Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/23/1988Tuesday, August 23, 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, August 23, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Absent was Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman, who was out of state. Also present were William G. Collins, II, Acting County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. Vice Chairman Wheeler called the meeting to order, and Acting Administrator Collins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Vice Chairman Wheeler advised that OMB Director Baird has requested that Item 9A under the Administrator's matters - Purchase of vacant real estate on 19th Avenue across from the County Warehouse Building - be removed from today's Agenda. The Vice Chairman also asked that an item be added to the South County Fire Agenda as 14B. (2) - Approval of Tower Space Lease with WGYL. Acting Administrator Collins requested that an item in regard to the Sebastian Square Lease for the Tax Collector's branch office be added as 11 B. under the Attorney's matters . He also requested that Items -14A. (1) and (2) under the Solid Waste Disposal District be moved up and considered right after AUG 2 3 1988 Boa ac'' Item 8B. (1) - the Public Hearing relating to amending the Solid Waste Disposal District Ordinance 87-67. Mr. Collins suggested that after that hearing the Board simply adjourn and reconvene as the Board of the Solid Waste Disposal District- as the items on that agenda follow logically. Acting Administrator Collins also asked that a discussion about the search for a new Administrator be added to the agenda under his matters. Commissioner Bird requested that a discussion be added to the agenda in regard to some recommendations as to how the County Commission can get involved in helping the Sheriff eradicate the drug problem in the Oslo Road area. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,. SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, Chairman Scurlock being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the deletion of Item 9A and the addition of the other items described above to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 9, 1988. Commissioner Eggert requested that on Page 16, 4th para- graph, 4th Line, the word "it" be replaced by the words "the high traffic business." She also requested that on Page 55, 3rd paragraph, 6th line, the word "of" be deleted. Commissioner Eggert then referred to Page 56, middle of the second paragraph, where Chairman Scurlock stated: "that he is, in fact, prepared, if that be necessary, to ask his fellow Commissioners if he has ever -involved himself in their committee assignments and if he has not always referred phone calls directly to the Commissioner responsible for those activities." 2 BOOK 7 • :_ The following sentence reads: "He knows what that answer will be; it will be unanimously that he has." Commissioner Eggert wished to know if the Board members felt that statement was sufficiently clear. Attorney Vitunac noted that the Chairman asked a double question and got a single answer, and he felt that could be clarified. It was agreed the sentence in question should be corrected to read: "He knows what that answer will be; it will be unanimously that he has never involved himself in their committee assignments and that he has always referred phone calls directly to the Commissioner responsible for those activities." ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, Chairman Scurlock being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 9, 1988, as corrected. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert asked that Items M and F be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Vice Chairman Wheeler advised that OMB Director Baird had requested that Item K also be removed for discussion. A. Reports - The following were received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Sebastian River Water Control District held on June 1, 1988; and Minutes of Landowners of Sebastian River Water Control District Meeting of June 1, 1988. 3 AUG 2 31998 soon 73 i,u,501 B. Bid #89-1 - Soil Cement & Limerock Base, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler: TO: William G. Collins II Acting County Administrator FRO Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager DATE: August 15, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: AMRD OF IRC BID #89-1 SUPPLY & INSTALL SOIL CEMENT BASE & LIMEROCK BASE, TERM CONTRACT REFERENCES: 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-1. 8 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 5 Bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications for Supply and Install Soil Cement Base & Limerock Base was submitted by Pan American Engineering at $2.19 per square yard for Soil Cement and $5.50 per square yard for Lime Rock Base. They have taken no exceptions to our specifications. The yearly expenditures under this contract are estimated at $95,000.00. 3. FUNDING: No requisitions are currently being held in the Purchasing Dept. No purchase orders will be issued until our approved requisition is received from the Budget Office. 4. ON: Staff recammends that we award this bid to Pan American Engineering and authorize staff to proceed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, Chairman Scurlock being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-1 - Term Contract for Soil Cement & Limerock Base - to the low bidder Pan American Engineering per the following Bid Tabulation, as recommended by staff: 4Boor.F11Ir 502AUS 3 198 � � r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street • Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ` BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING BID TITLE SUPPLY AND INSTALL SOIL CEMENT BASE & LIMEROCR BASE SEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PR CE UNIT PRICE d , CONSTRUCTION OF SOIL CEMENT /VG $ASE'•:. ' SQ. YD. S D , ) SQ.� xn ,r r � � E G o C. Bid #89-2 - Bahia Sod & St. Augustine Sod, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Ambler: TO: William G. Collins II Acting County Administrator DATE:August 15, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: MUUM OF IRC BID #89-2 BAHIA SOD & ST AUGUST= SOD FRO ' --� REFERENCES: Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-2. 12 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 5 Bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTERNAZ= AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Landscaping by Riverside, Inc., with a total unit price of .83 cents per square foot delivered & installed for the sod listed in this bid. They have taken no exception to our specifications. 5 BOOK 73 F.F. 503 ,AUG 2 3 1988 Yearly expenditures under the terms of this bid are estimated at $25,000.00. 3. FUNDING: No requisitions are currently being held in the Purchasing Dept. No purchase orders will be issued until our approved requisition is received from the Budget Office. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recamends that we'award this bid to Landscaping by Riverside, Inc. . 11 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED'by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-2 - Term Contract for Bahia Sod & St. Augustine Sod to the low bidder, Landscaping by Riverside, Inc., per the following Bid Tabulation, as recommended by staff: 1.111OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS it 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION t, t, O N .BID NO. 89-2 i DATE OF OPENING - IBID TITLEBAHIA SOD ✓y ST. AUGUS- NE OD ITEM DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UN I BA IE- SUPPLYD .v s �- AND INSTALL PER SQ. FT. $ 2. FLORA TAM SODS SUPPLY S I LZ •� '� + INSTALL PER SQ. FT. $ 3� ST, AUGUSTINE SOD- SUPPLY / 5 AND INSTALL 1 PER SO. FT., $ & INSTALL PER T i 5. BAHIA ARGENTINE -PICKED UPFR 911- FT- I A rTnRATAM qnn�pTryrn III! 6 Boor, 73 f'A E. 0 AUG 2 1999 � .'ARD OF 000NTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Veru Beach, Florida 32960 X810 No. BID TABULATION DATE OF OPFNING .y o J� V VI I TTNR nos WAWA ,i FITEM DES NO. CRIPTION 7. AUGUSTINE SOD PICf(ED-UP �■ ■MENENOMINEE D : � -� NENIMEMINW' _■ ■-■-■■■MEMMEMIN' ■■■ !�!! 011M■■■■■■1 �M r _ '- ES■M■ 1�■M■ME■■■ i MMENNIM■NNI■■■■■■i _. D. Bid #89-3 - Road Rock, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Ambler: TO: William G. Collins II DATE:August 15, 1988 FILE: Acting County Administrator FRO ler, C.P. . Purchasing Manager 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: SUBJECT: AN%RD of IRC BID #89-3 ROAD ROCK, TERM CONTRACT REFERENCES: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-3. 9 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 5 Bids were received This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications for Road Rack was sub- mitted by Global Paving Company with a unit price of $6.49 per ton delivered and $4.75 per ton picked up. They have taken no exceptions to our specifications. Yearly expenditures are expected to be $35,000.00 for this bid 7 (.AUG 2 3 1988 BOOK 7 4�� 3. FUNDING: No requisitions are currently being held in the Purchasing Dept. -/, 1 No purchase orders will be issued until our approved requisitioi is received from the Budget Office. 4. RECOMM Staff recommends that we award this bid to Global Paving. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-3 - Term Contract for Road Rock to the low bidder Global Paving Company, per the following Bid Tabulation, as .recommended by staff: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach. Florida 32960 •• BID TABULATION \v G�n �\ / Cj (lc�� \V moi\ �.)�- tj r� , BID NO. 0.89-3 DATE OF OPENING BID TITLE ROAD ROCK ITEM DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE U,pHf PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1. APPROXIMATELY 1,000 1• •ct 'S TONS OF PIT.RUN. MIAMI, OLITE ROAD ROCK PER TON S c � -� u ' I Fit U Ic friN &G E. Bid #89-4 - Asphalt Coated Corrugated & Aluminum Metal Pipe, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Ambler: AUG 2 3 1988 8 BOOK 73 rA!,r 596 TO: William G. Collins II DATE: August 12, 1988 Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: AVARD OF IRC BID #89-4 ASPHALT COATED CORRUGATED & ALUMINUM METAL PIPE, TERM CONTRACT FRO REFERENCES: /Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager _ 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-4. 8 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 4 Bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid. meeting specifications was stimii.tted by Gator Culvert Company with unit prices totaling $1209.24. Yearly expenditures under the terms of this contract are estimated at $25,000.00. A bid submitted by Southern Culvert required that all shipments be delivered in truck load quantities. This is an exception to our specifications and would result in ordering and shipping problems for the using departments. Therefore, this bid should be rejected. 3. FUNDING: Purchasing is not holding a requisition to purchase pipe at this time. All requisitions will be approved by the budget office ` before a purchase order is issued. 4. XXXI MATION: Staff recommends that we award this bid to Gator Culvert Company, and staff be authorized to proceed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-4 - Term Contract for Asphalt Coated Corrugated 8 Aluminum Metal Pipe to Gator Culvert Company as the low bid meeting specifica- tions per the following Bid Tabulation, as recom- mended by staff: 9 UG 23 198 Bov 73 PD E 507 0 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS " 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION J ► N ' I n\ V BID NO. X89-4 DATE OF OPENING BID TITLEASPHALT COATED CORRUGATE ITEM DESCRIPTION N0. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRI ASPHALT COATED STEEL QQR- 0 4161 ..1. RUGATED PIPE. /#I 73 S 12" 6 Gau e C 0 Per Ft. $ 'I - 16 Cauge ppr Ft- „ Per Ft. 24" - 14 Gauge Per Ft. $ " - 14 Gauge Per Ft. $ Per Ft. 4"- 12 Gauge Per Ft. $ „ Per Ft. $ F. Bid #89-6 - Type II Asphalt Concrete, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo from PUrchasing Manager Ambler: 10 AUG 231998 BooK 73 59S TO: - M M William G. Collins II DATE: Au FILE: gust 15, 1988 Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: A4MM OF IRC BID #89-6 SUPPLY & INSTALL TYPE II ASPHALT CONCRETE FROM. REFERENCES: ..Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-6. _ _ 8 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 5 Bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications for Asphalt Concrete was submitted by Dennis L. Smith Company at $35.00 per ton delivered and $33.00 per ton delivered and installed. Expenditures for next year under the terms of this bid are estimated at $182,500.00. .They have taken no exceptions to our specifications. 3. FUNDING: No requisitions are currently being held in the Purchasing Dept. No purchase orders will be issued until our approved requisition is received from the Budget Office. 4. RFXXV lENDATION: Staff recmuends that we award this bid to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., and staff be authorized to proceed. Commissioner Bird believed there is some confusion on the bid of Dennis Smith, which is low on Supply Only. He felt we definitely want his price of $33 per ton delivered and installed, but he questioned the $35 per ton not installed and wondered if we can accept the low bid on installed and negotiate on supplied only. Discussion followed in regard to approving part and rebidding the rest, and Acting Administrator Collins noted that he may have bid higher on Item I because of the smaller unit volume. AUG 2 31988 11 BOOK 73 F',,uc 533 Purchasing Manager Ambler advised that the bid was written as all or none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-6 for Type II Asphalt Concrete to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., as low bidder meeting specifications per the following Bid Tabulation, and authorized the Purchasing Manager to negotiate with them to see if we can get a better price on Supplied Only. I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS^ • 1840 25th Street Vero Beach. Florida 32960 BID TABULATION LJ D �U BID NO. DATE OF OPENING 989-6 1 t�� x y� BID TITLE Supply .b Install Type, \ 1 Asphalt Concrete ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 3 A 81; SURFACE COURSE MATERIAL t-, 70 ,J r 2. Furnish Type 11 Asphalt :: % Concrete Surface Course ST.5000T (nSC i G. Bid #89-8 - Reinforced Concrete Pipe, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo from the Purchasing Manager: AUG 2 3 1988 12 BOOK TO: William G. Collins II DATE:August 16, 1988 FILE: Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: AWARD OF IRC BID #89-8 REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE, TERM CONTRACT FRO . REFERENCES: /Gus Ambler, C. P.M. Purchasing Manager 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:}17 ;,,. Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:Q0 P.M. for IRC Bid #89-8. 7 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 2 Bids were received. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. w1 2. ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS: The low bid for Reinforced Concrete Pipe was submitted by Southern Culvert. They have taken an exception to our specifications, which is that shipments must be in truckload quantities. Staff believes this to be an exception they can accept. Yearly expenditures are estimated at $15,000.00 under this bid. 3. MMING: No requisitions are currently being held in the Purchasing Dept. No purchase orders will be issued until our approved requisition is received from the Budget Office. 4. RECOM ENDATION: Staff reconnends that we award this bid to ,Southern Culvert and authorize to proceed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-8 for Reinforced Concrete Pipe to the low bidder, Southern Culvert, per the following Bid Tabulation, as recommended by staff: 13 BOOK 73 F''�'E 511 AUG 2 � �9 AU 1988I��14 BOOK 3 PACE 512 H. Bid #89-18 - Ready Mix Concrete, Term Contract The Board reviewed memo from the Purchasing Manager: TO: DATE: FILE: William G. Collins II August 15, 1988 Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: ACRD OF IRC BID #89-18 READY MIX CONCRETE, TERM CON TACT FRO REFERENCES: Gus Ambler, C.P.M. 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-18. 6 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 3 Bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Russell Concrete. They have bid $38.70 per yard for 2500 psi, $40.15 per yard of 3000 psi and $43.25 for 4000 psi ready mix contrete. They have taken no exceptions to our specifications. yearly expenditures are expected to be $35,000.00 for this bid. 3. FUNDING: Purchasing is not holding a budget approved requisition. Purchasing will not issue a purchase order until such is t� received. 4. RECOMMMATION: Staff recommends that we award this bid to Russell Concrete at the prices listed. Staff requests authorization to proceed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-18 for Ready Mix Concrete to the low bidder meeting specifications, Russell Concrete, per the following Bid Tabulation, as recommended by staff: 15 Boa 73FF{ �. 1� AUG 2 � 1988 ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION r 1 aj BID NO. IRC BID#89-18 DATE OF OPENING BID TITLE READY MIX CONCRETE ITEM N0. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE NIT PRICE NIT PRICE U 1. Ready Mix Concrete S70 2,500 p.s.i. Per Yd 2. Ready Mix Concrete 3,000 p.s.i. Per Yd. 3. Ready Mix Concrete •l 4,000 p.s.i. Per Yd. 4. Quanity Purchase without lt?nl bs Minumum Load Charge: 5. Less Than Minimum Load Charge 6. Mileage Charge if any)' " — Per Mile: I. Bid #458 - Reroofing of Administration Building The Board reviewed memo from the Purchasing Manager: G 2 3 1988 16 Bou 73 TO: William G. Collins II Acting County Administrator FRO Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager DATE:August 12, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: A ARD OF IRC BID #458 - REROOFING OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING REFERENCES: 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: ; Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #458. Invitations to bid were mailed to 24. 3 bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. AJAIMUWLTIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Lucas Water Proofing Co., Inc. at $64,000.00. A review by Lynn Williams, of Bldgs & Grounds, indicates that this contractor is responsible and will be able to complete this project in a timely and efficient manor. The originally projected cost for this project was $90,000.00. 3. FUNDING: The availability of funds has been confirmed by the budget office. 4. ON: Staff recommends that we award this bid to Lucas Waterproofing Company and proceed with construction. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #458 for Reroofing of the Adminis- tration Building to the low bidder meeting specifications, Lucas Water Proofing Co., Inc., in the amount of $64,000 as recommended by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation: 17 '�' �M1 BOOK 73 ­ .ku.. 515 kI BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING C •l' Li IRC BID #458 8/10/88 I� BID TITLE REROOFING OF ADMISTRATION BLDG. ITEM NDESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE ,UNIT PRIG O. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE U 1. Building -as per specifications Attach a separate detail list of cost per section on your letterhead. 1 LOT ' Grand Total �, 2. Replacement of Insulation /./S Board as needed. PER RQ- FT - 3. Delivery: Work can begin: ARO DAYS Work will be complete: 4. Warrenty YEARS S J. Bid #460 - Fertilizer for Sandridge Golf Course The Board reviewed memo from the Purchasing Manager: TO: William G. Collins II Acting County Administrator DATE: August 12, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: AWARD OF IRC BID #460- FER=ZER FOR SANDR]= GOLF COURSE FROM- REFERENCES: Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager -_ 1. DESCRIP'I'ION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday„ August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #460. 15 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 8 Bids were received including three No Bids. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 18 AUG G 2 3 1988 mrK 7 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Golf Ventures, Inc. at $4012.50. They have taken no exceptions to our specifications. 3. FUNDING: The availability of funds has been confirmed by the budget office. 4. ON: -_ ---- ._ -- - - - Staff recommends that we award this bid to Golf Ventures, Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #460 for Fertilizer for Sandridge Golf Course to the the low bidder meeting specifications, Golf Ventures, Inc., per the following Bid Tabulation as recommended by staff: 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 26th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960;j BID TABULATION \ ►A\ / \ -��' BID NO. . IRC 460 DATE OF OPENING 8-10-88 BID TITLE FERTILIZER, HERBICIDES, EI! DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNR PRICE UNIT PRI UNIT PRICE NIT PRICE UNR PRICE UNIT P ICE UNIT PRICE UNIT 1. FERTILIZER AS PER SPECIFICATIONS Q 1 Z 1Z• U 0 8 61-1 2. DELIVERY ARO Days QUANTITIESADDTTTONAL UP TO 15 TON IF PURCHASED BEFORE Oct. 30, 1988 Yes o K. Surplus Equipment Sale The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler and memo from the Sheriff's Department: AUG 2 3 1988 19 Boa 7 3 ` 17 TO: William G. Collins, II DATE: August 10, 1988 FILE: Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: suRPLus EQUIPMENT SAT F /. CONSENT AGENDA FROM• ..�� REFERENCES: 1` dag Ambler, .P.M. Purchasing Manager 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Purchasing has collected surplus equipment from various ` departments. Two reviews were scheduled for departments to reclaim items that could be used. 2. ALTERNATIVES: Because of our limited storage space, I am requesting that these items be officially declared surplus and authorize a surplus property sale open to the public. We intend to use the sealed bid method to sell these items and will advertise in the local newspaper. Items not sold will be disposed of by use of the landfill. 3. ON: I recommend that we declare all items on the attached lists to be surplus property and authorize proceeds to be returned to the fund from which the asset was originally purchased. P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 888-6700 R.1"TI9' DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION July 26, 19881 TO : GUS AMBLER, COUNTY PURCHASING FROM : BILL BAIRD, GENERAL SERVICES RE SURPLUS PROPERTY Enclosed is a list of the Sheriff Department's surplus property that we would like for you to sell. If possible, we would like revenues generated by the sale of these items returned to the Sheriff Department's General Fund Account. Thank you for your assistance. BILL BA19D, GENERAL SERVICES OMB Director Baird informed the Board that the Sheriff is requesting that the monies generated by the sale of surplus items be given back to his Department, but Director Baird did not agree. He explained that we purchased the items that replaced these through the construction fund so the revenue should go back in the General Fund. Director Baird further informed the Board 20 BOOK 73 raa 518 that he gave Mr. Ambler the wrong information. Staff memo recommends the money from sale of the assets should go back to the fund in which they were originally purchased, but some of these items are 40 years old and practically impossible to track back; so, the proceeds from their sale should go to where the asset exists presently. Acting Administrator Collins noted that, in other words, Mr. Baird is changing the staff recommendation to declare all items surplus and authorize the proceeds to be returned to the fund where the item is now held rather than where it was purchased. OMB Director Baird confirmed that was his intent and also that the money not be returned to the. Sheriff because we bought the new asset. Purchasing Manager Ambler interjected that he just received the following memos from Public Works, -the Librarian, Utilities and the Property Appraiser, and would like authorization to add the items set out in those memos to the surplus list: t TO: Gus Ambler Purchasing Age g FROM: Bill Meager (�. Construction Coordinator THRU: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo SUBJECT: Surplus'Property DATE: August 17, 1988 This is to inform you that we are recommending that the 1973 Thunderbird' boat that is located at the body shop, at Road & Bridge, be sold as surplus property. Please see attached copies for details. This vessel was obtained by the Sheriffs Department with the intended use by Engineering and or the Parks Department, although I have found no record of it being assigned to either department. We have discussed this matter with all parties involved and everyone has agreed that .the boat should be surplused. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact me at ext 280. 21 A U G 2 3 1988 BOOK 7 TO: Gus Ambler DATE: 8/12/1988 FILE: Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Surplus equipment FROM: Lee Peterson REFERENCES: Acting Library Director I am sending you.the power box and the guards of our old CHECKPOINT system. We are now using a new type of guard. We need the space this equipment was taking up to store books. TO: GUS AMBLER S MANAGER OF PURCHASING CARLOS FLORES FINANCE DEPARTMENT FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO•/ r DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES RE: SURPLUS EQUIPMENT Please declare the xerox copier #3617 surplus.. DATE: JULY. 25, 1988 Should you have any questions, please call•meat extension 465. Thank you.' ' 10 n,rf a1VER r David C. Nolte "CERTIFIED FLORIDA APPRAISER" R INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER TO: Gus Ambler, Purchasing FROM: Property Appraisers Office DATE: August 9, 1988 . SUBJECT: Surplus furniture ----------------------------------------------------------- - Items numbered County #813 and County #577 are to be declared surplus. Item #813 is a metal table and Item #766 is a metal 4 shelf cabinet. T nk you, Joan Tallman 22 BOOK 73 AUG 2 3 1988 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the addition of the above described items to the surplus list. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved staff recommendation to declare all items on the follow- ing list, plus those approved by the previous Motion, to be surplus property and authorized the proceeds to be returned to the fund where the item is now held and not to return the funds to the Sheriff's Department. -IN 11- A i S7- 26 ADDING MACHINE 27 FILE 28 FILE 29 FILE 30 FILE 31 FILE 32 TIME CLOCK 33 TIME CLOCK 34 TIME CLOCK 35 FILE 36 FILE 37 FAN 38 OVEN 39 FILE 40 CRAIG DICTAPHONE 41 FAN 42 SWEEPER 43 CHAIR 44 CHAIR 45 CHAIR 46 CHAIR 47 CHAIR -48 HA -1 R-- 49 CHAIR 50 CHAIR 51 CHAIR 52 TABLE 53 CHAIR 23 AUG 2 3 r•• 3066 3978 5608 3981 834 1027 X2001 1160 BOOK 73 F�� 5?1 54 CHAIR 55 CHAIR 1175 56 CHAIR 57 CHAIR 58 CHAIR 59 CHAIR 60 CHAIR 61 CAHIR 1133 62 CHAIR 63 CHAIR 64 FILE 65 FILE 66 FILE 67 FILE 68 FILE 69 TABLE 70 FILE 1452 71 FILE 72 FILE 73 DESK 0713 74 FILE 0758 75 FILE 76 DESK 0733 77 FILE 78 FILE 79 FILE 1643 80 FILE 81 FLOOR JACK 1154 82 REFRIGERATOR 83 TABLE 84 CHAIR 1557 85 TABLE 86 DESK 87 TABLE 88 TABLE 89 FILE 1225 90 CHAIR 91 CHAIR 92 CHAIR 93 CHAIR 94 CHAIR 95 CHAIR 96 CHAIR 97 CHAIR 98 CHAIR 99 CHAIR 100 CHAIR 101 FILE 102 CHAIR 103 CHAIR 24 AUG 2 31998 BOOK . 73 `'A, -E 592 104 FILE 105 FILE 106 FILE 107 CHAIR 108 CHAIR 109 FILE 110 FILE 111 FILE 112 FILE 113 FILE• 114 FILE 115 FILE 116 CHAIR 117 CHAIR 118 FILE 119 LOCKER 120 CHAIR 121 CHAIR 122 DESK 123 DESK 124 CHAIR 125 CHAIR 126 CHAIR 3984 127 TABLE 128 CHAIR 129 FILE 130 DESK 709 131 CART 132 FILE 133 DESK 224-1-27 134 DESK 135 DESK 136 DESK 1795 1 *47 DESK- - - 2954-[x193 138 FILE 1134 139 DESK 0724 140 DESK 750 141 DESK 142 LOCKER 143 TYPEWRITER STAND 144 FILE 1131 145 FILE 146 FILE 147 CHAIR 148 CHAIR 149 CHAIR 150 COUCH 6474 AUG 2 31988 25 Bou 73 151 FILE 152 CHAIR 153 TELEVIDEO 154 TELEVIDEO 155 CHAIR 156 CHAIR 157 CHAIR 158 CHAIR 159 CHAIR 160 CHAIR 161 CHAIR 162 CHAIR 163 CHAIR 164 CHAIR 165 CHAIR 166 CHAIR 167 CHAIR 168 CHAIR 169 CHAIR 170 CHAIR 171 CHAIR 172 CHAIR 173 CHAIR 174 COUCH 175 TABLE 3982 323-2-6 736-6 THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE AFFIXED TO THE BUILDING AND -WE ARE NOT ABLE TO REMOVE THEM THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE KITCHEN AREA:. ASSET # DESCRIPTION SHERIFF - COUNTY 0827 7312 REACH IN REFRIGERATOR 7310 HOT WATER HEATER 7311 DISHWASHER 7317 SINK - STAINLESS L SHAPED 7323 OVEN 0884 7314 STOVE 0370 7315 STOVE THERE IS ALSO A DIEBOLD ROTARY FILE IN RECORDS AREA #703 SHERIFF'S NUMBER, 1011 COUNTY NUMBER THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO DISASSEMBLE TO GET OUT OF BUILDING. THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 14 OLD BUNK BEDS THAT THE DEPARTMENT LEFT ABANDONED IN A CELL BLOCK ON THE FIRST FLOOR. 26 Root 73 F- 594 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA t' INTER — OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gus Ambler DATE: August 5, 1988 FILE: Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: LIST OF TAGGED ITEMS N0. LONGER ON INVENTORY SYSTEM - AVAILABLE FOR SURPLUS SALE OR TRADE TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS FROM: Carlos Flores REFERENCES: Finance/Fixed Assets The following is a list of tagged items that have'been removed from County Inventory system and are available for surplus disposal: ASSET # DESCRIPTION 7667 3586 2082 0166 0167 0168 016Q 0171 0473 2792 2793 1383 M 0036 1315 1888 2196 0492 Q494 0499 0495 0497 0498 0493 AUG 2 3 1988 IBM-Quibt. Writer Printer Rolodex Mobile Radio or Computer Access. Microphone n rr n Microphone P/A System Edison Dictaphone Cart ` Rapid Print Time Clock Check Casher Item from Health Dept. Stationary Chairs from Ct/Hs Renovation 27 BOOK 595 TO: Gus Ambler DATE: August 5, 1988 FILE: Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: UNTAGGED NON -CAPITAL ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR SURPLUS SALE OR TRADE TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS FROM: Carlos Flores REFERENCES: Finance/Finance Fixed Assets The following is a list of items -that have no tags but are available for surplus sale or use by -other departments: MAIL SCALE POSTAGE METER MACHINE (5) KODAK INSTA-PRINT CAMERAS IBM -MODEL 5215 TYPEWRITER RADAR GUN OLYMPIA 10 KEY CALCULATOR (2) LATHEM TIME CLOCKS CRENDENZA - METAL (7) STATIONARY WOOD CHAIRS IBM SHEETFEEDER - WORDPROCESSOR PRINTER ATTACHMENT (5) ROLADEX .AUG 2 3 1988 Boos 7 rAur 5f?6 C co co PROGRAM **FIXRP0020** * FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED * DATE 8/10/88 TIME * * PAGE 1 ASSET# SEQ# CLASS DESCRIPTION/ DESCRIPTION/ LAST INV,DATE AQ, DATE HOW CHG DATE FUNCTION FLEET # MANUFACTURER - ----YEAR--- - COMMENT ASSET VALUE I.D. # - ----- ----------•-------6005---•PURCH: - --ENTERPRISE SURPLUS ************************************************************************************************************************************ ** 001590-000000 TRUCKS / 1 TON FORD 1 TON PU 0/00/00 9/23/79 P 07/08/88 999 ** FL# -079 ARNOLD FORD -'-- -'' -- - --'1969 6065-W/S VEHICLES 2,861.75 F35YNF31627 Xt135F351 ** 003243-000000 POWER TOOLS / MISC. BATTERY CHARGER 24 VOLT 0/00/00 6/01/88 P 06/01/88 999 ** - FL# -000 •---DAYTON — -------1979-6070-LANDFILL EOIPMENT -- -- "' .00 32633 ** 003421-000000 AUTOMOBILE / SEDAN 3 DR CHEVETTE 0/00/00 11/21/79 P 06/06/88 999 ** FL# -056 GM - - --- ------- --- - 1980---6065,-W/8 VEHICLES 4,088.83 IJ089AA130805 I N ** ** 003579-000000 STORAGE CABINET/ STORAGE CAB, BLUE PRINT FILE 8/29/86 FL# -000 ---COLE- -1980--FR-6050-BUILDING - /i "' - - --- 9/19/80 -286.50 P - 08/10/88 999 � 1 1 � ** 003935-000000 TRUCKS / MULTI -TON 1 TON GMC W SEWER PUMP 0/00/00 11/18/81 P 08/03/88 999 ** FL# -191 - - GMC- - - --- -------------1981-6065-R/A 080388 DISP 05 6,589.00 CE503Z157662 i ** 004718-000000 COMMUNICATION / RADIO -BASE GE BASE 0/00/00 2/08/83 P 06/14/88 999 1 ** - FL# -000 --GE — -- -- ---- 1983- 6060-W/S EQUIPMENT 1,170.50 ** 004903-000000 REPROD, / MICRO-VIEW/READ/PRNT READER PRINTER 3M 8/29/86 11/17/83 P 06/03/88 999 ** FL# -000 - 3M - -- - --- -- '--1983--6050TBUILLING EQUIPMENT 7,500.00 301542 .I 1 ** 007047-000000 STOAROE CABINET / MAP FILE PLANS FILES # 0/00/00 10/01/83 G 08/10/88 999 --** - FL# -000 ---- 900—FR---6050-BUILDING- 1900—FR---6050-BUILDING-- 007389-000010 REPRODUCTION / COPIER 007389-000010 SHARP 825 COPIER COLLATOR 8/29/86 12/19/84 P 08/03/88 999 r= ** FL# -000 --SHARP- - - ------1984-6050-R/A 080388 DISP 05 1,621.67 CD ) LOCATION TOTAL VALUE--- 24358.09 TOTAL FIXED ASSETS------ 9 _y w 0 0�1 0 0 7K cz i.- 9 1 1 1 _�.-.- .. - _ __-...-.��..--.—�. yfR.f¢(nt.�•Kr,* `�11� Aefl.--'.. -A ���il��-n -SMC• • • •y yy yyyy•�y•yy.yy yyy yy y•yyyy•Y yy yyyyyy y.y •�yy{(. PROGRAM **FIXRP0020** * FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED * DATE 8/10/88 TIME * * PAGE 1 ASSET# SEQ# CLASS DESCRIPTION/ DESCRIPTION/ LAST INV.DATE AQ. DATE HOW CHG DATE FUNCTION FLEET # MANUFACTURER YEAR COMMENT ASSET VALUE I.D. # .1215 PURCHASING - GFA SURPLUS ** 000082-000000 REPRODUCTION / COPIER DRY DEVELOPER 0/00/00 0/00/00 X 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 BLUE RAY - - - 1900 - 200.00 DN2660 ** 000406-000000 ADUIO / RECORDER SONY TAPE RECORDER 0/00/00 5/09/73 P 08/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 - - SONT--- ---- ----- - ---1973-1720-R/A 080388 DISP 05 500.00 16533 ** 000476-000000 ADUIO / RECORDER SONY REEL/REEL RECORDER 0/00/00 9/20/76 P 08/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 SONY - -- - - - - 1976 -•1820-R/A 080388 DISP 05 600.00 16268 ** 000562-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER IBM TYPEWRITER 6/16/86 9/30/75 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM---- -- - ---- --1975--- -__.- _.._-- _ _ 742.50 8590511 ** 001075-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER IBM TYPEWRITER 9/05/86 4/05/67 P 06/24/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM - ----___-_.1967 --- - 441.00 4890280 ** 001077-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER IBM TYPEWRITER 0/00/00 4/05/67 P 06/06/88 513 ** FL# -000 -IBM --------_..-.__..-.._---__ 1967 __.___,._ ._..._ _-- 441.00 4890288 © ** 001094-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER IBM TYPEWRITER 0/00/00 2/21/71 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM -- --- . 1971 -TRAN$FRD. PURCH. USE FOR LOAN 406.00 9244933 © ** 001698-000000 TRUCKS / 1/2 TON FORD 1/2 TON FORD PU COURIER 9/10/86 0/00/00 P 08/03/88 513 ** FL# -093 FORD - - --- - -------1974--1420-R/A 080388 DISP 05 1,500.00 SGTAPL02806 ** 001820-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER IBM ELECTRIC TYPEWRITER 0/00/00 0/00/00 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM - - -- 1900 - 409.00 6437306 ** 002398-000000 STOARGE CABINET / MAP FILE MAP FILE S 8/07/85 7/13/65 P 08/05/88 513 ** FL# -000 - -- — -- -- ----- - 1965---1600-HEALTH DEPT 200.00 ® ** 002399-000000 STOARGE CABINET / MAP FILE MAP FILE �y 10/14/86 7/13/65 P 08/05/88 513 ** FL# -000 1965 1600 -HEALTH DEPT 200.00 ** 002400-000000 STOARGE CABINET / MAP FILE MAF FILE 8/07/85 7/13/65 P 08/05/88 513 ** FL# -000 - - ----- ---- - - 1965--•1600-14EALTH DEPT #y 200.00 ** 002421-000000 STOARGE CABINET / MAP FILE 4 DRAWER MAP 8/07/85 9/30/70 X 08/05/88 513 ** FL# -000 -- - - 1970---1600-HEALTH DEPT 210.00 ** 002422-000000 STOARGE CABINET / MAP FILE ' BLUE PRINT 4 DRAWER 10/14/86 9/30/70 X 08/05/88 513 ** FL# -000 -- -- —.----1970-1600-HEALTH DEPT '.3 210.00 e ** 002463-000000 REPRODUCTION / DUPLICATOR SPIRIT DUPLICATOR 10/14/86 3/13/75 P 06/03/08 513 ** FL# -000 A.A.B. DICK - - - - 1974 WAREHOUSE 302.56 ** 002661-000000 FURNITURE / DESK DESK 0/00/00 3/10/76 P 06/24/88 513 ** FL# -000 GRIGGS - ----- --- - 1976 - -- 201.95 9 1 1 1 1 1 L' m.....c.s.uaesmra..w..ue.m ® PROGRAM **FIXRP6020** * FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED * DATE 8/10/88 TIME 10:01:44 * PURCHASING - GFA SURPLUS * PAGE 2 ® ASSET# SEQ# CLASS DESCRIPTION/ DESCRIPTION/ LAST INV.DATE AQ. DATE HOW CHG DATE FUNCTION FLEET # MANUFACTURER - YEAR "' COMMENT ASSET VALUE I.D. # co _ 1215 PURCHASINO - GFA SURPLUS ** 002811-000000 HEAVY EQUIP. / TRACTOR CUB TRACTOR/MOWER 9/10/86 9/17/76 P 08/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 INTERNATIONAL -HARVESTER 1976 1420-R/A 080388 DISP 05 3,450.00 24648 ** 002910-000000 OFFICE EQUIP•/ CALCULATOR CALCULATOR 0/00/00 10/12/77 P 06/06/88 513 ' -000---MONROE ------_-___......_. __ .._ 1977.._.. __... _.. _ ... " ' 340.72 ' "_" J340776 ** 002964-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION NCR 9/30/86 9/29/76 P 06/06/88 513 ' ** FL# -000 NCR - _......_.. _.. _ . 1976 -STORAGE 4,542.06 11425954 ** 002965-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION NCR 0/00/00 9/29/76 P 06/03/88 513 ' ** FL# -000 --NCR:_ _ ---------1976 ---• --- ..__.._. __._.-.. __ ..._._.---------- 41542.06 ••----- `11425957 ** 002966-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION NCR 9/30/86 9/29/76 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 -- NCR ---__.._._.1976--- ___...._ 4,542.06 275 201 S 11425961 e ** 002967-000000 ADUIO / RECORDER RECORDER 0/00/00 9/29/76 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000' -'-NCR-- -- --- ----197 -- - -- -1.749.51 10914605 002968-000000 ADUIO / RECORDER RECORDER 9/30/86 9/29/76 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 NCR __...__._._..._- .---..._ - 1976 --`— _._._..._ 1.749.51 10914587 ® ** 002969-000000 ADUIO / RECORDER RECORDER 0/00/00 9/29/76 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL#, -000 1976-_.._----_-_-._ _ -• 1;749.51 761 270 10624431 ** 003098-000000 HEAVY EQUIP. / MOWERS LAWNMOWER YA 200 9/19/86 8/23/78 P 06/14/88 513 ** FL# -000 YAZOO ---- - ---------- 1978- - -- 2,300.00 S532378 ® ** 003168-000000 PHOTOGRAPHIC / ACCESSORY ENLARGER -PRINTER 0/00/00 1/24/79 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL#-000---OCE-INDUSTRIES —1979 --- - -----_._.._._-._...- -•---••-_-.----- 5,795.00 _•- 3720 -- --- ® ** 003220-000000 TRUCKS / 1/2 TON DATSUN 1/2 TON P/U 9/12/86 9/28/79 P 07/08/88 513 ** FL# -137 . __DATSUN ._ - ---- —1979- ----.--.._ _.._._..._...-... .._...--_. 5,147.00 HL6 20438821 �p e o ** 003244-000000 AUTOMOBILE / SEDAN 4 DR ASPEN DODGE 9/03/86 5/09/79 P 08/03/88 513 ** - FL# -134-- CHRYSLER— 979-2340-R/A-080388 DISP 05 NL41 D9F 171551 ** 003247-000000 COMMUNICATION'/ RADIO -MOBILE RCA MOBILE 0/00/00 0/00/00 P 06/14/88 513 ** FL# -000 RCA-- ----.....-- - ----._...- 1979 _-..-- - --- - - -... - .. 1007.68 007.68 F 20400 ** 003378-000000 COMMUNICATION / RADIO -MOBILE RCA MOBILE 0/00/00 9/23/79 X 06/06/88 513 ** FL# -000 - RCA----- ---1978 TRNSFRD- PORCH: - PER -C. -GOODRICH ..__.--._ • --- --- -- 811.00 --- ' GO 3675 �Ul � ** 003407-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER OLYMPIA TYPEWRITER 9/10/86 11/07/79 P 06/24/88 513 ** FL# -000 OLYMPIA USA-- - --- - -- - - 1979 -KH - - - 297.52 4537371DS03 ** 003622-000000 REPROD. / MICRO-VIEW/READ/PRNT MICROFICHE READER 0/00/00 11/26/80 P 06/03/88 513 *?k FL# -000 _ ..._.MICRON-COkP:- - 1980 ------ ---.-. - - _ .. .....----__-__.—_.__.210.00--- 1 1 L' r 1 �I i.M .. .-.�-....�-.�... .F��. ;f� -T'•_'-t' �- `L�...�.y_ '"I k7 .:. 'PIS- ... .. .. PROGRAM **FIXRF'0020** FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED * DATE 8/10/88 TIME 10:01:45 CAD * PURCHASING - GFA SURPLUS * PAGE 3 m ASSET# SEQ# CLASS DESCRIPTION/ DESCRIPTION/ LAST INV.DATE AQ. DATE HOW CHO DATE FONCTION co FLEET # MANUFACTURER YEAR ---- COMMENT ASSET VALUE I.D. # 1215 -PURCHASING - GFA SURPLUS ** 003732-000000 AUTOMOBILE / SEDAN 3 DR CHEVETTE CHEVROLET 6/17/86 3/25/81 P 08/08/88 St3 #* FL# -168 GENERAL MOTORS 1981- FR 1370 COUNTY ENGINEERING 4,992.28 IAJOB97BY212492 ** 004369-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM DISPLAY STATION 9/18/86 2/22/82 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 - IBM-.. ---------- - ---- -198? -Iip ----- —.. __ .. 2x904.00 117276 ** 004400-000000 WATER / COOLER -FOUNTAIN PORTABLE WATER COOLER 9/12/86 4/08/82 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 EBCO --. ._ __ .. _....__... -1982 - ___ ..... 252.00 NONE ** 004497-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IDM DISPLAY STATION 9/18/B6 5/03/82 P 06/06/88 513 ** FL# -000 - IBM _.._ ._ __ ._....--•_-_-_- .----__-•-- ---1982 --SUPPORT 2,946.00 T1.654 ** 004498-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM DISPLAY STATION 0/00/00 5/03/82 P 06/06/88 5t3 ** FL# -000 IBM -. __..._._.... 1982 -DP LOIS 2.946.00 T1652 ** 004748-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM DISPLAY STATION 0/00/00 10/20/82 P 06/06/BB 513 ** FL# -000 --- IBM - ------------ - 1982 -RECORDING - - 2,500.00 T0984 05 N ** 004832-000000 REPRODUCTION / COPIER ' COPIER 0/00/00 3/12/81 P 06/03/B8 513 ** FL# -000 XEROX - 1981 -SENT TO WAREHOUSE 3-5•-86 31,053.96 r 6 X875017079 ** 004847-000000 REPRODUCTION / COPIER COPIER SAVIN 780 B/29/86 10/28/83 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 SAVIN - - - - - 1983- SECTION, 8 2066.60 310-775-291 ** 004860-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM DISPLAY STATION 9/18/86 10/28/83 P 06/06/88 513' ** FL# -000 IBM 1983 COMPUTER ROOM 2,100.00 60014 ® ** 004874-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION 10/13/86 10/01/82 P 06/14/88 513 ** FL# -000 DATA GENERAL - -- --- - 1982 --- -- 2,495.00 3116 ** 004875-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION 0/00/00 10/01/82 F' 06/14/88 5t3 ** FL# -000 DATA GENERAL1982 :. 2,495.00 3302 70 ® R ** 004876-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION 10/13/86 10/01/82 P 06/14/88 513 ** FL# -000 - DATA GENERAL --- - 2, 495.00 828 ® ** 007141-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION CRT 9/30/86 10/01/83 P 07/01/BB 513 ** FL4-000 ADDS, INC - - _ 1983 -- - 595.00 734909 �Q� 0 ** 007148-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION CRT 0/00/00 10/01/B3 P 07/01/88 513 ** FL# -000 --- ADDS, INC - --- - - - - -- 1983---- - - 595.00 758681 ** 007152-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION CRT 0/00/00 10/01/83 P 07/01/88 513 FL4-000 ADDS, INC -- - 1983 •-• - 595.00 708673 ® ** 007280-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM DISPLAY STATION 9/18/86 9/28/84 P 06/06/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM -- -- -- - - - 1984 -CIRCUIT CRIMINAL 1,738.00 E5706 1 �I PROGRAM **FIXRF'6020** * FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED # DATE 8/10/88 TIME 10101:45 CAD * PURCHASING - GFA SURPLUS * PAGE 4 to �! co ASSET# SEQ# CLASS DESCRIPTION/ DESCRIPTION/ LAST INV.DATE AQ, DATE HOW CHO DATE FUNCTION co FLEET # MANUFACTURER '" YEAR COMMENT ASSET VALUE I.U. # PURCHASING - GFA SURPLUS ** 007365-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION ADDS CRT VPB A2 9/30/86 9/30/84 P 07/01/88 513 ** FL# -000 ADDS 1984 595.00 833913 ** 007389-000000 REPRODUCTION / COPIER SHARP 825 COPIER 0/00/00 12/19/84 P 08/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 - SHARP-"-- ----^"-'--" "-- - 1984 --1340-k/A 080388 LISP 05 - "'"" 3,243.33 ** 007410-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION DISPLAY STATION 0/00/00 12/19/84 P 06/06/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM - - - 1984 CIVIL 1,110.00 K0915 *# 007904-000000 COMMUNICATION'/ RADIO -BASE GE BASE 0/00/00 12/01/85 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 GE ---" ------------ — - 1985 WAREHOUSE (WABASSO) - --.. 799.00 5356515 ** 008197-000000 OFFICE EQUIP./ TYPEWRITER OLYMPUS TYPEWRITER 0/00/00 11/00/81 P 07/01/88 513 ** FL# -000 OLYMPUS - - 1900 STATION 1 1,035.00 ** 008217-000000 AUTOMOBILE / SEDAN 1977 CHEVY NOVA 0/00/00 4/00/77 P 07/08/88 513 FL# -524 --CHEVROLET---" -- -- ---1977 -STATION 1' - - 4,216.00 1X60U7T164460 - w � ** 008223-000000 YARD TOOLS / LAWN MOWERS LAWN MOWER 0/00/00 0/00/00 P 07/01/88 513 ** FL# -000 - - -- - "-- - 1900 STATION 1 400.00 ** 008232-000000 REPRODUCTION / COPIER XEROX 2359 COPIER 0/00/00 10/00/82 P 07/01/88 513 ** FL# -000 -- - XEROX - --- - '-1900-STATION 1-- 27345.00 714066789 ** 008489-000000 EDF' EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM CRT DISPLAY STATION 0/00/00 3/17/86 P 08/08/88 513 ** FL# -000 IBM -'- 1985 -FR -1710 DATA PROCESSING 1,035.00 5291 DZ576 ** 008571-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION IBM DISPLAY STATION/FRT 0/00/00 6/19/86 P 06/06/88 513 ** FL# -000 -- - IBM — - --__198&--CIVIL--- GERRY - 948.00 5291-U7410 o ** 008654-000000 REPRODUCTION / COPIER XEROX 3450 COPY MACHINE 7/07/88 7/03/86 G 08/08/88 513 o ** FL# -000 -XEROX----------------1970 -FR- 1230 VETERANS -IN YOUTH GUID 250.00 X -884-244128-2A ** 008711-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION MEMOREX 2191 CRT 0/00/00 9/09/86 P 06/24/88 513 ** -FL#-000•.-.. MEMOREX- 1988 TRAFFIC--- -- --- - - -- - - 625.00 ... ___--- 2191-7221 * ** ** 008807-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY FL# -000 MEMOREX - - - ----- STATION MEMOREX 2191 CRT 0/00/00 - 1986 ---TRAFFIC DEPT 9/09/86 625.00 P 06/06/88 179408 513 ** 008811-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION MEMOREX 2191 CRT 0/00/00 9/09/86 P 06/06/88 513 co ** FL# -000 MEMOREX - - -- --- --198b----FAMILY RELATIONS '- 625.00 ** 008913-000000 EDP EQUIP./ DISPLAY STATION MEMOREX 2191 CRT 0/00/00 1/10/87 P 06/03/88 513 ** FL# -000 DATA SOUTH - - - -..1986 -JOYCE JOHNSTON 675.00 035791 LOCATION TOTAL VALUE--- 132123.50 TOTAL FIXED ASSETS------ 63 � r � TO: Gus Ambler DATE: June 18, 1988 FILE: Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: PROPERTY FOR SURPLUS SALE Charles P. Balczun FROM: County Administrator REFERENCES: 1 L- An item to be added to your list of property to be declared surplus and subsequently sold at auction should be picked up at my office inasmuch as it cannot be sent through the mail. It is a bottle of Lanser's Rose' wine. I consider it to be County property and since the County cannot make official use of this wine, we should dispose of it lawfully by declaring it surplus and selling it at public auction. L. Budget Amendment #055 - Unemployment Compensation Charges The Board reviewed memo from Budget Analyst Leila Miller: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 17, 1988 SUBJECT: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CHARGES TO THE COUNTY BUDGET AMENDMENT - 055 THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director FROM: Leila Miller , f Budget Analyst' Description and Conditions The State of Florida, Department of Labor has charged Indian River County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A budget amendment is required to reflect these payments. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve Budget Amendment 055 to refund Unemployment Compensation payments. 34 Boor; I STATE OF FLORIDA LES FIRM UCT29 (REV. 1/88) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURIT'�' DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BUREAU OF TAX TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32399-0217 REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE THIS IS A STATEMENT OF CHARGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO YOUR FORMER EMPLOYEES. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - C/O FINANCE OFFICER. PO BOX 1D28 VERO BEACH FL 32960 ACCOUNT NO. 9976037 DATE QUARTER ENDING JUN 309 1988 AUG 019 1988 THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE MUST BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON CLAIMANTS SHOWN BELOW* PLEASE CALL (-9041488-0490 LOCATION CODE AS SHOWN ON DETERMINATION NOTICE TO BASE PERIOD EMPLOYER OF VALID CLAIM FILED. LES FORM UCB-12R MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND RETURN ONE COPY.WITH YOUR REMITTANCE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 4 29572.40 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Budget Amendment #055, as follows: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 055 DATE: August 17, 1988 Entry Number CLAIMANT'S NAME SOC. SEC. NO. EXPIRATION DATE OF CLAIM NO. WEEKS OF BENEFITS PD. IN QTR. CHARGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT ROAD AND BRIDGE Road and Brid a Unem . Comp. ERNEST L RIDER 186-26-2986 10/03/88 3 v`411a00 MARVIN 0 WHITE 261-73-6872 04/02189 4 ✓'129.40 �- OHN L WATERS 264-37-5958 04/02/89 10 t""070.10 =- S 0 lJANIS I MORGAN 264-76-7459 12/27/87 CASRF 27.75- -JANIS I MORGAN 264-76-7459 12/27/87 CASRF• 27.75- General Fund Reserve for Cont. DAVID V STREET 320-50-0726 02/07/89 12 17.40 JOHN P HAYDEN 372-20-8845 02/27/89 5 000.00 $1,000.00 S 0 Cash Forward 1418-000-389-040.0 S 0_C1.000,00 MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND RETURN ONE COPY.WITH YOUR REMITTANCE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 4 29572.40 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Budget Amendment #055, as follows: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 055 DATE: August 17, 1988 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. ROAD AND BRIDGE Road and Brid a Unem . Comp. 111-214-541-012.15 411.00 0 Road and Bridge/Res, for Cont. S 0 411.00 .111-199-581-099.91 2. GENERAL FUND Recreation Unem . compensation 001-108-572-012.15 S 130.00 =- S 0 Anima Control Unem . ComR. 001-250-562-012.15 $1,071.00 S 0 Parks/Unamoloyment Compensation 001-210-572-012.15 S 18.00 S 0 General Fund Reserve for Cont. 001-199-581-099.91 S 0 $1,219.00 3 GOLF COURSE Golf Course/Unemployment Comp. 418-221-572-012.15 $1,000.00 S 0 Cash Forward 1418-000-389-040.0 S 0_C1.000,00 35 BOOK 73 r,,ka533 M. Budget Amendment #056 - To Utilize $96,000 Roof Bond Money The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 17, 1988 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT - 056 TO UTILIZE $96,000 - ROOF BOND MONEY FROM: Joseph A. Baird ' OMB Director -_ Description and Conditions When the County Administration Building renovation was being done, Indian River County required a roof warranty bond of $96,000. As it turned out there was damage and we received the full amount of the bond. The money was deposited in the General Fund to be used at a later date. The Building and Grounds Department is in the process of receiving bids from contractors and needs to utilize the funds. The attached budget amendment appropriates the funding. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget amendment 056. Commissioner Eggert commented that she wasn't clear what the $96,000 was going to be used for, and'OMB`Director Baird explained it is going to be used to redo the roof in the Administration Building and part of the money is going to be used for Bid #458. Commissioner Eggert noted that all the memo and the Budget Amendment say is that we are receiving bids from contractors, and it could have been for any kind of construction. Director Baird apologized and agreed that he should have included that it was for the roof. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Budget Amendment #056, as follows: 36 .BOOK 73 rv4 .534 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 056 DATE: August 17, 1988 Entry Number Funds De artinent Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. GENERAL FUND Revenue• Cash Forward 001-000-389-040.00 $96,000.00 0 E ense• Building and Grounds/ Construction in Progress 001-220-519-066.51 S96.000.00 S 0 1 i N. Release of County Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: August 11, 1988 RE: CONSENT AGENDA-- FOR BCC MEETING 8/23/88 RELEASE OF COUNTY LIENS Lea Keller of this office and requests permission for release forms: has processed the following the Chairman to execute the Release of Water Lien - MEYER Unit #200 - PINECREEK CONDO III Release of Sewer Lien - MEYER Unit #200 - PINECREEK CONDO III Release of Water Lien - HOLDING Unit #104 - PINECREEK CONDO III Release of Sewer Lien - HOLDING Unit #104 - PINECREEK CONDO III Back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's & Utilities Department Offices. AUG 2 0 1988 37 Boa .73 r,.j F 535 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Chairman or Vice Chairman to execute the release forms listed above. COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 0. Amendment to Extend Contract and Security for Construction of Vequiri ea- mprovemenIs - 0a -rain Crove P h ase The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Wiegers: Mrhe hcnorable Members of DATE:August 12, 1988 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: AMENDMENT TO EXTEND A SUBJECT: CONTRACT AND SECURITY Robert M. Keating, ICP FOR CONSTRUCTION OF Community Developme t Di ector REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS FOR GARDEN GROVE THROUGH: Stan Boling 141/ Chief, Current Development i FROM:Pobert E. Wiecrers/L/ C J REFERENCES: garden grove Staff Planner BWIEG _ It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 23, 1988. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Garden Grove PRD Phase I subdivision is a 91 lot phase of a total 240 lot subdivision located on the east side of U.S. #1, north of Midway Estates Mobile Home Park and west of Vero Shores subdivision. The zoning classification of the site is RS-6/RM-6 (6 dwelling units/acre), and the land use designation is LD -2 (6 dwelling units/acre). The proposed density for the overall Garden Grove development is ±4 units/acre. At its regular meeting of April 12, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners granted final PRD plan approval for phase 1 of the project. At the time this approval was given, the developers contracted with the County with regards to the future construction of required improvements (Attachment #3). Subsequent to the expiration date of that contract, the developer made a request to the County that this contract be extended to allow an additional 60 days for completion of all remaining required .improvements. At this time the developer also requested 38 BOOK 73 u;E 536 that the letter of credit, held by the County to guarantee the contract for construction, be reduced to reflect the amount of work which has been completed and to guarantee the remaining work. ANALYSIS: Section 8(d)2 of the subdivision ordinance allows a reduction in the amount of required security upon completion of any distinct and separable phase or portion of the required improvements. The amount of this reduction may not exceed 800 of the cost of the completed work and such reduction must be approved by the Public Works Director. The Public Works Department and County Attorney's office has verified that the original $307,675.68 letter of credit may be reduced to $134,046.68 in accordance with Section 8(d)2. The applicant is requesting to extend the completion date of the contract and to extend for a commensurate amount of time the security guaranteeing the contract. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the amended contract for construction and accept the amended letter of - credit guaranteeing the new contract for construction of required improvements. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the amended Contract and Security for Construction of Required Improvements for Garden Grove Phase I. COPY OF AMENDED CONTRACT AND LETTER OF -CREDIT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. P. Breezewood Subdv. Water System I Court naT-Assessment_RoTT rovements (71st Ave. & 71st The Board reviewed memo from the Utility Department: 39 AUG 2 3 '1988 8a®K 73 PAff 537 I DATE: AUGUST 4, 1988 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS ONE S THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UT/I>LITY S ICES FROM: JACK PEARCE�/= COORDINATOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: 71ST AVENUE AND 71ST COURT - BREEZEWOOD SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NUMBER UW87-20-DS BACKGROUND 71st Avenue and 71st Court - Breezewood Subdivision Water System Improvements, is ready for approval of Final Assessment Roll. ANALYSIS The Preliminary Assessment Roll was for $126,060.00. The total project cost is $112,200.00. The lines have been sized to service both fire flow and domestic use for the Subdivision and connecting parcels. RECOMMENDATION We recommend the Final Assessment Roll be approved at the $1,700.00 per buildable parcel for the individuals named in the preliminary assessment roll and authorize placing the assessment liens on the benefitting properties. The assessments will be recorded in the Recording Office of the Clerk of the Circuit_Court. Since the Final Assessment is less thanthe Preliminary it is further recommended that this item be.placed on the Consent Agenda. The breakdown of final costs is enclosed in this.package along with the property list of -the assessment roll. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 88-51 approving the Final Assessment Roll for certain water improvements 71st Avenue 8 71st Court - Breezewood Subdv. Water System Improve- ments. AUG �9 40 Boa .3 FAuWS � � r RESOLUTION NO. 88- 51 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO BREEZEWOOD PARK, LITTLE PORTION, AND SUNNDALE ACRES SUBDIVISIONS,. DESIGNATED AS PROJECT UW -87-20 AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the water improvements for the property located with boundaries as described in this title, designated as Project No. UW -87-20, were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 1988, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of the property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-17 which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in an attachment to that resolution;:.and WHEREAS, the Directo=r of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed and has recommended modifying Resolution No. 88-17 proportionately downward, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Resolution No. 88-17 is modified as follows: The completion date for Project No. UW -87 -20 -DS is declared to be August 4, 1988; and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is 90 days after passage of this resolution or Monday, November 21, 1988. 2. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 88-17 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 41 BOOK ( cJ PAGE �P AUG 23 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88-51 3. The assessments as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 4. The assessments have been recorded by the County on the public records in 0. R. Book 793, Page 2854, and the lien shall constitute prima facie evidence of its validity. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of -'August 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -y h Attest Garytairman Wheeler Vice Freda Wright, r c ^apoved 024 Le9e1 I� pep'l RESOLUTION 88-51 WITH "EXHIBIT A" IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 42 BOOK 7ey u,u1.540 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ORD_ 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL. Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a dally newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida. that the attached copy of advertisement, being, a in the matter of A �►1 e �� 0 in the _ _ . ____ Court, was pub• fished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person; firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me h dA�o _ r A.D. din i anager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RNfer County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE—PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of I County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunit to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Flor- Ida on Tuesday. August 23, 1888, at 9:05 a.m. to consider amending the Development Policies and the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAP- TER 18, ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTI. CLE 111, FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IM- PROVEMENTS ORDINANCE, SECTION - 1847, FEE SCHEDULE, TO REVISE THE rnuvlUINU FOR REPEAL OF CON- FLICTING PROVISIONS_- CODIFICA- TION. SEVERA ILI TY. AND EFFECTIVE � DATE A copy of the proposed Ordinance wig be available at the Planning Department office an the second floor of the County Administration Building, beginning August 9,1988. I Anyone who may wish to appeal arty decislon which may be made at this meeting will need en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is. made which Includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal wig be based. Indian River County Board of County Commlaslonere By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr„ Chairman August 3,1988 , Vice Chairman Wheeler informed the Board that he received a call yesterday from Vero Beach City Manager John Little re- questing that the hearing advertised for today on the Fair Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance be tabled. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to table the advertised hearing in regard to amending the Fair Share Roadway Improve- ments Ordinance to the Regular Meeting of September 13, 1988. 43 BOOK 73 P.1 JE 541 ►A U C 2 3- Vice Chairman Wheeler noted that this is a pretty important ordinance, and this will give the City an opportunity to discuss it further with Public Works Director Davis. Also, all the Board members will be here on the 13th of September. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to table. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) Chairman Scurlock being absent. PRESENTATION RE NORTH COUNTY BUILDING/FACILITIES Acting County Administrator Collins informed the Board that he had received a request from David Fisher to be placed on the Commission agenda to make a presentation re his proposal to provide office building facilities for a North County Adminis- trative Annex, and he had asked that Mr. Fisher limit his presentation to ten minutes or less since he was not sure there has been an indication of any need for office space in the North County. David Fisher of Sebastian came before the Board and made the following presentation: 22 August 88 , • u� i *•ar• •r • r, lip w• . i iO4• • wr ra. PRESER=CN TO COUNTY BD. • •• m issi•; is TUESDAYr 23 AUGUST We are currently in the design stage for the construction of an office building complex/campus on acreage behind City Hall and the current Little League Field off of Main Street in Sebastian. . I am David Fisher, principal for this particular project and with me is Mr. John Dean, the Project Architect. . We expect to break ground for our first building by the end of this year and to have it ready for occupancy by the end of next year, 1989. 44 Boa 73 F,, r54?-- This first building, one of three or four major office facilities to be located there eventually in a campus -type setting, will provide 25,000 to 30,000 SF of first-class office space on three floors with an elevator. Most of the area on the top two floors ofthe building is taken by prospective tenants at this time. The first floor, however, approucimately 10,000 to 12,000 SF, is neither committed nor specifically designed yet for any particular tenant or group of tenants. The purpose of this brief presentation here today then, is to formally Qat before the County Board of Co mnissioners the outline of our proposal to provide office space for a North Indian River County Administrative Annex an the ground floor of the building. • As you know, we have discussed this matter at length with all of the Commissioners and Constitutional officers during recent weeks and have been encouraged by a positive response and indication of serious interest in our proposal by virtually all of those we have contacted. . Specifically, we propose to custom -design and lease to the County a sufficient amount of office space in our new building to fulfill the County's needs for a North County Administrative Annex and, further, to provide an adequate amount of additional space for any future expansion of County facilities at the same location. . We think our proposal makes good sense. I.e.: 1) Mere is a need for a North County Administrative Annex in the Sebastian Area; 2) It makes good administrative and economic sense to put the functions of the various County Officers involved at the same location; and 3) We are prepared to provide the County with a well- designed, efficient, and cost-effective: solution, to the situation. If, at the close of our presentation here today, the Board of C,m missioners formally expresses a clear interest in pursuing our thus -far general proposal, we will undertake, at our own expense and in conjunction with County staff, further detailed study of the County's specific needs for a North County Annex and cam back to the Board of Conmissicners on or about September 20 with a detailed proposal to provide such a facility with space, equipment, and teams to fit County specifications. As time is of the essence for us in this endeavor, we ask only that the Board of Commissioners speak clearly to us at some time prior to October 1 of this year regarding whether they have serious interest in our proposal. I will now turn the presentation over to John Dean, our Project Architect, who will explain further details about our site and building design. This total presentation is designed to take no more than 10 minutes on our part. We will, however, be glad to remain longer to answer any questions you may have. 198® 45 ROCK 73 54 M John Dean, Architect, next took the floor and presented the Board with the following diagrams: �tpli�Fi IM�►K AVER cdv�l`111" {t11[IED S 54GAIFF TAX CALF-r-TOK 'E1,�C�lOT1 _ i�RO�ERT'( SVpERVI50fZ -�ppR�gEpq -- - ENV1t�fs14MF.�i1�L - _ REALT14 COUNT`( F+MA TM - ES COUNTY _ _--UnLITI -'PvetfC_ __--FIRE IN SPCCTaR C6uNTY CLERK __ EMERGENCZ' " - 'pLRNNiNG. CCIVNT*r INF{ M0411ON TMPFFK C"JWT COUNTY-COMMISVON PUTVILM NEEDS CIEWT� 1 et0Rm Ca_U T -y ANN ¢` �j ►�� �Il�t""D1fFERTeNi Lo GAT NS COUWY FAC";A&P a4voef POMW CWMM TA -A COLLEGT*k cA;uNr( 4CAl 011. ERJFF T+I � SctPEAVISc�R . / � �� \ ENVtRa�NMENTAI_ VTItfTtE3 i�CEPjIOH � *►EALTH... __FiaE t► CTo SAMRcans j FFIC coup: I � c �rniRGt^tsY Nf�_ WcRKSPA�E CLERK-- C�tsoN �IC;f. tt�lllAMfNr � � V,aetAtl�G-RsOC� OFFICE SPfiCZ CrYArY CanY{PNON M£.ETiNC ROOMS I \ \ �vTVRt CiRowTN £MfXoNfEE 3PWG£ *LIX16l£ UX NEEDS � AOM USE W -SOU 46 BOOKS Pbc �44 ►AUG 2 3 19 � - E-1 Mr. Dean advised that when they contacted the Constitutional Officers, they found that the Tax Collector is going to be leasing some space in Sebastian. The Sheriff's Department is up there now and has expressed interest in being tied together with everyone else in a common facility. The County Health Department presently has space with the City of Sebastian. The Supervisor of Elections also has expressed an interest as well as the Property Appraiser and the Clerk. Both Utilities Director Pinto and Assistant Utilities Director Barton have recognized there is an upcoming need in that area, and the Emergency Management Director feels he needs a satellite facility for communicatio-ns and shelter purposes. Mr. Dean went on to emphasize the need to plan for future growth and pointed out that by bringing all these activities together in an annextype facility, they can make use of and share common facilities, i.e., reception desk, restrooms, etc., as depicted in diagram #3. He described in detail the proposed three story building, which would have a series of flexible rooms with movable petitions, and noted that -the third story is intended for legal and profess.ional services. Mr. Dean felt the first floor will fill up quickly and stressed the need.to get the County's input now in order to tie everything together in an efficient way. Commissioner Eggert noted that we would need to get everyone together and see what needs would be duplicated and what could be combined, what percentage of the lease would come from whose budget, etc., but conceptually she likes the idea of a central- ized office for all the county functions and is very supportive of this idea for a number of reasons. Vice Chairman Wheeler agreed that we have reached a position where it is practical or even less expensive to have such offices, and he would be supportive of this if it can be done in a cost effective way. AUG 2 31988 Commissioner Bird also agreed that there is a need to con- solidate services as much as we can and avoid duplication, and he felt the concept is great. He believed that eventually we will grow to a point where we would want to own our own building up in that area, but felt that as an interim step, being part of the proposed complex makes sense. Vice Chairman Wheeler noted that we need a price per square foot and terms of the lease in general, but he also felt that it would be more cost effective for the county to own the building in the long run. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that regardless of whether the Constitutionals pay for it or we pay for it, it all comes down to the taxpayers, and she would like to see some figures on how this would affect the millage. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to direct Acting Administrator Collins, or his designee, to work with Mr. Dean and Mr. Fisher in regard to the project discussed above. Acting Administrator Collins noted -that in his proposal, Mr. Fisher states that if the Board expresses a clear interest in their proposal, they will undertake at their own expense and in conjunction with County staff, a detailed study of the County's specific needs and come back on or about September 20th with a detailed proposal. Mr. Collins suggested that what we could do is let them follow up on that with the Constitutional Officers, and he will memo all Departments re what space they might need, when they would need it and what type of locational needs they have, and he also will check into the effect on the millage. Commissioner Eggert noted that the proposed building will not be available before October 1st of 1989 so it will not impact this next year's budget. 48 AUG 2 3 1988 eooK 73 Commissioner Bowman suggested that we might give some consideration to renting with an option to buy, and Mr. Dean advised that has already been talked about and Mr. Fisher is open to that possibility. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. LEASE W/SEBASTIAN SQUARE ASSOC. FOR SPACE FOR TAX COLLECTOR Tax Collector Gene Morris came before the Board in regard to leasing space in the North County. In regard to the presentation just made regarding an office complex in the North County, Mr. Morris confirmed that when that space is available, he will give consideration to moving his branch office there if it is consolidated and all other county functions are there. He noted that right now there are very few places in Sebastian that have adequate parking for a tag office. Commissioner Eggert commented that'Mr. Morris is presenting a three year lease, and the proposed building could be ready sooner than that. Mr. Morris advised that he has talked to Mr. Evans of Sebastian Square Assoc. and informed him that if there was a possibility they could move to an area where other governmental entities were consolidated, that is what they would be doing. Commissioner Bird inquired asked if this lease is the type where the tenant does the interior alterations, and Mr. Morris advised that they didn't have to do anything; even the walls were painted for them. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Lease Agreement with Sebastian Square Associates for space for the Tax Collector. AUG 2 3 1988 49 BOOK .7un 5-4-7 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT made and entered into this d day of August, 1988, ("Lease Date") by and between the Parties named in Section 1.0 which Parties in consideration of their mutual covenants herein set forth do hereby agree as herein specified: SECTION 1.0 PARTIES The Parties under this Lease are: 1.1 LANDLORD 1.2 TENANT SEBASTIAN SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LTD. herein called "LANDLOR6" whose address is: PO Box 915182 Longwood, Florida 32791 SECTION 2.0 BASIC LEASE PROVISIONS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY herein called "TENANT" whose address is: PO Box 1509 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 The following Provisions are basic to this Lease and are hereinafter sometimes referred to. 2.1 SHOPPING CENTER. Sebastian Square ("Shopping Center") constructed or to be constructed by Landlord in the unincorporated area of Sebastian, County of Indian River, State of Florida. 2.2 PREMISES (Section 3). That portion of the Shopping Center outlined in red and/or crosshatched on attached and incorporated Exhibit "A" with the following approximate dimensions and area: Width: 42 feet; Depth: 60'feet.(irregular); Area: 2,507 square feet; Store Address: 11610 and 11612, U.S. Highway 1, Sebastian, Florida 32958. 2.3 LEASE -TERM, COMMENCEMENT DATE & POSSESSION -DATE (Sections 4 & 5). The term of this Lease ("Term").is three (3) Years which Term starts on the following date("Commenceinent- Date"): October 1; 1988. 2.4 MINIMUM ANNUAL RENT (Section 6). $23,816.40 per Lease Year payable in advance Monthly Installments of.$1,984.70 each. 2.5 TENANT'S BUSINESS OPERATION (Section 8). North Indian River County branch of the Tax Collector's office which business shall be operated under the name of Tax Collector. 2.6 SECURITY DEPOSIT (Section 12). None.•, SAID LEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. 50 BOOK .7 F'",G� AUG 2 � `�� AMENDING ORDINANCE 87-67 (SOLID WASTE DISTRICT) 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter o - in the c\ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant.further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ y V C A.D. 19 (Bus jess nag er) 0 (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RivWCounty, Florida) NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian ' River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on August 23, 1988, to discuss a proposed ordi- nance relating to Indian River County entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 87-87 RELATING TO THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING THAT CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDEW TIAL UNITS AND PROPERTY CLASSIFICA- TIONS AND USE CODES BE MADE BY RESO- LUTION RATHER THAN BY ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings Is made, which Includes testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal Is based. j Aug. 1, 1988 County Attorney Vitunac reviewed his memo: AUG 23 1988 51 Nor, 73 CAOjL rT 549 TO: Board of County Commissioners � r FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, Coun y Attorney DATE: August 12, 1988 RE: AMENDMENT TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' ORDINANCE CREATING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Public Hearing - Board Meeting - August 23, 1988 The attached ordinance would allow the Solid Waste Disposal District to change the attachment to the original ordinance creating the District by resolution, after public hearing, rather than by ordinance amendment. The attachments which would be changed deal with schedule of equivalent residential unit factors, use codes developed by the Property Appraiser's Office, and rates and fees. Staff recommends this procedure since it will simplify minor changes required as the District develops. Franchise Manager Lisa Abernethy explained that staff uses the Property Appraiser's use codes and square footages off his data base to calculate the ERU ratios for all the assessable properties in the county. Every year staff will need to take a look at these factors based on the monies needed to maintain and run the Landfill to determi.ne If these factors would go up or down, and they would like to-do this by -resolution for the sake of doing it annually rather than doing it every 4-5 years. Vice Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 88-32 providing that changes to the schedule of ERUs and property classifications and use codes be made by resolution rather than by ordinance amendments. 52 AUG 2 3 1988 BOOK �'� �� '550 ORDINANCE NO. 88- 32 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 87-67 RELATING TO THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING THAT CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND PROPEI:7; CLASS I FI CAT I ONS AND USE CODES BE MAA: "Y RESOLUTION RATHER THAN BY ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County that: SECTION 1. METHOD OF CHANGING EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT ATTACHMENT AND PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION AND USE CODE ATTACHMENT "Section 13. Other Fees, Rates, and Charges," which reads as follows: "The SWDD shall have the power at any time by resolution after a public hearing to adopt rates, fees, and charges for service costs other than those recovered by disposal charge against assessable property." shall be amended to read as follows: "Section 13. Other Fees, Rates, and Charges The SWDD shall have the power at any time by resolution after a public hearing to adopt rates, fees, and charges for service costs other than those recovered by disposal -charge against assessable property. The SWDD also shall have the power to amend Attachments 1 and 2 to this ordinance at any time by resolution after a public hearing." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of the State of Florida of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved Commissioners 23rd day of and adopted by- the Board of County of Indian River County, Florida, on this August r 1988, AUG 1988 53 Bool< 73 F�eF 7-1 This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 1st day of August , 1988, for a public hearing to be held on the 23 day of August, A time it was moved f6r adoption by Eggert , seconded by Commissioner and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Attest: Freda, n • . 1988, at which Commissioner Bird Absent Aye Aye Aye Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By C,. a�W}ieeler Chairman MEETING OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Vice Chairman Wheeler announced `that the Commission now (9:45 A.M.) would recess in order to reconvene as,the D.istrict Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 10:10 o'clock A.M. with the same members present - Chairman Scurlock being absent. 54 soar 73 Cl.0 552 ® � r REQUEST APPROVAL OF A LOT SPLIT IN HIDDEN ACRES SUBDV. (HARPER) 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: VER0pgEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the _ c Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of�\� Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this (SEAL) Business Manger) (Clerk of the Circuit our , ndian R er C, u ty, Florida) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider approval of the! division of a lot In a platted subdivision. Thai subject property, located at the comer of 23rd' Street and 8th Avenue is presently owAed by Ma Cornelia A. Harper. The subject property Is de -I scribed as: LOT A, HIDDEWACRES SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 14, PU13LIC RECORDS OF : INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.. A public .hearing at which parties In interest i and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County• Commission •Chambers -of-the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. August 23,1988, 9:05 a.m. . • + Anyone whom may wish to appeal any deci- sion which may be made at this meeting will I need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon_ which the appeal will be based. f Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman August 3,1988 j Chief Planner Stan Boling made the staff presentation, as follows: 55 AUG 2 3 1988 8,0of 73 .5 TO. -The Honorable Members of DATE:August 10, 1988 FILE:. the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M Keatincj, AIBP SUBJECT: Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Chief, Current Development •fes(, CORNELIA HARPER'S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A LOT SPLIT IN HIDDEN ACRES SUBDIVISION FROM: Robert E. wiegers //W REFERENCES: a harper Staff Planner, 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 August 23, 1988. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: James A. Douglas, acting as agent for Ms. Cornelia A. Harper, has submitted a request to split Lot A, Hidden Acres Subdivision into two ±1/2 acre parcels. Pursuant to Section 6(a)6 of the County's subdivision ordinance, any proposal to split a lot in a platted subdivision "which results in construction sites smaller than or inconsistent with the surrounding lots in a subdivision, shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners". Furthermore, the ordinance requires a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of July 28, 1988; the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that this lot split be approved without attaching staff's recommended condition (see attachment #5). The condition appears at the end of this report in staff's recommendation. BACKGROUND: The Hidden Acres subdivision, located on the north side of 8th Street and accessed via 23rd Avenue, is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre), and has an LD -2 Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre) land use designation. The subdivision, platted in 1955, consists of 7 one acre lots and 2 half acre lots (previously split years ago). A majority of the lots have been developed. The single, private road is unpaved and is maintained by property owners within the subdivision. ANALYSIS: Consideration of this type of request is governed by five (5) criteria specified in the subdivision ordinance. These criteria state that, prior to granting approval, the Board must determine that the proposed split and any other similar splits: - would have no adverse impacts on the neighborhood; - would result in "buildable" lots; - would not conflict with any filed covenants and deed restrictions; - would not adversely impact existing infrastrucure; and - would conform to all applicable county zoning requirements. A u G 2 3 188 5 6 BOOK 73 f'� M M In regards to these five criteria, staff's findings are as follows: 1. The proposed split and other similar splits would have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Based on the lack of negative responses from subdivision property owners, there appear to be no negative neighborhood impacts anticipated by neighbors. Because the lots in Hidden Acres are large (one acre), splits resulting in ±1/2 acre lots would not result in a high density neighborhood. One lot in the subdivision was split into halves years ago, and that action had no apparent adverse effect on the neighborhood character. 2. The proposed split and other similar splits would result in "buildable" lots. The resulting lot would meet all appli- cable minimum lot size and dimension standards. The Environ- mental Health Department has verified that the resulting lots would meet all applicable well and septic tank requirements. 3. The proposed split and other similar splits would not con- flict with any filed covenants or deed restrictions. The applicant has stated that she is unaware of any filed covenants or restrictions affecting the property. No restrictions or covenants are specified on either the record plat or the applicant's deed. 4. The proposed split and other similar splits would not adversely impact existing infrastructure on 23rd Avenue. The Public Works Department has verified that there are no reported grading or drainage problems in the area. 5. The proposed split would not conform to all applicable County zoning requirements. This is because the request fails to address the right-of-way deficiency along the 8th Street frontage of the proposed southernmost lot. Pursuant to the County's Transportation Thoroughfare Plan, 8th Street is classified as a collector roadway, therefore requiring 80' of right-of-way. Currently the segment of 8th Street adjacent to this site has -only 40' of right-of-way and has a drainage canal running along the south side of the street. With this in mind, the Public Works Department has indicated that an additional 40' of right-of-way is required to bring this portion of 8th Street up to current county standards. Because of the location of an existing house on Lot A (see attachment #3), the full 40' of deficient right- of-way could not be dedicated without the creation of a non -conforming structure. However, twenty feet of the forty foot deficit could be dedicated without creating a non- conformity. A 20' right-of-way dedication would bring this 8th Street segment up to local road standards and thus would not require compensation. The dedication of this 20' of right-of-way is in conformance with Section 10(C)2 of the Subdivision and Platting Ordinance which requires developments along Thoroughfare Plan roadways to dedicate the fair share of any right-of-way up to local road standards. At its meeting of July 28, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically excluded the condition to require a 20' right- of-way dedication in its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. SUMMARY: It is staff's opinion that the proposed lot split satisfies four of the five criteria necessary to grant approval for the lot split. The proposed resulting southernmost lot fronting 8th Street would not conform to the applicable county zoning requirement that the S7 AUG 2 8 1988 Boor 73 f -,nuc 5N5 _ M M 8th Street right-of-way deficiency be brought up to at least the minimum County local rcad standard (60'). Without a condition that the applicant dedicate 20' of additional 8th Street right-of-way, the request does not satisfy all of the approval criteria. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners only grant approval with the following condition: 1. Prior to the recording of deeds creating the new lots, the applicant shall dedicate to Indian River County an additional 20' of right-of-way along the site's entire 8th Street frontage. I. s W 3 W h V F I F 'a W r o 11 c t a A f 7 13 . � D 1 D•e.r .c..ac .ce. rage. ev D•...cT �7 10 h 1. 10= ' ale 9W IN SCALE : 1^ c -9:f• S O O-O.ro•eD s•.�• a. to. 0 d W l9 nD' .e • I .I 1 j at 7 z t 11 c t a A f W 13 . 14 11t n' W �7 10 h 1. 10= ' ale 9W IN SCALE : 1^ c -9:f• S O O-O.ro•eD s•.�• a. to. 0 d W is tomo n V• 1 j at 7 z t .W 23 t Is 3 SZ 0 30 xs I i ` 26 iso o• STN STREET eo 73 FA 1. � -P, a W W h W SCALE : 1^ c -9:f• S O O-O.ro•eD s•.�• a. to. 0 d W w 73 FA 1. � -P, Chief Planner Boling noted that the situation along 8th Street is that the canal is on the right side of the road. The I existing 8th St. R/W is 40' in width. The house sits back approximately 41' from the existing R/W. In the Subdivision Ordinance and in the Zoning Code applying to single family residences there is a requirement that the minimum road R/W width must be dedicated by anyone building a new house - anyone doing a new subdivision - or, in this case, creating these new lots; so, what is required is a 20" R/W dedication along 8th St. That would leave a little over 20' for the setback for the house, which would be conforming to that Zoning District. Under the County's R/W policy that is in effect and that is reflected in the ordinances, the minimum road R/W width is dedicated without compensation. It is the minimum standard for any road. Any new improvements that have to be done to 8th Street in this area would require a St. John's River Water Management permit and would require extra R/W because 60' is the minimum. This would not create a non -conforming situation with the existing residence, and staff, therefore, recommends the Board approve the split subject to the 20' dedication. Vice Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard. James Douglas came before the Board acting as agent for his mother, Cornelia Harper, owner,of the property in question and the residence depicted in the survey. He noted that the P&Z staff has continuously described the situation as not creating a non -conformity, but his mother's entire front yard is only 41' in depth and dedication of the required 20' would put the front yard of the house within 1' of a non -conformity. Mr. Douglas also objected to the disallowance of any economic compensation as this would affect the value of her home dramatically. He noted that there is an existing structure north of this property on 8th Street which sits about 12' off of 8th Street so that if staff wished to increase the R/W there, they would have to buy the 59 LUG 2 3 1988 Bm, 73 F.A u 557 house. Mr. Douglas did not object to the county having a hearing which all property owners with frontage on 8th Street could attend and we could resolve this issue, but he did object to this singular instance of using eminent domain without economic compensation for his mother. He urged that the Board approve the split without any restriction as approved by the P&Z Commission. County Attorney Vitunac advised that the county is not using eminent domain here. This is strictly an applicant desiring a benefit of the Code, and the Code says you may split your lot and receive this benefit if you satisfy the five criteria - the one in question being the minimum road width of 60'. If there was one single house anywhere now, the County would require a 60' roadway to be dedicated at the home owner's cost because that is the minimum acceptable road. This is not eminent domain, and if the gentleman doesn't want to give the 201, the county won't take it from him, but he won't get his lot split. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that they are giving up 20' to have the use of an additional 1/2 acre..lot. Commissioner Eggert stated that she remains forever frustrated with property all being taken off one.side of a road when we have a canal. She realized that this happens all over this county, but it never fails to make her feel that somehow there ought to be a better way of doing it and 10' should be coming off each side. Commissioner Wheeler noted the cost would be phenomenal to go in and increase the road over the canal; it probably would be cheaper to buy the house. Commissioner Eggert agreed, but she just wished there was some way to cope with the situation. Community Development Director Keating advised that staff a few years ago did look at many alternatives, i.e., the concept of boulevarding these roads and having several lanes on each side of these canals; filling the canals; culverting them, etc., but, AUG 3 198860 BOOK 73 F,, 558 even with the Drainage District being very receptive, it appeared the only workable solution was all off to one side. Director Keating further noted that even though we have had a lot of controversy about the dedication reservation requirements of the ordinance, the one part the attorneys and the Planning staff all were in agreement with was the minimum 60' dedication. Commissioner Bird noted that the options before the Board apparently are either to deny the request for the lot split and let them keep the 201; to approve the request and require that they dedicate the 201; or to approve the request and not require the 20'. Commissioner Wheeler questioned if we necessarily have the third option when the ordinance spells out that in order to meet the criteria, you have to give the 20'. Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board chooses the third option, they should ask staff to go back and change our whole Code which would ruin our whole 20 year plan for building roads in the county. Commissioner Bird noted that while the P&Z Commission did choose the third option, it seems we only have two options if we do not wish to violate our own ordinance. He asked the.property owner which option he would prefer - keep the 20' and not split the lot or split the lot and give the 201. It was noted Mr. Douglas doesn't have to choose at this moment; he is not forced to split the lot or take the condition. If the Board passes this with the condition, it is his choice either to do nothing or take the condition and split the lot. Commissioner Bird commented that, as he understood it, until such time as 8th Street is ever widened or improved and we need that 201, they can continue to use and enjoy that 20' for their yard. This was confirmed. It was noted that no one else wished to be heard, and the Vice Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. 61 �o AUG 23 1988 ,� ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted approval of the requested lot split based on the dedication of an additional 20' of R/W along the site's entire 8th Street frontage as recommended by staff. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING VEHICULAR & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PORTION OF THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL. Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a 1` in the matter of C in the _ _ Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of ' .[_ --A l - l s J Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 4h Sworn to and subscribed before me this _5 da f L • A.D. 19 0�4 1 0?4s Maer)� (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board Of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which Par- ties in Interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build - Ing, located at 1840 25th SL, Vero Beach. Ftor- ids, on August 23. 1988 at 9:05 a.m. to cronsider the adoption of an ordinance antitied: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC- TION 23.3(eX5). OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 'HE SITE PLAN ORDINANI NDING SECTION 10(e) OF B OF THE CODE OF LM TY, PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL STAND- ARDS AND DETERMINATION PRO- CEEDINGS FOR SIDEWALK REQUIRE- MENTS APPLIED TO NON-RESIDEN- TIAL PROJECTS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVI- SIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY. AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A copy of the proposed ordinance Is available at the Planning Department on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes the testimony and evl- denca INDIAN RIVER COUNTY based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY--s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman August 4. 1988 Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation: AUG 2 3 1988 62 Boos 13 560 TO The Honorable Members the DATE:August 10, 1988 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Kea ng ICP SUBJECT: Community Development Director REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 10(e) OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND SECTION 23.3(e)(5) OF THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE REVISING SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR EXEMPTIONS ALONG LOCAL ROADS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS FROM: Stan Boling . 4-13. REFERENCES: sidewalk req Chief. Current Development STAN3 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 23, 1988. BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS: Current County regulations require sidewalks along all Thorough- fare Plan roadways, subdivision collector or feeder roads, and along some local roads. Exemptions are granted for local roads in low density residential projects and for short local cul-de-sac roads. Existing regulations require sidewalks along all local roads within non-residential subdivisions and adjacent to sites zoned for commercial or industrial use. Recently, the Board of County Commissioners waived some of the sidewalk requirements as applied to two projects: the Glendale Industrial Park subdivision and the Moorings Center shopping center. In both cases the Board waived requirements that the developer provide sidewalks along a local road segment. In the Glendale Industrial Park case, the Board found that the uses anticipated to occur within the subdivision would not generate significant pedestrian traffic; also; they found that nearby planned sidewalks could accommodate pedestrian traffic to and around the subdivision. In the Moorings case, the Board found that a sidewalk along Bowline Drive would not benefit pedestrian movement since sidewalks would be provided nearby and because no internal Moorings sidewalk system existed to which a Bowline Drive sidewalk could be connected. The Board directed staff to revise the existing sidewalk require- ments to allow exemptions in situations such as the Glendale Industrial Park and the Mooring Center cases, as well as in situations where sites or subdivisions are isolated from existing or planned sidewalk systems. Staff now proposes ordinance amend- ments (see attachment #2) that implement the direction given by the Board. . Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of July 28, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance amendments (see attachment #1). ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: . Research: Other Counties In researching possible ordinance revisions, staff received information from seven Florida counties experiencing significant growth (see attachment #3). Most responding counties indicated 63 AUG 2 8 1988 Rno� that sidewalks were required along all major roadways and collec- tor streets and within all higher density residential subdi- visions. Most responding counties also required sidewalks along local roads within or adjacent to commercial and industrial subdivisions and sites. However, of the seven counties, six also provided for waivers or exemptions for sidewalks along local roads adjacent to commercial or industrial developments. Although most of the counties allowed waivers or exemptions at either the staff or planning commission level, exemption criteria were either non-existent or vague with the exception of the Broward County code. The Broward code allowed waivers in essen- tially two cases: where no significant pedestrian traffic would be generated or where a development would be isolated from other sidewalk segments. . Analysis Requiring sidewalks along Thoroughfare Plan roadways and within higher density residential projects and subdivisions is necessary to provide a comprehensive and useable sidewalk system. Such a system has transportation, safety, and recreation benefits long recognized by the County as desirable. The desirability and necessity of this system for an urbanizing county such as Indian River County is reflected in current development regulations and the draft Sidewalk/Bikeway Plan (currently under review). However, current regulations do not allow exemptions in situations where providing sidewalks along local roads through commercial or industrial projects may have little benefit or where such sidewalks would not become part of or enhance an overall sidewalk system. In such situations where a sidewalk segment is not needed to accommodate significant pedestrian traffic and where it is not needed to become part of or enhance an existing or planned sidewalk system, exemptions could be granted which would not adversely affect the overall goal of safely handling pedestrian traffic. Therefore, staff is now proposing amendments to allow for exemptions under certain circumstances; . Proposed Ordinance Revisions Sidewalk requirements are found in two .sections of the zoning code: Section 10(e) of the subdivision ordinance and Section 23.3(e)(5) of the site plan ordinance. The proposed ordinance revisions provide for staff level exemptions for sidewalks along local roads under certain conditions. Section 1 Section l amends subdivision sidewalk requirements to allow for an exemption, granted by the community development director and the public works director, from providing sidewalks along local roads within or adjacent to commercial or industrial development where: a. low pedestrian traffic will be generated, or b. a nearby sidewalk system can handle pedestrian traffic to and from the project, or C. the project uses or traffic characteristics are incom- patible with pedestrian traffic, or d. sidewalks could not be connected to an existing or planned pedestrian system, or e. the developer can provide an acceptable alternate pedestrian traffic improvement. Staff exemption request decisions would be appealable to the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners. 64 c� AUG 2 �9�� BOOK 73 F IuG 56( It should be noted that the proposed revisions offer no special ns from sidewalk req roee tss along fronting Thorough - waivers or exemptio fare Plan roadways. Developers of p J abutting Thoroughfare Plan roadway constraints preclude sidewalks, and he where physical 1CComprehensive Bikeway and Sidewalk Plan requires sidewalks, will have to con- struct or escrow for sidewalks. Section 2 Section 2 incorporates the previously described exemption pro- visions and criteria into the site plan ordinance. Section 3 through 6 These are -standard sections contained in all ordinances to fulfill legal policies and requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance revisions. Vice Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0), adopted Ordinance 88-33 amending the vehicular and pedestrian circulation portion of the Site Plan Ordinance. 65 AUG 23 1988 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 33 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 10(e) OF APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL STANDARDS AND EXEMPTIONS FOR SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS APPLIED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, AND SECTION 23.3(e)(5) OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, KNOWN AS THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON- FLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATIONS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners that: Section 1 - Section 10(e) of Appendix B of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, known as the site plan ordinance, be amended to read as follows: "(e) Sidewalks. (1) [Placement and construction]. Placement and con- struction of sidewalks and - sidewalk improvements shall conform to the adopted sidewalk and bikeway plan, and to requirements in the applicable zoning district regu- lations. (2) Locations. Sidewalks shall be provided within new subdivision project sites and along road rights-of-way adjacent to projects, as follows: a. All subdivisions shall provide sidewalks along the entire frontage of adjacent roads designated by the thoroughfare plan as arterials or collector road- ways (including subdivision collector or subdivi- sion feeder roads), unless otherwise indicated by the sidewalk and bikeway -plan. Projects may be exempted from this requirement. upon a determina- tion, by the public works and -community development directors, that the need for providing a side- walk(s) ide- walks) along the adjacent: road right(s)of-way frontage of a site is precluded by physical or design constraints. b. All subdivisions shall provide sidewalks along the entire frontage of all adjacent roads designated by the sidewalk and bikeway plan as being school access routes; and C. Sidewalks shall be located along the entire front- age of all adjacent local streets, and on both sides of all interior local streets within a subdivision except where: 1. Within residential subdivisions a street segment terminates in a cul-de-sac where a future extension of the street beyond the cul-de-sac is not needed as determined by the county traffic engineer. In such cases no sidewalks shall be required. 2. The density within the subdivision, if a residential subdivision, is not greater than three (3) units per acre. In such cases no sidewalks shall be requiredi. 3. The subdivision is zoned for commercial or industrial uses, and the community development AUG 2 3 1988 66 BOOK 73 r,. E 554 M M M director and the public works director approve an exemption based upon one or more of the following criteria: a. it is anticipated that the use(s) will not attract or generate significant pedestrian traffic; b. a nearby existing or planned sidewalk will adequately serve anticipatedpedes- trian traffic attracted or generated by the subdivision; C. the anticipated use(s) or vehicular traffic characteristics of the subdivi- sion are incompatible with pedestrian traffic; d. the location of the subdivision is such that it is anticipated that sidewalks could not be effectively integrated into an existing or planned sidewalk system; e. the developer provides for an alternate route and/or improvement that adequately accommodates pedestrian traffic and movement and coordinates with existing and planned sidewalks. Decisions by the community development director and the public works director to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an exemption request may be appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission decisions regarding exemption requests may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. NOTE: these exemptions, 1-3, apply to local streets only, and do not apply to any collector or subdivision feeder roads as designated by the thoroughfare plan or the public works and community development directors. (3) Specifications. All sidewalks shall: a. Be at least four (4) feet wide. b. Be located outside of the roadside recovery area unless protective devices C«' C_ Frovidec (y.e. itc;r_r.:our.tabl e curl•_-) . C. F_E.N'e E. curb cut cnC ri.irt;p i.Lr c.t i it crs �1"C.��iRi�Cr CClECt_i: j' tE,r,C_cYd FFE.0 L..-4.;LGtiCT.:. d. Ee ccnstiucte6 it acccr6aLce with _Iruian River County Standard Specifications. The Board may require that additional right-of-way and pavement at schools, shopping centers, parks and other high pedestrian traffic sites be provided and dedicated to the county as may be necessary to facilitate antic- ipated higher pedestrian traffic. (4) Construction prior to final inspection. Sidewalks shall be installed prior to final inspection of the subdivi- sion improvements. The Board shall have the discretion to grant the applicant a two-year period, after final inspection of subdivision improvements, to construct sidewalks if the applicant posts construction security in the amount of cne hundred fifteen (115) percent of the construction costs (Ord. No. 86-70, § 7, 10-28-86; Ord. No. 88-9, S 1, 2-16-88)." 67 BOOK ! 3 AUG � � �9 M M M Section 2 Section 23.3(e)(5) of Appendix A of the Code of Laws and Ordi- nances of Indian River County, Florida, known as the site plan ordinance, be amended to read as follows: "(5) Pedestrian movement. a. Separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Parking and loading areas, as well as driveways and other vehicular circulation areas shall be clearly identified and separated from principal pedestrian routes through the use of curbs, pavement markings, planting areas, fences or similar features designed to promote pedestri- an safety. b. Sidewalks. 1. Provisions for sidewalks and sidewalk improvements shall conform to the requirements specified in the adopted sidewalk and bikeway .plan, and to require- ments in the applicable zoning district regu- lations, and to the sidewalk location requirements specified in Section 10(e)(2) of the subdivision and platting ordinance. For purposes of applying the location requirements of Section 10(e)(2) to site plan projects, the word "site" shall be substituted for the word "subdivision". Section 3 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING SECTIONS All previous ordinance, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this -ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.. All.Special Arts of the legisla- ture.applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict. with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such -conflict. Section 4 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "sec- tion", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. Section 5 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall he construed to have been the legis- lative intent to pass this ord4nance without such uriconstituticn- al, invalid or inoperative part. AUG 2 3 1988 68 BOOK 7 F"',r-5 6 6 Section 6 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl— edgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. , Approved and adopted by the' Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this Z3 day of August 1988. BOARD OF CGUNTY COY-MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER//COUNTY, FLORIDA B Y : Gary C. eeler, Vice' Chairman SIDEWALK RESEARCH RESPONSE MATRIX SIDEWALKS REQUIRED ALONG: Waiver for All Higher Density Res. Comm./Ind. Comm./Ind. County Major Roads Local Roads Local Roads Local Roads Indian River (existing regs.) Yes Yes Yes No Brevard No Yes Yes: Comm. No No: Ind. Broward Yes Yes Yes Yes Dade Yes Yes Yes No Hillsborough Yes Yes Yes Yes Lee Yes Yes Yes: Comm. Yes No: Ind. Martin Yes Yes No N/A Orange Yes Yes Yes Yes AUG 2 31988 L 69 Bm. 73 567 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING ZONING CODE AS TO BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL 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: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL. Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of '1' 11 !; kl e _ �,C_8 r in the lashed in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate• commission or refund for the vurpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. .}h Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of -C—Lia! A.D. 19 + f jl (Br ri ss Man�f'er) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Ronda, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, In he County Commission Chambers of he County Administration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Flor- ida, on August 23, 1988 at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC- TION 3(A 1(ex3 AND SECTION . AP ENDIX A OF THE CODx))WS EOF D ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND RESIDENCES BUILT UPON NEWLY CREATED LOTS: AND PROVID- ING FOR CLARIFICATION OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN AGRICUL- TURAL RESEARCH FACILITIES AND NON-AGRICULTURAL USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON- FLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICA- TION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. of the pp at he Planning De Dent On�e�second floor Is i of the County Administration Building. Anyone who me wish to appeal arty decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which Includes the testimony and evi- dence INDIAN RIVEReCOUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman August 4, 1988 Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation recommend- ing adoption of the proposed amendments: ' ° AUG 2 3 1988 Boor 73 568 TO:rhe Honorable Members of the DATE:August 15, 1988 FILE: Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT; REQUEST TO AMEND SECTIONS Robert M. Kea ng, P 3 (A) . 1 (e) (3) f AND Community Deve opm Director 25.1 (a) (3) REGARDING BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL USES AND NON-AGRICULTURAL USES: FROM: Stan Boling, AICP ✓� REFERENCES: buffering Chief, Current Development IBMIRD It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 23, 1988. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Current County regulations (adopted in 1985) require developers of newly created lots, where such lots abut an active agricultural operation, to provide a buffer from the agricultural property. The buffer can either be a 50' setback or a 25' "...heavily landscaped"... bufferyard. The intent of the regulations is to protect residents in newly developed subdivisions from possible harmful effects of accidental drift of aerially sprayed chemicals. Until recently, no proposed subdivision had ever warranted appli- cation of these buffer requirements. However, the current regu- lations do apply to the proposed Copeland's Landing subdivision (adjacent to a small, active grove) which was recently considered and conditionally approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its April 28, 1988 regular meeting. At the April 28, 1988 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the need to have the zoning code..clarified in regards to bufferyard requirements on newly created lots situated adjacent to active agricultural operations .(section 3(A).1(e)(3)f). Subse- quently, staff obtained authorization from. the Board of County Commissioners to initiate zoning code amendments to clarify the existing regulations. This report addresses the issue of agricul- tural spraying and identifies amendments now proposed by staff (see attachment #2) to specify new buffering requirements. . Planning & Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of July 28, 1988, the Planning and Zoning :Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance amendment with some bufferyard changes. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommen- dation is explained in detail at the end of this report, under "Bufferyard Alternatives". ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Characteristics of Aerial and Ground Spraying Active agricultural operations in the county, especially citrus groves, use aerial and/or ground spraying to apply pesticides and certain chemical or mineral nutrients to plants (fertilizing is usually done by means of broadcast spreading along the ground). Aerial spraying involves the use of airplanes flying as close to tree level as possible in repeated "runs" over a cultivated area. Ground spraying involves the use of trucks, mounted with direc- tional fans (jets), that spray liquid pesticides and other chemi- cals into the air in several directions: over, into, and under- neath trees. The trucks move through the cultivated area in between plant rows. Spraying (aerial or ground) usually occurs 71 UG 2 3 1988 Boa 73 O M four times per year. Ground spraying is more accurate than aerial spraying, often using less pesticides or chemicals per unit area than the aerial spray method. However, aerial spraying is often a preferred method for covering cultivated tracts that are large or in remote or rural areas. Aerial spraying results in more extensive drift of pesticides and chemicals than ground spraying, due to the height at which the chemicals are released and the greater effects of wind at the greater height. However, ground spraying can also result in drift, although more localized, when spraying occurs at the perimeter of the cultivated area. . Spray Drift Problems and Solutions To determine the extent of spray drift problems and possible solutions, staff contacted several citrus grove owners/managers and some aerial and ground spraying operators. Those contacted responded to the following types of questions: 1. What areas of the county are usually aerially sprayed? 2. Under what conditions and circumstances are groves aerially sprayed? What are the common limitations in aerial spraying? 3. Is aerial spraying accurate and what are. the effects of drift? For ground spray drift? 4. What would be an effective buffer to mitigate the adverse effects of aerial spray drift? For ground spray drift? All of the answers and information given by those contacted were consistent. From the results, staff has determined the following: a. aerial spraying occurs most often in remote or rural areas, covering large tracts of land, b. aerial spraying occurs most often in early morning, and during the summer, C. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) regulations prohibit airplanes- that are spraying crops to perform turning maneuvers over residences, d. the FAA regulations effectively restrict aerial spraying in groves that are adjacent to residences or require more difficult (and more costly) airplane maneuvering around residences and residential areas, e. aerial spray drift problems can occur but are costly to the operator and the grove owner, f. effective buffers for aerial spray drift would involve either a minimum 100' separation between a grove and a residence or a stand of 50' canopy trees (such as an Australian pine windbreak), g. ground spray drift can occur; however, effective buffers would involve either a minimum 50' separation between a grove and a residence or a 6' high barrier. . Summary of Findings Aerial spray drift into residential areas adjacent to groves does not appear to be as extensive of a problem as first thought by staff when current buffer requirements were drafted. FAA regu- lations and economic factors usually cause owners of groves that are adjacent to residences to use ground spraying, a method more accurate than aerial spraying. Furthermore, buffers that would be effective against aerial spray drift are cost prohibitive: requiring 100' setbacks or 50' tall windbreaks would be unrealis- tic. 72 AUG 2 3 1988 BOOK 73 u,c 570 - M M Ground spraying will most often be used in groves adjacent to residences. This method can result in more localized spray drift which can be mitigated by feasible buffers. Therefore, staff proposes revising current regulations to provide buffers to mitigate ground spray drift instead of aerial spray drift. Ordinance Amendments (see attachment #2) Two sections of the zoning code are proposed to be changed. The first section, 3 (a) . 1 (e) (3) f , applies to newly created lots that are adjacent to active agricultural operations. The second section, 25.1(a)(3), applies to agricultural research facilities that are adjacent to non-agricultural uses. Section 1 This amends section 3 (a) .1 (e) (3) f that a buffer is required between a and newly created residential lots placement of the buffer anywhere providing the ability to place the agricultural and/or residential. . Bufferyard Alternatives of the zoning code, specifying n active agricultural operation This language allows for the between the different uses, buffer on property either zoned Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have proposed bufferyard requirements using setbacks and continuous screening. However, at its July 28th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed additional buffering requirements over and beyond staff's initial proposal. The two proposals are as follows: Initial Staff Planning & Zoning Proposal Commission Proposal - 50' building setback OR - 50' building setback with a bufferyard - 25' building setback with containing a 6' Type a bufferyard containing a "A" screening, with 6' high Type "A" screening 1 tree planted per which includes 1 tree 20' lineal feet (to planted per 40'. eventually form a continuous "treed" .screening). The Commission felt that ground spraying impacts required even greater separation distances and buffering between agricultural and residential uses than what was proposed initially by staff. Staff's opinion is that any additional requirements, such as those proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, would increase the effectiveness of buffering new residences from spraying. However, equity considerations need to be taken into account. All buf- fering requirements are borne by the initial developer; no such burden is borne by the developer of the grove that is platted after adjacent property is developed. In the higher density residential districts, 50' setbacks and continuous rear yard "treed" screenings required in "initial" projects could look out of place when the entire area develops residentially. Persons building upon lots several years after platting would find a 50' building setback unreasonable if, in the intervening years, the abutting grove had been developed and the reason for the 50' setback no longer existed. Staff's new proposal takes into account the anticipated future development density and lot size/open space characteristics of areas where subdivisions might abut active agricultural opera- tions. In areas where residential zoning densities are lower, it is reasonable to assume that: a. future residential development will involve large lots where extensive setbacks will not become "out of place", and 73 BOOK 73 571 - M M b. in outlying areas where low density residential zoning districts abut groves, grove use is likely to continue for a longer period of time than in areas zoned for higher densities. Therefore, subdivisions in lower density areas will probably need protection from spraying for longer periods of time. Based upon these assumptions., and to better address the equity issue, staff now proposes that the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion's more intensive requirements be applied to projects in zoning districts allowing development at 1 unit/acre or less [A-1, RFD, RS -11, and staff's initially proposed requirements apply to projects in zoning districts allowing development a more than 1 unit/acre [RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14 ... ]. The result: no substantive change in existing re- quirements in areas zoned for "normal" residential density. In =- areas where greater setbacks are easy to accommodate and where buffering is more likely to be needed for a longer period of time, stricter requirements are applied. Please refer to attachment #4, "Table: Issues and Proposed Requirements". Section 2 This amends section 25.1(a)(3) of the zoning code, specifying that for agricultural research facilities a buffer is required between the facility and/or cultivated areas and adjacent non-agricultural uses. Like the section 3(a)l.(e)(3)f amendment, this amendment specifies to what structures and areas the 50' setback option applies, and also specifies an option to provide a 25' buffer with Type "A" screening. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached ordinance amendments. Commissioner Eggert wished to know why.staff rejected the P6Z Commission's proposal to have 1 tree planted every 20 linear feet when that has the potential of becoming a continuous screen. Planner Boling agreed it does, but felt a 40' separation does as well; it is just a matter of time. Commissioner Eggert did not go along with that argument, and Planner Boling continued that staff's reasoning is that the 20' tree separation on that planting is twice as much as the normal Type "A" buffering screen that we have had and that does work. It will provide a more continuous screen, but again, he felt the question is how long does it take even that 20' planting screen to develop. Commissioner Bird inquired what type trees they are talking about, and Planner Boling stated probably oaks. 74 BOOK 73 mu 572 liftAUG 2 3 1988 Commissioner Eggert's feeling was that a 20' spread on trees might be an effective compromise between what the Planning & Zoning Commission wants and what staff wants. She had a little problem going closer without providing a better screening situation. Commissioner Bowman also had trouble with the 25' setback, which she felt is outrageous and, in fact, almost favoring the elite. The people who have to live on smaller lots are not able to get the same protection that people who are able to own big lots get, and she did not see this at all. Commissioner Eggert noted that some smaller units are around our beach clubs now. Planner Boling pointed out that the areas with the higher zoning and smaller lots will develop faster, and it relates to who bears the burden. If the grove leaves and is replaced with new development, the new development will not have a 50' buffer but 251. In other words, you would be penalizing areas that are zoned for high density and that have infrastructure and in a lot of cases are closer in to development. . Commissioner Eggert raised the question of whether we would cease to be protecting them. Community Development Director Keating agreed that is an issue. He believed everyone agrees there are some detrimental effects from building next to groves, but apparently less than we thought before. The big issue is who bears the burden of trying to protect the people in the residences. It is not fair to require the grove owner to change his method of operation just because an adjacent development is coming in, but is it fair to make the development coming in provide extra setbacks even though that adjacent grove may at some time come in to be developed. In fact that very happening is just what precipitated this. There is no perfect solution, and Director Keating felt staff's recom- mendation represents a compromise. He believed the developments needing protection longer are those in the outlying areas. 75 AUG 2 3 1988 BOOK 7 F-, E573 Commissioner Bowman did not see any problem in having a larger buffer and more green space where a grove is sold and turns into a development, but Director Keating pointed out that it is the economics of the situation and the burden you are putting on developers. Commissioner Eggert commented that she is reading in here that if a grove operator wished to establish a grove in an area that had burned down and there was still residential around it, there is no way we can say the grove must set back 25' or 50' from that residential. Director Keating confirmed that we cannot if the property is zoned agricultural because agricultural operations don't have to come through the site plan process. He noted that one way to prevent this would be to have them zoned residential where they could not put the grove back. Discussion continued at length about the various possibili- ties when a new grove is established among existing residential areas, and Acting Administrator Collins noted that if the Board wished a reciprocal measure, we could require that Agriculture be required to provide a buffer in that`par.ticular instance. Director Keating believed to do that we would have to have some mechanism to make agricultural uses such as groves come through site plan approval, but Acting Administrator Collins pointed out that we have a section requiring special setbacks for residential adjacent to agricultural operations, and there could be a another section requiring Agriculture to setback from residences, with the provision that if they didn't comply, they could be fined for non -conformity. Commissioner Eggert stated that she finds it a little difficult to protect only on one side of this situation. Commissioner Bird believed in this county, you will find residential encroaching on a grove a lot more than the other way around, and he felt that is something that could be taken up separately from the issue that is before us now. AUG 2 3 1988 76 Boor. 73 F4F.57�4 Discussion returned to the staff recommendation, and Commis- sioner Eggert suggested a compromise - that we go with the staff proposal but increase the trees to one every 201. Question arose as to what was considered a good thick buffer, and Planner Boling noted that Type "A" screening could be a wall or opaque vegetation, but it also has trees planted every 401. The tree has to be 8' in height and has to be at least 20' tall at maturity. Vice Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Jeannette Lier of Michael Creek Drive, grove owner, noted that this buffer requirement is very important to them, particularly up on the north island and she felt it should be required not only of residences but also the county and the state, which entities own land east of them. Mrs. Lier believed the buffering is a very difficult problem, and she felt the main thing is not the distance but the thickness of the buffering. Spray will drift, and the denseness of the buffering not only helps prevent that but also cuts down oh..the sound of the spraying, which is considerable. Her suggestion would be not necessarily to set back over 25' but to -make the. b'uffer:ing very thick. She realized that Brazilian Peppers are considered trash trees, but pointed out that they will provide a very dense buffer. Mrs. Lier again emphasized the need to extend this requirements to other than just residences, noting that when the park is developed, they would like to have a good buffer. Acting Administrator Collins felt we can address the concern about the parks without necessarily changing this ordinance. We will be developing a site plan in conjunction with the state and will want to have nice buffers. He believed this can be taken care of through the development plan. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed. 77 Boor 73 rn-, 575 AUG 40 0 1960 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 88-34 approving staff's recommended amend- ments with the change to Type "A" opaque screening with 1 tree planted every 20 linear feet. ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 34 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 3 (A) .1 (e) (3) f AND SECTION 25.1 (a) (3) (c. OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE; PRO- VIDING FOR CLARIFICATION OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND RESIDENCES BUILT UPON NEWLY CREATED LOTS; AND PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION OF BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWVEN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FACILITIES AND NON-AGRICULTUl,RAL USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVER- ABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County that: Section 1 Section 3 (a) .1 (e) (3) f of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: "f. Yards adjacent to agricultural operations. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, on all residentially zoned lots created after the effective date of this ordinance which. are adjacent to active agricultural operations involving citrus groves, orchards, field crops, or truck farming, all yards for nonagricultural activities shall provide between the agricultural and residential use(s), 41iA yiU" buffering as follows: 1. For projects zoned for development at one (1) unit per acre or less, a minimum fifty (50) foot build- ing (residence) setback shall be established. Within the 50' setback, a bufferyard shall be provided which includes a Type "A" screen having canopy trees planted every twenty (20) lineal feet in order to protect residents from spraying. In such cases where the Type "A" continuous six (6) foothigh screening is to be composed of vegetation, said vegetation must provide the 6' high screen within three (3) years of planting. 2. For projects zoned for development at more than one (1) unit per acre, a fifty (50) foot building (residence) setback shall be established. In lieu of a 50' setback, O:t a minimum twenty-five (25) foot bufferyard with Type "A" 78 9QOK 73 576 M M M screening having canopy trees planted every twent- (20) lineal feet shall be established. 160ftottAta in order to protect residents from AotjAj spray- ing. In such cases where the Type "A" continuous 6' high screening is to be composed of vegetation, said vegetation must provide the 6' high screen within three (3) years of planting. Where a 50' setback is established, such setback shall be depicted and noted on the subdivision final plat. Section 2 Section 25.1(a)(3) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: "3. Agricultural Research Facilities. (Administrative Permit) a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permits: Agricultural research facilities shall be allowed in the A-1 district upon receiving approval for an administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements defined below. b. Additional Information Requirements: i. A site plan meeting all of the requirements of Section 23. ii. A statement identifying any toxic or hazardous wastes and/or substances which may be generated or utilized on the premises. C. Criteria for Agricultural Research Facilities: i. All buildings and structures- shall be located at least one hundred (100). feet from all property lines. ii. The site shall be a minimum of thirty (30) acres in size. iii. The facility shall provide between the agricultural -:acility and cultivated areas, and any adiacent residential or commercial use, either a minimum fifty (50) foot setback for structures and cultivated areas or a twenty- five (25) footyard with Type "A" screening�1�#¢YIiE///YI�Yif��C¢ulXut,X/tJ�/'v/i/t/i/�+s in order to protect residents and businesses from �0,jp'X41 spraying and other chemical applications. Section 3 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING SECTIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 79 Boor. 73 F;,A577 Section 4 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. Section 5 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,-. unoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. Section 6 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State, except for those provisions having a later effective date specifically prescribed herein. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 23rd day of August , 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B Y : (�L/ Gary C. heeler, Vice• Chairman CODING: Words in otjtul¢Y�i`Mjtouitl� type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Vice Chairman Wheeler announced that the Commission now (11:00 A.M.) would recess in order to reconvene as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:35 o'clock A.M. with the same members present - Chairman Scurlock being absent. 80 Booz 7 r jF 578 AUG 23- 198 � � w DISCUSSION RE HELPING SHERIFF ERADICATE DRUG PROBLEM ON OSLO ROAD Commissioner Bird informed the Board that he and Acting Administrator Collins met with Sheriff in regard to the on-going problem on Oslo Road and the bad publicity the county is getting. This is a small area geographically compared to the rest of the county and the Sheriff is doing all that he can. However, Commissioner Bird believed the Board may need to do more and he would like to see us pursue whatever options we have to clean up that rat's nest for everyone. He advised that the Sheriff has suggested several things we could do to help his department such as demolishing and removing dilapidated abandoned structures in that area which are being used by drug dealers - going in and underbrushing certain areas there that are heavily overgrown - and also possibly closing some of the roads in the area that are not being used as access for any residential units but that do make good get -away areas. Commissioner Bird noted that he has asked Acting Administrator Collins to research our ordinances about this. Our normal process with Code Enforcement is very lengthy, and it seems there may be away .to shorten this in an emergency situation. Commissioner Eggert believed there-are.a number of people in the area working with the Sheriff's Department to get a Crime Watch area set up and what really upsets her is the sensation- alizing in the headlines. Commissioner Eggert noted that businesses in the area were very upset when people called them and were afraid to bring their cars in to be repaired. She goes to this area fairly frequently and she felt that even compared to a month ago, there has been a great deal of differ- ence in the number of people out on the roads. Commissioner Eggert agreed there is a problem, but felt some of it has been broken out of proportion and the Sheriff's Department has not been given the credit they deserve. Commissioner Wheeler had a couple of suggestions - first, additional street lighting and secondly, building the third phase AUG 22 31 19 81 na 73 M M M of the jail. He felt this is a long term problem and we should approach it from the view that if the state isn't going to do what they should do - build jail beds and keep people in jail, we need to develop a plan not only for the third phase of the jail but also for a work camp type facility with barbed wire and guards. Then hopefully we can work with the judges for longer sentences where we can put the offenders in for a year and keep the cocaine dealers off the street. Sheriff Dobeck agreed that the only way the judge can be assured these offenders spend the greatest amount of time is in a county jail. They only do 13% of their time in state jails, and the state is anticipating budgeting for 5,000 jail beds this year, which is only about 1/3 of the beds needed in the State of Florida. The Sheriff also believed there is some legislation afoot to add an additional year to the county time and put more burden on the local people. Commissioner Wheeler continued to emphasize the need to get these people off the streets. He felt this is the ideal time for looking ahead while we have a little breathing room in the jail situation and stressed that he -would "like to see us develop a work camp. Commissioner Bowman agreed. She believed there is one in Brevard County, and this was confirmed. Commissioner Eggert noted that the residents in this small area are afraid to give information because the violators are taken off the street for such a short time and they fear reprisals. As to closing some roads, she wished to know which roads the Sheriff was referring to. Sheriff Dobeck advised that he is talking about roads in the specific area known as the "horse shoe." Commissioner Bird summarized that what he would like to see us do is work with our Building Department to make an inspection of that area and then immediately start proceedings to remove the fundamentally unsafe abandoned structures. The Sheriff will 82 ,AUG 2 3 1988 3 F';F 50 provide escort for any county employees who go in there to do their job. He also hoped we could study the road situation and do some underbrushing, but did not know what ordinance that falls under. County Attorney Vitunac advised that if it is just natural jungle vegetation, we might be able to do it ourselves, but even then it might be trespassing. He felt we need to look into this. Commissioner Bird agreed that we need to contact the property owners, and felt that we also should look into addi- tional street lights for the area. Acting Administrator Collins informed the Board that removing unsafe buildings calls for 90 days notice, but we do have the ability to take action in an emergency situation if the owners don't respond, and he would like to bring back a resolution finding that the dealing of cocaine in the area consti-tutes an emergency. We can also work with the Sheriff in identifying the "horse shoe" roads and the areas that need to be underbrushed; we can't abandon roads that would deny access. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird., SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to direct staff. to take the steps discussed above. Vice Chairman Wheeler hoped something could be included in the Motion about pursuing a third phase of the jail, and Commissioner Bird suggested that be dealt with separately. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) Vice Chairman Wheeler advised that he will get together with the Sheriff to see if something can be worked out on the order of a work camp/stockade type arrangement, and the Board members indicated their agreement with pursuing this. r � � BID 89-7 - ROAD STABILIZATION MATERIAL, TERM CONTRACT The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler: TO: William G. Collins II DATE: August 12, 1988 FILE: Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: AWARD OF IRC BID #89-7 ROAD STABILIZATION MATERIAL, TERM OONTRACT FRO - REFERENCES: Gus Ambler, C.P.M. Purchasing Manager 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Bids were opened Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #89-7. 11 Invitations to Bid were mailed. 6 Bids were received including 1 No Bid. This bid was advertised in the newspaper. 2. ALTER=m AND ANALYSIS: The low bid for Road Stabilization Materials delivered (Item 1) was submitted by Black Hawk Quarries. The price quoted is 47% lower then the other prices bid. The usage requirements for Item 2 don't justify an award at this time. Estimated yearly expenditures under the terms -of this bid are $85,000.00. 3. FUNDING: No requisitions are currently being held in the Purchasing Dept. No purchase orders will be issued until our approved requisition is received from the Budget Office. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we award Item 1 to Black Hawk Quarries and that no award be made for Item 2 at this time. Acting Administrator Collins advised that this Bid normally would be on the Consent Agenda, but it was rewritten. Staff originally recommended awarding the low bid on Item I to Black Hawk Quarries because they were about 47% lower than the other bids, but the bid specifications called for a combined bid on Part I and Part 2. What we have determined is that the bid on Road Stabilization Materials Delivered was so low that the s4 U G 2 198 BOOK 73 F� lu 589 recommendation was revised to take that low bid and not bid on those materials to be picked up by the county at all. They, therefore, recommend an award of Item 1 only. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid #89-7, Item 1, Term Contract - Road Stabilization Materials Delivered, to Black Hawk Quarries per the following Bid Tabulation as recommended by staff. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street Vero Bcach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING 1 ��\v) V'J\o rr� 989-7 ". BID TITLE ROAD STABILIZATION MATERIAL nVA DESCRIPTION NO. UNrFPR GE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRI J ' J• N� as=directed, various �.Gn PER TON: $ Indian River County PER ON $ STATUS REPORT ON SIVER INSURANCE CONSULTANTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROJECT The Board reviewed memo from Risk Manager Susan Tillman: AU G 2 � 1988 85 l'oor. 73 i,,�GF 58 TO:DATE: FILE: Board of County August 16, 1988 Commissioners SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON SIVER INSURANCE CONSULTANTS FROM: Susan M. Till an REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROJECT Q Risk Manager BACKGROUND Siver Insurance Consultants was retained to prepare an RFP (request for proposal) for all present insurance coverages maintained by the County other than health insurance. When the Risk Manager began employment the County Administrator asked that certain data be gathered and sent to Siver Consultants as a first task. The request for proposal in completed form was delivered to the County on 8-1-88. A thorough evaluation of each coverage was completed. ANATNSIS Since that time effort has been put into studying the County's present position with regard to loss experience, facilities, safety practices and the possibility of eventually self insuring for -some of the present coverages. Requests for bids went out the week of August 8, 1988. The dead line set for return of bids is September 9, 1988. Renewal dates for most present policies is October 1, 1988. Several insurance companies have complained of the short time period in which they have to respond. It appears at this time due to the late time frame the emphasis should be properly placed on setting up the Department of Risk Management with an emphasis on loss prevention and safety, and studying current market conditions as =elated to Indian River County. The bid process is dynamic and adequate time should be given to analyzing the bids upon receipt for comparison purposes. The September 9, 1988 deadline only leaves approximately three weeks for the Risk Manager to analyze and make recommendations to the Board. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners: 1) Allow the bids received to be used for information purposes only by the Risk Manager with the intent of utilizing the information to change the bid specifications for Indian River County, in the RFP for the next fiscal year. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the bids which come in by September 9, 1988 awarding the insurance to the lowest bidder. 2. Use the bids received for informational purposes so that when the Risk Manager becomes apprised of the County and its inter workings, new specifications can be added after analyzing the information provided by Siver Insurance Consultants in the RFP prepared. 86 BOOK F'i 584 Acting Administrator Collins advised that this is a status report on the insurance consultant's RFP (request for proposal). Sivers Insurance put together an RFP which was delivered to the county at the beginning of this month. When that RFP went out, we got calls from a number of insurance companies saying that the deadline of September 9th was too short a time for them to put good proposals together. We also are constrained by the fact that most of our present policies have to be renewed October 1st. What is being proposed here because of the short time frames is a recommendation from our Risk Manager that the bids we receive be used for information only with the intent of utilizing this in the RFP in the next fiscal year; the alternative being to accept the lowest bid that comes in. Commissioner Eggert asked if we are remaining uninsured for the year. She finds this confusing and wished to know when October 1st comes, just what are we going to do. Acting Administrator Collins also found it confusing. He thought the intent is to carry over with existing coverage. The option is to accept the lowest bid that -comes in or not use the bids at all this year, but.simply use�the information gathered as a basis for negotiation next year. Commissioner Eggert did not see why we wouldn't accept the lowest bid anyway, and Purchasing Manager Ambler noted that Ms. Tillman told him that she did not have sufficient time to evaluate the bids. She, therefore, would like to negotiate something with the existing companies for a short term extension. Acting Administrator Collins did not think any action is necessary at this time. This is just to advise the Board that there has been a short time frame and the companies are having a difficult time bidding. Commissioner Eggert felt the Risk Manager should be here, and Mr. Collins stated that he had thought she would be. 87 BO3 �'CF5 OK. i AUG2 0 1988 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to table this item until the next agenda. Risk Manager Tillman entered the meeting at this point and advised that she could explain this now. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to remove the table and continue discussion on the above item. Ms. Tillman advised that as of October 1st she was going to present several proposals. She has some ideas about self- insurance, but the Commission is going to have to be apprised of what they are and will have to see her explanations. What we have right now is our various policies, and an RFP was prepared; however, what she will be getting back from the different carriers is other than what she feels is really viable for this particular county, and, therefore, she wanted'to be able to present to the Board some self-insurance proposals plus some other different proposals. Commissioner Eggert noted that we can't take this up and change anything by October 1st, and we need to know what we are budgeting for insurance. Is she, therefore, to assume that we are going to renew what we have now and then prepare for next year. She had trouble finding that in the recommendation. Risk Manager Tillman clarified that the basic intent of what she was trying to say was that she needed more time to analyze what the county presently has, and in view of that, she basically would prefer to renew what we have now rather than accept the low bid. Acting Administrator Collins asked if we have to make a decision today. He felt we should leave to another day the 88 AUG 2 3 1988 : Boor 73 F*, r 596 decision of whether we accept the low bid or just renew. Attorney Vitunac did not believe the Risk Manager is expecting to bring back any bids. Discussion continued at length as to exactly what was intended, and Commissioner Eggert believed Ms. Tillman is saying that we can't use the lower bids because she doesn't have time to go over them properly; so, we have a choice of trying to rush through this somehow or a choice of renewing what we currently have and then coming forward with recommendations for the following year. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously(4-0) authorized staff to negotiate renewal contracts with our present insurance carriers and bring back the figures as to how next year's coverage with them would compare with what we are paying this year. INTERIM POSITION - ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR The Board reviewed the following memo:.. TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM:,. -C1 William G. Collins II - Acting County Administrator DATE: August 15, 1988 SUBJECT: Interim Position I would like to thank each of you personally for the high compliment of the confidence which you have shown in me in appointing me Acting County Administrator. I was shocked by the appointment and I am humbled by the challenge, but pledge you my best effort and believe that with your support and the support of the many excellent department heads and their staffs, we will make County government run smoothly and efficiently. I see myself as an attorney rather than an administrator, and for that reason wi I I initiate a search for a permanent administrator immediately. At this point my understanding is that my responsibilities are split between the County AUG 2 3 198 89 BOOK 73�}, F587 Attorney's Office and the County Administrator's Office. Please advise if you see my priorities other than as follows: 1. Ongoing litigation in the Attorney's Office. 2. Administration of County government. 3. Other staff and departmental support work in the Attorney's Office. During this interim period I would expect an interim salary adjustment to reflect the increased responsibilities. I would suggest a $62,000 annual salary in view of the additional responsibilities I would be taking on, with one-third of the salary coming from the Attorney's budget and two-thirds of the salary coming from the Administrator's budget. Please advise if this is compatible with your thinking as to my responsibilities in this new dual position and your expectations as to its compensation. Vice Chairman Wheeler read aloud the following letter re- ceived from the Taxpayers Association supporting the salary increase requested by Mr. Collins and commending the way he has handled matters for the county so far: P.O. Box 1731 VUQ wta+. A0210A 1fl�PflyEflS flSSOGIfl1100 32"' or 1001flfl RIVER county, Inc. A NON-FROFPC 6ORPORATION t7U"Za= 1N 1937 '•iVothing is easier than spending the public's many. it does not appcat to bdong to anybody. The Ism 0! ovawhdming to bestow it an somebody." • Cabin Coolidge: To: Mr. Don Scurlock, Chairman Date: August 22, 1988 Mr. Gary Wheeler Ms. Margaret C. Bowman Mr. Richard N-. Bird Ms. Carolyn K. Eggert Indian River County Board of Commissioners Administration Building 1840 25th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Please be informed that the Taxpayers Association of Indian River County would like to go on record supporting a temporary salary increase for William*Collins, Acting County Administrator. The Board of Directors feels that if Mr. Collins is performing the duties of the Administrator he is entitled to be adequately compensated until such time as he is relieved from these responsibilities. It appears that he is fully capable of making decisions and has already saved the county approximately $20,000 for a hearing officer in association with the county librarian issue. Very truly yours, aid li� d g&� 9 0 Lou Casa 1 inclg00K 73 r JF 58 AUG 2 3 188 Secretary MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the interim salary adjustment for the Acting County Adminis- trator, based on a $62,000 annual salary as suggested by Mr. Collins in his memo dated August 15, 1988. Commissioner Eggert realized that Mr. Collins feels a great duty to his on-going litigation, but expressed the hope that he feels the same towards the administration of County government which is second on his list. Acting Administrator Collins assured the Board of his dedication to serving the County. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE.QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0), Chairman Scurlock being absent. Vice Chairman Wheeler expressed the Board's pleasure with the actions Mr. Collins has taken as Acting.County Administrator. DISCUSSION RE SEARCH FOR NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Acting Administrator Collins noted that last week he distributed a memo that basically talked about the alternatives of either placing the ads ourselves for the position of County Administrator and going through the Personnel Department or utilizing a search firm to try and find an Administrator. He personally favored going with a search firm for the reason that we have an understaffed Personnel Department; also, there is no Assistant Administrator and he is splitting his time as Adminis- trator with County Attorney matters, and to follow up on the candidates and do some investigation is going to be time consuming. An executive search firm can conduct a lot of these 91 AUG 2 1980 BOOK ,� E � - 9 J background investigations and might be able to attract more qualified applicants. Very often people with good resumes may have practical shortcomings, and these firms put people through tests and do screening to determine who is competent to do the job. Mr. Collins advised that he has had recommended to him by other counties a firm that has extensive placement experience with agencies both nationwide and in Florida specifically. In their proposal they suggested they could look for both an Administrator and Personnel Director, but he would recommend restricting it to an Administrator search and go out locally for personnel help. He, therefore, would like authorization from the Board to enter into negotiations with an executive search firm immediately for an Administrator only. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, because of the emergency nature that we do not go out to bid and because of the high recommendations and the surrounding counties' use of this firm, to authorize the Ac.ting.County Administrator to negotiate with Mercer./Slavin to conduct a search for an Administrator. Commissioner Bowman believed it would be great saving of time to proceed in this manner, and Commissioner Eggert also felt there is an objectivity to it that we need to have right now. Commissioner Bird believed the services of such firms are not inexpensive, but changing Administrators is not inexpensive either, and if this can help us make the right decision this time up front, he felt it would be worth it. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). 92 Ft s BOOK 73 rA,u W J REPLAT OF A PORTION OF SEAGROVE WEST Acting Administrator Collins reviewed the following memos: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: �V William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney/Acting County Administrator DATE: August 17, 1988 SUBJECT: Replat of a Portion of Seagrove West _ I recommend that you approve the Replat of a Portion of Seagrove West Subdivision and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat conditioned upon the following: 1. The Title Certificate be updated from April 5, 1988 to present. (This can be accomplished by submitting a written certification of title update to the County Attorney's Office by the certifying attorney.) 2. Correct: a, the references on the Contract for Required Improvements and Performance Bond to show the Developer, Figgie Properties, Inc., as a corporation in the State of Delaware as is set out on the face of the replat and delete references to said corporation being a Florida corporation; b. line 3 of paragraph 2 on page 1 of the Performance Bond to read "certain Subdivision known as a replat of a portion of Seagrove West"; c. line 5 of paragraph -2 on page 1 of the Performance Bond to read "IRC Land Development Permit No.. 046, to construct required improvements and strike out the words "Seagrove West"; d. in paragraph 7 on page 1 of the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements the language which describes the improvements needs to be stricken and a new description inserted, being "All sewer, water and road improvements as shown on plans prepared by Lloyd & Associates for approved Land Development Permit No. 046."; e. on the Performance Bond, have each change initialed by both William Kohut (for Figgie Properties, Inc.) and Grady L. Dixon (for Insurance Company of North America); and f, on the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements, have each change initialed by William Kohut (for Figgie Properties, Inc.). If the decision is made not to make changes to the existing documents, then new documents with the aforementioned changes will need to be executed. 3. Require the Power of Attorney executed by the surety company posting the Performance Bond to be dated by the Secretary of the Insurance Company of North America so that we know this Power of Attorney is in full force and effect. 93 AUG 2 3 1988 Boor. 73 591 TO:The Honorable Members of DATE:August 16, 1988 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR Robert M. Keati , P A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF Community Developme Director SEAGROVE WEST THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP 4 6. Chief, Current Development FROM: John W. McCoy Wlw� REFERENCES: seagrove west Staff Planne JOHN It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 23, 1988. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The replat will adjust the lot lines on lots 32-34 and will plat four lots out of a portion of the existing Tract "B". The replat will also provide area for a recreation area denoted as Tract "T". This project is located within the existing Seagrove West subdivision which has a current zoning classification of RS -3 (Residential Single Family, up to 3 units/acre) , with a land use designation of LD -1 (Low Density Residential, up to 3 units/acre). At its regular meeting of August 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval. The owner, Riomar Bay, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted: 1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat; 2. a performance bond covering the cost of construction; 3. an approved cost estimate from the project engineer; and 4. a contract committing them to completing the remaining required improvements. ANALYSIS: The subject subdivision receives water and sewer service from the City of Vero Beach. A Stormwater Management Permit has been issued by the Public Works Director. The final plat is also in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. Thus, all County requirements concerning final plat approval have been addressed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval to replat a portion of Seagrove West, authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign a contract with the applicant committing the applicant to completing the remaining required improvements, and accept the irrevocable letter of credit guaranteeing the contract, subject to satisfaction of the contract corrections and title certification and Power of Attorney updates being provided to the County Attorney's office (see attached cover memo). 'AUG 2 3 1988 94 BOOK 73 o �,L 592 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted final plat approval to replat a portion of Seagrove West and authorized the Chairman to sign the Contract for Construction of Required Improve- ment and to accept the Irrevocable Letter of Credit subject to contract corrections and title certifi- cation and Power of Attorney updates. COPIES OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. GIFFORD PARK TENNIS COURT/BASKETBALL LIGHTING The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: TO: William Collins II, Acting County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Gifford Park Tennis Court/Basketball Lighting REF. MEMO: Ralph N. Brescia, P.E. to James Davis dated 8-16=88 DATE: August 17, 1988 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This project was previously bid, however, no bids were received. Therefore, staff was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on July 26, 1988, to negotiate with local con- tractors. Four electrical contractors were contacted for pro- posals to construct the Gifford Court Lighting. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The low bid was submitted by Paragon Electric of Vero Beach, Inc. for a price of $16,470. There is $17,000 allocated for this project in the Parks Dept. fund 001-210-572-066.39, Capital expenditures. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the proposal by Paragon Electric be accepted and the Chairman be authorized to execute a contract for the work. Funding to be from Fund 001-210-572-066.39. 95 BOOK 73 rAGE 593 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted the Proposal by Paragon Electric for the Gifford Park Tennis Court/Basketball Lighting in the amount of $16,470 as recommended by staff. o Pete No Of Pates • �drlt�ta�ttl PARAGON ELECTRIC of Vero Beach, Inc. (305) 569-8961 6480 -65th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE 8-15-88 Indian River County STREET JOB NAMP. 1840 25th Street Gifford Park - Court Lighting CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION 6 NO. Vero Beach, F1. 32960. We hereby submit specifications and estimates fere Provide and install lighting at courts as per drawings includings 4 - Dual light fixture 1000-w poles PZa-$ 2 - Quad light fixture 1000 w poles 1 - Outlet at Tennis Court s',d. fP,24*— •s77Wsso d 2 - Timer controls pa%s 1 - Electrical permit - 1 - Electrical service - overhead Trenching as required , One year guarantee we propose hereby to furnish material and labor —comPiete In accordance with above specifications. for the sum of: Sixteen thousand four hundred seventy ollan92169,470.00 payment to be made as follows: As work progresses Authorized Signature Note:'This proposal may be ' 3 withdrawn by us If not accepted within days ACCEPTANCE. OF PROPOSAL — The above Prices 1 aPcclflestlons and conditions ars satisfactory and Ire herebv acti trd. You are Signature authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. �s_ __/jgust 23, 1988 _ .signature �T7ilVF �c N.Min 1 - l Charles P. Vilunao County Attorney /7 AUG 23 1999 96 Bov.. 73 594 GIFFORD SEWER PROJECT - MISCELLANEOUS ROAD PAVING The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: TO: William Collins II, Acting County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Gifford Sewer Project - Miscellaneous Road Paving DATE: August 17, 1988 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Designated road paving and restoration as a part of the Gifford Sewer project will result in many small sections of roadway unpaved or not resurfaced. To complete the paving and resurfacing, Masteller & Moler and staff have prepared a list of roadways recommended for completion. Approximately 3400 LF of new paving is recommended at a cost of $15/ft results in a contract cost of $51,000 plus limerock costs of $10,000. Resurfacing of existing paved roads is recommended to cost $11,145. To complete the area, the the total cost will be $72,145, based on above cost. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives include connecting small unpaved road sections or leaving the connections unpaved. Funding can come from Road and Bridge Department FY1988/89 Paving funds ($400,000 budgeted). RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the paving be approved. A change order with the Gifford Sewer Contractor is recommended so that the paving will be accomplished under current bid costs. Funding to be from Fund 111-214-541-035.31. Commissioner Eggert expressed the hope that if we ever get into such a situation again, that we can try to find these roads up front. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the paving described above and having a change order with the Gifford Sewer Contractor so that the paving will be accomplished under current bid costs; funding to be as recommended by staff. 97 UG 2 31999 Bou 73 r,�Lu 595 32ND TERRACE SOUTH OF 8TH ST. (SUBURBAN ACRES) The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Terry: ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Charles P. Balczun ^ �/ Coun Ai trator FROM: Michelle A. Tre�i'y, CE lie THROUGH: R ph N. escia, P.E., Civil Engineer Gqunty Engineer, J SUBJECT: 32nd Terrace South of 8th Street (Suburban Acres) DATE: August 9, 1988 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of 32nd Terrace South of 8th Street in Suburban - Acres is complete. The final and preliminary estimate for the work is: Final Prelim. Cost/per Cost/per Parcel Parcel Final Cost Prelim. Est. 32nd Terrace $657.41 $750.00 $10,518.61 $12,000.00 This project was initially presented to the Board of County Commissioners in June 1986. At that time the board authorized staff to proceed with scheduling the Special Assessment project of reconstruction of 32nd Terrace. The funding would be 100 Special Assessment and the County would accept this privately dedicated road for maintenance. All construction costs are under the original estimate. The final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installment, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months from the due date. at an interest rate of 122-, established by the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be less than computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment rolls. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the final assessment roll for the paving of 32nd Terrace be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that they be transferred to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Final Assessment Roll for the paving of 32nd Terrace (Suburban Acres) and authorized its transfer to the Office of the Tax Collector, for collec- tion at an interest rate of 12%. COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. AUG 3 1988 98 BOOK 7 T,,o l 596 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT RE OVERSIZED WATER LINE - (INDIAN RIVER FURNITURE) The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utilities: TO: WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II ACTING COUNTY ADMINIST�R,A/TOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTeP DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: BILL McCAIN PROJECTS ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES DATE: AUGUST 15, 1988 SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - INDIAN RIVER FURNITURE BACKGROUND Keith Lilly owner and developer of Indian River Furniture, has oversized a water line on Route 60 West to serve Indian River Furniture and the surrounding area. ANALYSIS Mr. Lilly required 569 feet of 8 inch line to serve his facility, the County required a 12 inch line per our Master Plan. The County wishes to compensate Mr. Lilly for oversizing of the line in the standard amount of $2.00 per inch, per foot of line, that has been oversized, which amounts to $4,552.00. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with Mr. Lilly. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Developer's Agreement with Indian River Furniture as recommended by staff. COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT RE WATER SERVICE - MICHAEL MAHER The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utilities: 99 AUG 2 BOOK DATE: AUGUST 12, 1988 TO: WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II ACTING COUNTY ADMINIST OR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILIT R CES FROM: JOHN F. LANG ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER MAHER, 1810 HEDDEN PLACE BACKGROUND Mr. Maher has requested water service for his property via the Sixty Oaks Subdivision's water line. Mr. Maher has signed the attached Developer's Agreement outlining his and the County's requirements for this particular connection. ANALYSIS The property owner understands the rear lot connection is temporary. He further understands pending fair share expenses for a future water main slated for Hedden Place. In view of -the proximity of the water line to Mr. Maher's property and the length of the service, 10 feet, this Department is willing to provide utility service to the property owner as outlined in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Developers Agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert-, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Developer's Agreement with Michael C. Maher as recommended by staff. SAID DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE CITRUS GROVE CARETAKING The Board reviewed memo from "Sonny" Dean, Manager of the Solid Waste Department of Utility Services: AUG 2 3 1988 100 BOOK 73 r,A 598 DATE: AUGUST 11, 1988 TO: WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRA THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO%t DIRECTOR OF UTILITY E ICES FROM: H. T. "SONNY"DE MANAGER OF SOLID WAST MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY ERVICES -- SUBJECT: CITRUS GROVE CARETAKING BACKGROUND It has been our policy to bid the subject work on an annual basis. Last year, there was one bid received and it was lower than the previous year's. Arapaho Citrus Management, Inc. is the present caretaker and has done a good job. Both Steve Futch, Agriculture Extension Director, and this writer are pleased with the past year's performance by the Company. ANALYSIS We have discussed with Arapaho the possibility of continuing the present contract for another year, based on the same pricing. They have indicated this proposal would be amendable to them. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above facts staff recommends. the Board of County Commissioners authorize a extended contract. with Arapaho Citrus Management, Inc., and authorize the 'Chairman to execute the agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved extending the contract with Arapaho Citrus Manage- ment, Inc., as recommended by staff and authorized the signature of the Chairman. CONTRACT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. 101 Boor. 73 °c 599 SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT - 1988 IMPROVEMENTS (CONSTRUC- TION OF: WELL #4/CHANGE ORDER) The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utilities: TO: WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II DATE: AUGUST 15, 1988 ACTING COUNTY ADMINIST OR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI aCES FROM: JOHN FREDERICK LANG ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIT DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY ERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES PROJECT #UW -88 -02 -WC SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT 1988 IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION OF WELL #4 BACKGROUND The Department of Utility Services has a Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Plant North of Oslo Road in the South County Area. An improvement project was advertised, bid, and awarded for construction. This project consisted of a two MGD ground storage tanks, two degasifiers, and an auxiliary well. The well was constructed, inspected, and approved by the engineers -of -record, DSS Engineers, Inc. An application was made for final payment in the amount of $7,675.00. A change order for the amount of $2,525.00 is included in the package. A previous application for payment in the amount of $46,350.00 is currently being.processed. The change order constitute feet in order to place the The 380 feet contract depth contamination. ANALYSIS s the cost:of drilling an additional 35 casing end, in a better .rock formation. ended up in a iimestone:strata with clay DSS and their subcontractor, Missimer and Associates Inc., has provided an inspection report and pumping data to verify the constructed well under contract #2 meets the required specifications. RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize payment of the first and final payment notice, and to execute and authorize the payment for change order #1. AUG 2 31988 102 BOOK .73;1DJC ® S S ENGINEERS. Inc.' A STONE 6 WEBSTER COMPANY 150 SOUTH FINE ISLAND ROAD. FORT LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA 33324 TELEPHONE: (305) 476-1601 • TELEX: 212710 • FAX: (3053476-1 e5D August 3, 1988 Indian River County Utilities Department P.O. Box 1750 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Attention: Mr. W.C. McCain Projects Engineer 1988 AA DSS: 1753007 File: 4.1/130.2.04 DSS -IRC -006-L Subject: South County RO Improvement Project Well #4 Construction Contract Application for Final Payment Dear Mr. McCain: Please find enclosed the Application for Final Payment from Alsay Incorporated. Also enclosed is a Missimer & Associates report of completion on well #4. Per .Missimer's report and our inspection, Alsay has met all of their obligations under the well #4 contract. Please note that the original contract price'of $51,-500 has been. exceeded. The cost breakdown is shown below: Original Contract Value $51,500.00 1st Payment Request (with 10% retainage) - $46.350.00 $ 5,150.00 Change Order #1 (see attached change order with telephone con. record back-up) $ 2.525.00 Total Balance To Be Paid $ 7,675.00 The Change Order cost is included in the Final Pay Request. If you have any questions concerning the Application of Payment please call me. Very truly yours, DSS ENGINEERS, Kevin P. Crowther Project Manager A U G 2 103 BOOK .73 fa ,, 6j- 1 19 � � r DSS ENGINEERS, INC. FORT LAUDERDALE OFFICE 150 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD 5TH FLOOR PLAPTATION,, FLORIDA 33324 VENDOR Alsay Incorporated 2900 Industrial Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34946 TELEPHONE NO: (407) 466-2773 P.0.NO. CHANGE ORDER DATE August 3, 1988 J.O./W.O. NO. Page 1 of 1 I.R.C. South County R.O. Plant Improvement Project - Well A Construction CHANGE ORDER N0. 3 1.0 SCOPE OF CHANGE ORDER Labor & Material Cost to extend 14" well casing from 380 ft. to 415 ft. due to soft rock formation at original casing depth. Itemized changes in the contract price are documented below (refer to Alsay request for final payment): ITEM # Schedule of Values (Description) (or contract) Value"Charged. Change in Value 2 (pilot hole) $4,000.00 $4,200.00. $ 200.00 3 (20" ream) $9,500.00 $10,500.00 $1,000.00 4 (14" casing) $7,600.00 $8,300.00 $ 700.00 5 (grout 14" casing) $5,400.00 $8,550.00 $3,150.00 6 (14" hole) $6,400.00 $5,900.00 ($ 500.00) 7 (develop $1,200.00 $1,275.00 $ 75.00 1 well) 10 extra work $ 600.00* $ 0.00 ($ 600.00) 11 extra work $ 500.00* $ 0.00 ($ 500.00) 12 standby $ 600.00* $ 0.00 ($ 600.00) 13 standby $ 400.00* $ 0.00 ($ 400.00) Total $2,525.00 2.0 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED *Items not expended during contract Kevin Crowther Project Engineer Tel. No. 305-476-1800 104 BOOK 73 PAGE 6972 AUG 21 1908 Commissioner Eggert had a question about the Change Order that adds $2,000, and Asst. Utilities Director Barton explained that was basically because they had to go deeper with the well and the casings, etc; then we were given credit for some items they did not have to do, and the net net was the $2,525. They went 35' extra. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) author- ized payment of the Final Pay Request and payment of Change Order #1 which is included in the total balance of $7,675.00. APPOINT PROPERTY APPRAISAL BOARD MEMBERS, ETC. FOR 1988 Acting Administrator Collins reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Sharon Phillips Brennan, - Assistant County Attorney __A� DATE: August 16, 1988 SUBJECT: 1. Appointment of Property Appraisal Adjustment Board Members, 2. Establishing Petition Filing Fee, 3. Resolution for Per Diem Compensation for Property Appraisal Adjustment Board Members Pursuant to Chapter 194, Florida Statutes, the Board is advised to: 1. Appoint 3 members of the Board to serve on the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board for 1988. 2. Set the petition filing fee at $15.00 to be paid to the Clerks of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board for each separate parcel of property. $15.00 is the amount agreed upon the Board last year and is the statutory maximum. For joint petitions filed pursuant to S. 194.011(3e) a single filing fee shall be charged which should be calculated as the cost of the special master for the time involved in hearing the joint petition and should not exceed $5.00 per parcel. That fee is to be proportionately paid by affected parcel owners. 105 BOOK 73 603 e r 3. The Board should adopt a resolution providing for per diem compensation to the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board members. The amount of such compensation is established by statute if the Board of County Commissioners and the School Board of Indian River County elect to allow such compensation. Since the School Board appoints two members to the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, two-fifths of the expenses of the Board are borne by the school board and three-fifths by the County Commission. An appropriate resolution is attached for your approval. Commissioner Eggert stated that she would volunteer to serve, and Commissioners Wheeler and Bird also offered to serve. Property Appraiser Nolte requested that a date be set for the organizational meeting and suggested that it be held next Tuesday, August 30th, at 9:00 A.M. There were no objections. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) appointed Commissioners Eggert, Bird and Wheeler, to serve on the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board for 1988; set the petition filing fee at $15.00 per parcel (except for joint petitions filed pursuant to S. 194.011 (3e); and adopted Resolution 88-52 pro- viding for Per Diem Compensation as established by Statute. 106 RESOLUTION NO. 88-_52 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR STATUTORY PER DIEM COMPENSATION FOR 1988 PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEMBERS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has appointed Richard N. Bird 'Carolyn K. Eggert and Gary C. Wheeler to serve as the County Commission's delegates to the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board (PAAB) for the 1988 hearings; and Margaret C. Bowman _ and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. as alternates; and WHEREAS, it 1s contemplated that the School Board of Indian River County- Will adopt a resolution appointing its membership to the Board and providing for allowance of per diem compensation for such members in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 194.015(1987); and WHEREAS, the cited statute requires a specific election from both the County Commission and the School Board in order to allow such compensation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT: 1. The foregoing recitals, including the appointments to this year's Property Appraisal Adjustment Board by the County Commission are hereby ratified and acknowled9ed; and 2. The above named members of the 1988 Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, or their duly authorized replacements, may receive per diem compensation for services provided on the board as allowed by law for State employees, pursuant to the above cited statute. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner _ Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: 107 BOOK I F': �c.6�J Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. _Absent Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird —Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman —Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert —Aye The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 88- 52 duly passed and adopted this 23rd _ day of August, 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By 81, -,WL z Gary C�Wheeler, Vice Chairman RESOLUTION #89-04 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: That Carol Johnson and Joe Idlette are hereby appointed to serve on the Property -Appraisal Adjustment Board on behalf of Indian.River County for 1988, with Gary: Lindsey AS ALTERNATE. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the Board or their respective replacements shall receive such per diem compensation as is allowed by law for state employees. This provision shall be effective only upon the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, passing a similar resolution; the two resolutions combined shall have the effect of an election by the two bodies to allow for compensation as provided by law (Chapter 194, Florida Statutes). DONE THIS 11 day of August, 1988, by the Indian River County School Board in open and regularly scheduled meeting at Vero Beach, .FL. 108 Gary Lind y, Chairman BOOK 73 ulu..6% PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY Commissioner Bird noted that he had circulated a summary of the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting of August 11th, but he would like to pull it off the agenda at this time and bring it back at the next meeting. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Commissioner Bowman reviewed the following summary: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS August 10, 1988 MEETING The Transportation Planning Committee recommended the following actions during its 8/10/88 meeting: 1. 26th Street at US #1 The Committee recommended moving,.the railroad crossing from 27th Street to 26th Street with signalization on US #1, and closing the northbound access onto_US,,#1 from.14th Avenue. 2. 30th Street at US #1 The Committee recommended that 30th Street be designated one way east from US #1 to 12th Avenue, and westbound traffic would be channelled onto 12th Avenue and 31st Street to US #1, and the City and County should work in conjunction with DOT to see if they would participate in any funding of the projects since their roadway is causing the problem. 3. Royal Palm Boulevard/Royal Palm Place Twin Pairs (One Way) The Committee endorsed the concept of the City of Vero Beach project to direct one way traffic east on Royal Palm Blvd., and west on Royal Palm Place from the west merger of the two roads to the Indian River Boulevard intersection. It was further recommended that Royal Palm Boulevard be three-laned from the west merger of the two roads west to US #1. The Board accepted the above report as filed. 109 BOOK There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: c Chairman 110 BOOK 7 3 UPJ 8 AUG 2 S 1988