HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/26/1988Tuesday, July 26, 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 26, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present
were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock asked that one item be added under the
Administrator's items as 9A (8) = A request for a survey updating
cross sections on the existing.Landfill cell.
Commissioner Eggert believed that Item 13A (1) Request for a
representative to serve on District 9 Health Advisory Council
had been taken at an earlier meeting and that Steve Holmes had
been appointed.
Administrative Aide Forlani confirmed that this had been
done and Item 13A should be deleted.
Commissioner Bird requested that an item be added under his
matters authorizing the County Attorney to work with the Gifford
Progressive League in drawing up by-laws for the new community
center.
The Chairman suggested that item be added to the Consent
Agenda as Item 6A (8).
BOOK 6 PAGE. A47
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and
deleted items on the agenda as described above.
Later in the meeting, the Chairman requested the addition of
an item discussing the acquisition of North Beach Water Company.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES'
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 28, 1988.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 28, 1988, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 5, 1988.
Commissioner Bowman asked that a correction be made on Page
18 in the second paragraph from the bottom so that it would read
"Commissioner Bird asked if within the mining permit we have the
ability to require Global to grade that road once a week....."
instead of "pave that road."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 5, 1988, as
corrected.
CONSENT AGENDA
- Commissioner Bird requested that Item 5 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
JUL 2 6199
(1) Appointment of_Deputy Sheriffs
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
appointment of the following Deputy Sheriffs by
Sheriff Dobeck:
(2) Reports
Debbi M. Bloom
Randel A. Davis
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Month to date report by last -name -.June, 1988
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund,
Month of June, 1988 - $47,317.60
(3) Application HUD Administered Rental Rehabilitation Program
for Small Cities
The Board reviewed memo from the Executive Director of the
I.R.C. Housing Authority:
TO: The Honorable members of the DATE: July 8, 1988
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Charles P. Balcztn
County Administrator
SUBJECT: HIND _ Administered
Rental Rehabilitation
Program for Small
Cities (Non Formula)
FROM: Guy L. Deter, Jr. REFERENCES:
Mmcutive Director
I.R.C. Housing Authority
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by
the County Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Me Department of Housing and Urban Development OW) has announced a competition and
availability of finds for a HUD -administered -.Rental Rehabilitation Program for Small Cities,
Pursuant to Section 17 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 14370) which was
enacted by'Section 301 of the Housing and Urban -Rural Recovery Act of 1938 (Public Law
98-81), approved November 30, 1983. A total of $1,553,000 in Rental Rehabilitation Program
grant funds and Section 8 Housing vouchers are available for the P,ental Rehabilitation
Program for Small Cities in the State of Florida. -In HUD's Circular Letter No. 88-53 dated
JUL 2 61988 3 BOOK 73Fa(%249
July 1, 1988, Indian River County was .included in the list of eligible cities -and counties.
9lie deadline for submission is 4:00 'P.M. August 15, 1988, and must be received on that date
`in the DHW Jacksonville office to be considered in this year's competition.
The program is designed to assure an adequate supply of standard housing affordable to
lower-income tenants as it increases the supply of private market rental housing available ..
to lower-income tenants by providing government funds to rehabilitate existing units and
Provide rental assistance to lower-income persons to help them afford the rent of these
units. One Section 8 Certificate and/or Voucher can be provided for each $7,500 of grant
funds to help eligible lower-income tenants. to pay the rent for rehabilitated units. In
:order to leverage the maxim in amount of private capital, rehabilitation subsidies are
generally limited to 50 per cent of the cost of rehabilitation, not to exceed $7,500 per
unit adjusted for high cost areas. 'Grant funds may only be used to correct substandard
conditions, make essential improvements,.and repair major systems in danger of failure.
Units will be rented at market rents, and no special project rent controls or restrictions
will be used. * Wthin the lower-income and neighborhood targeting requirements, the Rental
Rehabilitation Program leaves broad opportunities .for local program design and flexibility.
ALTERNATIVES AM ANALYSIS
This is the fourth year Indian River County has been placed an the eligibility list
to enter the competition for funding, and this type of program parallels our existing
°rehabilitation housing efforts.
RECOMK9MMONS :
We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its Chairman to execute
`ithe.'application for submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
this .grant.
"= This program will rehabilitate approximately twenty.(20) 'substandard rental units in
.the distressed:neighborhoods within this jurisdiction and will make available additional...
.standard units to be utilized by the Indian River County Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program. *Our total request for Federal assistance is One Hmdred.Thousand Dollars
($100,000).
This program requires no additional County funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board'unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the application to DHUD for
a grant under the Rental Rehabilitation Program and
authorized staff to submit same.
APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
(4) Bid #452 - Library Books Term Contract
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
4 BOOK 73 9 0
JUL 2 6 1988
1. -
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: FILE:
July 1, 1988
County Achn=strator
SUBJECTkARD of IRC BID #452
LIBRARY BOORS TER4 CONTRACT
FOR MAIN LIBRARY & NORTH
COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEMS
FRO
- .�0- REFERENCES:
Ambler, .P.M.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were opened Wednesday, June 29,1988 at 2:00 p.m.
for IRC Bid #452.
11 Invitations to Bid were mailed. :3 Bids were received,
including 1 no Bid.
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
2. ALTERNPiTIVFS AND ANALYSIS•
The low bid meetingspecifications was submitted by Baker &
Taylor of Commerce, Ga. They have offered Indian River County
a 43.8% discount for future book purchases. They have also
offered a variety of special book processing services, which will
greatly assist our Library Systems
3. FUNDING:
--------------
Purchasing is not holding any requisitions for the purchase of
Library Books at this time. Future requisitions will be approved
by Budget before a Purchase Order is issued.
4. REOON24MMAMONS:
Staff rem that we award this Contract Bid to Baker & Taylor.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #452
for the Library Books Term Contract to Baker &
Taylor as recommended by staff per the following
Bid Tabulation:
JUL 2 6 1988 5 Boa 7 3 F',u,E 251
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
IRC #452 June 29, 1988
BID TITLE
LIBRARY BOOKS
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICEI UNIT
(5) Rebid for Solid Waste Administration Bldg/Maintenance Bldg. &
at ogenicnclnerator acl Ity
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO: CDATE: harles P. Balczun July 20, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT.031) FOR SO= Hwm
AUMUSTRATION BLDG/MW%lTRaNM
BLDG & PAMOGMUC INCIlMRMR
FACILITY
FRO MM REFERENCES:
ler, C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bids were received Wednesday, July 6, 1988 at 2:00p.m.
for IRC Bid #455.
52 Invitations to Bid were mailed. One response was
received..
This bid was advertised in the newspaper.
6 BOOK . t F' �E 25
JUL �6 198
M
2. ALTEE2NATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The one bid received was incanplet:e. Staff recatmends that
this project be rebid. To encourage additional cmnpet:ition
the specifications should be modified to allow more cmipetition.
3. PECONINII OmoNs:
Rebid IRC BID #455 with specification changes as determined necessary
by Staff.
4. ATBCHMERrS:
Metro frau Sonny Dean.
5. DISTRIBUTIONS:
Terry Pinto P.E.
Sonny Dean
6. APPROVED AGEmDA ITEM:
FOR 7-
BY =
CzUS - T t"ON F S 14 NEb nw5 't"Atr
'N**'1'WCRj NOW aWAXV HAT
1. W%Y gob IAA3 i#lt6uPw%
z , tie US �&Pvzz 31*4" a¢ MObIfte0o
Q'LOWe &V.AaARO 14f p aat. p, .
/ia 1*
Administrator Balczun explained that the prime difficulty
with the pathogenic incinerator was that the vendor did not bid
the complete equipment; primarily, his bid dealt with the
installation. Either he didn't send it all in or he misunder-
stood.
Commissioner Bird asked if all this was bid together or if
the buildings were bid separately, and Utilities Director Pinto
advised that there is one building which is the garage with the
offices in it and the pathogenic building with the incinerator,
and they were bid together.
Commissioner Bird noted that we apparently sent out 52
invitations to bid but only received one bid, and he wondered if
we need to review our procedures or bidding requirements on these
smaller buildings as possibly our requirements for bonds,
insurance, etc., are so cumbersome that people don't bid.
Director Pinto agreed that is a problem. The insurance
requirements, for instance, are one reason the contractors would
'
JUS 2 6 1988BOOK 73 r-,�r,F 09&53
0
M
M
rather not bid government work because we are requiring so much;
however, in this case, he believed they misunderstood some of
the specifications also.
Chairman Scurlock believed we authorized County Attorney
Vitunac to review our procedures in terms of building and
construction in our bidding process. Although generally the bid
process works very well, he personally felt very strongly, in
terms of constructing new facilities, that the concept of identi-
fying and pre -qualifying a number of firms we feel comfortable
with and have seen the type of work they have done would serve us
well; we could do something similar to what we do in Utilities
where we short listed a number and then worked from there to
select an entity to do business with. The low bid process for
building and construction has resulted in cost overruns as welt
as litigation, and the Chairman felt that, at least on a trial
basis, we should test doing our bidding differently with a
cautious eye to the public dollar and see if it doesn't result in
some savings.
Commissioner Eggert wished to make sure we have looked at
our insurance requirements. She"knew we ran into this problem in
looking for an architect .for North County.
Chairman Scurlock noted that all across the country because
of insurance costs, only very large companies have the ability to
get the insurance and comply with the large bonding requirements.
For example, Dickerson was low bid for the St. Lucie landfill,
but actually Dickerson subcontracted the entire project out. The
firm they subcontracted to is the one that was the successful
bidder in Indian River County, but that company could not bid the
St. Lucie landfill on its own because of the very large cost
involved with bonding the two projects. The Chairman continued
to discuss the problems with bonding capability and the advan-
tages of pre -qualifying companies.
The Board generally agreed our bidding procedure should be
looked into.
8
Bou 73 PAGE 254
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to rebid Bid #455 with specification changes
as determined to be necessary.
In light of what the Board has just said, Attorney Vitunac
advised that he would recommend we adopt the Vero Beach
purchasing ordinance. He informed the Board that he already has
sent that to our Purchasing Department for review, and when they
are happy with it, he felt we should move to adopt it. That
ordinance makes low bid about one of ten factors to consider.
Purchasing Manager Ambler confirmed this is under review,
and Chairman Scurlock requested that it be brought to the Board
in a timely fashion.
(6) Supervisor of Elections Requests Transfer of Funds Received
for We— y-ingg-Petitions
The Board reviewed memo from the Supervisor of Elections:
%vE11 R coG�
io: :y�►
ANN ROBINSON ��p111213��
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS '
COQ dG
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109 c `!42°�
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394 M °� o ��
TELEPHONES: (407) 567-8187 or 567-8000 ��'�i
July 15, 1988
TO: HON. DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
RE: ITEM FOR BCC CONSENT AGENDA OF July 26, 1988
We have received thousands of petitions in June and July
from the Florida Committee for Liability Reform so that
the total number now is about 13,000.
On June 21, you transfered money from your revenue account
where I had deposited it when we received the petition
check; the committee pays 10� for each petition. At
that time you transfered $368.10 to us so we could hire
someone part-time to verify the petition signatures.
9
BOOK 73 urF..,55
9
Please transfer $720.40 for 7,204 petitions that have
been received since June 21. It should be put into
election account 001-700-519-011.13, other salaries.
For your information the procedure for petitions is:
1. Deposit the check to the BCC revenue account.
2. Alphabetize the petitions and remove duplicates.
3. Check the name on the CRT to determine registered voters.
4. By hand, match the signature on each petition with
the signature on the original voter record in the file.
5. Count the number of valid signatures for each of the
two congressional,districts and the invalid -petitions.
6. Complete the paperwork and send copies to the Division
of!Elections and the liability reform committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #051 transferring funds as requested by the
Supervisor of Elections.
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of county Commissioners
NUMBER: 051
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Directo;�7D
DATE: July 26, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE SHARING
E e se:
Rese v e for Contingency
102-199-581-099.91
0
1,2 00.00
Fund"Transfers Out
102-199-581-099.21
$1.200.00
S 0
2.
GENERAL FUND
Revenue:
Fund Transfers In
001-000-381-020.00
$1,200.00
0
E ense•
Supervisor of Elections/
Furniture and Eauipment
001-700-519-066.41
$1,200.00
0
10
'JUL 2 61989
Boa 73 f-APl, 256
(7) Transfer of Copy Machine to B.C.C. Office
The Board reviewed memo of Administrative Aide Forlani:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: FELE:
July 21, 1988
SUBJECT: Transfer of Copy
Machine
Liz o ani
FROM: Ad ative Aide REFERENCES:
The Supervisor of Elections has -..declared their old -
copier as -surplus. There is a need in the County Commission
office for an up -graded copy machine. I would like to
recommend to the Board the transfer of the copy machine from
the Elections office to the Commission office. The old
machine in the Commission office will then be transferred to
the Office of Budget and Management.
Funding of $1,200 will come from Federal Revenue
Sharing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
transfer of the surplus copy machine from the Elections
Office to the County Commission office as described
above; funding of $1200 to come from Federal Revenue
Sharing.
(8) County Attorney to Work on By -Laws for Gifford Community Bldg
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
County Attorney to work with the Gifford Progressive
League to draw up the By -Laws for the Gifford Community
Center.
,1 Boor 73 uG;E 057
'JUL 2 6 1988
APPEAL OF P&Z COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE MOORINGS REQUEST TO MODIFY
A CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Chief Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation:
T®:Charles ,P. Balczun. DATE:July 18, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF THE
Robert M Kea in , A
SUBJECTNIT TO
ODIFY AOCONDITIONORINGS QOFSSITE
Community Devel pme Director PLAN APPROVAL
FROM: Stan Boling d' REFERENCES: moorings
Chief, Current Development _ BWIEG
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. has submitted an administrative approval
on behalf of the Moorings Center, Inc., to modify a condition of
site plan approval.
At its regular meeting of March 24, 1988, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted major site plan approval to construct a 53,200
sq. ft. shopping center at 2100 Windward Way, The Moorings. At
the time this plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion, the plan showed a 10' right-of-way dedication along this
site's S.R. A -1-A frontage. In addition, a condition was attached
to site plan approval that the developers dedicate this 10' strip
to the County prior to release of the approved plans. The plan
also showed an 8' bikepath within the 10' right-of-way strip as
required by Section 19(L) and 23.3(e)(6) of the County Code.
The applicant has requested that the condition relating to the
dedication of the 10' strip be deleted from the original Planning
and Zoning Commission approval and that the plan be further
modified to delete the required 8' bikepath.
At its regular meeting of July 14, 1988, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the modification, and unanimously (4-0)
voted to:
1. Grant the developer the option to escrow funds for the
required S.R. A -1-A bikepath prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy (C.O.);
2. Deny the request to delete from the site plan the 10' dedi-
cation or reservtion strip along the site's S.R. A -1-A
frontage, since the request does not conform to existing
regulations;
3. Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff
to:
a, suspend application of the existing road reservation
requirement to the Moorings Center project,
b. revise existing requirements, and
C* approve the modification.
12 BOOK 73 Pd GF 25®
JUIL 2 6 1988
M M M
4. Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners consider
reviewing regulations and/or program options that can ensure
that the Thoroughfare Plan will be effectively implemented.
The applicant has appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision to deny the site plan modification to the Board of County
Commissioners. Aside from the appeal, both the Planning and
Zoning Commission and staff desire Board action on the matter. In
order to satisfy the developer's request to modify the site plan
and expedite issuance of a building permit, the Board would have
to:
a. determine that certain right-of-way reservation/dedi-
cation requirements need to be changed due to legal or
equity considerations;
b. suspend application of certain dedication/reservation
requirements in certain situations;
C, approve the requested site plan modification (possibly
with conditions); and
d. direct staff and the Attorney's office to modify exist-
ing dedication/reservation requirements.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES:
There are two basic issues involved in the modification request:_
the bikepath requirement and the right-of-way dedication/ reserva-
tion requirement.
.. S.R. A -1-A Right -of -Way Deficiency
At present, S.R. A -1-A is designated as a principal arterial
roadway in the County's Transportation Thoroughfare Plan. The
Thoroughfare Plan is the County's transportation plan for
"build -out" conditions, while a portion of that plan, the 20 year
capital improvements program, constitutes the 20 year road
improvement plan. Pursuant to the Thoroughfare Plan and Section
23.3(d)4.b of the County Code, a minimum of 120' of right-of-way
is required for principal arterial roadways. The 10' right-of-way
dedication shown on the approved plans serves to make up the
developer's share of the road right-of-way deficiency for this
portion of S.R. A -1-A.
Because improvements to this section of S.R. A -1-A are not on the
20 year C.I.P. (Capital Improvements Program), the 10' dedication
does not qualify for traffic impact fee credit. Thus, an alter-
native to dedicating this 10' strip would be to execute an
agreement with the County to reserve this strip for future
purchase. In doing so, the County could release the approved site
plan after the reservation agreement is executed. and after all
other conditions are met. This reservation alternative was
:recently added to County Ordinances via Ordinance #88-4. The
'applicant, however_, does not wish to dedicate or reserve the 10'
-171:7.'.
strip, although the zoning code requires either dedication or
j-.'''• reservation. The applicant has challenged the legality of the
requirement, claiming that a forced reservation is tantamount to a
.taking, which would require compensation.
Although the current modification request does .not propose 'any
improvements within the 10' ri ht-of-waY deficiency strip, nothingwould
preclude the developer from locating improvements on' the
strip if the requirement is not applied and the right-of-way is
not dedicated or reserved. Constructing improvements within this
strip could obstruct or limit future roadway or other related
improvements or require more costly future acquisition by the
County. Furthermore, locating required improvements in this strip
now could later render the shopping center as a substandard
development at such time that additional right-of-way is acquired.
JUL 2 6 1988 13 Boos Piv 259
Finally, the applicant wishes to resolve the right-of-way defi-
ciency issue -as soon as possible, since by ordinance [Ord. 88-4],
no site plan can be released and no building permit can be issued
prior to satisfaction of the right-of-way dedication /re sezvation
requirement. The developer has stated that required permits from
other jurisdictional agencies should be obtained shortly, and that
the right-of-way issue could slow -down building permit issuance.
S.R. A -1-A Bikepath
The approved plan also showed a required 8' bikepath along the
site's S.R. A -1-A frontage. Pursuant to County requirements, this
bikepath is either to -be constructed, or (in -.certain cases) funds
escrowed for its future construction, prior to a ---certificate of
occupancy being issued for this project. In conjunction with the
request to delete the condition for the dedication of the 10'
right-of-way strip, the developer desires to delete this bikepath
from the approved plan.
Section 23.3(e)(6) specifically states that "bikeways shall be
installed on all arterial and primary collector routes;..;, and as
specified in the zoning district regulations applicable to the
parcel". Section 19(L) states that "site plans for development
within the CL zoning district shall provide the.following improve-
ments,..., bikeways (as specified in the county bikeway plan, as
currently exists or may be hereafter adopted)". The existing
bikeway plan, formulated in the 1970's, calls for a bikeway along
S.R. A -1-A from the south county line to the 17th- Street boule=
yard. The developers would either have to obtain a permit from
the DOT and construct the bikepath within the A -1-A right-of-way
or construct the bikepath on their development site and grant the
county a pedestrian easement over the bikepath. -
The alternative of escrowing monies toward the future construction
of the bikepath is acceptable to staff. The developer will have
to escrow funds prior to issuance of a C.O.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternative to provide for the required bikepath by escrowing
for future construction is acceptable to staff. However, it
appears that the dispute over the right-of-way dedica-
tion/reservation requirement can only be resolved through one of
the following means:
1. court action regarding the developer's challenge of the
requirement's legality; or
2. changing the requirements by requiring dedications only where
T.I.F. credit or density transfers can be given.
yi It is the opinion of the County Attorney's office that the County
;would probably lose a court challenge in this case, since the
-:disputed,10' strip is along a roadway segment that is not covered
m�� a `-a;' in the a County's 20 -year Capital Improvements Program (C. I. P. )
MY
In the opinion of the Planning Department, the dedica-
'¢ tion/reservation requirement could be. changed to cover only
situations where dedications could be compensated by either T.I.F.
credits or density transfers. In effect, only roadway segments
-included in the 20 year Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.) , -or
segments adjacent to residential project sites where density
transfers are used, would be covered. The result: only the C.I.P.
would be fully implemented; the Thoroughfare Plan would only be
partially implemented.
The only way *to expedite the developer's wishes would be if staff
were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to:
,JUL 2 6 1988 4 BOOK 7 P,au 160
1. release the Moorings Center site plan prior to securing
dedication/reservation of the 10' of S.R. A -1-A right-of-way,
and
2. revise the ordinances to require dedications or reservations
only where T.I.F. credits are available or where density
transfers are used.
It is the position of the Planning Department that the
Thoroughfare Plan must be implemented. The Thoroughfare Plan is
an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan: rights-of-way
facilitate the roadway, drainage, and utilities improvements
necessary to support existing and planned land uses. If it is the
opinion of the County -Attorney's office that the 20 year, C.I.P.
horizon is the probable legal limit of the County's regulatory
authority regarding rights-of-way, then the- County must review
regulation or program options that can ensure that the Thorough-
fare Plan rights-of-way and corridors are protected or acquired.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Direct staff to suspend application... of the existing road
reservation requirement on. sites where no T.I.F. credit or
density transfer credit can.be given;
2. Direct staff and the County Attorney's office to draft
ordinance amendments to bring right-of-way reservation/dedi-
cation requirements within the limits now determined to be
legal;
3. Approve the requested site plan modification subject to the
condition that in lieu of construction the developer escrow
funds with the County in an amount adequate to cover future
construction of an 8' bikepath along the site's entire S.R.
A -1-A frontage; and
4. Schedule a workshop to consider alternate means of acquiring
or protecting all right-of-way corridors depicted on the
Thoroughfare Plan.
Planner Boling noted that staff and the Board have worked a
long time on the R/W issue, and the law seems to be evolving on
this issue. The crux of the problem relates to equity. In this
particular instance the problem is that the traffic impact fees
are tied to the 20 year Capital Improvement Pian and not the
build -out Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed Moorings Shopping
Center is located on South A -1-A, which is not on the 20 year
improvements program. When the Moorings came in with their site
plan, they showed a 10' dedication along with the required bike
path within that 10' strip, but when they realized no traffic
impact fee credit was available, they challenged the reservation
requirement of the ordinance and said it was a "taking" denying
them the reasonable use of the 10' strip.
AU216 1988
15
BOOK .6 rn 261
Commissioner Wheeler asked if we will end up with the R/W
eventually or not, and Planner Boling explained that the original
proposed site plan set back everything 20' from the existing R/W
line. What they are proposing now is just to remove any indica-
tion that there is a 10' strip to be dedicated to the county. As
it stands now with the modification, they would not be encroach-
ing into any future R/W at this time.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that if we suspend the applica-
tion, they could come back in and change the site plan and move
the building over; then we will be back here again.
Planner Boling advised that they are not changing the design
of the site plan - all that they are asking for right now is the
deleting of the reference to that strip, within which strip they
showed a bike path. If we do suspend application of the R/W
requirements, then they could come back in later on and redesign
the parking lot and move it closer to A -1-A.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird for purposes of discussion, to
approve the staff recommendation.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the Attorney's office has done a
real fine job, as well as the Planning Department. He believed
Attorney Bill Collins came up with about 7 cases that are
directly on point on this issue, and it was determined that it is
an evolving situation and there is no direct answer at this
point. The Chairman noted that it is easy from the Planning
staff's point of view to say we have to have the roads and we
have to have the money - so, let's be aggressive and accomplish
that, but the other side of the picture is that developers are
trying to get their projects built in a feasible way and all
these factors must be balanced. The bottom line is that at some
point that infrastructure is going to have to be built and it
will come to the point that if you don't have a vehicle to
JUL 199
1 s mow 73 r E 262
generate enough revenue to support expansion of your roadway
network, you will see yourself exceeding those roadway capacity
limits and as a result you will have a moratorium. This has
happened in Palm Beach and Orange Counties. Palm Beach is facing
impact fees between water, sewer and roads, that total $8-9,000
and even that is not generating enough revenue to expand their
network. This is a very serious problem.
Commissioner Eggert confirmed that we are seeing that
pressure at the Regional Planning Council.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that philosophically he thought
if we are going to take the property, we should buy it. There
must be something worked out where we can get our R/W. We can't
let building go up and fill up,the R/W we will need in the
future. This has happened all over Europe.
Discussion continued in regard to how high impact fees could
have to go, and Commissioner Wheeler commented that in Orlando
impact fees for a fast food restaurant were something like
$8-10,000 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that it will take a lot of
workshops to develop an equitable approach to this problem.
Commissioner Eggert believed a group such as The Moorings
understands that while the 10' R/W may not be sitting there on
their site plan, it is certainly something that well may be
purchased in the not too far distant future, and she could not
imagine them moving a parking lot onto the R/W.
Dorothy Hudson,.attorney for The Moorings, noted that they
do not want to create a substandard project - the problem is that
this road is not on the 20 year plan. She felt we are talking
something in the near future when it isn't in the near future.
Discussion ensued as to why A -1-A is not on the county's 20
year plan., and it was pointed out that it is a state road.
Commissioner Bird reviewed the Motion which is to approve
staff's
4 recommendations and asked
if the funds to be
escrowed
'JUL 217
198
BOOK
73 1 uE 126
M
to cover future construction of an 8' bikepath would go in an
interest bearing escrow account.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that they would.
Commissioner Bowman asked if it would be possible to include
a provision that there be no structures erected within that area,
and Attorney Vitunac advised that it would not be possible.
Chairman Scurlock noted that there is an equity situation
involved here. Now we are talking about extracting these
dollars from this particular developer while in the past no one
paid impact fees with the result that you have little strips of
bike paths that don't connect anywhere. We need to have a major
bikepath plan adopted at some point, but again you have some
people paying because of timing and other people not, and
actually there is not enough money to do any of it. The Chairman
noted that we include drainage in road projects so he could not
see why we cannot include the cost of sufficient bike paths on a
major road network in our impact fees because he believed it is
directly related to moving people.
Public Works Director Davis advised that we haven't done a
major project without accommodating the bikepath. The Florida
DOT green book requires you to consider the pedestrian.
Chairman Scurlock asked if bike paths on SR 60 are included
in our 20 year program and in the cost of the impact fee, and
Director Davis noted that SR60 improvements are not in the 20
year plan nor is most of A -1-A.
Chairman Scurlock felt that logically a bikepath should come
into town on SR60 and then connect with the 17th Street bridge
.over to A -1-A, and we then would have a bikepath that could go
literally from boundary to boundary of the county. This would
provide the ability to come into the core system and bike a
tremendous distance in a safe environment.
Planning Director Keating advised that is consistent with
what the proposed sidewalk/bikeway path system does; it tries to
recognize planned improvements by the county so it incorporates
18
JUL 2 6 1988 Rona 7�
the future Phases III and IV of the Boulevard where there will be
a paved shoulder built for the bike path and also 53rd Street,
which will be a westward link. A pretty deep analysis has been
done on this, and he felt the Board will be impressed with it
when they see it. Director Keating noted that the unfortunate
thing about impact fees and bike paths is that they can't be used
to build stand-alone bike paths if there is no capacity
increasing improvement being done to the roadway. Therefore, the
whole concept is to try to fit the path where the roadway
improvements will be done.
Commissioner Bird commented that as a member of the com-
mittee working on the bikepath system, he is very impressed with
what staff has done up to this time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the -Motion
to approve the staff recommendation as set out in
memo dated July 18, 1988.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
COUNTY -INITIATED REZONING TO CG (4 ACRES NEAR I.R.MEM.HOSPITAL)
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:
JUL 26 198
19 Boo 73 F A - 9
r � �
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Deily
Yarm Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who an as
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press4oumal. a daffy newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian Rider County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a ,r
In the matter of
od
In Use Court. was pub•
— -Itshad In said newspaper in the issues of '
Afflanl further says thatthe said Vero Beach Press•.loumal 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 Rim County, Florida, each daffy and has been
entered as second class mail matterat the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian Rim Court.
ty, Florida, for a pertodof one year neat preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement., and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any peroat, firm
or corporation any discount, (ebate, commission or returnd fort purpose of securing lhh
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Swam to and subseritied before me this day of A.0.19
.-A -t "0AVf
lege Mana9,j) r, �
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court. Indian River County, Flint"
Northeast h4, East � M►4hway u�
the wsstodv.200 feel said kw
j 'zTfte East 653 feel of die South 84. Md `.
of the north'/82.8 feet'of 6te Wal fi'of„
the Sggh'Wof " Northeast 14. Ea4ol-
j IghMliy'of [ &%Eless the ELst 267. r.
• I• -NOTICE' BUC HEARINti '• + m! { •rase thereof': saki propeM do ill .1
'Nonce :ol. h6aring l►►tiated•pg lfufian -River . ; 9 4.Seetton 35: To
SoWI.''
Countrto ccgonsider 0-adoption'of a County 6f-. s^`,3Y}fBaq;. Indian' Rtver;�
".'parcels
dinance' ezbning. atl• Ot tfw'toll' described , a +, yt7udda ° '., f fi ,;
parcels of land fram:.l wet Mull omml�yyf r
dental District to.Cd.,Gen&al �ftiwcial'Ols+.,r P.aticei'3� Is preeefltlyown. by 81ary
strict s►i4►ecy.P� oP��� aren�d, tt►e.1•'Soper. Parcel 5 being dastxibed as
east b1 f 4RighWeYM! f3 �p;�':v,The South 57.71 feet of the nor9t 274.87 Y
S et+3 . + ig feet of the West'14 of the South Ye at IN,
Parcel;f,(d predentiy.owoed, by n Pia, y '' ^ NprJmW 1A. East of yighway U.S.1 less
W Pilikeril4Pardel 1 bbfng'dabdibed aa� ' .* t . -the•weffiterly 200 feet (O.R. Book 4A pp.
r ;,.:.The North 54M.'bet of North 1011,58 feet. •' . „ i`� :Said'. -described . prop" Mn0 In
r` of, the W 'Y. of the Scuth_'15`'ot'tfie ;mon 35.;Tavvr"ip 32 Soudti+
gisat38 hldian '
J!" Aurb6n +ends'+Iasi thO Eas 2U87,4i�;f@ett, .i„} •i yr.r.:,: . •+�ueI... ti :yj
'•.i= •' thereof and less arty portion Willa do- .• '�r public -hearing 1a�t.w���hidt parties In
'�•`5 scribod property h 9 within 200 last of �fa8f10�dII;r*a shall lwve'Un opportunity to
r°'t w.-'curr@nt East Tt1W. One of U.S: High-' ' :y!�d, will bei held by the Dcg qj
IIf e86ri gpetlYJykt17 mlaploners.Q11India River C&nty. Ronda. in
J �angalrtlg! &"!• County Commission Chambers -of the
1�i9..., A1L �YB�_ . ` +�•;`? °'''t ^AdfnlnlSVadOfl BUildm9. locatedd--Bi i1164Q, .
.:. ",'• = « .y' i<. t-. Street,:t{wo Beach. Florida, on TuirJday, .ltfy
PSrc"'4� Windy o+f It Dy Sepaadan AtPa 1988 at 9:05 a r14 •_' 1 • '
$ile
Qi; County Coranisaf
Stamoit arirel 8 ¢eit'f� bei aa*t' a %+Tf1t Board iarerts Maw'
t; * -Beginhh! t a`pciM 886 feet West+olYhe +t%r��d:o less' interyso.zoning djstriet dual
Nordteast.comer!Of'SEA/eaf tier WE %;.-* ',ths d t'requested provided It is.withN
er Wast 216rA feet ,E0Ace Wulh, ". r ;Same genal use category.
Pfeet thar Easy 287;45. teat Anyone who may wish to appeal anynot.North 182;87. feet to -the Point of? '`'vrhich may be made at this meeting will need 101
ii.�hyBegf'llnitig. Said described property lying °;ensure that a verbatim record of the procredirps
in Sectftm ' 39,' cTownBhipp.. 32,1/South; 1tz'i is made: which .Includes .the testimony and evi� j
rf'?;• Range 39 Ea a4''tlrldian' River Count' r r • ;.device upon which the appeal is be based
i`LFlortaQY�(.' •1L'+�, xs t .,,�;� %• �: • :• ,>•;� Indian River County
ENE
hn M. 8 Brendat,Board of comity Commissias: 4 ' By -s -Don C. Scurlock, 0.h 108 58 ,CheUmanfdeflotlh8 Weat:�irOf dN•SOtith'Y� bCthe'j,4' !'wA8'af'rri .i
Staff Planner David Nearing made the staff presentation:
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE:July 11, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
Obert M.ea ing, ICP SUBJECT: TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
Planning & De elopmSbrit Director 4 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG
THRU: Gary Schindler 00W
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: David C. Nearing 117 REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
CC -
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 26, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The county has initated a request to rezone five parcels
consisting of approximately 4 acres. The request is to rezone
these parcels from RM -6, Multi -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre to CG, General Commercial. The subject parcels are
situated on the east side of U.S. 1, east of the Vero Beach City
Limits and south of the 450 acre Hospital/Commercial Node
situated at the intersection of 37th Street and U.S. 1.
J U L . � 1988
z o Boy. �1� F•,cE �6
r � r
This request was initiated as a result of a rezoning request
involving three parcels south of parcel S. That request was
approved April 29, 1988. In addition to approving that rezoning
request, the Board of County. Commissioners directed staff to
initiate the request currently under review. The Board felt that
the remaining parcels in this area should be rezoned to
commercial to avoid a mixed commercial/residential development
pattern from occurring, and to make the zoning for that land
under county jurisdiction compatible with the commercial zoning
of the 200 ft. strip.of land west between the subject parcels and
U.S. 1, which lies within the City of Vero Beach.
On June 9, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of
this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the
reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion.o.f the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts
on the transportation and
-utility systems, and any significant
adverse impacts on environ -
`.r mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
' Parcel #/Zoning Current Use
Surrounding Uses/Zoning
1/RM-6 8 unit Trail. Pk. North: Vacant/MED, Med.
District
�= ..
South: Parcel 3/RM-6
East: Parcel 2/RM-6
West: Single -Family/
City of Vero
Zoning C -1B,
Business Comm.
2/RM-6 Vacant
North: Vacant/MED
South: Vacant/CG
East: Vacant/RM-6
West: Parcels 1,3,&4/
RM -6
Parcel #/Zoning Current Use
Surrounding Uses/Zoning
3/RM-6 8 unit Trail Pk.
North: Parcel 1/RM-6
same as Par. 1
South: Parcel 4/RM-6
East: Parcel 2/RM-6
West: Vacant/City of Vero
C -1B
4/RM-6 Vacant
North: Parcel 3/Rm-6
South: Vacant/CG
East: Parcel 2/RM-6
West: Auto dealer/CG
5/RM-6 Vacant
North: Auto dealer,
Vacant/CG
South: Vacant/CG
East: Vacant RM -6 '
West: Single -Family/
City of Vero
C -1B
Future Land Use Pattern
The current land use designation for
the five subject parcels is
MXD, Mixed Use. District (allowing up to 6 units/acre). All
surrounding land within .the county's jurisdiction currently zoned
CG or RM -6 has a land use designation of MXD. To the north of
21
JUL 2 6 1998
� -
Rcoa 73 �a,,-H?67 I
J
parcels 1 and 2 is the 450 acre Hospital/Commercial Node: All
land lying within the 200 ft. wide strip of land under city
jurisdiction west to U.S. 1 is Commercial.
This request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation System
The subject property currently has no direct access. However,
access can be gained to U.S. 1 across the property situated
within the City, most of which is under common ownership.
U.S. 1 is classified as an arterial road on the county's
Thoroughfare Plan. Currently, this section of U.S. 1 is
operating at a Level -of -Service (LOS) "C" or better. However,
when the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the recent
Comprehensive Plan amendment for this area (changing the land use
-to MXD, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March
15, 1988) they did express concern over the status of U.S. 1.
The DOT, through the DCA, recommended that traffic impact studies
be required of any development which occurs in this area.
Currently, County Code requires that any use which generates over
-`1000 average annual daily trips, or is located in a critical
transportation corridor, can be required to perform an impact
study. The County Traffic Engineer feels that, -based on the DOT
comment, this section of U.S. 1 does qualify as a critical
-corridor.
Environment'
The Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area as
environmentally sensitive, nor is it situated in a flood prone
area.
Utilities -
This area is currently being serviced by City of Vero Beach
public water and wastewater facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-28 rezoning 5 parcels (4 acres) east
of U.S.1 and south of the Hospital/Commercial Node
from RM -6 to CG.
J U L2 2 BOOK `� P,, rVE Z68
2 6 19
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 28
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send -its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Parcel l
The North 54.29 feet of North 108.58 feet of the West 3/4 of
the South i of the Northeast 1, East of Highway U.S. 1 less
Aurand, and less the East 267.45 feet thereof and less any
portion of the described property lying within 200 feet of
the current East R/W line of U.S. Highway #1. Said
described property lying in Section 35, Township 32 South,
Range'39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
Parcel 2
Beginning at a point 660 feet West of the Northeast corner
of SE i of the NE k, continue West 267.45 feet; thence south
162.87 feet; thence East 267.45 feet; thence North 162.87
feet to the Point of Beginning. Said described property
lying in Section 35, Township 32 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, Florida.
Parcel 3
The South 54.29 feet of the North 108.58 feet of the 'West
3/4 of the South } of the Northeast J, East of Highway U.S.
11 less the westerly 200 feet and less the east 267.45 feet
thereof. Said property described lying in Section 35,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Florida.
'JUL 26 1988 23
BOOK .73 F.,lu 62069
Parcel 4
The East 653 feet of the South 54.29 feet of the north 162.8
feet of the West 3/4 of the South j of the Northeast J, East
of Highway U.S. 1, less the East 267.45 feet thereof. Said
property described lying in Section 35; Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
Parcel 5
The South 57.71 feet of the north 274:,87 feet 'of the West
3/4 of the South j of the Northeast J, East of Highway U.S.
1, less the westerly 200 feet (O.R. Book 472 PP. 467). Said
described property lying in Section 35, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CG,
General Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 26th day
of July 81 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
Don Scur ock, Jr. hairman
DISCUSS ORDINANCE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION AND
PLATTING ORDINANCE RE LETTERING SIZE FOR PLATS, ETC.
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:
JUL 2 6 1988 24 BOOK 73 F,,F)F.270
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
t
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
i
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
ocoNs�io aTfte
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
,-N
;Fapop NT OCONSI.t ER E
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
dJptice, �; naretiy;,gh!en .that ,th,
unty:G.ominis�a►era At.6n an S
,public, hearing
a
Fiorfda, ehaU hold a- e
4 dils-in;interest and C_ itizens.shall hat
•_ tunity to. t►e,Mard Int" Coupty
r
CI>eml;era o1 b&;n-'Adminhjb
'.'NMg� IbcatedA40 25th;g�ee��,1
'Florida `;f>11
in the matter of 'Zl
on TGesdaj Uuly2
Consider. ihq-adoption o tl"drd
' a01'�'+NI4NWCSy
FCOUNT1f,; bEIORIDA,
t'tyIONS.: DELETION
in the Court, was pub-
}i r#tENTS.4 SECTIONS 7 Ol+i1
f.4DlvisloN,nNWMI:ATfING!
INDIAN RIVERCOU K R
-�lshed
tV :OF.
70 LE7TERIt�. IZE -FAii
'PLATS;.'AND'. RE�tUIp�Q� W
in said newspaper in the issues of
'FOR PLAT
`TION; OR CONE
PROVIDINQ
PR OVISIONWPRMOING QFi
A91LITY;,PROVIDING �pq 1N
t.RATION' 9N.' . El CODEC,
_
FOR AN EFFEi+ 1�E QPIF,a;
� `6 �r -�l "
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper ublished at
YP
�Copias`bi"'}fia�bpoae�`re►dUE
Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
Available attlaPlainRiny Dspartineii
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
4Amonewhomrr�ayytwiahto'app=sw
ay D at meeting
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
P
ensure' tha verba
that avarbatUmrrd of ___amty,
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 nor any firm
Is made which. tnotudea the. -testi n
dancauponwhiothis appeal will be
paid promised person,
r ii . INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MC
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
•.nr rgOARDOFCOUNTYCOMM
ScUa0ck;Jr ='A
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Br-a-DoriC
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day A.D. 19 f
chairman.
of
s
Buies ge �
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Co nty, o da)
(SEAL)
Asst. County Attorney William Collins, reviewed the
following, stressing the problems encountered by the Clerk of
Courts in trying to preserve the old records in a readable state
and also be sure that the new ones remain readable in the future:
10: The Board of County Comni.ssioners
FROM: voc—Wi I I iam G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 4, 1988
SUBJECT: Amendment to Platting Ordinance
Please find attached a proposed ordinance making minor
revisions to our requirements for final. platting. The
second and the third revision are minor and Incorporate
requirements of Florida Statutes relating to platting. The
second simply provides for inclusion of the name of the
-subdivision within the Certificate of Dedication executed by
the owners. The third. revision. incorporates a new
requirement of Florida law that requires that dedications
25
IJUL 2 6Boa 73 FAGi 271
1988
for utility easements shall also be easements for the use of
cable television services. The first revision and perhaps
the most important, has to do with the lettering size' on
pia,ts. As you may be aware if you have ever tried to read a
plat which has been photographed on microfilm and then
reproduced from the microfilm at half of Its original -size,
It is very difficult to read the printing on many if not
most plats. This raaily defeats one of the functions of
recording a plat, I.e., to put the publ-Ic on notice as to
the ,intentions for the future sale and development of a
particular parcel of land..: To avoid this.prdblem the clerks
office and the county surveyor have suggested a minimum
character height of 5/32 of an inch which is the standard
size used for Department of Defense mlcr.ofiimed materials.
I incorporate for your review examples of -this size print as
well as supporting memorandums from Mr. Cramer and Mr.
Woodard which explain the.need for this change better than I
can.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if we have had objections to
these proposals, and Attorney Collins confirmed that we have.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Peter Musick, registered land surveyor, informed the Board
that he is here to object to the proposed changes. His reason'
was that the Clerk's Office has a microfilm that was designed to
micro film Official Record Book documents; it was never designed
to microfilm recorded plats, and so in the reducing process, they
are encountering problems. Mr. Musick pointed out that right now
anyone interested in a recorded plat can go to the Courthouse and
get a full size copy of it through the blue print process, but he
understood there are other ways of doing this. He further
pointed out that increasing the size of the lettering could take
a one-page plat and literally make it a 3 or 4 page document.
Attorney Collins confirmed Mr. Musick's statement and gave
the Board a copy of a 4 page plat of a portion of Grand Harbor
with the proposed lettering, 3 pages of which contained the
dedicatory language.
Mr. Musick requested that the Board take a hard look at this
proposal and come up -with an alternative. He also asked that the
Board request the Clerk to stop microfilming record piats,with a'
microfilm process that was never designed for plats but for legal
size documents (81 x 14).
JUL 2 26 BooK 7 PA,CF %
19�
Chairman Scurlock felt the question is not the microfilm
process but rather the reproduction machine, and he believed if
you bought a different machine, you could blow the plat up to any
size.
Mr. Musick agreed that the present process can reduce it
down to a postage stamp size, but it can't expand it back out.
Commissioner Eggert questioned how big we want the plat
books that are going to be used every day to serve people up in
the Planning Department, for example. She felt we could get
almost back to having to use the full size. She personally,
after 6-7 years staring at plats when she was on the Planning >;
Zoning Commission and taking anything she could find the enlarge
the print, experienced a great deal of frustration and believed
the people who work with them each day must feel equal
frustration.
Chairman Scurlock asked how our Planning staff feels about
this, and Director Keating advised that they do have a magnifying
glass they use a lot when reading the plat books; however, they
understand the Clerk's problem because there are many plats where
they cannot read the dedicatory Language even with a magnifying
glass, and this language is very important when they are trying
to find out what was dedicated and who owns roads.
Commissioner Wheeler felt there is not much sense in stor-
ing records that are not completely usable.
The Chairman concurred that there is a problem, but he was
not sure this is the correct way to solve it. If the problem can
be solved by us budgeting for some additional equipment to get
everything in a readable state, that would seem the solution
rather than solving one problem and creating another.
Mr. Musick continued to express his objections to having
plats that would consist of three or four pages which he felt
could result in chaos down the road as there is always the
possibility that you could lose a page.
27
,JUL 2 6 1988 BOOK 73 P GC 2.073
Discussion ensued in regard to tabling this item and asking
staff to work with Rick Woodard, Manager of Microfilm for the
Clerk, and come up with a solution to satisfy both sides. It was
noted that Mr. Woodard is on vacation and will not be back for
another week.
Attorney Collins advised that he will ask Mr. Woodard to be
present when this items comes back to the Board.
Discussion continued and Mr. Musick advised that his
computer man says you can digitize these plats and store them on
floppy discs.
Chairman Scurlock believed in our Building Department we
have a reserve account of about .$600,000. He assumed what these
plats are used for ultimately is to build something, and he
wondered if those funds could be used to buy a piece of equipment
that would help the Clerk and ultimately help us not make a lot
of mistakes.
Commissioner Eggert continued to stress the need for all the
wording on the plats to be readable without them being so huge it
makes them equally ungainly.
Mr. Musick believed the surveyors and engineers can perform
a little disciplinary action within the ranks and make sure they
use the finest pens and make the letters as large as they can.
He hoped the.Board would table this item at this time.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Robert "Flip" Lloyd, Engineer and Surveyor, expressed his
opposition for the same reasons enumerated by Mr. Musick. He
believed other equipment may be the answer. He also pointed out
that there is a plat book where the large plats are available for
the public to see and what is proposed won't do anything for the
old recorded plats in any event. He further noted that the state
requires that platting be legible.
Attorney Dorothy Hudson advised that she did not see any
problem with multi -page plats, and stated that she was in favor
of anything that improves their legibility.
JUL 2 6 1988
28 BooK .73 pnE 274
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
further consideration of the proposed platting
ordinance amendments for two weeks.
RELEASE OF EASEMENT - RUSTIC DIMENSIONS (STEVENS PARK SUBDV.)
Administrator BbI czun reviewed memo of Code Enforcement
Officer Heath:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: June 29, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator -
DIVISION J1EAD CONCURRENCE:
- 4: 2, 4 e � R ert M. P. SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY
g. RUSTIC DIMENSIONS,,INC.
Community Developme Director PROPERTY - LOT 20, BLOCK "K",
STEVENS PARK SUBDIVISION,
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois 'Wp UNIT NO. ONE
Chief, Environmental. Planning
FROM Charles W. HeathGG✓� REFERENCES:
RUSTIC MEMO
Code Enforcement Officer DISK. CHEATH
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of
July 19, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Rustic Dimensions, Incorporated, a
Florida Corporation, owner of the subject property, for the release
of a two (2) foot portion of the easterly ten (10) foot utility and
drainage easement of Lot 20, Block "K", Stevens Park Subdivision,
Unit No. One, Section 16, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian
River County, Florida; according to the Plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book 4, Page 53, of the Official Records of Indian River
County, Florida. It is the petitioner's intent to construct a
single-family residence on the property; the release of a -portion of
the easement is requested to allow for the extension of roof eaves
over the easement.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is
LD -2, Low Density Residential, allowing up to six (6) units per
acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Cablevision Corporation,
and the Indian River County Utility Department and Engineering
Division. The Indian River County Engineering Division will agree
to a conditional release if the petitioner installs a culvert in
that portion of the drainage ditch which shall be determined by the
29
,JUL 2 6 1999 Boos 73 F{ ,)i #75
County Engineer for size, length, type, and placement. This
condition will enable the County to maintain the drainage system,
and prevent erosion of soils around the foundation of the residence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolution;
the release of the westerly two (2) feet of the easterly ten (10)
foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 20, Block "K", Stevens
Park Subdivision, Unit No. One, Section 16, Township 33, Range 39
East, Plat Book 4, Page 53, of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-45 releasing the westerly 2' of the
easterly 10' utility and drainage easement of Lot 20,
Block "K°, Stevens Park Subdv., Unit One, as requested
by Rustic Dimensions, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-45
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING A
PORTION OF A CERTAIN EASEMENT IN
THE STEVENS PARK SUBDIVISION UNIT
NO. ONE, LOT 20, BLOCK "K"
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an easement as
I
described below, and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has agreed to install a
culvert in the easement. for drainage control, subject to
approval by the County Engineer regarding size, length,
type, and placement,
WHEREAS, the retention- of a portion of the
easement serves no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of a portion of an easement is .
executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address
is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
Rustic Dimension, Incorporated, a Florida Corporation, their
30
J U L 2 6198BooK 73 P,{, i 976
successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing
address is 450 38th Court, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
described easement portion:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commis-
sioner Wheeler , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted on the 26th day of
July 1988, by the following vote:
Commissioner Scurlock Aye -
Commissioner Bowman Aye
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 26th day of July 01
1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By �dn c, /,, Z - __
Don C. Scurlock, J
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
A portion of the easterly ten (10) foot utility and
drainage easement of Lot 20, Block "K", Stevens Park
Subdivision, Unit No. One, being the westerly two (2) feet
of the easterly ten (10) feet of Lot 20, Block "K", Stevens
Park Subdivision, Unit No. One, according to 'the Plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 04, Page 53, of the Offical
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
31
JUL 2 6 1988 Boog. .73 ou 277
PLANNING DIVISION FEE ANALYSIS
Community Development Director Keating reviewed the
following memo:
TO: Charles Balczun CATE�uly 7, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
PLANNING -DIVISION FEE
SUBJECT: ANALYSIS
FROM:Robert M. Keating, AICPR REFERENCES:- _
Director
Community Development Department
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal -
consideration by the' Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 19, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
In the beginning of 1987, -the planning staff, at the direction of
the Board of County Commissioners,: initiated an analysis of the
planning division's fee structure. This analysis involved
estimating total county costs for the division's various review
and permitting functions. It also. involved a survey of other
local governments to determine the fee structure of those
governments.
Because of staff turnover and competing priorities, the fee
analysis was delayed. ,However, at. the beginning of 1988, the
analysis was reactivated, and it was completed recently. The
completed analysis, proposed fee schedule, and implementing
resolution are attached to this agenda item. The analysis report
is self-explanatory, identifying methodology, man-hour estimates,
and revised fees.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The proposed fee schedule reflects the county's costs to process
permits and reviews. The cost estimates include not only the
planning division's staff time, but also the staff time of other
county departments. As such, the proposed fees assess applicants
a fee comparable to the county's processing costs.
In considering the proposed fee schedule, the Board of County
,Commissioners has several alternatives. The Board can approve
the proposed fees, approve a modification of the proposed fees,
r deny the recommended fee schedule revisions. Because' the
w�;rxstaff has estimated processing costs'and compared these costs to
°the fees charged.*by other local governments, the staff feels that
h the fees are reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
M11% staff recommends that the Board approve the
schedule by adopting.the attached resolution.
proposed fee
J U L 2 6 1988 32 eool, 7 3ri fE�%
Director Keating advised that staff started on this well
over a year ago, and they assessed the entire fee structure of
the Community Development Department. He reviewed in detail how
they analyzed costs and surveyed local governments in the area to
see if the proposed costs are comparable. Table 2 sets out the
Fee Schedule Comparison, and Director Keating explained they used
an average and a range because different governments charge in a
different manner so that it is hard to compare.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know if we have a.revenue
estimate of what this new fee recommendation would generate for
next year and whether that would be plugged into the budget prior
to our final budget hearings.
Director Keating advised that staff has not done a projec-
tion of how much it will bring in because it varies according to
how many plats and site plans come in and how big they are. He
could say that the first 6 months of the current fiscal year, the
total Planning Division's fee revenue was $56,000.
Commissioner Eggert expressed concern about the fee for
minor site plans as people need to improve their property, and
felt it has become very costly; although, she realized staff
still has to go through the whole process with them.
Director Keating believed on minor site plans, administra-
tive approvals are still within a reasonable cost range; those
are $100, and they include improvements up to 1500 sq. ft.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, to adopt Resolution 88-46 approving
the proposed Fee Schedule for the Planning Division.
Director Keating wished the Board to be aware that he did
include a $25 fee for a written confirmation of zoning. People
can call up and get verbal confirmation, but if they ask for
written confirmation, it will be $25.00. Actually, we don't get
that many requests.
J U L 2 6 1988 33 BOOK 73 F►,GE 27�
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 46
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ESTABLISHING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND
CHARGES FOR REVIEWS, PERMITS, PUBLICATIONS,
AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, Chapter 125.01, F.S. provides Indian River County
with the authority to charge a fee to recover all or part of the
cost of processing applications, distributing publications, and
providing certain services; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Planning Department staff
has done an analysis to determine the costs of processing
applications, distributing publications, and providing services;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed fees do not exceed the costs estimated
for those functions,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
The schedule of fees and charges described in Exhibit
"A" and attached hereto is hereby approved and made
effective on August 1, 1988. All current fees and
charges conflicting with those in Exhibit "A" are
repealed effective August 1; 1988.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and
adopted on the 26th day of July 1988, by the following
vote:
Commissioner
Scurlock
Aye
Commissioner
Wheeleryyee
-
Commissioner
Birdyx
e
Commissioner
Bowmanyyee
-
Commissioner
Eggertyyee
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 26th day of July 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By /
Don . Scurlock, Jr
Chairman
s 4
J U L 2 6 19 BOOK FACE 280
EXHIBIT "A"
FEE SCHEDULE
FEE CATEGORY FEE AMOUNT
Rezoning
less than 5 acres $ 650.00
5-40 acres 850.00
41-100 acres 950.00
over 100 acres 1,000.00 + 50.00 for each
add. 25 acres
Land Use Plan Amendment
less than 5 acres
5-40 acres
41-100 acres
over 100 acres
Combined Rezoning/Plan Amendment
less than 5 acres
5-40 acres
41-100 acres
over 100 acres
$ 750.00-
950.00
1,050.00
1,050.00 + 50.00 for each
add. 25 acres
$ 950.00
1,100.00
1,200.00
1,350.00 + 50.00 for each
add. 25 acres
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Element Other Than Land Use $ 500.00
Amendment to Text of Zoning
Ordinance $ 500.00
Site Plan Review
Minor $ 325.00
Major
less than 5 acres 600.00
5-10 acres 850.00
10 acres -or more 1,000.00
Administrative Approvals 100.00
Major Modifications Same as orig. fee
Appeal by Applicant no charge
By Affected Party 200.00
Subdivision Review
Pre -Application Conference $ 150.00
Preliminary Plat
10 acres or less 450.00
more than 10 acres 550.00
Final Plat 425:00
Special Exception Request _
less than 40 acres $ 200.00
40-100 acres 300.00
over 100 acres 500.00 + $2.00 for each
add: 25 acres over
100 acres
JUL 2 c� 1988 35
900K .73 r'281 81
EXHIBIT "A"
FEE SCHEDULE
FEE CATEGORY FEE AMOUNT
Planned Residential Development
Request - Conceptual PRD'Special
Exception
less than 20 acres'
20-40 acres
over 40 acres
$ 850.00
950.00
1,000.00 + 50.00 for each add.
25 acres over 40
acres
Preliminary PRD Plan -
less than 20 acres $ 950.00'
20-40 acres 1,050.00
over 40 acres 1,100.00 + 50.00 for each add.
25 acres over 40
acres
PRD Final Special Exception -
(Combination of Conceptual Combine above applicable
and Preliminary PRD Plans) fees and subtract $200.00
PRD Land Development Permit
Final PRD Plan $ 450.00
PRD Plan Minor Modification 100.00
Final PRD Plan Major Modification 500.00
Development of Regional Impact -Review
Residential/Mixed Use
less than -40 acres
40 acres or more
Commercial
less than 500,000 sq. ft. of
building area
500,000 sq. ft. or more
Substantial deviation
Minor amendment
$1,000.00
1,100.00 + 50.00 for each add.
25 acres over 40
acres
$1,300.00
1,400.00 + $100 for each add.
50,000 sq. ft. over
500,000 sq. ft.
same formula as original fee
$ 500.00
Misc. Permits/Services
Tree Removal
$ 40.00
Land Clearing
40.00
Mangrove Alteration
50.00
Land Development
650.00
Sign Permit*
30.00
R.O.W. Abandonment
_
500.00
Plat Vacation
500.00
Plat Vacatiqn Concurrent with
,^
Final Plat
200.00
Release of Easement
90.00
Variances
500.00
Administrative Appeals
500.00
Pond 36
70.00
B00w 13
6
J U L 2 6 1988
EXHIBIT "A"
FEE SCHEDULE
FEE CATEGORY FEE AMOUNT
Home Occupation
Alcoholic Beverage
Temporary Use
Fence Administrative Appeal
Covenant Agreement.
Site Plan CO reinspection fee
Mining
Written Zoning Confirmation
CCCL Review/Letter
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map
Overall Economic Development Plan
Commercial/Industrial Development
Guide •
Stormwater Management Ordinance
Misc. Ordinance
Zoning Atlas Page
Complete Zoning_ Atlas
Base Maps
911 Maps
25.00
35.00
45.00
45,00
70.'00
25. 00
100.00
25.00
25.00
25.00-
15.00
5.00"15.00
15.00
---3.00
2.50
10.00
3.00
10 cents per page
2.00 per page.
150.00
4.00
12.50
SURVEY OF PARCEL ADJOINING WEST REG. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following:
DATE: JULY 13, 1988 ✓G
TO: CHARLES BALCZUN ��•� ,�
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR`•� %
•�
9�
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTOX •
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT S V CES �•�
FROM: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEE
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL T, SERVICES
SUBJECT: SURVEY OF THE + 150 ACRE LAND PARCEL
ADJOINING THE COUNTIES WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
BACKGROUND:
On July 5, 1988 the Indian River County Board of Commissioners
approved the purchase of the + 150 acre parcel adjoining the West
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant: To this end we wish to have a
boundary survey done prior to the execution of this purchase.
ANALYSIS:
On June 25, 1988 requests for bids were sent out to our short listed
firms for surveying. The bids were as follows:
37
JUL 2 6 1988 BOOK 73 [',uL283
1. Lloyd and Associates
Price: $1,499.00
2. Masteller, Moler and Reed, Inc.
Price: $1,560.00
3. Carter Associates, Inc.,
Price: $1,800.00
4. Beindorf and Associates
Price: $5,800.00
RECOMMENDATIONS:
R
The Utilities staff recommends•..award of the aforementioned work to
the low bidder Lloyd and Associates in the amount of $1,499.00.
This can be done by signing the attached contract. i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
award of the boundary survey of the 150 acre parcel
adjoining the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
to the low bidder, Lloyd and Associates, in the amount
of $1499 as recommended by staff and authorized the
Chairman to sign the following letter contract.
LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
July 13, 1988
Mr. William McCain
Indian River County
Utilities Department
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Boundary Survey
Tracts 3, 40, 5 and 6 Lying
East of the Main Canal
Section 14, Township 33 s, Range 38E
Dear Bill:
ROBERT F. LLOYO 1, �� f Y
REGISTERED [I VIL 6N GINEERrJS88
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 844
(407) 13132-411a
183E 2OTH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
3a 960
This letter is to confirm that our firm will do a boundary
survey placing five corners on the boundaries of the
referenced property, together with a certified survey
drawing for a total figure of $1,499. This work will be
accomplished and delivered to you prior to July 29, 1988.
LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
B
o rt0Y.- Lloya,,ALS 944
President
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Approved: 7-26-88
By)m C.- ZIA
APPROVED AS TO f0M
AND L L S F lC NC.Y:
38
(r)j PACE C484 Chafles P. Vilunac
County Alloln®y
0
ROSELAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. REQUEST MARL FOR SCHOOL BOARD
PROPERTY FITNESS TRAIL
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following, emphasizing
that the property is owned by the School Board so it is public
property:
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. 'dwO
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request from Roseland Property Owners Assoc., Inc.
for 150 Cubic Yards of Marl for School Board Property
Fitness Trail
REF. LETTER: Margaret Hearndon to Pat Callahan dated -6-26-88
DATE: July 19, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Roseland Property Owners Assoc. is requesting 150 cubic yards
of marl (approximate cost $600) to construct a fitness path in
Roseland. A two acre site has been made available by the Indian
River County School Board.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the marl be donated by the County. Funding to
be from Fund 001-210 Parks Dept. budget. Funds are available.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
donation of marl for the purpose described above.
CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN ROCKRIDGE
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
39
BOOK 73 F,,a,I E 8
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Construction of Drainage Improvements in Rockridge
REF. LETTER: Brian Graham, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
to Jim Davis dated July 7, 1988
DATE: July 19, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
When the Rockridge sewer project. was bid, Public Works requested
an alternate bid item be included for construction of drainage
swales in rear lot easements where the sewer lines were to be
constructed. The bid for this work was $84,000. At the present
time, funding for this work has not been considered.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Accept the alternative bid item for rear lot swales at a cost of
$84,000 and Appropriate the funding in FY88/89 Road and Bridge
Division's budget.
Alternative No. 2
Request the Road and Bridge Division to construct the swales
after the sewer lines are constructed. Since rock is located in
this area, it is possible that the Road and Bridge Division could
disturb the sewer system and nullify the contractor's warranty.
Alternative No. 3
Reject the alternate bid and not construct the swale system.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Alternative 1 be approved.
40 BOOK 73 m,)'[286J U L � 19
r
CDMCAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
environmental engineers, scientists, 660 Beachland Boulevard Suite 202
planners, 6 management consultants Vero Beach, Florida 32963
407 231-4301 Fax: 407 231-4332
July 7, 1988
11
Mr. Jim Davis
Public Works Director
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Rockridge Sanitary Sewer System
Dear Mr. Davis:
As we had discussed earlier this year, -the -construction of_swales in the -
backyard easements was included 'in the Rockridge Area Sanitary Sewer
System bid package as an Alternate Bid Item.
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved the award
of the construction contract of the sanitary sewers to Roese Contracting
Co. on May 31, 1988. Roese had an Alternate Bid of $84,000 for the
construction of the swales (see attached).
If you would like to discuss this or any other project, please feel free
to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Brian J.raham
Director Davis explained that this item was bid as a
alternate item because it is really not a part of the sewer work,
and he believed there are grant monies involved with the sewer
work. He advised that it was bid that way just to see what it
would cost while we are in there digging the sewer lines in the
back lot easements to improve the drainage.
Chairman Scurlock wished to suggest something. He advised
that he has talked with the gentleman, and you must consider the
fact that this is not his area of particular expertise in that
sense; so, rather than awarding the $84,000, which he believed
was more of a ballpark figure, he would like to see the Board
authorize staff to negotiate a price as he believed we can get it
for about $62,000.
41 BOOK 7F��.GE 28
'JUL 2 � 1988
Director Davis concurred, but advised the Board that they
did not have this funding programmed in their budget, and he
would like to increase the budget for next year to do this as he
really does not have a $60,000 cushion after they took the
$200,000 out at budget session.
Chairman Scurlock felt the final budget hearings would be
the place to bring this up.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Utilities and
Public Works staff to negotiate the bid for con-
struction of drainage swa'les to get a better price
as recommended by the Chairman and to approve same
subject to the funding being approved at final budget.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if this work is something
that has to be done, and Director Davis stated that it does not
have to, but staff recommends this be done in conjunction with
the sewer work because we don't want to grass it and restore it
twice. We also don't want an independent contractor to work here
and disturb the force mains and feel it would be better to have
one contractor do it all.
THE CHAIRMAN called for the question.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
GIFFORD PARK TENNIS COURTS LIGHTING - FELLSMERE WASHINGTON PARK
IMPROVEMENTS
Administrator Balczun reviewed memo from the Purchasing
Manager:
42 Boa 73 mu -t 288
JUL 2 6 199
------------------------------------------------
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Gifford Park Tennis Courts Lighting
Fellsmere Washington Park Improvements
REF: Gus Ambler, Purchasing Manager to Ralph Brescia dated
7/18/88
DATE: July 19, 1988
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff has bid the following projects and has received no
bids for the Gifford Park Tennis Courts Lighting and only one
partial bid for the Washington Park Improvements. Both projects
are budgeted for FY 87/88 and .must be complete by September 30,
1988.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1
Rebid the projects. This will take a minimum of 45 days and
may not yield any new bids.
Alternative 2
Authorize Staff to negotiate a price with know contractors.
Recent past projects would guide staff in obtaining a fair price.
We propose to eliminate the performance bond since the cost of
the work is not over $100,000.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2. Once a contract is
negotiated, staff will bring it to the Board for approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Alterna-
tive 2 authorizing staff to negotiate a price with
known contractors and bring the contract back to the
Board for approval.
.MISCELLANEOUS INTERSECTIONS PHASE II - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 8 FINAL
PAYMENT 8TH ST/27TH AVE. AND OSLO RD/US 1 INTERSEC_
The Administrator reviewed the following:
43
JUL BOOK 73 F'"GE ���
6199
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P. r__Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Intersections Phase II -
Change Order No. 3 and Final Payment
for 8th St/27th Avenue and Oslo Road/US 1
Intersection - Total Contract $252,505.19
DATE•: July 12, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Construction of signalization, drainage -improvements, and roadway
widening is complete at the Oslo Road/US 1 intersection and the
8th Street/27th Avenue intersection. Change Order No. 3 has been
prepared to reconcile final bid quantities as constructed in the
field and to reduce the contract by $3,638.37. -
In addition,• the County is withholding 100 of the contract or
$18,987.48 as retainage to the Dennis L. Smith, Inc. construction
contract. Since two of three intersections have been completed
and right-of-way acquisition is delaying the third intersection
improvement (4th Street/ Old Dixie Hwy.), staff is of the opinion
that the County should release the 10% retention on the two
completed intersections.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives presented are:
Alternative No. 1
Approve Change Order No. 3 to reduce the contract by
$3,638.37 and release the 101Q retainage for construction of
the Oslo Road/US 1 and 27th Avenue/8th Street intersections
($18,987.48).
Alternative No. 2
Approve Change Order No, 3 to reduce the contract by
$3,638.37.
RECOMM-NDATION AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended to approve Change Order No. .3 to
ge
reduce the contract by $3,638.37 and release the 10 g;retaina.3 in
the amount of $18,987.4.8 and authorize the Chairman's signature.
Funding to be from Fund 109, Gas Tax revenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman; the Board unanimously approved Alternative
No..1 - approving Change Order No. 3 and authorizing
release of the 10% retainage ($18,987.48) for the inter-
sections completed.
,JUL 6 1988 4 4 Bou 7 P,, ,u. ?9®
CHANGE ORDER
No. 3
Dated June 28 1988
Owner's Project No. 8532 Engineer's Project No. 86-9;R
Project Misc. Intersections - Roadway and Utility Improvements
Owner Indian River Count
Contractor Dennis L. Smith, Inc. Contract Date Septemhe—q, iAR3
Contract For Road Im rovements at usi.o wo
and 27th Avenue, and 4th Street and Old Dixie Highway
Nature of the Change: Overruns and underruns needed to balance to
in-place quantities.
ITEM OVERRUN UNDERRUN
NO. _ DESCRIPTION4YT•
811H STREET AND 27TH AVENUE
102.74 Maintenance of Traffic +4,475 DAYS $ 2,237.50
331-2 Asphaltic Concrete S-1
522-2 Concrete Sidewalk 6"
595-1 Add Auxiliary Roadway
Items
711-6-41(Y) Solid Traffic Stripe
(4" Yellow)
711-6-121(W) Solid Traffic Stripe
12" White)
10 Sheeting
575-1-4 Sodding
OSIA ROAD & U.S. NO. 1
Adjustment to C.O. #2
(Oslo Rd.) due to
addition error
-14.67 IXW
- 45 SY
- 32%
- 478 IF
- ,762 IF
- 60 LF
+ 500 SY
$ 623.48
765.00
1,600.00
133.84
853.44
2,400.00
500.00
$ 2,737.50
$'6,375.87
$ 3,638.37
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Time:
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order
$ 256,143.56
Net p ) (decrease) resulting from this Change Order $ 3,638.37
Current Price Including This Change Order
$ 252,505.19
4 5
BOOK 7
JL 2 6 198
M M M
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order -59- Calendar Days.
Net (Increase) (Decrease) resulting from this
Change Order
MM
Calendar Days
Current Contract time including this Change
Order -59- Calendar Days
The above changes are approved:
The above changes are accepted:
e VC
Don C. Scurlock-, Jr.
cba'rman, 13oard of Ooun 'ssioners
In River County
:':LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineer
By:
Date: June 28, 1988
DENNIS L. SMITH, INC.
Contractor
By:
Date: �p�30 z� 8
ACCEPTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
J(zAes W. Davis, Director of Public
. Balc Works
.,= for Date:
W11liam 6� Collins II
Assistant County Attorney
,4). L
Jo ph A. Baird,
Bud et & Management Director
REQUEST SURVEY UPDATING CROSS SECTIONS OF EXISTING LANDFILL CELL
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following memo recommend-
ing award to Masteller, Moler and Reed, Inc.
JUL 2 6 1988 46 BooK 73 ucE 292
DATE:
JULY 12, 1988
TO.
THRU :
BOARD OF COUNTY CO
TERRANCE G. PINT
O RS
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY
RV CES
FROM:
H. T. "SONNY" DEAN
MANAGER OF SOLID WAST
AGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY
ERVICES
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR SURVEY -
UPDATING - CROSS
SECTIONS
ON EXISTING LANDFILL
CELL
BACKGROUND
As you are aware the volume of the first cell at the County Landfill
is almost at full capacity. A cross section was completed last year
for the subject cell, and we directed all received material in the
applicable areas. The contract for Segment II has been awarded, but
construction will take approximately six months.
In view of the anticipated time table for construction, it is
imperative the subject survey be completed as soon as possible to
allow all material received to be located in areas not at full
capacity.
Request for proposals were sent out to perform the required work. Of
the four requests sent; three were returned, one of which decided not
to respond.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the work be awarded to Masteller, Moler and Reed,
Inc., who submitted a low quote of $2,800.00.
Monies for this work will come from the Other Professional Services
in the landfill budget.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know what the other quotes were
since that information was not included in the backup, and he
felt it should be,a part of the record.
"Sonny" Dean, Solid Waste Manager, informed the Board that
the bid received from Lloyd 8 Associates was $3,700 and the bid
from Marshall, McCully & Associates was $3,200.
Commissioner Bowman noted that the proposal from Masteller,
Moler 8 Reed says "For any and all subcontract services invoiced
through our office, there will be a 10% surcharge of the face
amount of said invoice......." She wished to know if that is
standard.
Administrator Balczun noted that it is standard to have a
surcharge, and usually it is 10% with most contractors; that is
47 BOOK.
'JUL 2.6 1988
S]
0
their overhead for handling it. Although he doesn't like the
idea, somebody with a license is going to have to review these.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded the
above described survey work at the existing landfill
cell to Masteller, Moler and Reed, as low bidder in
the amount of $2,800.
M MASTELLER, MOLER & REED, INC.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 1045
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32858
(305) 589-4810
June 27, 1988
Mr. Sonny Dean
Department of Utility Services
Indian River County
Post Office Box 1750
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Survey Proposal for Updated Cross Sections on the
Existing Landfill Cell and Furnish Control on the
Outbound of the Proposed Landfill Cell
Dear Mr. Dean:
We thank you for the opportunity to offer the expertise
and experience of Masteller, Moler & Reed Inc. relative to
the proposed referenced project. Upon field investigation of
the site, Masteller, Moler & Reed, Inc. proposes to furnish
the following:
Preparation of the necessary cross sections on the
existing landfill cell to furnish volumes and
elevations. Volumes and elevations will be depicted on
topographic survey drawings delineating contours, relief
and cross sections.. All elevations will be based on
NGVD. We also will set the outbound limits of the new
proposed cell with permanent survey markers. We will
furnish a drawing depicting length, direction and what
type of corners were set. I suggest that I meet with
YOU upon completion and.walk over the property for
review.
We propose to perform the above described scope of
services for the lump sum fee of $2,800.00. The fee for our
services does not include any recording or filing fees. If
at any time information must be forwarded to you by express
mail, these charges will be included on your invoice.
JUL G �9 48 BOOK 7 uG,L / 94
M M M
For any and all subcontract
our office, there will be a 10%
of said subcontractor's invoice,
associated with administration
subcontractor's services.
services invoiced through
surcharge of the face amount
in order to cover the costs
and coordination of the
Items not specifically outlined in this proposal are not
to be considered a part of this contract.
Other provisions are as follows:
a) Payment of Fees
Payment of all fees for services rendered shall be paid
within thirty (30) days of billing. Commencing on the
thirty-first day, interest shall be added to the unpaid
balance at the rate of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per
month or a total of eighteen percent (18%) per annum. In the
event that the matter of delinquent payments shall be turned
over to legal counsel for collection, there shall be added to
the amounts due the sum of fifteen percent (15%) of the
outstanding balance which is agreed by -all parties hereto to
be reasonable legal fees, or actual legal fees, whichever
amount is greater.
The surveys prepared by Masteller, Moler & Reed, Inc.
shall be the sole property of that firm until payment on any
unpaid balance is made in full. Owner/Client agrees that
until payment is made in full, he, she, or it shall have no
proprietary interest in the surveys prepared by Masteller,
Moler & Reed, Inc. Masteller, Moler & Reed, Inc. shall have
the absolute right to request return of any and all drawings
submitted to governmental bodies or other parties on behalf
of the Owner/Client in the event of non-payment of
outstanding fees by Owner/Client:
b) Additional Work Performed
Any and all work performed, other than that specifically
contracted for within this general contract, shall be billed
at the following job classification and rates:
Principal of Firm ...........................870.00/hr.
Survey Field Coordinator .....................530.00/hr.
Field Crew...................................865.00/hr.
Draftsperson.................................830.00/hr.
No such work shall be undertaken except upon
authorization of Owner/Client, which authorization need not
be written.
c) Representations Relating to Work Performed
The surveys which are subject to this contract shall be
prepared in a professional, good and workmanlike manner.
Nevertheless, no representations or warranties are made
as to the success, approval or the issuance of permits on any
application submitted by Owner/client based in whole or in
part upon the surveys prepared by Masteller, Moler & Reed,
Inc.
d) Print Costs
Print costs include five (5) copies of each phase of
each survey as part of the surveying fee. All other prints
J U L 2 6 198849
Boor, 73 r,,c'. %95
and Xerox copies requested by the client shall be billed to
the client based on a charge of 33.33 cents/SF for blue 'line
prints, 50.75/SF for sepias, 54.40/SF for mylars, $0.25 for
each 8 1/2 x 11 copy, $0.35 for each 8 1/2 x 14" copy, and
$0.50 for each oversized copy.
e) Price Guarantee
Prices quoted are firm for sixty (60) days from the date
of this proposal.
f) Contract Assignment
While binding upon the parties, their successors or
assigns, this Contract may not'be transferred or assigned
without the consent of both parties. The Owner/client
reserves the right to terminate this Contract within ten (10)
days written notice. Masteller,-Moler & Reed, Inc. shall
be compensated for services performed to -termination date.
If this proposal meets with -your approval, please sign_
and return one (1) copy of. this letter as -our formal
Authorization to Proceed.
Sincerely,
MASTE R, MOLER & REED, INC.
Rod L. Reed, R.L.S. #3916
President
AUTHORIZATON TO PROCEED
r July 26, 1988
SIGNATURE DATE
Indian River County
COMPANY NAME
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
ADDRESS
Chairman
TITLE
PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT - CITY OF SEBASTIAN & I.R.COUNTY FOR
AMBULANCE SQUAD
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
L_
50
BOOK 7 3 F,�cE P9
17
TO: Board of County Commissioners
r
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 14, 1988
RE: PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT - CITY OF SEBASTIAN
AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR AMBULANCE SQUAD
Board Meeting - July 26, 1988 -
Attached 1s correspondence and the first page of a proposed
lease from the City of Sebastian to Indian River County of
the former Sebastian Ambulance' Squad facilities. -The County_
would be required to sublease the property to the Fdllsmere-
Volunteer Ambulance Squad.
The cover letter from the City of Sebastian Assistant
Finance Director indicates that Sebastian believes -that
Indian River County has the statutory responsibility to
provide ambulance service. This is not correct --Florida law
gives the County the power to provide ambulance service but
does not require it to.
I request direction from the Board whether to enter Into
this lease and sublease arrangement.
Attorney Vitunac advised that staff sees no reason for the
County to get involved with the Sebastian owned site and lease it
to the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Squad. Sebastian can act as
a landlord as well or better than the county could.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she had very strong feelings
about not getting involved, and Administrator Balczun advised
that staff also felt very strongly that we should not be
involved.
N
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously directed
the County Attorney not to enter into the proposed
lease and sublease arrangement.
51
BOOK � FH,E ?97
DOT/GRAND HARBOR PLAT 1
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: w (..William G. Collins 11�- Assistant County Attorney
DATE: July 13, 1988
SUBJECT: DOT/Grand Harbor Plat 1
In the Certificate of Dedication 'of Grand Harbor - Plat 1,
the developer specifically excepted from dedication, through
language of reservation, certain lands for future conveyance
to DOT. The language reads as follows:
"The proposed DOT'drainage right-of-way,
adjacent to the east right-of-way for U.
S. Highway No. 1,*as shown is reserved
for future conveyance to the State of
Florida Department of Transportation,
subject to appropriate easement for
access roadway and utilities."
The developer subsequently attempted to make conveyance to
DOT of the designated property which was reserved from
dedication. DOT would not accept a deed, stating as an
objection the language in the Certificate 'of Dedication
which they took to make the conveyance subject to certain
easements.
DOT's position is that they released a drainage canal to the
developer free and clear 'and that they should get a
conveyance free and clear (of easements) in return. They
also contend that in the event they ever needed to move a
drainageway under the property conveyed, they would be put
In the position of condemning the easement, which Is an
Interest in property, rather than simply revoking a permit
and reissuing it at another location.
It is my feeling that the quoted language does not limit the
developer in his future disposal of the property reserved.
The public only has rights In that property which is
dedicated. This property was.reserved to the developer and
kept separate from the effect of dedication. I read the
quoted language as simply evidencing a statement of
Intention on the part of the developer. v
eloer
having retained title to the property can convey Iteither
free and clear or subject to easements, whichever suits the
needs and purposes of the two parties to the conveyance.
Since the reservation precluded any rights accruing to the
public through dedication, should the.developer and DOT now
determine that the conveyance shall not be subject to any I
easements, but instead shall be subject to the Issuance of
appropriate permits for access roadway and utilities and
drainage, the County, i:e., the public, has no Interest in
the nature of that transaction. However, DOT in order to
remove any fear as to the quality of their title, has
requested that the language In the Certificate of Dedication
be amended to reflect the fact that the conveyance wi I i be
subject to the issuance of permits (rather than subject to
easements) for access roadway, utilities and drainage. It
0
JUL 26 1988 52
Boor FL,98
is proposed that this matter be clarified by the filing of
an affidavit setting out the appropriate corrective language
agreed to by the developer and DOT. When such an affidavit
is filed, the Clerk of the Court must record the affidavit
and place in the margin of the recorded plat a notation that
the affidavit has been filed, the date of filing, and the
book and page where It is recorded. This is the procedure
set out by Florida Statute 177.141 for confirming and
correcting any appreciable error or omission in the data as
shown on any plat duly recorded. This section generally
speaks to error in survey data, but by analogy I believe it
could be utilized to clarify the intent and to reassure the
Department of Transportation as to the nature of title which
they are obtaining, i.e., free and clear of any easements.
No easement was created by the statement of future intention
in the language quoted above. Any easement would have to be
created in the instrument of conveyance itself. This
affidavit is simply filed for purpose of clarification as to
the intent and effect of the language in the Certificate of
Dedication which reserved .title t -o - this property in the -
developer for future conveyance to DOT.
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that while this seems
complicated, it actually is a minor item that probably should
have been on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to sign the affidavit as described above.
JUL 26 1�� 53 BOOK 73 F'CE 999
JOINT AFFIDAVIT
CORRECTING AND AMENDING THE
PLAT OF GRAND HARBOR
PLAT 1
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGES 62, 62A, 62B, 62C and 62D
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day, personally
appeared RICHARD G. SCHAUB, Jr., as 'President of GRAND HARBOR,
INC., HARMONY ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and WOOD DUCK ISLAND
CORPORATION ("Owners"), who being first duly sworn, deposes and
states:
1. That I am the President of GRAND HARBOR, INC., HARMONY
ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and WOOD DUCK ISLAND CORPORATION.
2. That the Owners were the owners of all of that land
described in GRAND HARBOR, PLAT 1, as recorded in Plat Book 12,
Pages 62, 62A, 62B, 62C and 62D, as of the date of the dedication
appearing on said Plat, to wit, March 24, 1988.
3. That a scrivener -Is error occurred with respect to a
portion of the dedication contained on said Plat, more
specifically, the second paragraph of Paragraph 5 of the said
dedication. On the Plat, said paragraph reads:
"The proposed DOT drainage right-of-way, adjacent to
the east right -of. -way for U.S. Highway Number 1, as
shown, is reserved for future conveyance to the State
of Florida, Department of Transportation; subject to
appropriate easement for access roadway and
utilities."
4. The Plat dedication is hereby amended so as to delete
the erroneous language described above and to insert corrective
language, as follows:
"The proposed DOT drainage right-of-way, adjacent to
the east right-of-way for U.S. Highway Number 1, as
shown, is reserved for future conveyance to the State
of Florida, Department of Transportation, subject to
the issuance of the appropriate permit by the State of
Florida, Department of Transportation; for access,
drainage and utilities."
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT.
(Corporat Seal)'
GFkSD HARDOR, INC
By
RICHARD HAUB, Jr.,
President
5 4 BOOK 13 F��GE. .100J U L � � 199 -
0
L -
(Corporate Sea
HARMONY ISLAND REVEL
CORPORATION
1
By k1w1bt""
RICHARD G.�7r
, J3tid,
President
(Corporate Se
WOOD DUCK LAND CO RATION
By
RICHARD G
President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
[AUB, Jr
M _
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer
duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take
acknowledgements, personally appeared RICHARD G. SCHAUB, Jr.,
well known to me to be the President of the corporations
described in the foregoing. instrument, and that he acknowledged
executing the same freely and voluntarily under authority duly
vested in him by the said corporations and that the seals affixed
thereto are the true corporate seals of the said corporations.
WITNESS my hand and official al in the County and State
last aforesaid this day of ,(,ems , 1988.
(Notarial Seal) �—
NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF FLOR169i Notary Public
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: APRIL ER, State of Florida at Large
CONI!EQ *:•••: v •^VALID UNDFeWRITITERB
My Commission Expires:
MORTGAGEE'S JOINDER AND CONSENT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The undersigned does hereby certify that it is the holder 0"i
the Mortgage identified as "CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK MORTGAGE"
described in the Plat of GRAND HARBOR,'PLAT-.1, recorded' i&* Plat
Book 12, Pages 62, 62A, 62B, 62C and 62D, and it hereby consents
to the correction and amendment of said dedication and agrees
that its Mortgage, as described in the Plat, shall be
subordinated to the Dedication, as corrected.
55
BOOK .73 301
J
E7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused these
presents to be executed in its name, and its corporate seal to be
hereunto affixed, by its proper officers thereunto duly
authorized, the day and year first above written.
(Corporate Seal)
CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
By . oZ.
C.L. KUZMI , Vice -President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer
duly authorized in the State -and- County aforesaid to take
acknowledgements, personally appeared C.L. KUZMIREK, well known
to me to be the Vice -President of the corporation described in
the foregoing instrument, and that he acknowledged executing the
same freely and voluntarily under authority duly vested in him by
the said corporation and that the seal affixed thereto is the
true corporate seal of the said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State
last aforesaid this o2� day of ct L/ 1988.
(Notarial Seal) -` ~
Notary Public It
^TATE �T FLQPTI State of Florida at Large
K; CC*Ntz;,ny Tx.:, CIT 29,1M My Commission Expires:
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
BY
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON JL�, Et ;Z(b T I `� �� , the
foregoing corrective Amendment to the Pel of GRAND HARBOR, PLAT
1, was approved and that the amended Dedication is hereby
accepted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD:
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE BOARD: V-,
V V4P:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. p
COUNTY ATTORNEY: [��C,(�I�c'�-,� ��• �"� �u /
CERTI ICATE OF APPROVAL
BY
THE CO ADMINISTRATOR
EXAMINED AND APPROVED:
DATE:
56
BOOK 73 F, E 302
TRANSFER OLD JAIL TO CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR RECREATION DEPT.
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 13, 1988
RE: TRANSFER OF OLD JAIL TO THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH FOR RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Commission Meeting - July. 26, 1988
Attached is a proposed County deed- of the o l d jai l -site to-
the
othe City of Vero Beach for use as a joint- City -County
recreation facility. The deed contains a reversionary
Interest in the County if the City fails to develop. the
property within three years or if the City ever abandons the
use of the property for recreation.
Request permission for the Chairman to execute this deed on
behalf of the County.
` ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the deed transferring the
Old Jail to the City of Vero Beach.
Com. Eggert later in the meeting asked to revisit the Old
Jail item as she just did not recognize the amount of acreage
that is excepted as that of the Ambulance Squad.
Commissioner Bowman believed we also own R/W for St. Francis
Manor.
In discussion it was clarified that the Motion is contingent
on staff rechecking what we are conveying and making sure that we
are not conveying anything that we should not be in terms of the
Ambulance Squad.
Attorney Vitunac assured Commissioner Eggert the legal
description will be carefully checked and we will make sure we do
not give away the ambulance squad property.
57
BOOK 73 P1, A03
COUNTY DEED
INDIAN RWER—MM, FLORIDA
THIS DEED,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CITY OF VERO BEACH,
second part,
made this 26th day of July , 1988, by
FLORIDA, party of the first part, and
a Municipal Corporation, party of the
WITNESSETH that the said party of the first part, for
and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR to it in hand
paid by the party of 'the second part, receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledg.ed, has granted, bargained and sold to the
party of the second part, its heirs and assigns forever, the
following described land lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida:
EXHIBIT !'A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
PROVIDED THAT IF THIS
PROPERTY-
IS NOT
IMPROVED BY
THE GRANTEE,
FOR USE
AS A
CITY -COUNTY
RECREATIONAL
FACILITY
WITHIN
THREE YEARS OR IF SUCH USE
IS EVER THEREAFTER
ABANDONED,
THEN THE
PROPERTY
WILL
AUTOMATICALLY
REVERT TO THE
GRANTOR.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the first part has
caused these presents to be executed in its name by its
Board of County Commissioners, acting by the Chairman of
said Board, the day and year aforesaid.
(Official Seal) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By its Board of County
Commissioners
Attest:
re
STATE
, IRfer
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
By z C_ .�.6 s•.
on curl_ock, 7nV_
Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an
officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to
take acknowledgments, personally appeared DON C. SCURLOCK,.
JR. and FREDA WRIGHT, well known to me to be the Chairman
and Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, named as the grantor in the foregoing deed,
and that they severally acknowledged executing the same
under the authority vested in them by said Board and that
the seal affixed thereto Is the true seal of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and official
6,_7 611 9.
r
seal this day of
tarykvc
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
TTY CONNISSION EXP. JULY 9.1990
90NOE0 THRU GENERAL IHS. URO.
58
JUL 2 6 1988 BDOK 73 F,.,,,r 30 4
r � r
I I lc��ed I�o£ lold +jail site
�bli]_a><ilce spa s area ! I
i !
I I II
EXH f `IBIT
I
II LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Commence at t. el Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of Section
1;12, TO' Wnehip 13 !.South . Range 39 East and run S 89 22' E along • the
section ;� ine� ''9jJ6 '4 feet �o a point. Theft run N 10° 56'.45" E along
'' he cent 1 ri to 17t1i Avenue 788.52. feet to'a point'. Then run
'X5,.00 feet to; (the West line of , 17th Avenue and a POINT
it 1. bi, bEGIININF, l Then run' it I I N, 89, a3 5� W 49�. 47 feet to ! a point. Then run
f�l. ,Nip° ¢ 2011 E�.,49
480:00 feet p'1 a point. Then run-
�!IS ,8g 07' 5�" I ' 59 feetl to a point. ' Then run
f' S p°156!45" W' 77 62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.•
is i, 5S AN XCEP'T, he falllow ng tracts leased to St. Francis Manor:
I� ry!,!�i ll'; "' ". •1 ' I °From th I,' Northwest corner of Southwest Quarter of
�!� he' S utheast' Quarter,'' of ' Section 2, Township 33 South, Range 39
I.1 , Q. !
1911 itlEast, l run r South. 89° 05'40" East . 80 feet; thence , South 0° 36.20"
;I 1, est 75 feet;,' thePce 1 South 89° 05' 40" East 375 feet to the POINT
F! BEGINN ISG of the parcel to be herein described; from point of
eginning� continue South 8900514011 East 50 feet; thence South
Wirst 62.65 feet; • thence South 680290401" East 20.92 feet;
!.then a South' 3700914011 East 48.30 feet; thence South 60421401,
$3.75;feet; thence South 22°04'20" West 77.40 feet; thence
h, 1.58° 14' 20" West 67.60 feet;thence South 7902912011 West
Soµt
2b•3 -j1 feet;' thence North 0° 26 2011 East 274 feet to point of
eginn,ing- ,All in Section 2, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
diahl Iver County l Florida, containing 0.47 acres more or less.
I
, From 7the Northwest corner of I Southwest Quarter of
I! 1 I uthiaagtl quarter, of Section 2,; Township 33 South, Range 39
i�
i !th So , Q �
a�t.; , r'un :South 89° 05 40" East 80 feet; thence South 00 2612000
I 'febt; then?e South 89° 05' 40" East 375 feel; thence South
r "'est '75' • thence' South
� 0° 6' $0" ' W st 299 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING, 1
r1i'a
",1, 181 22'00"� 'East 30 feet; thence South 0° 26'20" West 181 feet;
,
�ence! North 89"2210011 1 West 30 feet; thence North 0 26120" East
'I 81;feet to oint of beginning. All in Sectio 2, Township 33
S ut , Ran a 3'9 East, (Indian River County+ Florida, containing
acxee'I7more or less;
�r XCEPT the following described parcel: Commence a� SW
(►iso h SS and 9
'c6rhe :pf!It a Southeast quarter of Section. 2, Township J3 South Ttange ,
1!,l 'std'. ar1d1l" 89022' E along the section line 078.48 feet: Then
tial: '�pd.56'f 4 !� I E.' along the centerline of 17th Avenud 1126.14 i :feet to a I
ar Ir � � ; , ., ,
I'.
i
o Q71 "t� ' $ fleet to a POINT OF BEGINNING. Then + run
71� "W , 31� J'00 feet to, a point. Then run
„ , ,feet to a oint. Then'run
A N1.0 $6 �5 E �0 P
g�;oq°`d I! ;j" , 318.00 feet to a point. Then rung !
eet to the; POINT OF BEGINNING•. Containing !l..021 acres
1`i T10fe or les's
59 BooK 73 305
SHORELANDS SINGLE LIGHT
Administrator Balczun reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: July 19, 1988
SUBJECT: SHORELANDS SINGLE LIGHTS
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director -
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Shorelands Development Company is requesting the installation of two
(2) streetlights. The City of Vero Beach Engineering Department has
determined that two (2) 27,500 lumen H.P.S. lights_ should be
installed. A charge of $16.50 per light is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
request for a streetlight, contingent upon completion of the following
procedure:
1. Staff would bill Shorelands Development Inc. $396.00 _
in advance for the cost of two streetlights for a
full year.
2. Staff would draft a standard single streetlight
agreement between Shorelands Development Inc. and
Indian River County.
3. Staff would add Shorelands Developments two (2)
27,500 lumen H.P.S. lights to the Master Streetlight
Agreement between Indian River County and the City
of Vero Beach.
4. By approval of this agenda item, the Board would
authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment to the
Master Streetlight Agreement and the agreement
between Indian River County and Shorelands
Development, Inc.
Commissioner Bowman noted that "a charge of $16.50 per light
is recommended." She asked if that meant $16.50 per light per
year.
Chairman Scurlock stated that is the electric bill for the
light, and he doubted that it would be yearly.
It was clarified that it would be a monthly charge, and the
cost for the two lights would add up to $396 per year.
60 BOOK 73 F1�E •�U�
JL �� 19�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Shorelands
Development Company's request for two streetlights
contingent on the conditions recommended by staff, and
authorized the Chairman to sign the necessary documents.
(Amendment to Master Street light Agreement and Agreement
between County& Shorelands will be made a part of the
record when fully executed and received.)
ADDED ITEM - DISCUSSION REACQUISITION OF NORTH BEACH WATER CO.
Chairman Scurlock requested that an item be added to the
agenda for discussion of the acquisition of North Beach Water
Company as he wished to clarify that a bit and give an update.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above
item to the agenda as requested by the Chairman.
Chairman Scurlock noted that basically the utility staff and
Mr. Baird came before the Board requesting signature on an
acquisition document, which document basically approved acquiring
North Beach utilities for approximately 3.1 million. The funding
mechanism within that agreement was very much contingent upon
financing. The proposal at the time was for a $13.00 a month
surcharge which would, in fact, fund the acquisition. The
Chairman explained why they tried to work around the $13 figure
is that basically was the difference between their existing
charges and bringing them onto the existing county rate, and it
would give the residents the opportunity to come on the county
system with very little, if any, change in their rate structure.
The Chairman continued that at the time we ran those
numbers, it was apparent that the $13.00 possibly would work.
61 BOOK 7 rmu-F 3® 7
JUL 2 � 1988
This is a function of interest rate and the finance period. For
example, if you fund $13 over 20 or 15 or 10 years, it will fund
different amounts - just like your home mortgage. If you take a
15 year mortgage versus a 30 year mortgage, it ups your payments
but cuts your time and your total interest. However, it appears
on the advice of Art Diamond that possibly in terms of the
market, $13 for 20 years would not be the most acceptable. Again
there is another question as to what the interest rate will do.
The structure of the agreement is contingent upon our getting
acceptable financing. In the language within the documents we
are preparing now for the bond issue necessary to fund this, the
staff has recommended that language be included that the charge
be $13 a month as a surcharge; however, the option is to raise
that charge contingent upon the necessity to fund an additional
amount. Chairman Scurlock noted there are other options we are
looking at - we can go to the pool, which we have not ruled out,
or go to a variable interest rate. What that would result in
would be a low interest rate at the front end and possibly higher
at the end.
Chairman Scurlock advised that there is another thing they
are looking at. After the Gifford project gets closed out and
the Farmers Home loan is actually issued (it is just a commitment
at this time), we are talking about a major refunding of all of
our issues, consolidating our debt, and getting rid of some of
the bond covenants, which are somewhat restrictive at this point.
We can't do that at this time since the loan has not actually
been granted, but once it is issued, they feel a discount similar
.to the one offered earlier will be offered, and at that time, he
felt there will be a serious look at recommending a refinancing
and rolling this issue up into that overall general issue. The
other option available, as shown through our cash flow analysis,
which will be coming to the Board fairly soon from Coopers
Lybrand, is that we are going to be looking at a potential for a
JUL 1988 62 BooK 7e F.9rE3®�
rate increase or some method of increasing revenues - possibly
further expanding of the system in a more rapid fashion. Reduc-
tion of costs really isn't an option at this point, but when we
do raise that rate structure, those funds necessary to support
the North County very easily could be included in the overall
rate structure.
The Chairman felt there is some misunderstanding as to where
we are and what was recommended, and the key is that particular
acquisition is contingent upon acceptable financing. He assured
that Board that they will be made fully aware of exactly what the
terms of the financing will be, and whether the terms will be
acceptable or not will be a decision of this Board.
Utilities Director Pinto informed the Board that he has
talked to Mr. Hess from the water company, who is also a banker,
and told trim we were taking a look at those numbers. Mr. Hess
fully understands that and says whatever the numbers have to be,
that is what it will come out, and since the principal owner of,
the water company is the principal owner of the development
company, they would be the ones paying the major part of that
surcharge.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE.A PART OF THE RECORD
Interlocal Agreement between Bruce H. Colton, State Attorney
for the 19th Judicial Circuit, and Indian River, Martin,
Okeechobee, and St. Lucie Countys, having been fully executed and
JUL 2 6 1988
63 BOOK 73 F,,A . 309
received, has been put on file in the Office of the Clerk as
approved at the Regular Meeting of June 14, 1988.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:15 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
a
3 f
"[ .5v, : L .W-"ChalrmaW
JL 2 1988 64®�� 3 FH