now since anything in
the future will cost us more.
Lieut. Baird noted that they were trying to design something
that was most staff efficient, but also would conserve space.
They could have got more space if they went into less staff
efficient designs, but the purpose was to try to minimize the
cost of staff.
APR 121988
36
BOOK 72 f',,GE 36
r
Further discussion ensued with the Board generally indi-
cating that they did not wish to cut down on the kitchen area
proposed, and Chairman Scurlock believed no vote was needed at
this point as Frizzell is just making a presentation.
Mr. Silver advised that Frizzell needs acceptance of the
scope of work and the Board's approval to proceed on to the next
phase.
Administrator Balczun confirmed that it was the Jail
Committee's original intent that they would be looking to the
Board for guidance for their approval of the plans to date, and
direction to the architect to proceed to the next step based on
those plans.
The Chairman felt the Board's feelings have been expressed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
proceeding with the next phase of carrying out the
schematics.
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS — PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT
The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Balczun:
37
APR 1988
BOOK 72 PACE 37
TO:Board of County Commissioner®ATE: April 6, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS, INC.
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO
CONTRACT
FROM. Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator REFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
In October, 1988 Indian River County entered into an agreement with
W.R. Frizzell Architects, Inc. for architectural services for IRC
Jail Phase III (second maximum security pod).
When that agreement was negotiated, it was determined that the
services of Thomas Pinkerton would be required for Phase III. Mr.
Pinkerton was involved as an architect on the Frizzell staff during
design of Phase II. He has since terminated his employment with
Frizzell and is now associated with a firm in Kansas City.
Additionally, the County experienced certain difficulties with
security related electronics equipment in the existing pod.
As a result of these two issues, contract amendments have been
proposed as follows:
.. SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (No. 1)
Deletes all references to the services of Mr. Pinkerton
in the current agreement in force.
.. SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (No. 2)
Provides for retaining the services of Buford Goff and
Associates for security engineering services. Total cost
of those services would be $36,000.
ANALYSIS
Pinkerton
Mr. Pinkerton has not participated in design activities to
date. Jail Committee members are of the opinion that his
services are not required as originally contemplated. Since
design activities are essentially completed, it is virtually
useless to continue that requirement in the agreement.
Buford Goff & Associates
This firm world provide professional design services for the
Phase III detention electronics system as well as analysis of
the existing system to insure they properly interface.
Specifically, Goff will provide the following:
Alarm Reporting Systems to include reporting of alarm
conditions other than those integrated into the security
hardware systems. For example, alarms associated with
the pharmacy, food service, records, and storage
facilities.
Closed Circuit Television to include internal and
external systems for security.
38
APR 121988
BOOK 72 PACE 38
Master Antenna Television Distribution System for phase
three addition only. Extension of the existing system
into the new facility is anticipated.
Public Address/Intercom Systems to support facility
functions.
Door Locking Control Systems to include logic
controllers, console control panels, relay control
panels, and conduit/wiring systems. Door hardware and
functional descriptions shall be provided by Frizzell or
its designated representative. Buford Goff & Associates,
Inc. shall be responsible for control circuits and
control panels to effect desired operational functions.
Consoles shall include design to house systems provided
under this section and shall provide coordination for
integrating security door control panels into the
console.
System Integration will include providing interface
points to existing security system installed in Phase
II.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve
both Supplemental Service Agreements and authorize the Chairman to
execute them.
Chairman Scurlock did not believe any discussion is needed
on the deletion of all references to the services of Mr.
Pinkerton. With regard to retaining the services of Buford Goff
and Associates, however, he noted that the Board hired Frizzell
for their expertise in building jails, and he would like them to
explain why they are recommending additional expertise be hired
at .a cost of $32,000 plus another 10% for them and also why we
did not do that in Phase I and Phase 11.
Dalas Disney explained that in Phases 1 and 11 what they did
was a normal approach to electronics in a jail - they provided a
performance type of specification which outlines what the piece
of electronic equipment is supposed to do. They did not
specifically design the individual components or pieces or parts
of that; that was left up to the detention electronics sub-
contractor, who is a party to the general contractor's contract
with the county. In Phases 1 and 11, they discovered that a
tremendous amount of time and energy was being spent by these
sub -contractors to get around any area that might seem at all
39
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 FACE 39
unclear in the performance specifications. Mr. Disney noted that
the $11,000 item Frizzell paid for was specifically that; they
feel that the county could have prevailed in having that
particular subcontractor provide the devices he was arguing
about, but at the time expediency was more important than
dollars, and to benefit the project and because there was a gray
area, Frizzell paid for that and got the components in there.
They had problems in Phase 11 in that the electronics contractor
simply requested clarification after clarification, delaying
until now we have a recommendation for $40,000 in final
liquidated damages.
Mr. Disney continued that in their current contract in Phase
111, they have exactly the same type of specification and what
they are suggesting is that they could do this design for the
actual components up front through a specialized consultant in
electronics, Buford Goff and Associates, a highly reputable
consulting firm from North Carolina, which firm has been in
business since 1969. The consultant would come in and speci-
fically design the electronic consoles and select the pieces and
parts the subcontractor is supposed to use. This would eliminate
the questions and give them to an extent a proprietary spec which
says the contractor must do this. Mr. Disney advised that
Frizzell feels a certain amount of this money they are asking the
county to spend is builtinto the contracts and is a hidden cost
because the design, which actually is done by the subcon-
tractors, now would be accomplished up front. He could not say
exactly what would be saved in construction costs but this would
certainly save a portion, and he believed would result in a
smoother flowing construction process since the county would have
an expert inthe electronics field who designs the system, deals
with the subcontractor, and checks during construction to verify
that everything that is supposed to be there is there.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the problem he is having is
that we hire the architect for their expertise, which includes
APR 121988
40
BM 72 FA GE 40
their professional staff and whatever consultants they may choose
(for example, the kitchen people); so, why do we have to pay an
additional cost to hire another expert. Frizzell didn't charge
extra for the kitchen consultant. He noted that he is not
saying we shouldn't do this, but he felt Frizzell should use the
consultant and not charge us.
Mr. Disney explained that Frizzell negotiated for a
performance specification and they will provide a performance
specification. They are not saying they won't do any of that;
they are just suggesting that if it goes the same route as Phase
II, and the contractor runs into problems which make the
construction process run lengthy, Frizzell will come back and ask
for the same thing they did on Phase I1.
Chairman Scurlock asked how many firms now specialize in
these type electronics, and Mr. Disney advised that Buford Goff
is the only one that he is aware of in the eastern United States.
Commissioner Eggert did not see why the architect needs
Buford Goff to write the specifications when they now know what
the mistakes were and what the gray areas were, and the Chairman
also did not see why it is necessary to go outside for expertise
now that we have been through the process and identified the
problems.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that an additional step
involved with this is to interface the electronics in all the
phases so they work together properly. While he also had a
question as to who should pay for this, he did think an
electronics specialist would be the way to go. Commissioner
Wheeler then reviewed the various problems we have encountered
during just one year of operation of the jail for which we have
had to spend about $10,000 for maintenance and repair and
believed it is obvious that having the subcontractor come in and
use whatever material they want, did not work well.
Commissioner Bird stated that he also probably would agree
that we need the services of Buford Goff, but his question is
APR 1988
ih.__
41
BOOK 72 Du 41
whether Frizzell should provide that as part of their agreement
with the county and why we have to take it a la carte and pay
extra.
Mr. Disney contended that cost will be offset by reduced
construction costs because the electronics bidder will not be
designing it and can offer you a package. The state of the art
is constantly changing.
Chairman Scurlock believed you cannot keep up totally with
state of the art, but you can find something that will provide
the function. He asked Lieut. Baird if all jails in the state
have electronics problems.
Lieut. Baird advised there are common problems, but it seems
some follow certain contractors and subcontractors. He,
therefore, believed we don't want those that try to put in the
cheapest things they can find which can result in high
maintenance costs.
Chairman Scurlock felt if the architect is going to tell us
he cannot do the specifications clearly enough to accomplish our
purpose without going out and acquiring these services for
$36,000, apparently we have no alternative.
Mr. Disney stated the architect can provide updated specifi-
cations, but they feet this alternative will do a better job
during construction and cause Tess problems, and he will not have
to come back to the Board and say the contractor impacted him and
he needs additional payment.
Commissioner Bird noted there is always the possibility
Buford Goff could be responsible for some mistakes, and then we
will just have another entity to point the finger at.
Mr. Disney clarified that Buford Goff would be a consultant
to Frizzell Architects. They carry liability insurance. The
county attorney could file suit against Frizzell, and they would,
in turn, go after Buford Goff to recoup the county's money.
Administrator Balczun advised that they discussed this in
the Jail Committee meeting, and the clear impression is that the
APR 12 1988
42
BOOK .72 PACE 42
safest course to follow would be the professional consultant,
recognizing that electronic experts essentially are employed in
two fashions - (a) independently and not associated with a
manufacturer, or (b) less than independently and associated with
a manufacturer. He felt the second alternative is clearly
unacceptable as we should not be hiring design services from
someone who is going to bid or sell us a system.
Discussion continued at length in regard to the various
services Buford Goff would offer, including checking to be sure
everything is in compliance, and the Board's feeling that if they
must pay extra for consultant services, there should be a deduction
from Frizzell's contract.
Commissioner Wheeler continued to emphasize the importance
of interfacing and integrating electronics in all three phases.
Commissioner Bird stated that if he felt comfortable we
really could see any kind of substantial deduction in Frizzell's
contract with us by adding this firm, he would be inclined to
support retaining Buford Goff and Associates, but he cannot see
paying $36,000 on top of Frizzell's fees, especially when he
looks on this as a part of their overall responsibility as an
architect.
Mr. Silver explained that on the first phase their fee was
based on a percentage of the cost of construction; now it is
based on a fixed percent fee for re -use of the documents and an
hourly fee for any other changes incorporated to that. It is
conceivable they could proceed with the same type of specifi-
cations as they did on Phases 1 and 11 without the services of
Buford Goff, and with the assurance during bidding that they
would have prequalified to be dealing only with subcontractors
they felt would be qualified to perform properly, but Mr. Silver
suggested that possibly the Board would like him to give a
qualification of how many hours he won't be putting into this job
if Buford Goff is the consultant.
APR 121988
43
BOOK 72 ME 43
It was felt that would be helpful, and the Chairman
suggested that this matter be tabled until the Board is provided
those hours.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled further
discussion on Frizzell's proposed contract adjustments
until information is provided as discussed.
Commissioner Bird left the meeting at 12:00 Noon.
FIVE YEAR TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (FY 87/91)
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following memo, noting
that the Comprehensive Plan requires this be updated annually:
APR 1 2 1988
44
BOOK 72 FACE 44
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DATE: March 24, 1988
DIVISION HEADS CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP IN K
Community Development DirecJBJECT:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
THROUGH: Gary Schindler
FR011iief, Long -Range Planning
Cheri J. Boudreaux
c
FILE:
FIVE-YEAR (FYS 1987-
1991) TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 12, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning and Public Works Departments have jointly prepared a
Five -Year Transportation Capital Improvements PEO -gram (TCIP) for
fiscal years 1987 through 1991. The proposed plan is a
short-term implementation of the County's 20 -Year Transportation
Capital Improvement Program. This 5 -Year plan is a revibisp to
the existing 2 -Year program (FYS 87-89) approved in February of
1987.
One objective of the proposed 5 -Year TCIP is to identify the
estimated costs and the anticipated revenues for transportation
capital improvements within the above mentioned five-year period.
Another objective of the proposed 5 -Year TCIP is to ensure that
traffic/roadway impact fees collected in individual benefit
districts are encumbered within six (6) to nine (9) years from
the date of receipt. This is to avoid the ordinance's
requirement which mandates the. return of all collected
unencumbered fees within the above stated time -frame.
The prioritizing of projects using justifiable criteria and
methodologies in order to allocate project funds is another
objective of the proposed 5 -Year TCIP.
On February 10, 1988, the Transportation Planning Committee
approved 7-0 the 5 -year TCIP.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In analyzing the estimated costs and the anticipated revenues for
the 5 -Year TCIP, projected local revenues were developed for
fiscal years 1987-1991 (see attachment #1). These projections
were based on actual County revenues collected in fiscal year
1986-87 and include traffic/roadway impact fees, local option gas
tax and state constitutional gas tax revenue.
According to these projections of anticipated local revenues and
estimated project costs, starting in fiscal year 1989-90, the
5 -Year TCIP indicates a total shortfall, of approximately four
and one-half (4z) million dollars. In order to balance costs and
revenues, the amount of revenue needs to be increased and/or
project expenditures reduced.
The proposed 5 -Year TCIP cash flow analysis estimates that
traffic/roadway impact fee revenue in all benefit districts,
except benefit district No. 3 in Sebastian, will be encumbered
through fiscal year 1991-92 (see attachment #2).
APR 121988
45 BO 72 EASE 45
Dist. 1
Dist. 2
Dist. 3
Dist. 4
Dist. 5
Dist. 6
Dist. 7
Dist. 8
Dist. 9
TOTALS
Notes:
All projects were prioritized using justifiable criteria and
methodology such as volume to capacity ratios and changes in
development activity. Projects were prioritized first .within
individual benefit districts and then on a county -wide basis.
RECOMMENDATION
The Transportation Planning Committee and the staff recommend
approval of the proposed 5 -Year Transportation Capital
Improvements Program as presented.
ROADWAY/TRAFFIC
IMPACT FEE
REVENUES
5 -YEAR PROJECTIONS
FY'86-87
ANNUAL EST.:
$227,551
246,656
596,357
232,937
81,719
100,846
9,634
208,749
11,158
$1,715,607
5 -YEAR EST.:
$1,137,755
1,233,280
2,981,785
1,164,685
408,595
504,230
48,170
1,043,748
55,790
$8,578,035
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
5 -YEAR LOCAL PROJECTED REVENUES
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FY's 1987-1991
State Constitutional Gas Tax
(80% of 5th and 6th cent)
Local Option Gas Tax
(6fi-67% to County)
Road Impact Fees
Total
Projected Local
Revenue
$3,833,2601
$8,728,7502
$8,578,0353
$21,140,045
1 Based on FY'86-87 revenues of $766,652
2 Based on FY'86-87 revenues of $1.,745,750
3 Based on FY'86-87 revenues of $1,715,607
APR 121988
ih,_
46
BOOK 72 PACE 46
Board members felt we had gone over this before, but Public
Works Director Davis explained that was the D.O.T. plan; this is
our local plan.
Director Keating did not think this has been brought to the
Board although it includes most of the projects they have seen
before. He advised that the advantage of this plan is that it is
broken down to show the benefitted districts and relates the cost
to the revenues and there is a prioritization of projects within
those districts and within the county as a whole.
Chairman Scurlock felt it looks good and noted that it went
to the Transportation Planning Committee and received their
approval as well as staff's.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the
Five Year Transportation Capital Improvements Program
as presented by staff.
Administrator Balczun wished to point out for the record
that some of the projects listed are completed or in progress.
COPY OF SAID PROGRAM WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD,
AS FOLLOWS:
47
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 FACE 47
Benefit
Project
ATTACHMENT #2
3tabas
0 of
amp.
]PD]AN RIVER aIMY
TPANSRIMTICN CAPITAL IMPRZVEMELES PICGRPM (KM
(5 YEAR-FYS 1987-1991)
Five Year Program
(cost in tha arcs
of cb lars)
FY
37-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
Sum of
5 -Year
pDj•
oasts
Estimbed
5 -Year
cost
PEr
B.D.
Jr" WAWSJ Aii0A)
%OSA4. pito grairepf AVOgieMV
(figures in $1,000)
Traffic ]1tL.ac L
Bee reverm lay
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
Balance
of 5 -Yr
Extat
aosts
allocated
minus
WE rev.
allocated
by mime
& arotmt
Per Ent.
PL
lienaining
balarne
of 5 -Yr
Izoj•
cost
all t
ion
unfunded
Irraude
cn 5 yr.
CJP.
yes/no)
Priaritix
B.D.
Wires &
replace
ly�rri 11
Barber
Bricom
A. 1-A
North
widening
WT Farling
foams- project
hi] i ty Pealing
study F.D.O.I.
D'
grg
AlA/C.R. 510 0%
(Inter. Inparv,)
0
0
1,553
1,553
500
$2,053
$1,138
$-915
638
500
0
915
0
$915
YES
YES
2
27
17
00,
CO
0,
C
Ba afit
District
Project
Status
% of
Carp.
Fie Year Ptuyr ciu
(oast in ex:m n is
of collars)
DOM RIVER QIN1Y
WEAL >rilPRA/EMIIIIE PFO3RAM tiuP)
(5 i R FYS 1987-1991)
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
Sun of
5 -Year
Pat.
oasts
E stirratsd
5 -Year
oast
PE'
B.D.
Traffic Inert
fea OfialLEby
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj . )
Balance Ibverre gaining
of 5 -yr allc:cabsd balance
project 1y same of 5 -yr
casts & anoint proj.
allomited per proj• oast
mins allocat
TLE' rev. ion
unfunial
Ober
Page 2
(figs in $1,000)
1/
cn5yr
CLP.
(les/no)
Priorities
(Rank)
B.D. Cbrmty
Widan
replace
]V('rri 11
Barber
Ps -1-A
Sazth of
S.R. 60
Waning
DOT Ftmdir�g
f- project
qty P xJ
study FDwT
En9rg 0°0
A -1-W Etst9
East
Caisanay
Blvd.
(Inter. Inlay.)
0
3,637
3,637
$4,137
$1,233
-$2,904
733
500
0
2,904
0
$2,904
YES
2 32
1
22
Befit
District
Project
Status
of
Gap.
IND12 RIVER OWN
ZRI TILN C PBAL Clue)
(5 1987-1991)
Five Year Progran
(oast in t hcusan`ls
of collars)
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
Stn of
5 -Year
Pct.
oasts
Ettineted
5 -Year
oust
Per
B.D.
Zrafric IIiI.a.O
Lc zek-aie by
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
of
Itjo
costs
allocated
Wilms
TIF rev.
ILmvenn
ally
Ly =tee
& arcur t
Pte' Pat
111
Other
Renainirr-
balance
of 5 -Yr
PDj
oust
alloost
ion
unfunded
Pap
(figures
1/:.
in $1,000)
B.D. Cc uziy
Wider &
replace
lrri 11
Barber
Bridge
3
Iat. "A" -
(66th Ave)
Schram Dr.
to C.R. 510
C.R. 512
Inprv. (U.S.
#1 to Rose-
land R1.)
C.R. 510/
66th Pve.
(Ililei. Inp.
'RIME
Dar Ftmding
f project
bility pending
study MOT
100%
100%
RW
lanstnrticn
(2 )
0%
C
150
200
O M
PLETE
1,000
(50% tot)
Phage 1
east half
1,000
(50% tot)
Phase
westtI
25
(25%
of
tot)
0
2,350
25
(25% of tnt)
$2,475
$2,982
$507
2,450
0
0
11)
(I:roject
caplets)
18
1
1
4
1
INDIAN RMV CIXNIY
'CCN CAPER, 1NX N! MAP)
(5 V P Fv5 1987-19911
Page 4
(figures in $1,000)
refit
strict
Project
Status
% of
Cbrp.
Five Year Prcgran
(oast in ti cusards
of d4]1ars)
Sim of
5 -Year
pzoj.
oasts
1E6-tinat8
5 -Year
oast
Traffic Inpact
fee reveae Ly
Balarre
of 5 -yr
project
oasts
allcca ed
Itverxe
alloxtsd
1y sarrroe
& aruu7t
per
pad.
1 mininc
balance
of 5 -yr
proj.
oast
a]J, at
1/88
IrrIrle
cn 5 yr.
Com.
(yes/no)
Priorities
(Rank)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
per
B.D.
B.D.
County
mints
TF ze,
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
W
90-91
FY
91-92
ion
unfurled
TIF
Otter
Merrill
Bather
Bridge
43rd Ave.
(45th St.
to 49th St,
ma zaadkay
4.1-d Ave/
41st St.
(Inter. InPay.)
431:4 Ave/
45th St.
(Milne.. Ir
WT
hurl
feasa-
hility study
RJR
Dant.
Design
Design
v.)
Biding
20
120
31
(32%
trot.)
3C
.
of
30
30
140
31
(33% of
tot.)
120
140
0
0
31
90
0
0
0
YES
31'5
1
3
3
6
8
19
project
Pending
75%
30%
0%
0%
Il\DIAN RIVER ctXMY
7FANEECEMIaV MP= IMERNEMENIS PR:GPM (ICIP)
(5 YEAR--FYS 1987-1991)
Page5
(figures in $1,000) NI
1/
qtr
DistricOpp.
Project
Status
% of
Five
(asst
of
Year Prcgran
in tha sands
Sun of
5 -Year
prof.
costs
Estinated
5 -Year
cost
Traffic 1[Ea:L
fee re ae by
8alanoe
of 5 -yr
project
oasts
Dais
allocated
by
& a
sa.rae
iwr t
poj.
Ran-al/11m
Mance
of 5 -yr
pro j .
cyst
allat-
acre
Inchre
cn 5 yr.
Com.
(yes/nn)
Pricirities
(R
collars)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
Per
B.D.
B.D.
Cbun y
allocated
minus
TIF rev.
per
unfunfed
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TIF
• . =Ii
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
INP'D...
Fidcart R3.
(77th St.)•
Const.
0 %
300
300
0
300
0
4
21
(66th Ave to
U.S. 1)
(Sec. Proj.)
4
Liniw RI.
100%
i 100%
(49th St.)
(58th Ave.
to U.S. 1)
=plebe
C OMPLETE
cue
NO
(Sec. Prof.
41st St.
(So. Gifford
Rd.)
RW
5%
50
(5G%o
tel)
f
150
(50%)
of tot.
0
150
0
YES
5
23
(58th Ave.
to U.S. 1)
Ct st.
100
(50% of
total.)
INT'D...
AEI
1
1
4
1
INDIAN RIVER QXNIY
CAPITAL IMPFCVENIENIS PRINM ('luo
(5 YEAR-FYS 1987-1991)
Page 6
(figures in $1,000) ►lp
1/
mat
Ihstrict
Project
Status
% of
Carp.
Five
(oast
of
Year Pxogran
in tIia r 3s
Sun of
5 -Year
proj.
oasts
E tinated
5 -Year
oast
Traffic Inpact
fee roman ty
Balsam
of 5 -yr
project
oasts
allocated
mins
TIE rev.
1tvaii
alaccated
Ly s urc
Iaraining
balance
of 5 -yr
proj.
cast
atlocat -
Irrluie
cn 5 Yr.
cap.
(yes/no)
adorities
(pmt)
_
cbllars)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
per
B.D.
& arcurrt .
per proj.
B.D.
atriy
arm
Infix -fed
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TIF
OLTec
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
45th St.
IAV
5%
90
2,430
1,025
1,405
0
SSS
2
9
(N. Gifford
Rd.)
(58th Ave.
to U.S. 1)
Cwt.
230
I.R. B1'd.
KW
20%
270
100
Nart-h PA.. -
Ph. 4
Ihrg.
0%
100
100
3,570
0
2,887
683
YES
26
(41st to
53rd St.)
C1xst.
0%
1,500
1,500
C.R. 510/
KW
0%
25
25
0
0
25
YES
29
66th Ave.
(250
(25% of
(Inter.
gyp.)
of
tot.)
tot.)
MLS
$6,766
1,165
$-5,576
$108
LJ
L7
Ck./
7
IADIPN RIVER QINIY Page 7
INNSFORM'ICN CAPITY1L ]MERVEMENIS PB;I] M ('IOP) (figures in $1,000) cite
(5 YEAR-F5S 1987-1991) 1/88
IFive
Benefit
District
Project
Status
% of
ar p.
(cost
of
Year Progran
Sim of
5 -Year
Put-
costs
fLtinRtsd
5 -Year
oast
Traffic inpECt
allecaiod
by source
& arcunt
per pmt.
balance
of 5 -yr
proj.
cost
al lrx t -
ion
tr funcied
n
P(R7
1-ir�
of 5 -yr
project
costs
allocated
mins
TIF rev.
in
collars)
fee by
cn 5 yr.ide
CIP.
(yes/no)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
per
B.D.
B.D.
aunty
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
TIP
Other
I
DIC'D...
M t r -i l l
MT
fund
feria-
bility
ftiy.
RR
anst.
FAV
Const.
Design
Osst./RW
Inp./ 0%
Airs
F1u-dirig
project
pending
ECT
25%
100%
100%
70%
1%
0%
0%
120
500
400
250
(50%
total)
5 (50
of 'got)
No
40
0
2,400
COMPLETE
of
% 371.5
(5
of
funding
•
37.5
(50%
tot) of tot)
allcoate5
0
3,460
250
(50% of
total)
80 (50% of
tot)
249 (1M)
•
409
0
0
3,05.
80
0
0
0
249(10%)
YES
ST
ND
arrpleim
Y
3
1
ft
7
13
ling
Bafosr
Br>e
I.R.Blvd.
nth
(S.R. 60 to
37th St.)
I.RB1i1.
Sazth
(17th St. to
12th St.)
12th St.
(Old Dixie
Hwy to I.R.
Blvd.)
(naw & fling)
43rd Ave/26th
St. (Int. Irp)
Brite Aoc.
S.R. 60 -Tray
carp.)
�
YES Ab
c.
IL
Project
District
CIIVr'D.. ,
43rd St./
41st St.
(Inter. Iniay.
1
5
1
12th St./
27th Ave
(Inter. ITT.)
41st St.
(58th Ave
to U.S. 1)
Stahl
% of
amp.
INDIAN RIVER QXNIY
CCN CAPITAL INS P} AM (eLP)
(5 YEAR -YS 1987-1991)
File Year Pmgran
(asst in ihards
of cbllars)
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
Stn of
5 -Year
rmcJ •
oasts
Traffic Inpact
fee Daae by
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
Page 8
(figures in $1,000)
1/.,.
Balance ane .
.Rsra:irrirrG Tm1�
of 5 -yr all tai balance cn 5 yr.
project by scums of 5 -yr Com.
costs & aiumt pet. (yes/rn)
al kcata Par poj • oast
minus a11t-
Ur' rev. ion
unfureed
TIF
Other
0
RJR
Const.
43rd / Cb:rPl-e6e
16th St. (Inter.
12th St./27th 0%
Ave. (Inter. Imo.)
37th St.
J.S. 1 to
I.R.B.)
(widening) 00
43rd Aue/12th
(Int. Inp. )
0
5%
10%
COM
1% 2.5
0% (25% of
50
(5M of
total)
PLET
18.7
(250 of
tot.)
31
(33% of
total)
50
(50% of
total)
100(50% of
total)
E
18.7
(25% of
tot.) tot.)
31
(33% of
total)
50
150
(50% of
total)
0
Carplete
40
(25% of tot)
$4,310
$-3,901
P.riaritiPs
(Rank)
B.D.
cb ty
31
50
150
40
0
0
0
0
0
249
YEE
YES
YES
ND
2
5 24
4 23
14
1
Is
1
I?DTAN 1 R UINNIY
TEMEORIATKII CAPIIAL DERWEMEIVIS PRX1?AM ('ICS)
(5 1987-1991)
Page 9
(figs in $1,000) C�
1/:.:
refit
strict
Project
Status
% of
Q-irp.
File
(oast
of
Year Pr jtan
Sun of
5 -Year
poj.
costs
Fhtimated
5 -Year
oast
Balance
of 5 -yr
project
ocsts
allocated
1bvenn
allccated
by sawce
& arcunt
per proj.
lisrainirx3
talar
of 5 -yr
ptoj.
oust
allocat
icn
tmum:ed
Ir hth
Pricocitiis
(Rank)
Traffic Ini_eL
fee ream Ly
cri 5 yr.
OP.
(mss/no)
in t1 ds
collars)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
B.D.
aunty
Per
B.D.
norms
TIP rev.
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TIF
Or
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
MealLl
Bauer
Bridge
(widen &
replace)
DJT
find
feria
Finding
project
pending
MR
YES
-
bility
stxxiy
I.R. Blvd
0
ND
Sirith
Ocrplete
100%
COMPLETE
Clete
(12th St.
to 4th St.)
8th Street
nae
(6th Ave to
90%
50
50
Y
(alncst
carte
I.R.B.)
20th Ave.
nae
0%
0%
150
100
250
0
250
0
YES
6
12
(Cs1.o R3. to
17th St. SW)
43rd Ave/8th
Design
1%
5
37.5
37.5
80
0
80
0
1
15
St. (Int.
anst./I+1
0%
(50 of
(50%
of (50% of
(50% of
Inp.)
tot.)
tot.
I tot.)
teat.)
NI'D...
LCD
w
1
1
INDIAN RIMER QII IY
7:RANI:CRIPM1V CGPTAL IlMFICVEMENTIS PFCGRPM (MP)
(5 YEAR-FYS 1987-1991)
Page 10
(figs in $1,000)
v: ►fJ
refit
strict
Project
Stats
% of
Cep.
Five Year Program
(oast in marls
of dollars)
Sun of
5 -Year
£roj •
costs
Estinatsd
5 -Year-
cost
Balance
of �'
project
costs
Rewrite
allcx'.ated
by
& anctmt
per
mime
IBJ•
� �
Marne
of 5 -yr
pLoj.
cost
ally t
Trrml� ria
Priorities
cak
Traffic In Ea.;
fee reverie �'
rn 5 yr.
CIP.
(yes/no)
B.D.
(5 Th. Proj.)
per
B.D.
B.D.
W.iny
allomrbsd
minus
'IIF rev.
icon
unfurned
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TgFer
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
VD...
•
12th St.
(Old Dixie
RIA7
100%
250
(50% of
YES
almost
1
1
Fly Hwy tri I.RB)
(flaw & widening)
Clot.
70%
250
(50% of
total)
corp.)
tot.)
8th St rLel
(Old Dixie
to U.S. 1)
widening
Clcnplete
100%
C 0
M P
L E T E
NO
anpleta
6th Ave
Cwt.
95%
10
10
YES
1
1
(12th St.
to 8th St.)
widening
s
dalnrst
oonp. )
12th St./0%
0%
50
50
0
50
0
YES
a 24
27th Ave.
(Inter. gyp.)
(50% cd
total)
(500 of
total)
Old Dixie/
CXrrplete
100%
COMPLETE
Nu
8th St.
0
Ocaplete
(InbEr. gyp.)
qI"D.. .
00
CO
1
1
6
II\DTAN RIVER =C
`IRAl iTICN CAPITAL 1lvERNEMENTIS PRAM (Kai)
(5 YEAR -'YS 1987-1991)
Page ll
(fides in $1,000)
1/:.
refit
strictstrictClap.p.
Project
Status
% of
The
(cost
of
Year Pzcgran
in the sands
Sun of
5 -Year
Proj-
oasts
E i
5 -Year
oast
Traffic Inge`;(.
fee re�a�Ransil-ringIi
�
Balance
5 -yr
eject
oasts
allocated.
minus
TIF rev.
Itmantm
alLocai�ed
balance
Pric�ritiess
(1�
rn 5 5 yyrr.
Com.
(yes/no)
clo]1z-n^s)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
by source
& arar&
per Fit
of 5 -yr
proj.
cost
per
B.D.
B.D.
aunty
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
al lc atm
ion
TIF
f?H
unfunded
r
Old Dixie/
4th St.
(Inter. Inp.)
4th St./
27th Ave.
(Inter. Inp.)
443rd Ave/
C 10 W1.
RW
Cwt.
Oarplete
RW
Clot.
RW
Ocnst.
RW
Ckrist.
Cwt.
RW
Clot.
200
100%
00
00
50%
50%
50120
70
120
20
120
50
1.50
25
75
(500 of
-tot.)
0
100
(50% of tot)
200
120
140
44
0
0
120
140
76
0
200
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
ins
NO
Oarplete
YES
4
11
10
2
3
4
31
25
2
3
(Inter. Inp.)
Oslo 111./27th
Ave.
(Inkier. Inp.)
Oslo 111./U.E.
#1 (Inter. hp.)
27th Ale/8d-
St.
(Inter. Inp.)
1
1
6
1
INDIAN RIVER O3;NIY
(5 YE2 R-FY.S 1987-i991)
Page 12
(figures in $1,000)
1/:.: 09
mat
strict
C
Project
Statxs
% of
Cep.
Five Year Pr:gran
(oust in marls
of collars)
Sun of
5 -Year
Ext-
accts
Estimated
5 -Year
ccst
Traffic I1LpacL
fee remen..e�
Balance
of 5 -yr
project
costs
ReviermI
allocatna
by saurus
& atunt
per Ito:.
initt
balance
of 5 -yr
proj.
cost
allocat
ion
7rrltx?e
rn 5 yr.
Ci0?.
(yo/no)
Priorities
�)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
per
B.D.
B.D.
Oamby
alioc ated
miters
TIF rev.
tuiftxr7ed
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TIF
Oflickr
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
VD...
1�LereS.
RW
-640
140
0
14)
0
YE5
7
.10
(20th to 27th
(Inst.
60
40
Ave.)
17th St. SW
Eixgg.
00
200
200
0
0
.00
YES 12
34
(43rd Ace to
U.S. #1)
4th SLceL
Const.
50%
200
200
200
0
0
YES
5
5
(Old Dixie
Hwy to U.S. 1)
widening
20t -h Ave/8th
St. (Inter.
lap.)
RW
artist.
Do
20
150
170
0
17,1
0
8
ll
43rd Ave/12th
Design
1%
25
40
0
-r
' 0
L.
14
St. (Int.
Ccrist./%W
0%
(25%
18.7
18.7
(25% of
Inp.)
of tot)
(25%
(25%
of
t
of tat.)
tot.:
MIS
$2,120
$504 $-
,716
MO
1
1
INDIAN RIVER MNIY
CAPISM DIPRZVEvENIS PR WM (DP)
(5YEAR-EM 1987-1991)
Paft 13
(figures in $1,000)
J.,
Fig Year Progran
Sun of
mated
Traffic ItCpact
refit
Project
Status
% of
(cost
in t)
5 -Year
5 --Year
fee
Balanoe
g Tmltrl�
Priorities
strict
of rbllars)
lmrj.
cost
r J y
of 5 -yr
project
allocated
by source
Nance
of 5 -yr
a 5 yr.
CP.
Oink.)Garp.
B.D.
coals
per
(5 Yr. Proj .)
costs
& avant
proj .
(I,es/no)
B.D.
County
B.D.
allocated.
minus
TIE' rev.
Per' proj.
cost
allc at
ion
unfunfed
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
'BF
Other
Merrill
Barber
Bridge
Lateral "A"
WT
fturl
fcos.
sb
anplete
FLurlirx7
project
pending
FWP
100%
C O
.
M P L
E T E
ND
(Schu ann Dr.
to C.R. 510)
biplefe
Vero Lake
Estates
Oast.
0%
30
90
60
180
48
132
0
YES
1
20
EI
87th St.
Paving
101st Ave.
(C.R. 510
to 87th St.)
0%
0%
60
60
120
0
0
120
YES
2
33
C.R. 510/66ti
Are. (Inter.
KIR
0%50
(50% of
50
(50% of
0
0
50
YES
29
Intiv.)
tat)
tot)
ALS
$350
$48
$-302
$170
IDDIPN RIVER COMITY
CCN MIMIC IMPFCX/ElvENIS P1R X M
(5 3FY5 1987-1991)
Page 14
(figures in $1,000) T°-4
1/
cel
0
m
CO
00
0,
GNI
Cd
♦
Five Year Progran
Sun of
Estimated
Traffic Irrpact
Balance
leverRE
Paredning
Irr1
Priorities
Benefit
Project
Status
% of
(cost in ids
5 -Year
5 -Year
fee =Ileum }y,
of 5 -yr
dance
ai 5 yr.
(Rei k)
allrxate l
Dista± t
Carp.
of collars)
prof.
asst
B.D.
project
by mime
of 5 -yr
CP.
costs
Per
(5 Yr. Proj.)
assts
& amort
3j.
(yes/no)
B.D.
aunty
B.D.
'oar proj.
oest
allcoabed
minus
allaca
TIF rev.
—len
tmitmded
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
T F
pts
97-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
Mmrill l l
Barber
Bricip
DUI'
fiord
feas.
sbxly
Banding
project
rending
MGT
431d Ave./
0%
0%
31
31
31
0
0
YES
1
8
41st St.
(33% of
(330 of
(Inter. Irrp.)
total)
trstal)
58th Ave/S.R.
60 (Inter.
100%
C 0
M P
L E T E
M)
maple
Ocrplete
Inp.)
26th St.
0%
0%
400
400
0
0
400
YES
4
28
(58th Ae to
82nd Ave
(Sec. Inp. )
16th St.
0%
0%
1,099
1,099
0
0
1,099
IES
3
30
(82nd Ave to
58th Ave)
(Sec. Inp. )
cNT'D.. .
cel
0
m
CO
00
0,
GNI
Cd
1
1
8
INDIAN RIMER Q.UNIY
'INANSFCRIAMI CAP PPRMMENTIS PR:GRAM ciciP)
(5 YR—S 1987-]991)
P 15
(figures in $1,000) G
refit
strict
Project
Status
% of
O irp.
Five
(oast
of
Year Progran
Sari of
5r -Year
prcj.
oasts
Estinatsd
5 -Year
cost
Traffic bract
fee reverie by
Balance
of 5 -yr
project
oasts&
allcxat t.
&wan
aLlo abzd
RErrainirr:
balance
j, w
Incline
on 5
CIf'. �
(yes/no)
Priorities
••.-
C�
in t1xx ands
obllars)
B.D.
(5 Yr. Proj.)
by san:ae
arcunt
per
IBJ.
of 5 -yr
prof.
Gast
allot
icn
unfurled
per
B.D.
B.D.
--
o
o
FY
87-88
FY
88-89
FY
89-90
FY
90-91
FY
91-92
nine
'ilk' rev.
TJF
Other
41"D...
43rd/12th
St. (Int.
IT.)
98th AW
(S.R. 60 to
12th St.)Ccuplete
(Sec. Irrp. )
43rd /
16th St.
Design
1%
100 %
100%
0 %
1%
0 %
2.5
(25%
tot)
5
(50%
of tot)
18.7
of (25% of
tot)
COMPLETE
C 0
].50
37.5
(50%
tot)
18.7
(25% of
tot)
M P L
500
37.5
(50%
tot)C
2 T E
500C
40
(25% of
tot)
0
1,750
80
50 % of tot)
$3,400
$1,044
$-2,356-
40
893
8 0
0
857
C
0
0
0
$1,599
YES
ND
1D
Oorpletie
YES
1
14
2 16
C
1 13
C
Ct st./l W
Oorplete
Oxrplete
Engrg. g.
RW
Cant.
Design
Cast. /Ra'/1
eL
(Iut. Inp.)
58th Ave
(S.R. 60 to
12th St.)
(rekcaticn/
wicbnirg) (1 iri.)
43rd 24./e/26t1
St. (Int. Inp)
c
1
9
1
INM N RIVER C NIY
IMERVBENIS PRO:PPM Mal
(5 1987-1991)
Page 16
(figures in $1,000)
1/
refit
strict
Project
Status
% of
Carp.
Five Year Prean
(oast in ids
of collars)
Sim of
5 -Year
gmj.
oasis
'Traffic inpact
Berne
of 5 -yr
project
oasts
allomted
nomas
TT rev.
Etverue
�-
braining
Marne
of 5 -yr
proj.
oast
a1looat
ion
mucce
rn 5 yr.
CUP.
(yes/no)
Priorities
(Fanl�
F tinated
5 -Year
acct
f� xanby
B.D.
(5 Yr. Frt.)
by sours
& a za nt .
Fer Iroj •
per
B.D.
B.D.
Carty
unfunded
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TIF
Other
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
43rd /Oso
ItW
0%
25
100
0
0
100
MES4
31
RL (Li. Inp)
Oast.
0%
75
(50% of Int)
50% of
Prri l
COT
fund
Baas.
study
Ftindinc
project
pen:l-inq
FWP
Behr
Bridge
58th Ae•
Engrg.
150
0
2,35(
0
YES
3
16
(12th St. to
Const.
800
800
2,350
Oslo Pd.)
R W
600
(2i Mi.)
4.1-d Pus/
Design
1%
2.5
40
40
0
0YES
1
14
12th St.
t./RW
0%
(25%
18.7
18.7
(25% of tot.)
(Int. Inp)
of tn)
(25%
(25%
tot)
43rd. Ave/
Tlign
1%
5
80
16
64
0
i S
2
15
8th St.
Oarrst. /V
(5CP0
37.5
37.5
(50% of
(Int. bp.)
of tat
(50%
(50%
tot)
tot) tot)
IALS
$2,570
$56
$-2,414
$100
MASTER STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT W/CITY OF VERO BEACH
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following, noting that
the attachments to the Resolution will constitute the actual
forms we will use when the Board approves installation of street
lights:
TO: Charles Balczun - County Administrator
FROM:&3&- t William G. Collins - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: April 5, 1988
SUBJECT: Master Street Lighting Agreement with the City of
Vero Beach
Please find attached a Resolution approving as to form
a Governmental Street Lighting Agreement with the City of
Vero Beach, Florida which also provides for authorization
for the County Administrator or the Public Works Director as
his designee to execute modifications or additions to the
street lighting services provided by the City of Vero Beach.
This Resolution adopting a standard Street Lighting
Agreement has been requested by the City of Vero Beach. The
City of Vero Beach will utilize this form of agreement to
provide street lighting to the County in such areas as
Indian River Boulevard, the Moorings, Floralton Beach, and
other areas upon request.
Any additions to the street lighting services to be
provided by the City will henceforth be handled simply by a
request in the form of Exhibit B or Exhibit C to the
Agreement. For example, if the Tropic Villas Home Owners
Association requests a street light to be placed at the
entrance to their subdivision, the County could request such
service from the City by executing Exhibit C and specifying
the service desired. The City. would bill the County for the
services provided and the County would enter into an
Agreement with the Tropic Villas Home Owners Association
whereby they agreed to honor the bill which we would pass
through to them subject to all the terms and conditions of
the Master Agreement.
The rate schedule for services as set out in Exhibit A
to the Agreement would be subject to modification after
tariff hearings, duly advertised and approved by the Public
Service Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolu-
tion 88-23, approving a governmental street lighting
agreement with the City of Vero Beach.
APR 12 1988
48
800K 72 PCE 64
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 23
•
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY APPROVING
A GOVERNMENTAL STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FLORIDA, AND
PROVIDING FOR AUTHORIZATION OF OFFICIALS TO
EXECUTE MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is desirous of obtaining
electrical energy necessary for the operation of street
lighting systems within Indian River County, and such other
services including installation and removal and maintenance
of street lighting systems; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach is desirous of
furnishing electrical energy necessary for the operation of
street lighting systems and other services including
installation, removal and maintenance of street lighting
systems; and
WHEREAS, the parties have developed a Master
Governmental Street Lighting Agreement whereby the County
may purchase and the city will provide such electrical
energy for street lighting systems; and
WHEREAS,. the Agreement provides for a simplified method
of mpd.ification and/or
replacement
of street fighting
systems; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for a simplified
method of request for removal and/or addition of facilities
to the existing street lighting system;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Master Governmental Street Lighting Agreement
attached hereto between Indian River County and the City of
Vero Beach is hereby approved.
2. The County Administrator or the Public Works
Director as his designee may by their signatures execute any
"Request for Modification and/or Replacement of Street
Lighting Systems," as shown in Exhibit "B" to this
Agreement, or execute any "Request for Removal and/or
Addition of Facilities," as shown in Exhibit "C" of this
Street Lighting Agreement.
49
APR 121988
BOOK 72 FACE 65
The foregoing
Eggert
was seconded by
resolution was offered by Commissioner
who moved its adoption. The motion
Commissioner Bowman
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C.
Vice- Chairman
Commissioner Ri
Commissioner Ma
Commissioner Ca
The chairman thereupon
passed and adopted
1988.
Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
chard N. Bird
rgaret C. Bowman
rolyn K. Eggert
and,
Aye
Aye
Aye
�y e
--Aye
declared the resolution duly
this 12th day of April
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Don C. cu
Chairman
ORIGINAL RESOLUTION WITH ATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO
THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
BID #410 - SUPPLY & INSTALL FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following:
TO: CHARLES BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: '% `//*-1/
FROM: LER,tC.P.M.
PURCHASING MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 4, 1988
1
FILE:
SUBJECT: SUPPLY AND INSTALL
FIRE EXTINGUISHING
SYSTEM BID 410
PREFERENCES:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
BIDS WERE RECEIVED WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16TH, 1988, AT 2:00 P.M.
FOR IRC BID 4410.
APR 12 1986
50
BOOK 72 FACE 66
13 INVITATIONS TO BID WERE SENT OUT. 5 BIDS WERE RECEIVED
INCLUDING 3 NO BIDS.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
THE LOW BID MEETING SPECIFICATIONS WAS SUBMITTED BY A.A. FIRE
EQUIPMENT FOR THE PRICE OF $10666.00 INCLUDING A COMPLETE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND ADDITIONAL CONDUIT LINE. THIS BI
IS ABOVE THE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF $5500.00 RECEIVED BY SO(
DEAN AS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR.
THE CONTRACTOR WHO ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED THIS JOB (ALL AMERICAN
FIRE AND SAFETY) DIDN'T BID DURING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCEDURE.
WE HAVE CALLED HIM AND ASKED WHY HE DIDN'T BID. HE SAID,
"HE WAS UNABLE TO MEET THE COUNTY'S MINIMUM INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE FORMAL BID."
THERE ARE TWO CHOICES:
A).ACCEPT THE LOW BID FROM A.A. FIRE EQUIPMENT AS IT STANDS AND
PROCEED WITH THE JOB.
B).REBID WITHOUT OUR MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT INSURANCE NOT BE WAIVED FOR THIS PROJECT
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS SYSTEM AND BECAUSE OF THE
WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE WORK SITE. THIS SYSTEM MUST BE
INSTALLED ON TOP OF A ROOF OVER THE GAS PUMPS. IF THE SYSTEM
FAILS TO WORK IN THE FUTURE AS A RESULT OF AN INSTALLATION
PROBLEM AND FIRE RESULTS IN DAMAGES TO THE COUNTY A PROPERLY
INSURED CONTRACTOR IS A NECESSITY.
AWARD SHOULD BE MADE TO THE LOW RESPONSIVE BIDDER WHO IS FULLY
INSURED.
BUDGETARY FUNDING HAS BEEN CONFIRMED FOR EXPENDITURE FROM
SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FUND
STAFF REQUESTS AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that even though All American
Fire and Safety apparently are unable to meet our minimum
insurance requirements, they are state certified. He wished to
know what the other vendor has that is worth $5,000 more.
Administrator Balczun advised that our recommended minimum
on property damage liability for other than automobiles is
$500,000 for each accident and one million in the aggregate. All
American has only $50,000 coverage per accident. They also do
not have XEU property damage liability (explosion, collapse and
underground damage) nor do they have any indemnification rider or
fire and extended coverage insurance; there are some very
substantial differences.
Considerable debate followed as to whether or not to waive
the insurance requirements, with the Administrator emphasizing
51
APR 12 1988
BOOK 72 "F'AGE 67
that he could not recommend the county save $5,000 when it is
possible we could be sued for unknown amounts. Considerable
discussion followed as to just how much liability the county
actually would have.
Administrator Balczun informed the Board that there is
another issue since the low bidder being discussed is a proposal
that was submitted subsequent to the bid opening.
The Chairman asked the Purchasing Manager whether All
American submitted a proposal prior to or after the bid opening,
and Mr. Ambler advised that this company did not bid during the
formal bidding procedure; they submitted an estimate.
Commissioner Eggert believed that if someone submits an
estimate, the procedure then is that you send them a formal bid
proposal. She stated that an estimate is invalid as far as she
was concerned.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed and did not see why the Board is
even discussing this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #410
to the Low bidder A.A. Fire Equipment in the amount
of $10,666 as recommended by staff per the following
Bid Tabulation:
5 2 BOOK 72 FACE 68
APR 1 2 198
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
I)
n\)
hSk�
0 �j
��
p��
f
lC
..
\
•.
V
�u
/��
r `(
•
,�
X
BID NO.
IRC BID 0410
DATE OF OPENING
March 16, 1988
BID TITLE SUPPLY & INSTALL FIRE
EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
Supply and install Fire
ii0p
�/
4J31.
g
a%
NAS
Wo D
dExtinguishing
System, as per
Aid cpPrifiratinue.
1 Lot
2. Installation of New Conduit ''I..•.
Q�
v
CO
1000
i
Line (Option) 1 Lot
3. Construction shall start:
a)
• ,•
44/e
(30 Days ARO Maximum) Date
:,
'
`
•
4. Construction shall be completed:
(00
4//</
(60 Days Maximum) Date
tF
5. Complete Parts and Maintenance
13_26-1:1
e
,%, `3 Agreement after Warranty:
•'.
,
a
w
"
Per Year Cost`
REQUEST FOR WAIVER FLOOD PLAIN DISPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT - OYSTER
BAY SUBDV.
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works:
53
APR 1988
BOY
69
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directoz�--�1�"'
FROM: David B. Cox C.
Drainage Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver Flood Plain Displacement
Requirement Ordinance 87-12
Oyster Bay Subdivision
REF LETTER: Letter from Lloyd & Assoc. to
Indian River County dated March 29, 1988
DATE: March 30, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Lloyd & Associates on behalf of the developer of Oyster Bay
Subdivision is requesting a waiver of the "Cut and Fill" balance
requirement of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance. Oyster Bay Subdivision received preliminary plat
approval October 8, 1987 and is located between SR A1A and the
Indian River 0.1 mile south of Seminole Shores Subdivision.
The Engineer for the project states 15,000 cubic yards of fill
would be placed below elevation 4.0 ft. within the 100 year flood
plain of the Indian River.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the Indian River in this location is an estuarine environ-
ment, and the project engineer has stated that all other design
requirements of Ordinance 87-12 will be met and that the result-
ing rise of the water level in the river will be minor, staff has
no objection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a waiver to the flood displacement require-
ment be granted to Oyster Bay Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted a
waiver of the flood displacement requirement to
Oyster Bay Subdivision.
54
APS 12 1988
ih._
OF 72 PACE 70
PROPOSALS BY COOPERS AND LYBRAND FOR DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND
HARDWARE NEEDS OF THE UTILITIES DEPT.
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following:
TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUNDATE: MARCH 29, 1988
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO IP/.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTONY'
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 6F UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE NEEDS
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
•
BACKGROUND
Indian River County Utilities has experienced tremendous growth over
the last few years and, as we expand with the many projects under way,
we need to look at our financial, accounting, and data processing
needs.
The County's auditing firm, Coopers and Lybrand, Certified Public
Accountants, were asked for proposals to define the needs of the
Department of Utility Services. Attached are the proposals from
Coopers and Lybrand, which include a credit for forty (40) hours of
consulting services under our audit contract.
ANALYSIS
The proposals from Coopers and Lybrand are to cover two areas of
concern for future needs of Utilities:
1. Customer billing and information system not to exceed
$30,000.
2. Financial Projection System not to exceed $50,000, less the
credits for the forty (40) hours of additional services from
Indian River County's audit contract.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends to the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the two proposals for services from Coopers &
Lybrand with funding from the Utilities budgeted line items for water
and sewer - Other Contracted Services: 471-218-536-033.49 and
471-219-536-033.49, after the credit for the forty (40) hours of time.
Director Pinto stressed that what they are trying to buy
here is one of the most important pieces of software they can
have in utilities. For instance, if we are considering
acquisition of a utility, we can make sure that cost is applied
directly to the revenue stream that is coming from it. We can
APR 121999
55
BOOK 72 OCE 71
even plug in the cost of painting a water tower and determine its
effect on the annual budget, whether a rate increase might be
called for, what it is going to do to our rate structure over the
next 20 years, etc.
Director Pinto advised that another very important thing is
that the system itself doesn't know if you are talking about
utilities or not, and it can be used in many other areas in the
same format to preduct what your operating expenses will do to
your rate structures. He stated that he could not recommend too
highly that we proceed with these systems.
Chairman Scurlock believed we then would end up with an
independent billing system as well as a capital project tracking
system.
Director Pinto stated that it will not necessarily be an
independent billing system. This will take a look at what we are
doing now and make recommendations on what we need to do to
establish a more streamlined billing system. We will end up with
something that will either utilize what we have or request
another way to go.
Chairman Scurlock commented that actually there is 40 hours
of Coopers & Lybrand's time from last year and 40 hour from this,
but whether the Administrator wants to allocate all 80 hours to
this particular project, he did not know.
Director Pinto indicated that he certainly would lobby for
the use of those hours.
APR 121988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the
two proposals for services from Coopers & Lybrand as
recommended by staff in memo dated March 29, 1988.
56 BOOK 72 PACE 72
ADDENDUM 1 TO
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as
"County", and Coopers & Lybrand, Certified Public Accountants, a
partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida,
agree to this Addendum to the Agreement for Professional Services
entered into by the County and Coopers & Lybrand on July 21,
1987, as follows:
Section 6 of the Agreement for Professional Services states that
the County may request other additional services under the
agreement including, but not limited to, general utility
management consulting, EDP related consulting, actuarial and
employee benefits consulting, and construction cost containment.
On December 11, 1987, Coopers & Lybrand submitted a proposal to
the County to provide EDP related consulting services to assist
with the selection and implementation of a new customer billing
and information system. The proposal highlighted the approach to
the engagement, presented the experience of Coopers & Lybrand and
its personnel in performing engagements of, this kind, and
outlined the anticipated time requirements and fees. The County,
after reviewing the proposal, has decided to proceed with Phase I
of the engagement, as described in the proposal.
Therefore, under this Addendum to the Agreement for Professional
Services, Coopers & Lybrand agrees to provide the County with the
services described under Phase I of the proposal dated December
11, 1987, a copy of which is attached to this Addendum. This
work willbegin within four weeks after execution of this
Addendum and will be concluded within six months after execution
of this Addendum. The fees for this work will not exceed $25,000
plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $5,000. Fees will be
billed at the hourly ".rates of $170 for Partner, $140 for
Director, 4120 for Manager, and $90 for Consultant. Invoices
will be/submitted. the first week of each month for all work
performed during the previous month. Payment will be expected
within thirty days -of submission of each invoice.
In accordance with Section 7 of the Agreement for Professional
Services, Coopers & Lybrand will provide under this Addendum ten
of the forty hours of professional consulting services for fiscal
year 1988, at no charge. This ten hours will be deducted from
the invoices submitted under this Addendum.
COOPERS & LYBRAND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Dated: /;/,1-4/
4PR 12 1988
57
i
BOOK .72 OGE '73
r
ADDENDUM 2 TO
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Indian River County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as
"County", and Coopers & Lybrand, Certified Public Accountants, a
partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida,
agree to this Addendum to the Agreement for Professional Services
entered into by the County and Coopers & Lybrand on July 21,
1987, as follows:
Section 6 of the Agreement for Professional Services states that
the County may request other additional services under the
agreement including, but not limited to, general utility
management consulting, EDP related consulting, actuarial and
employee benefits consulting, and construction cost containment.
On November 19, 1987, Coopers & Lybrand submitted a proposal to
the County to provide utility management consulting services to
develop a long-term financial plan with the assistance of the
Strategic Financial Planning System (SFPS). As part of this
engagement, Coopers & Lybrand will customize the SFPS software
for the County and train County staff in its use. The proposal
highlighted the approach to the engagement, presented the
experience of Coopers & Lybrand and its personnel in performing
engagements of this kind, and outlined the anticipated time
requirements and fees. The County, after reviewing the proposal,
has decided to proceed with the engagement, as described in the
proposal.
Therefore, under this Addendum to the Agreement for Professional
Services, Coopers & Lybrand agrees to provide the County with the
services described in the proposal dated November 19, 1987, a
copy of which is attached to this Addendum. This work will begin
within four weeks after execution of this Addendum and will be
concluded within six months after execution of this Addendum.
The fees :for this work will not exceed $45,000 plus out-of-pocket
expenses -'not to exceed $5,000. Fees will be billed at the hourly
rates of $170 for Partner, $140 for Director, $120 for Manager,
and $90 for Consultant. Invoices will be submitted the first
week of each month for all work performed during the previous
month. Payment will be expected within thirty days of submission
of each invoice.
In accordance with Section 7 of the Agreement for Professional
Services, Coopers & Lybrand will provide under this Addendum
thirty of the forty hours of professional consulting services for
fiscal year 1988, at no charge. This thirty hours will be
deducted from the invoices submitted under this Addendum.
COOPERS & LYBRAND
t4e,j\,L
1 s2/.'•, t//
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved: April 124r1988
27
ORIGINAL ADDENDUMS 1 & 2 WITH ATTACHMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE
APR 12 1988
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
58
BOOK 72 F'A;E 74
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE FOR ENGINEERING
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following:
TO : CHARLES P. BALCZUN
: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT : TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE FOR ENGINEERING
DATE : APRIL 5, 1988
We have been notified by the Engineering Division that clerical
employee Becky Farquer will be on a medical leave of absence for
a period of six weeks beginning April 18, 1988. The office has
requested that a temporary employee be secured for the period of
Ms. Farquer's absence.
I recommended that we petition the Board of County Commissioners
to allow the hiring of a temporary Clerk for the Engineering
Division. The maximum period authorized for the temporary would
be for up to six weeks. The temporary assignment would not last
beyond May 27, 1988.
Funds to pay the temporary person are available in Engineering's
personal services budget category through salary savings.
m. A. rBlankenship, J
Director of Personnel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the
hiring of a temporary Clerk for the Engineering
Division as described above.
SECURITY GUARD/NIGHT WATCHMAN AT R&B COMPLEX
The Board reviewed memo from the Personnel Director:
APR 121988
59
BOOK 72 fa,CE 75
TO : CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT : SECURITY GUARD/NIGHT WATCHMAN
DATE : APRIL 5, 1988
Public Works Director James W. Davis has requested that we create
a position of Security Guard/Night Watchman for assignment at the
County Road and Bridge complex. He is joined in this request by
Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson.
As Mr. Davis indicates in the attached correspondence, there have
been a number of thefts at the complex. Mrs. Robinson has some
concern over the integrity of voting equipment stored there. As
she points out, there are no alternatives should her equipment be
stolen or vandalized.
I recommended that we petition the Board of County Commissioners
for authorization to create a full time position for the balance
of fiscal year 1987-88. The position would be funded in the Road
and Bridge budget. It would not require a budget adjustment due
to accrued salary savings.
Wb. A. B -n enship, J /J EP
Directo of Personnel
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve the request to create
a position of Security Guard/Night Watchman as rec-
ommended by staff.
Chairman Scurlock and Commissioner Wheeler both indicated
they were opposed to this request.
Commissioner Wheeler informed the Board that he has talked
with both Director Davis and Elections Supervisor Robinson, and
he personally feels that we could come up with an alarm system
that would cost considerably less than creating the position of a
security guard.
Chairman Scurlock believed if there is a need for a night
watchman anywhere, it is in the Administration Building.
Administrator Balczun advised that the rationale used by
Supervisor Robinson to convince him to support the request was
that if anyone gets in there and messes with the voting machines
Al 12198860 sooK 72 r��1,E X76
once the equipment is prepared for an election, they could not
duplicate the work or replace the equipment in time to hold an
election.
Commissioner Eggert and Chairman Scurlock did not agree that
there were no other alternatives, and Commissioner Wheeler did
not believe there has ever been a history of anyone messing with
the voting equipment. He believed we could provide steel doors,
put in extra locks and install a security system, all for less
than we would pay another employee.
Dir. Davis noted that part of the problem is that we have a
very large number of people with keys to that gate, including
Fire Department people who service and fuel their trucks. He did
agree that the voting machine building could be secured
independently.
Chairman Scurlock commented that if there is a real problem,
there is an area at the water plant where the voting machines
could be stored and would have full time security.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion
to approve the position. It was voted on and
failed 4-0, the Commissioners voting unanimously
in opposition and Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting.
SOUTH COUNTY LIBRARY SITE APPRAISALS
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following, advising that they
also need to schedule a public hearing for May 24th to approve
the signing of the two contracts:
61
A 12 1988
BOOK . 2 PAGE 77
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 8, 1988
RE: SOUTH COUNTY LI;? .! ITE
PPRAISALS
B.C.C. MEETIN
APRIL 12, 1988
Attached is a fee quotation of $4,300 received in this
office for appraisals required in order to be able to
purchase the South County Library site. Mr. Don Finney has
looked over this fee proposal on behalf of the County and
feels that it is in line. Mr. Napier, the appraiser making
the proposal, has recently performed preliminary appraisal
work on this entire block for another party; therefore, he
has already researched and obtained much of the data and
information necessary for these appraisals, which he says is
reflected in his fee quotation.
We have pointed out to Mr. Napier that we will need to have
the completed appraisals delivered here one week in advance
of a public hearing to be held on this property acquisition
(May 24, 1988), and he has responded that he will do his
best to comply with this deadline.
Request Board authorization to have Mr. Napier proceed with
this appraisal work and for the payment of $4,300 to him.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized having
William Napier proceed with the above described appraisal
work for the amount of $4,300 and authorized scheduling
a public hearing for May 24th.
ADD ITEM - RE GRANT FOR STATE LEGALIZATION IMPACT ASSISTANCE FOR
REFUGEES
Chairman Scurlock advised that Administrator Balczun wished
to add an emergency item to the agenda, as follows:
APR 12 1988
62
BOOK 72 Fr;CE 78
&urn aLp 13 Li
e1N...1c --
0 Lccilevu-witiJ 1 OW Ass t s cT
s 1
molt. . 4.123DAL&
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the above
item to today's agenda.
Administrator Balczun advised that the Florida Division of
Refugees Assistance Program has been designated as the sole point
of contact between the state and the federal government for
receiving local government applications to participate in 60
million dollars of federal funding to assist newly legalized
immigrants. He estimated there are 326 such individuals in the
county and felt we might as well have state funds to help them
adjust; he, therefore, is asking for authorization to apply for
the grant because the deadline is two weeks from today.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized staff
Hies Bee_
-cd
to apply for the grant described above.
OPPOSITION TO HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS
Commissioner Eggert requested that the Commission write our
State Legislators opposing House Bills 249 and 13 and Senate
Bills 204 and 205, which proposed legislation places restrictions
on how counties can use their monies.
6 3
APS 121988 BOOK 72 FACE 79
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the
Chairman to write our State Legislators and urge them
to vote no on the above listed Bills.
SUPPORT NOMINATION OF VETERANS OFFICER McCANN TO REPRESENT SOUTH
FLORIDA FOR COUNTY SERVICE OFFICER'S ASSOC.
The Board reviewed the following letter:
MANATEE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
March 24, 1988
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Chairman:
iz
o RECEIVED tri
c BOARD BOOM V
13. COMMISSIONERS Cb
s�bl Et Zti�����
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilit;es
Finance
Other
{
It is my pleasure to inform your Board that Mr. C. Vincent McCann
of the Indian River Veterans Service Office has been nominated to
represent the Southern portion of the State of Florida for the
County Service Officer's Association.
It is hoped that you will support our efforts in this nomination.
If elected, Mr. McCann will be expected to represent our
association at various meetings throughout this coming year.
This of course will require additional travel and time on his
part.
As a member of this Board, it will be Mr. McCann's responsibility
to keep other counties in his area informed of changes in
association, State, or Federal policies which might affect our
various offices.
The continued success of our association is determined by the
commitment of those who fill our Board's positions. We, of the
nominating committee, feel that Mr. McCann is well qualified to
carry on these various responsibilities.
I would like to request a letter of support from your County to
submit along with Mr. McCann's nomination. Could you please
direct your response to me at the address below at your earliest
possible convenience.
Res e%tfully,
rold C. Rouse
Veterans Service Officer
64
BOOK .72 FIsCE 80
APRR 12 1988 J
Chairman Scurlock questioned how much impact this will have
on Mr. McCann's day to day duties, and Administrator Balczun did
not believe it will amount to more than a day or so every
quarter.
The Chairman wished to know who will pay for Mr. McCann's
travel, and the Administrator felt we probably would have to, the
benefit to us being that we have someone closer to the heart of
things who can better serve our veterans.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Commissioner Bird having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to send
a letter of support of the nomination of Veterans
Officer McCann as requested in the above letter.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:30 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Pk 12`98
65
BOOK .72 FADE 8.1