Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/12/1988Tuesday, July 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, July 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; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of the following items: 1) Oslo/U.S. #1 Shopping.Center Developers Agreement. 2) Revision to Plat 2 of Grand.Harbor 3) Winter Beach Cemetery ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously added the above items to today's Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 8, 1988. Commissioner Bowman requested that the last sentence in paragraph 7 on Page 23 be changed to read: "Commissioner Bowman asked about the advisability of paving over the wellfields in the vicinity of the old landfill," .... BOOK 73 '_ cr?�Un ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 6/8/88, as amended. The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 21, 1988. Commissioner Bowman requested that the third sentence in the last paragraph on Page 24 be changed to read: "Further, in future park planning, the lifeguard station should be Located to afford a better view of the beach." ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 6/21/88, as amended. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Duplicate Tax Certificate - Ellis D. Roberts ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously issued a duplicate Tax Sale Certificate to Ellis D. Roberts in the amount of $165.33. DUPLICATE TAX SALE CERTIFICATE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 2. Report - Occupational License Taxes The following report was received and put on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board: J U L 12 1999 2 BOOK 73 Pa,E 208 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector DATE: July 1, 1988 SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $1.,107.88 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of June 1988, representing the issuance of 98 licenses. Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR A DRUG REHABILITATION FACILITY - MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/6/88: TO: Board of County DATE: July' 6, 19 8 8 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: Proposed Purchase of Property for a Drug Rehabilitation Facility FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert REFERENCES: Mental Health Center County Commissioner Inc. letter dated 6/28/88 The purchase of the Sloan buildings and land for a drug rehabilitation facility is a unique opportun=ity t:o meet Indian River County's tremendous need for affordable treatment for substance abuse IF the buildings and land are as they are presented. I recommend our participating at the 25.6% level in the purchase of these buildings and land under the following conditions: 1. the other three counties participate in their full percentage share of the purchase; 2. the land survey and appraisal are accurate; 3. the buildings are in a condition suitable for use; 4. the zoning is proper and there are no hindering site restrictions; 3 Boas 73 r-,nUE 209 ,JUL 12 1988 � � s 5. over not less than two years, and preferably three years; 6. the ownership is held by the Mental Health Center, Inc.; 7. we are guaranteed 25.6% of the substance abuse beds; 8. the contract must have a reverter clause so that if the property ceases to be used as a drug rehabilitation center,, is taken over by a group other than the Mental Health Center Inc., or if the Mental Health Center ceases to exist, our equity in the property will be returned to us. DEFENDANTS CONVICTED OF DRUG CHARGES COULD NOW BE FORCED TO SANTE UPS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS County commissioners will have two new sources of revenue to tap for funding drug abuse treatment programs as the result of bills passed by the 1988 Legislature. But both programs are optional and require approval by county commissioners -- and endorsement by judges -- to be implemented. Because county officials are in the process of drawing up budgets for their 1988-89 fiscal year, now is the time to discuss these alternative funding sources with local judges and county commissioners. one new source of potential funding is included in the omnibus Crime Prevention Bill. It allows judges to assess double the fine currently authorized for defendants convicted of either felony or misdemeanor drug charges. For example, a person fined $1,000 for a drug law violation could be assessed an additional $1,000. The special fine would go into a local drug abuse prevention and treatment trust fund to be administered by the county commission.. County officials would make "assistance grants" from the trust fund to aid local treatment or prevention programs... Another bill (HB 1614) allows counties to impose a $15 surcharge on anyone found guilty of a misdemeanor involving drugs or alcohol. Revenue from the surcharge would be allocated to substance abuse programs based on criteria set by HRS. It appears that this approach would raise considerably less money than the double fine assessment. Richard L. Mills, Executive Director of Mental Health Center, Inc., presented their proposal for the purchase of the Sloan buildings and land for the purpose of a drug rehabilitation facility. He introduced Patricia O'Bracken, president of the Indian River Community Mental Health Center, and Vince Gorham, president of the Indian River Foundation for Mental Health. Mr. Gorham emphasized that they did not go out and solicit this property; Mr. Sloan came to them with the offer because he knows the drug problem firsthand, his daughter being a victim of 4 Boa 73 210 'JL 12 1998 drug abuse. Mr. Sloan wishes to donate some value back to the community for what has happened to his family. This is an opportunity to expand and take care of the problems of the 4 -county area. Each of the four counties will have its own appraisal, and whatever it is, Mr. Sloan will live with that. Commissioner Bird asked who would provide the staff and the actual operating funds, and'Mr.,.Gorham explained that currently they are leasing buildings for the program, and they would move those into this complex, and then either use the other buildings for another program or cancel the leases. In other words, it would save tax monies by being able to buy this property at this time. Chairman Scurlock understood then that if they are going to reduce their rental costs, the County Commissions could go back and cut their budget by that amount. Mr. Gorham wished he could say yes, but this is a 4 -county project and they still would have to pay for the upkeep of the buildings and the insurance, etc. Chairman Scurlock just.felt there was a difference between a maintenance budget and a lease budget, and failed to understand why the savings would not affect the overall budget. If they are going to be moving out of 5 leased buildings into this facility, there should be monies available within the budget at least for that portion, and Mr. Gorham said that was correct. However, since this is budget time and they don't have this program put together yet, they cannot say what the actual savings would be until we have the approval of the project from all of the 4 counties. They would be very happy to come back and report what the savings would be. Mr. Gorham pointed out that they would guarantee Indian River County their percentage of beds for occupancy when needed. Commissioner Wheeler asked if this program is working, and Mr. Mills reported that after 6 months off the program, 70% of 5 BOOK 7 rAUL 211 the patients will stay clean. That percentage diminishes a bit after one or two years.- They feel the program is successful. He admitted that Mr. Sloan's daughter went through two programs and still went back to drugs. However, there are many people who go back to alcohol after they have gone through Alcoholics Anonymous, and you can't say that program is unsuccessful. Chairman Scurlock wondered if this was the drug program the County should support, or whether our tax monies would be better spent on law enforcement. Commissioner Bird felt all the experts will tell you that we need to have strong law enforcement, a strong education program throughout the community, and a'third program for the people that already are addicted. He asked how many additional beds this expansion would provide, and Mr. Mills advised that there would be 48 new substance abuse residential treatment beds, but they do not have any money to operate those beds. He estimated that $1 -million would be needed from the State to operate the 48 beds for one year. In addition, they would need to ask the 4 counties for matching monies, approximately $300,000 total. The amount from Indian River County would be less than $100,000, probably $75,000. Chairman Scurlock could not support that kind of expenditure, and felt the best approach would be for the 4 counties to get together and exercise some sort of option on this property that would allow the center to put all the unknowns together and then come back to each County Commission and present the full package. That way the Boards could decide whether they wanted to exercise the option. If Mr. Sloan is willing to do that, he would be willing to at least move ahead in that direction. He could not sit here and commit to $250,000 in this tight budget year without knowing whether all of the 4 counties will approve or whether the State will provide the operating expenses. s Boa 73 rnuc 212 ,JUL 12 i9�� Commissioner Eggert noted that when this was brought up at Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health, she had believed that most of the operating funds would come from the State. However, she had to confess that she did not take the next step that evening and think about the matching county funds. Commissioner Wheeler figured it would cost $20,000-$25,000 per bed per year to operate the facility, and pointed out that is the same cost as keeping someone in jail for a year. Chairman Scurlock and Commissioner Wheeler wanted to see some statistics about the repeat rates of drug rehabilitation programs compared to the repeat rates on jails. Mr. Mills offered to get the figures and come back. Commissioner Wheeler wanted to see us support the program that works, and was not convinced this was program. Perhaps the money should go towards putting drug offenders in jail. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that recent legislation allows judges to assess double the fine currently authorized for defendants convicted of either felony or misdemeanor drug charges. These fines would.go-into a local drug abuse prevention and treatment trust fund to be administered by the County Commission.- She felt this should be studied to find out how much this would bring in during a year's time. Commissioner Eggert wanted to see the payments spread over 3 years, instead of 2 years as mentioned in the above memo. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding possible sources for operating expenses, and Commissioner Bird felt the Commission's feeling is that we would consider committing to buy the facilities if there is a commitment from the State to help fund the operation of the facilities. Mr. Mills believed the best thing they could get, and that would be in a matter of months, is some kind of personal commitment from the Legislative Delegation to work on our behalf to get the funding for these programs from the State Legislature. L 7 BOOK 73 F,Au.213 l That is how they expanded Alchohope to 27 beds. Dale Patchett was instrumental in lobbying the Legislature for those funds. Chairman Scurlock, as one Commissioner, stated he could not commit at this time based on the information given to us today, but Mr. Gorham emphasized that this is a one-time opportunity to expand the program. Commissioner Bird felt there is no question that we need a treatment facility in this area, and would not mind biting the bullet to buy the facility, especially if we could spread it over 3 years. However, he felt the Commission is concerned about writing a blank check for the operation of the center. Mr. Gorham believed it would be very unconscionable for them to come here and ask the Commission to purchase the building and then come back in two years or so and say that you had to fund the whole thing. He stated that he would not do that. They would sell it first, and give the counties their money back. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that is stipulated under Condition #8. Mr. Gorham advised that St. Lucie County has committed to $350,000, and they are scheduled'to present the proposal to Martin County this afternoon and Okeechobee County next week. Commissioner Bird felt that if we commit to this purchase, we would want to feel very comfortable that we have a certain number of beds reserved for Indian River County patients. Being realistic, however, those .beds should have full utilization, because this is a regional problem. A drug user from another county can break into someone's home or shoot someone in a convenience store in our county Mr. Gorham explained that in order to have full utilization of all of the beds, they could set up an administrative process that would guarantee that each county would give its permission to use one or more of their beds if needed and available. Commissioner Bird was willing to make some kind of commitment that we would do our share in purchasing the facility, JUL12 1988 8 BOOK 73 214 but suggested that we spread out the payment over 5 years, at approximately $45,000 a year. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously committed to the purchase of the Sloan buildings for the expansion of the drug rehabilitation facility in Ft. Pierce, with our share of the payment to be spread out over 5 years, at $45,056 per year (or 115 of our share of the accepted appraisal), contingent on the 8 conditions set out in the above memo, and the added condition that HRS will provide funds to operate the program. Attorney Vitunac advised that the title has to be taken by the Mental Health Center, rather than the 4 counties. Our obligation to pay $45,056 is contingent upon budgeting. We are not obligated to do it if it does not end up in each year's annual budget. That is the problem here, there is no mortgage. PUBLIC HEARING - FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE - REVISION OF ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: JUL 12'1988 9 BOOK .73 f',{.GE 215 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 aNOTICI� in the matter of Flo �e in the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian 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 before me this day of U A.D. 19_ roL t/ ( su�ess n er 1 �, (Clerk of the Circuit urt, Inifi n rver ounty, Florida) (SEAL) ncE-4ust•t0 Nonce IEREBY GIVEN that the &..M—d. oldOWS of Wdian ROW 1,Mc hOsdM w and citinne ahail have an oW01' surd. In the C XW. 4namuwo •....... __—__, gyp,_ . _ 119 located at 1840 9 08 a In tp d� amending the D ��0° •� �NJ ORDnINANo10E �����R� ,!e`�I• TER 18. ROADS AND ©tflww.CLE �•••• ,.'>:.: ::. PRO tIVEMENTS O SHAREROADWAY, WSECT10 ' • 4 1847. FEE SCHEDULETo REVISE THE ' ORDINANCE FEE- ibiiEDULF :C N PROVIDING FOR REPEAL t' ;<::• FLICTING PROVISIONS"' .CODIFlCA TION. gEVERABILIIY, JWR • DATE. ,•. ��„.:;�=7�''•�.5'tl''�` ' •. A COPY of the Pm908ed Ordinance WIN be, . available at the Planning D°PaAmentation the second tim of the CouMY . Building.. inning June 28.1 Anyone wwhich may � 1s mewish to aBtI141 need to ensure that a verbatim reed ofthe p► arid. ng is the� p►auvwhich the� will be IrdRiver n Board CamtYCgW moneye v�Fr:y -s-Don C. SdMock. Jr., Ch 610" ; June 211988 - ' Commissioners Eggert, Bird and Scurlock wished to have this matter tabled until after the budget sessions are over, and in the meantime have staff do some comparisons on impact fees. Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, explained that staff would schedule a workshop in mid-August and bring it back to the Board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously postponed the public hearing, and directed staff to schedule a workshop and bring the matter back to the Board within 45 days. 10 66-IJUL 12 1988 BOOK 73 pnx 216 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE - ELIMINATING MONUMENTS FROM THOSE USES CONSIDERED TO BE EXCEPTIONS FROM ZONING DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: 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•Joumal. a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the � Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Joumal 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. ee Sworn to and subscribed before me this d f A.D. 19 usiness n _gr) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River CgitAy, Florida) (SEAQ NOTICE --PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Butt the Boom at. ftaft Flordda, Nul aneie of ovum WNW COW4 dse in interest and dtlrans atha s fadty to Oe hemd, In the County Canwd�fpn Chambers of Iro Caumy hg, boated at 1810 zaat 8t, V Fs�kr- .� 72 19BB a.m. to I AN ORDNANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. AMENDING TION xS. GENERAL PR s OF APPENDMI A OF THE CODE IAYVS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE ELIMINATING FROM THOSE USES CONSIDERED TO BE CEPnOrls FROM ZONING pl%- MR NEIOHT LIMITATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON. TM SEVERAIWTY, AND 6*E0TIVE DATE A alpy of the prepaeed Otdk mp we be avdabb at the Planning Dapa+unaa am- en 50MONthe Ca rdy Amy don wlddt r be medegot 2+13 rorW nead to ennaa that a verDatgn raced of the proaedhrg Is made Wild i flro tesfbnergr and eevvFF dame �r the appeO vA bs baud. River Board of Countir Cawty Jar211� saffiock.,k• •CfWmon The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/29/88: TO: Charles Balczun DATE: June 29, 1988 FILE: County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: A NTY ITIATED ert M. a ing, CP SUBJECT: TOUAMEND NSECTION REQUEST (a) CommunityDevelo m� THE p erector (1) OF GENERAL PRO- VISIONS SECTION OF THE THRU: Gary Schindler /W ZONING CODE TO DELETE Chief, Long -Range Planning MONUMENT FROM THOSE USES rr EXEMPTED FROM MAXIMUM FROM: p/� REFERENCCJ: GHT REQUIREMENTS David C. Nearing �`"I Staff Planner It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 12, 1988. 11 L 12* 1988 Bou 73 rvE 211 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Indian River County has initiated a request to amend Section 25, General Provisions, of Appendix A of the Zoning Code. Specifically, this request is to delete monuments from that portion dealing with permitted exceptions from zoning district height regulations. This request was initiated at the request of the Board of County Commissioners as a result of public discussion occuring during the May 10, 1988, County Commission meeting. The Board directed staff to examine the issue of monuments and exception of monuments from height regulations. On June 9, 1988, the.Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of this amendment. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In reviewing this request, staff examined the purpose of excluding certain uses and associated structures from the zoning district height requirements. Further, staff examined the apparent purposes for erecting, designating, and designing monuments. Purpose for Exceptions There are two -purposes for permitting certain uses to exceed the established 35 foot maximum height limit. The first reason would be for functional purposes. The second reason would be for traditionally accepted aesthetic value. functional purpose Certain uses and associated structures such as elevated water storage facilities or radio transmission towers must exceed a certain height in order to function. Such uses are regulated through setbacks, and, occasionally, location. The majority of the uses exempted from the height restrictions fit this catagory. °accepted aesthetic purposes. The second catagory of accepted exceptions involves architectural ammenities considered traditional additions .to specific structures. The major example of this traditionally accepted aesthetic exception is the category of church steeples and spires. This example is one which is not only an accepted traditional addition, but in many cases has also become an expected addition. Currently, the ordinance specifically lists only one aesthetic type exception to the maximum height restrictions, that being church and monument sites. Purpose of Monuments Certain definitions describe monuments as memorials, markers placed on a site for rememberance such as tombstones, structures venerated for their. enduring significance such as historical landmarks, or as a place specifically designated as having special significance which was preserved by a government. There are, however, no definitions which staff has located which establish dimensional criteria for monuments. Analysis The County Code exempts only a few specific structures from .the maximum height limit of 35 feet. This reflects the county's desire to maintain a low profile growth pattern. Those uses 12 J U L 1 2 1988 BOOK - 73 exempted are uses which either must exceed 35 feet for functional purposes, or may exceed the limit for traditional or aesthetic reasons. It appears that, in combining church sites and monument sites, the original intent was to permit church steeples and public monuments commemorating events, persons, or places significant to the general public to extend beyond regular height requirements in order to convey their special significance and/or to enhance public view. To date, no monument in Indian River County has exceeded the 35 foot height limit. Staff feels that this is due to the fact. that monuments are generally designed to blend with both the general appearance of their immediate surroundings, and the overall theme of the community's development. Conclusion Unlike larger towns where tall structures may dwarf monuments, Indian River County is an area of low profile development. Staff envisions little if any need to retain the monument height exemption, since no monuments exceeding the height limitation have been constructed in the past. The low profile development and open space requirements of the code, as well as proper site design, will permit the establishment of monuments not in excess of 35 feet in height, which will -be visually compatible with both their immediate surroundings and the overall development theme of the county. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that monument sites be deleted from the list of permitted height exceptions -established in the County Code. Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Comnissi.oner Eggert,.SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 88-27, amending Section 25(a) (1) of the General Provisions Section of the Zoning Code, eliminating monuments.from those uses considered to be exceptions from zoning district height limitations. 'JUL 12 1988 13 Boos .7 Pa,,t:21 ORDINANCE NO. 88-27 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 25. GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, ELIMINATING MONUMENTS FROM THOSE USES CONSIDERED TO BE EXCEPTIONS FROM ZONING DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 Section 25. (a) (1) is hereby amended as follows: Section 25. General Provisions (a) Height exceptions and limitations (1) Height exceptions. The height limitations stipulated in the applicable districts shall not Apply to the following, provided that no such structure exceeds the height limits for airport approach areas, as established in paragraph (2). below: Church steeples and spires $Ad vi¢gI"OAf 04too; Chimneys; Flag Poles; Silos; Elevator Towers; Air Conditioning and Condensing units; Windmills; Aircraft control towers and navigational aids; Utility transmission towers; Solar energy collectors; and Similar structures. Notwithstanding,, any radio, television or microwave transmission tower which is greater than one hundred forty (140_) feet in height shall only be allowed subject to criteria established for such towers in $00t JOA Sec . 25 JAY .1 ( s ) (3). SECTION 2 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners or Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Coding: Words in type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. i4 L 1 aoo�3 F,, E 9 0 SECTION 3 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If any Section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary'of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 12th day of July , 1988. 15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: G DON . SCURLO K, JR., SPAIRMAN ATTEST BY: FREDA WRIG T, CL1,83Ac Tr, ria �ooK 73 P,�,UE 2?1 REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN EXTENSION - STANLEY KAHN The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/28/88: TO Charles P. Balczun DATE:June 28, 1988 FILE: County Commissioner DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: STANLEY KAHN'S REQUEST bert M. Ke ng, CP SUBJECT: FOR SITE PLAN EXTENSION Community Develop nt Director THROUGH: Stan Boling%j Chief, Current Development FROM: John w. McCoy Staff Planner REFERENCES: kahn IBMIRD It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 12, 1988. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On June 25, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a major site plan application submitted by Stanley Kahn. Approval was given to construct a 13,800 sq. ft. professional office/retail complex at U.S. Highway #1. • Due to delays with release of surplus right-of-way from the FDOT, the applicant has been unable to commence construction prior to the expiration of the approved:'site plan. However, if no con- struction has begun by June 25, 1988, the site plan approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the Board of County Commis- sioners. The applicant has submitted a request for site plan extension in writing prior to the site plan expiring, which is required by County Code for all site plan extension requests. No regulations have changed since the time of site plan approval. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.2(G)(2), Appendix A of the Zoning Code, Mr. Kahn is requesting a full 1 year extension of the approved site plan. It has been the policy of the Board to grant extensions to projects which conform to current codes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Stanley Kahn's request for a one year extension of the approved site plan; the new expiration date to be June 25, 1989. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously , approved Stanley Kahn's request for a one-year extension of the approved.site plan; the new expiration date to be June 25, 1989. 16 Boa 73 pnu 222 4JUL 12 1988 FINAL ASSESSMENT - PETITION PAVING - NORTH & SOUTH TROPICANA EAST OF U.S. #1 AND 110TH STREET (PARADISE LANE) EAST OF U.S. #1 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/29/88: ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO. Charles P. Balczun Coun y dmi 'strator THROUGH: Alp Vlffe=cia, P.E. County Engineer• FROM: Michelle A. Terry, CE Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Final Assessment 1) North & South Tropicana East of U.S. 1 2) 110th Street (Paradise Lane) East of U.S. 1 DATE:- June 29, 1988 -------------------------- --------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of the above roadways has been completed. Listed below is a comparison of the preliminary estimate and the final costs to the homeowners by street. It is noted that all construction costs are under the original estimates: 1) North & South Tropicana 100% 75% 2) 110th Street 100% 75% Prelim. Est. $55,500.00 $41,625.18. $27,750,.00 $20,812.60 Final Cost $39,257.47 $29,443.10 $19,804.89 $14,853.67 The final assessment roll has, been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months. from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months from the due date -at an interest rate of 12% established by The Board of County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final determination of asthe st�ecial sessments. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the less than computed on the preliminary alternative presented is to approve th e RECOMMENDATION benefited owners will be assessment rolls, the only final assessment rolls. It is recommended that the final assessment rolls for the paving of North & South Tropicana & 110th Street be approved by The Board of County Commissioners and that they be transferred to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for callprat;rm 'JUL 121988 17 BOOK 73 F- E 223 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the final assessment rolls for the 7---7 1 paving of North 6 South Tropicana 8 110th Street, and authorized the transfer to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS -ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ROAD RESURFACING - FY 87/88 BUDGET The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/30/88: TO: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Road Resurfacing - FY87/88 Budget REF. MEMO: Albert VanAuken to James Davis dated 6-29-88 DATE: June 30, 1988 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Approximately $145,000 is remaining in Road and Bridge fund 111-214-541-035.31 for road resurfacing. After further review of the County Road System,, staff has prepared the attached list of projects. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends authorization to resurface the roads on the attached list. Funding to be from Fund 111-214-541-035.31. Approximately $30,000 will remain uncommitted in this fund. 'JUL 121988 18 5009 73 ,,1U 224 TO: DATE: FILE: James W. Davis, P. E. June 29, 1988 Public Works Director SUBJECT: Roads to be Resurfaced FROM: Albert . vanAuken, Sup REFERENCES: Resurfl Road & Bridge Division The following is a list of roads to be resurfaced under the supervision of the Road & Bridge Division, at the price of $36.10_ per ton: 65th Street (South Winter Beach Road) from 66th Ave. (Lateral A) to U. S. #1 2.65 Miles --- 20' Width = 1555/tons - 1" Thick = $56,136.00 69th Street (North Winter Beach Rd.) from 66th Avenue (Lateral A) to 300+ East U.S. #1 1.6 Miles --- 20' Width = 1525/tons - 1" Thick = $33,878.00 Kings Lake S/D ALL .66 Miles --- 20' Width = 387/tons - 1" Thick = $13,971.00 18th Avenue from 4th Street to 6th Street .25 Miles --- 20' Width = 147/tons - 1" Thick = $5,307.00 TOTAL: $109,292.00 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the resurfacing of the roads listed above, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION FOR MAIN STREET BOAT DOCK - CITY OF SEBASTIAN The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/29/88: ,JUL 12 19 BOOK .73 F'E 095 ------------------------------------------- TO: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Publ' orks irector FROM:a ph Brescia, P.E. County Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution for Main Street Boat Dock -City of Sebastian DATE: June 29, 1988 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In order to be eligible for certain funding available from the Florida Boating Improvement Program, the county must formally adopt a resolution designating each project. The recent project which is eligible is the Main Street Boat Dock to be reconstructed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution as submitted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 88-43, establishing eligibility for funding from the Florida Boating Improvement Program for the Sebastian Main Street.Boat Dock reconstruction project. i 20 Booz .73 F,+UE M — 6/29/88(b4)LEGAL X_Wm) RESOLUTION NO. 88- 43 WHEREAS, Indian River County is applying for a grant from the Florida Boating Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, Indian River County must formally adopt a resolution designating each project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County that the MAIN STREET BOAT DOCK reconstruction project is established so as to be eligible for funding -by the Florida Boating Improvement Program. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: 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 Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 12th day of July 1988. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By ATTEST: N c�– on url-oc -, r, a rman By re a ght, &ferk— gg Approved Date Admin. Legal W G 6 Budget Oep't. 21 BOOK 73 Fa;f 297 ,JUL 12 1988 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PIPE ARCH CULVERT - 2ND STREET & 4TH STREET AND LATERAL E CANAL The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/28/88: ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public �W ks,Director �? FROM: -Ralph N. Brescia, P.E. County Engineer SUBJECT: Contract Award Pipe Arch Culvert 2nd Street & 4th Street and Lateral E Canal DATE: June 28, 1988 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received for the construction of pipe arch culverts at 2nd Street and 4th Street and the Lateral E Canal on June 15, 1988. Three companies submitted bids: J & A Construction, Inc., Dennis L. Smith Incorporated and J.H. McGregan & Sons. The low bid of $96,989.65 was submitted by J.H. McGregan & Sons. A post bid conference was held with Mr. Vincent Mannella, General Manager of J.H. McGregan & Sons to insure that all items were properly addressed and reference checks were made of J.H. McGregan by the Purchasing Department. RECOMMENDATION It is staff's recommendation that contract documents be processed to award J. McGregan & Sons the contract to install the pipe arch culverts as specified for the total sum of $96,989.65. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded the contract to J. McGregan & Sons in the amount of $96,989.65 for the installation of pipe arch culverts, as recommended by staff. 22 800K 7 ? 'JUL 12 1988 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE.OF OPENING 449 June 15. 1988 BID TITLE ALUMINUM PIPE ARCH CULVERTS( INOM ITEDESCRIPTION I UNIT PRICEI UNIT . PRICEI UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICE I 1. SITE PREPARATION 6 SITE CLEAN UP TOTAL BID AMOUNT: $ CHANNEL "H" DRAINAGE CANAL ALONG FEC RAILROAD SOUTH OF 12TH STREET The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/27/88: TO: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.;-- � Public Works Director SUBJECT: Channel "H" Drainage Canal Along FEC Railroad South of 12th Street REF. LETTER: Michael O'Haire.,.Attorney, to Jim Davis dated 6-7-88 DATE: June 27, 1988 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS County staff has acquired SJRWMD Stormwater permits to construct drainage Channel "H" along the west side of the FEC railroad south of 12th Street. Most easements have been acquired for the channel. Property owners -within the approximately 150 acre watershed area have petitioned the County to improve drainage in this area under a special assessment program. In addition, the developer of the Glendale Industrial Park Subdivision is participating with the County to install 520± feet of concrete pipe along 8th Street. In order for this area to be connected to the Indian River Farms Water Control District's South Relief Canal, the District's Attorney, Michael O'Haire, has communicated via the attached letter that the District is willing to permit the connection with the following conditions: 1) The County would have to be the permittee 2) The permitting would be conditional upon payment of an annual permit fee equivalent to the annual assessment levied by the District on property within the District. __ This cost would be approximately $1,950 per year. AX .12 1988 23 Boa 73 i UE 09.0?� 3) Testing requirements would be imposed to determine water quality before entering the District's System. This cost would be approximately $7000/year. Staff, at this time, needs to proceed with the project. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS To proceed with the project, the following alternatives are presented Alternative No. 1 Agree to the Indian River Farms Water Control District's requirements as ?outlined above. The cost of $2950/year could be charged to the property owners which benefit by the drainage project., The cost of drainage improvements would also be assessed to the property owners in the watershed area. A municipal service taxing unit or drainage utility could be established to pay for yearly maintenance and yearly charges imposed by IRFWCD. Alternative No. 2 Agree with the Indian River Farms Water Control District's requirement as listed above and budget these funds in the County Road & Bridge Dept. budget. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that a drainage utility or an MSTU be established for the funding of the construction, permitting, and maintenance of Channel "H" as recommended in Alternative # 1. Approximately $30/acre would fund permitting by IRFWCD and maintenance. The construction funding would be determined at a later date and assessed in a.one or two year interval. Administrator Balczun explained that this is a request for direction for staff to proceed toward the establishment of either a drainage utility or a small MSTU in that area. They estimate that $30 a year per unit would cover the permitting costs and annual maintenance costs. Chairman Scurlock asked about the attitude of the affected property owners, and Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that we received a petition from a majority of the property owners in the 155 -acre watershed a few years ago, but we have been working on the project for quite some time in obtaining permits and easements. Although, it has been some time since the petition was received, staff feels that the property owners still support the project. .1 19 2 �` BOOK 13 ; A;". #�30 99 Chairman Scurlock hoped that before we actually spend any more money, we would get a fairly good idea that they still support the project, because a lot of things can change in 2-3 years. Director Davis suggested that the Board go ahead and schedule a public hearing on a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and make their decision after hearing from the affected property owners. He personally liked the idea of a MSTU similar to the one at Vero Lakes Estates. Commissioner Wheeler asked how this would improve the system, and Director Davis explained that this project will formalize the outfall for this area. At present there is sort of a natural slue between Old Dixie Highway and the FEC railroad track and that natural slue has been meandering through property without being in an easement to protect it. The project will enlarge the outside channel and provide 100% drainage to the area. It will take away the problem where people have been filling in the slue and damming upstream property. Utilities Director Terry Pinto suggested that the Board take a look at setting up stormwater management as a utility, but Director Davis pointed out that you cannot shut off a person's drainage if they don't pay their bill. Chairman Scurlock believed we should keep that option open because there must be a mechanism out there to do it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation of Alternate #1, as set out in the above memo. 'JUL � 25 BOX `� . ;A cf 96131 INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE IV - 37TH STREET TO 53RD STREET AND CONNECTING ROADWAYS - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/28/88: TO: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. c� �- Public Works Director ✓fes SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase IV - 37th Street to 53rd Street and Connecting Roadways - Professional Engineering Services Agreement - Glace and Radcliffe, Inc. DATE: June 28, 1988 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff has negotiated the attached Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Glace and Radcliffe, Inc. to provide engineering, surveying, and design services for the Indian River Boulevard Phase IV Extension. The scope -of -work has been care- fully prepared and a basic Fee of.$285,825 has been established. The project includes the following roadways: Indian River Blvd. (IRB) from 37th Street to 53rd St Length of project 2.0 miles 41st Street from US 1 to IRB Length 3/4 mile 45th Street from US to IRB' Length 1/2 mile 53rd Street from USI to IRB Length 1/2 mile Approximate length of Project 3 3/4 miles The estimated construction cost is approximately $4 million. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. Alternative No. 2 Authorize staff to proceed to the second short listed firm to negotiate. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved. Funding to be from Zone 4 Traffic Impact Fees. 'JUL 1 1999 2 6 BOOK `73 �� 9 Ole Administrator Balczun reviewed the following letter listing the 10 major revisions to the engineer's fee proposal: GLACE & RADCLIFFE, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 800 S. ORLANDO AVENUE MAITLAND, FL 32751-5627 (407) 647-6623 MAIL TO: P.O. BOX 1180 WINTER PARK, FL 32790-1180 June 10, 1988 Mr. James W. Davis, P.E. � J �U " rL Jd e Public Works Director '� '. Indian River County ✓(/y 1840 25th Street 798g Vero Beach, Florida 32960 SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard - Phase IV Indian River county GSR No. 88514 Dear Jim Enclosed are two (2) copies of our revised fee proposal with attached supporting manhours, by activity, for the referenced project. The fee proposal is based on the scope of work contained in the draft Agreement which you furnished under letter dated April 15, 1988 and modified by our discussions of June 3, 1988. Major revisions to the fee proposal submitted with our letter of May 3, 1988 include: 1. Elimination of requirements for right-of-way maps and descriptions .and right-of-way surveys. 2. Elimination of aerial photography. 3. Reduction of project length by eliminating the 500 feet south of 37th. 4. Elimination of services for 37th, except as it affects the beginning of the project. 5. Elimination of work from the east side of.US 1 to the west on 41st and 45th, which eliminates 4 intersections and attendent traffic studies. 6. Reduction of the work area on US l at the intersection of US 1 and 53rd to roughly 1100 linear feet. 7. Reduction of the work effort at Indian River Boulevard and 53rd. 8. Elimination of the proposed bridge at Crand Harbor from our Scope of Service (except to review the structure, designed by others, for structural adequacy). JUL 12 , 2 7 BOOK 73 FA -UF 233 9. Reduction of survey effort due to the fact the County currently owns an appreciable amount of right-of-way which can be surveyed in the most expeditions manner, allowing our sub -consultant to reduce the requested fee. The total break -down for this item will be forwarded to you under separate cover. 10. Elimination of need for retention areas through the Grand Harbor area results in a reduction of work effort by the Geotech Consultant. In addition, use of the Grand Harbor DRI drainage design reduces the stormwater pass-through effort to some extent. The total reduction resulting from the above revisions amounts to $212,111.00, bringing the proposed fee (including a "set-aside" for the Geotech work of $23,181.00) to $314,732.00. We understand it is your intent to contract with that entity separately and you will not require that FDOT procedures be rigidly adhered to. The quoted fee for those services anticipates the Geotech will perform only the amount of field and laboratory work needed for a proper soils survey and report. We believe this submittal covers all of the details we discussed at our June 3 meeting. If you agree, we are prepared to start work immediately upon execution of the contract and receipt of your authorization to proceed. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and Indian River County and look forward to starting this important project. Sincerely, GLACE & RADCLIFFE, INC. William H. Palm, P.E. President Commissioner Wheeler asked Director Davis if he was comfortable with the price and the number of deletions they have made from the contract, and Director Davis honestly could not say that he was 100% comfortable with the price, but pointed out that the price was negotiated down from $556,000 to $285,825. Chairman Scurlock recalled that back when the engineers were making their proposals on the Grand Harbor project, certain engineers in our community indicated that they could do this work for $200,000, and now the price is $85,000 more. Director Davis did not think those firms had included the 3 connecting roadways in their price. Kimley-Horn was second in the rankings, Post Buckley was third, and McQueen 6 Associates was fourth. L 1 19 28 BOOK 7 Chairman Scurlock asked what the timing will be on this, because he felt that will be the most critical thing, and Director Davis explained that the contract spells out 270 calendar days to design the project, which is about 9 months. Based on our estimates, it is a 7% design fee, which apparently is what the market is demanding. In the past, however, we have negotiated 5% and 6% design fees. Director Davis noted that the contract does not include a full-time resident inspector on site. That would be an addendum to the contract. Chairman Scurlock suggested that we negotiate with the first ranked firm for a resident inspector, so that we can negotiate that item with the other firms if that becomes necessary. Commissioner Bowman questioned Item #10 of the revised fee proposal where it says "to some extent", and Director Davis explained that the DOT required the Grand Harbor project to pick up a DOT outfall and reroute it through the project to provide the off site drainage that was necessary for the whole watershed which includes the Boulevard. Item #10 is saying that we do not want the engineer to go through and redesign the Grand Harbor system since it is only a year or two old. We do not want the engineer to duplicate that work; we want to.benefit from that savings. Commissioner Bird asked if we have the flexibility to go to firm #2 and say that we are not satisfied with the price from the #1 firm, and Chairman Scurlock felt that we could negotiate a lower price but was concerned about the time it would take. Commissioner Wheeler was not happy with the work by Kimley- Horn on Phase II of the Boulevard as he did not feel they were responsive to our needs or the public's needs on that phase. Commissioner Eggert felt because of the time factor the best thing to do would be to approve staff's recommendation. 29 Boos 73 F APE 235 r � r ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the professional engineering services agreement with Glace and Radcliffe, Inc. for Phase IV Extension of Indian River Boulevard, and authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION —WATER TREATMENT AND WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISPOSAL The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/30/88: TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PIN DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES FROM: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN '-'� PROJECT ENGINEER9' DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION BACKGROUND DATE: JUNE 30, 1988 Several months ago the Department of Utility Services began hearing presentations from various engineering consulting firms in two areas of service. The areas of interest are water treatment and wastewater effluent disposal. Three firms made presentations in both respective areas, for water treatment the firms were: 1. Camp, Dresser and McKee 2. Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan 3. DSS Engineers Inc. For effluent disposal the firms were: 1. Camp, Dresser and McKee 2. Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan 3. Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt ANALYSIS The purpose of these presentations was to rank the firms in the order in which they would be used ie., firm number one to be contacted first, then if a satisfactory contract for the needed work could not be achieved, firms ranked number two and three would be contacted for negotiations. 30 BOOK 73 r � 936 I will list the firms in the order they were ranked in each area of service: A. Wastewater Effluent Disposal 1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan 2. Camp, Dresser and McKee 3. Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt B. Water Treatment 1. Camp, Dresser and McKee . 2. Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan 3. DSS Engineers Inc.. RECOMMENDATIONS , The Utilities staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve this ranking of firms by the selection committee, and by doing so approve the signing of contracts with the aforementioned firms. Chairman Scurlock questioned DDS Engineers, Inc. being ranked third on water treatment, because they have lost at least 3 of their top people in the last 90 days. He was not sure that he would like to see us go to #3 in the negotiating process, unless their staff level has improved, and suggested adding the firm that was ranked #4 to the short list give us more flexibility. Utilities Director Terry. Pinto advised that after the Board takes action today, he would be coming back with a recommendation for replacing DDS, even on their current projects, because of changes in their personnel. Commissioner Eggert noted that there has been some publicity in the paper recently concerning Post -Buckley, and she was concerned when she noticed they have been ranked #1 on wastewater and #2 on water treatment. Chairman Scurlock clarified that the case down in Palm Beach involves a bad piece of equipment. The City of Palm Beach settled with the out-of-state contractor, and the contractor is suing Post -Buckley for failure of performance on a specified material. Director Pinto realized that there has been a lot of comment on the matter, but he didn't feel there was a negative there JUL 12 198831 now 73 fani 237 since the division of Post -Buckley that is on the Palm Beach project is working on wastewater treatment, and our project is effluent disposal. He believed that Post -Buckley has the leading edge right now on effluent disposal and have very good rapport with the DER due to two very large projects they did in Orlando. Director Pinto felt that their rapport with the DER is as important as the engineering itself since effluent disposal has become a very critical concern throughout the state. He spent a lot of time checking out the 1500 -acre reuse program in Orlando and he was very satisfied with Post -Buckley being ranked first in that category. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board approved the ranking of firms by the selection committee and authorized the signing of contracts with the aforementioned firms, with the understanding that the 4th ranked firm will be added to the short list on the water category. OSLO SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT'AGREEMENT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/11/88: TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI ER DIRECTOR FROM: WILLIAM F. McCAIN PROJECTS ENGINEER DATE: JULY 11, 1988 SUBJECT: UTILITY SERVICES FOR THE OSLO - US 1 SHOPPING CENTER BACKGROUND On February 6, 1985 the Indian River County Commissioners signed a developers agreement with the Commercial Center Development Corporation (see attached copy). This agreement covered wastewater system improvements to the Vista Wastewater Treatment Plant and the gravity collection system which would serve the proposed Oslo Road and US Highway 1 shopping center. The Indian River County Utilities Department wishes to reinstitute this agreement with a new developer, Vero Beach '`-Shopping Center Associates, Limited (Paul Bonda of Boca Raton, FL 33431), and amend as shown in the analysis section. 32 r®� BOOK 73 f'a �� 23 8 ANALYSIS ,,The following itemized list states the amendment to the attached agreement: 1) The agreement shall be between Indian River County and the Vero Beach Shopping Center Associates, Ltd., C/O Deckinger Properties - Mr. Eric Deckinger. 2) The developer has pre -paid impact fees in the amount of $70,000.00 for wastewater and $63,840.00 for water. 3) The developer will contribute $12,000.00 to conduct a TV analysis cleaning and sealing repair of the existing clay gravity wastewater mains in the Vista.Royale project to reduce the amount of infiltration/inflow to the Vista Royale Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). 4) The developer will contribute $65,000.00 for renovation to the Vista Royale WWTP and the Forest Park lift station. 5) The developer is responsible to build all off-site collection and distribution lines to be indicated on their plans. 6) The owner of the shopping center shall be responsible for making available the plans for the center, permitted and approved by Indian River County Utilities, and all other state and local regulatory agencies. 7) This agreement will expire with the site plan and any extension of the site plan will not automatically extend this agreement. 8) The developer shall pay all fees associated with construction and permitting in Indian River County. 9) The impact fees which have been paid to date are for 56 ERU's which is a 14,000 gallon per day maximum. The 56 EAU's assigned to the shopping center is only an estimate. At the time the certificate of occupancy is issued the centers wastewater flow will be re-evaluated by Ordinance 84-18. RECOMMENDATION The Indian River County Department of Utility Services recommends the Board approve the afformentioned developers agreement which will be forthcoming for proper signature. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved developers agreement for the Oslo/U.S. #1 Shopping Center and authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED "elk r JUL 12 ' 33 BOOK 9�� � � w WINTER BEACH CEMETERY Administrator Balczun reported that the State has informed us that it probably will look favorably upon our proposal to transfer the restrictive clause on the Winter Beach Cemetery property to the old landfill site off of Old Dixie Highway. Staff is requesting the Board to authorize appraisals on both properties at a cost of $5,000 or a maximum of,-$10,OOO-for both. Staff wants to retain 100-150 feet around Sandridge Golf Club to serve as a nice green buffer. In addition, Director Pinto has some concern about utility rights on the property that go back to about year one, and he and Attorney Vitunac have to work that out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized appraisals for the Winter Beach Cemetery property and the old landfill site off Old Dixie Highway at a maximum cost of $5,000 per parcel or $10,000 for both, and directed staff to retain a 150 ft. buffer around Sandridge Golf Club .and work out the utility rights to the satisfaction of Utilities Director Pinto and Attorney Vitunac. Administrator Balczun pointed out that Assistant County Attorney Bill Collins has been instrumental in negotiating the reverter transfer with the State. Attorney Collins advised that the State would be expecting some kind of recreational development on the landfill site in 5 years, and Chairman Scurlock said that was fine, because we are going to make that into a jogging track. 34 'JUL, 12 1988 BOOK 3 ,'a`,t_ 240 SETTLEMENT ON OAK TREES AT 755 17th AVENUE - GOODMAN The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/6/88: TO: The Board o County Commissioners THROUGH: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney FROM: U- William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney DATE: July 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Settlement on Oak Trees at 755 17th Avenue In the period between November, 1986 and early January, 1986 the County made application of a pesticide known as Krovar to certain ditches around the County. (See attached memo dated December 10, 1986 from Albert L. Van Auken, Superintendent, Road and Bridge Department.) The Krovar application can cause damage to oak trees near the application sites. A number of people throughout the County had oak trees affected. Most of these individuals have relinquished all claims against the County in exchange for the County removing the dead or damaged oak trees from their property at no expenses. Two cases of oak tree damage remain unsettled. We now have an offer of settlement on one of the outstanding cases, the claim of Mr. and Mrs. Goodman for trees damaged at 755 17th Avenue. Mrs. Goodman's original demand was for removal of the trees, replacement of the two dead trees with four oak trees (since oaks of a similar size a.re not transplantable) and in addition, the sum of $10,000.00.. (See attached _letter dated April 20, 1988 from Wayne R. McDonough, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Goodman.) The County made an on-site inspection of the trees with Urban Forester William DeBraal who verified that the trees were in fact dead. One tree was 35 feet in height and had a diameter of 231 inches at 41 feet above the soil. The second tree had a height of 33 feet and was 21 inches in diameter at 41 feet above the soil level. It was Mr. DeBraal's opinion that a $10,000.00 claim for the two trees was excessive. An appraisal was performed of the Goodman lot in which the appraiser concluded that on a small lot such as this, oak trees do not have a si.gnificant effect on the value of the property. The Goodman's attorney, Mr. McDonough, was informed of these findings. Once appraisals had been performed, County crews removed the dead trees on the Goodman property in order to avoid any future liability from falling limbs in windstorms. On July .5, 1988 this office received.a second offer of settlement from Mr. McDonough (see letter dated June 30).in which a settlement in the sum of $4,500.00 for the two trees was offered. This amount is more in line with the conclusions as to value of oak trees by expert foresters. I would recommend the Board approve a full and final settlement in the sum of $4,500.00 with Mr, and Mrs. Goodman as proposed by their attorney. 'JUL 12 35 B®oK 73 pnv3 241 � � r ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved a final settlement in the sum of $4,500 with Mr. and Mrs. Goodman, as recommended by Attorney Collins. TRANSFER OF OLD JAIL TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR RECREATION DEPARTMENT The Board reviewed the following memo dated ?%6/88: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: July 6, 1988 RE: TRANSFER OF OLD JAIL TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR RECREATION DEPARTMENT Commission Meeting - July 12, 1988 On June 29, 1988, City Manager John Little called me with a suggestion concerning the earlier direction by the Board of County Commissioners to.prepare a quitclaim deed of the old county jail to the City of Vero Beach for use as a recreation facility. His suggestion was that the County quitclaim not only the old jail site but also the site on which the Ambulance Squad is located, so that in the rehabilitation of the old jail site the City would also rehabilitate the Ambulance Squad grounds with landscaping, irrigation, and attendant access improvements. A copy of a survey recently made by the County Surveyor is on file in the Board of County Commissioners' Office. This survey shows the part of the proposed old jail site which was to be deeded to the City of Vero Beach less the part of the property to be retained by the County mor use of the Ambulance Squad. This matter is before the Board for direction. Attorney Vitunac advised that he received a call from Vero Beach City Manager John Little asking for transfer of ownership of the ambulance site as well as the old jail site, and Tom Nason, the City's Finance Director, is here this morning to explain the rationale behind their request. 36 BOOK .7 �'Aa 242 Mr. Nason explained that during their recent budgetary review, they were approached by the Volunteer Ambulance Squad to maintain their facility, which is next to the old jail site. The City Council agreed to maintain that property if they can have ownership of it, as they do not wish to make improvements to property that is not theirs. If the County Commission approves the transfer of ownership, a proper reverter clause would be there so that it would revert back to the County if it is no longer used as an ambulance site. That way the City can match the two sites up when they do the landscaping and irrigation work. Commissioner Eggert understood that the volunteers are not in support of this transfer, and stated that she was very much opposed to it, but not because she felt the City would not take good care of it.* She hoped that the facility would be sitting there for a good long time, but since we don't know what the future of it is, she would like the ambulance squad facility to sit on County land. Commissioner Eggert reported that they are working out a lease and have separated the ambulance site from the jail site. Personally, she wished to keep that property intact. Matt Witherspoon of the Volunteer Ambulance Squad confirmed that the squad -would like the County to retain ownership of the land. They feel that they would be giving up a lot of good property just to save maintenance, and that taking the property away from the Ambulance Squad and giving it to the City would be just another way of saying that the Ambulance Squad is on the demise and we are now taking your property also. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously denied the request by the City of Vero Beach for deed to the Volunteer Ambulance Squad property next to the old jail. JUL 12 1988 37 BOOK 73 F'iuE 243 REVISION TO GRAND HARBOR PLAT 2 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/7/88: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FRQM:.,;i William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney DATE: July 7, 1988 SUBJECT: Revision to Previously Approved Grand Harbor - Plat 2 The County Commissioners approved Grand Harbor Plat 2 on June 21, 1988. Prior to recording of the plat the developer came to the County with a request for a revision to the plat. As previously approved, Harbor Drive had a width that varied up to 100 feet in width. The proposed revision would reduce Harbor Drive to a uniform 70 -foot wide right-of-way throughout Plat 2. The proposed change has been reviewed by Planning, Public Works and the County Surveyor and they find that the revision to the road width has no unsatisfactory impacts on the project from a Planning or Public Works standpoint. The plat has been revised to show the corrected graphic representation of Harbor Drive. The legal description has been changed to reflect this revision. The permanent reference monuments on the boundary of Harbor Drive have been reset. The chord data on curve dimensions have been recalculated. All these changes are accurately reflected on the revised plat as submitted for approval. I recommend that the County Commission approve" the plat as revised and authorize the Chairman to execute the revised plat on behalf of the County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the revised Grand Harbor Plat 2, and authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:30 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: W—Wou 1wwWY.M1 Clerk fi Chairman - 3 8 BOOK .73 1 aK,1 (x,44