Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/13/1989Tuesday, June 13, 1989 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, June 13, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney Vitunac.led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Administrator Chandler advised that the Administrator has asked that an item in regard to setting Comprehensive Plan meeting dates be added to the Agenda under 9A. The Administrator also has asked that Item 9G (2) - Management Positions Dept of Utilities - be removed from today's agenda. Commissioner Eggert offered a Motion to remove Item 9G (2), but in the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he would like to discuss this item today and Administrator Chandler stated that it could be discussed today if the Board wished. Commissioner Eggert withdrew her Motion. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that the contract re- lating to Item 8B. - Transfer of Administrative Duties for Chapter 88-294 FS from the County to the IRC Hospital Taxing District - is being xeroxed and will be sent over shortly, and he would request that it be added to the Agenda as ,Item 813 (2). JUN 1 1989 BOOK 01 J. JUN BOOa.77 Fq, OZ.; ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the items described above and agreed not to remove Item 9G (2) re Utility Management Positions. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert requested that Items F and G be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Commissioner Bowman requested the removal of Item E, and Commissioner Scurlock requested the removal of Item A. A. Bid #89-63/New End Loader The Board reviewed memos from the Purchasing Manager and the Manager of the Solid Waste Disposal District: DATE: June 21 1989 TD: BOARD OF COUNTY OC1nSSIONERS OW: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General ;=ices PHU: Dominick L. Mascol� CPO Manager Division of Purchasing -1 sa�x;t SUBJ: IRC BID#89-63/NEST END 7AADER 1. BACKGROUND: The Subject Bid for the New End Loader was properly advertised. and Twelve (12) Invitations to bid were received. Seven (7) Vendors submitted proposals for the coanodity. 2. ANALYSIS: 7, .Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to -�..,n. specifications. M. D. Moody was the low responsive & responsible bidder to met all requirements. 3. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Account #411-000-169-466.00 Total Budget Funds is $125,000.00. 4. ON: Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $118,932.00 to the low bidder, M. D. Moody, for the subject cmmdity. F - 0 TO: DOMINIC MASCOLA, PURCHASING DEPARTMENT ;DATE: JUNE 2, 1989 .THRU: ,:.:-_TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTO "SOLID -WASTE DISPOSAL DINT T FROM: �r'RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER �C%> :�,,�, a ,• SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 1 -SUBJECT: FRONT. LOADER. BID - Y In-reviewing.the bids received for the Front Loader, it was determined.•that the only bidders that meet the specifications are: 1. Case �Jr,..,4.. ; ....;.. 2. M.D. Moody 3. Kelley Tractor 'While -researching the Case equipment, through contacting existing owners of said equipment, we were advised that the hydraulic systems on. -`the. -Case equipment are problematic and require constant maintenance. VIZ.- We'ycurrently have Trojan equipment, which is the equipment provided by M.D. Moody, and.the equipment has provided.excellent service. Kelley Tractor equipment has been of good service,. however, their bid.exceeds the amount budgeted for purchase of the equipment. Based -upon the excellent service we have had in the past with Trojan equipment, and taking into account the adverse comments we have received from other owners of Case equipment, The District Staff recommends acceptance of the second lowest bid that was received from M.D. Moody. 3 ,JUN 1 1989 BOOK 17 PAGE Q:.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • : Date= 5-24-89 ' 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 PURCHASING DEPT. ' BID TABULATION TN..bonn host 367.6000 Q' �2j Submitted By Dominick L Mascola PURCHASING MANAGER Bid No. IRC #89-63 Date Of Opening5=17-89 M.D. MOODY & SONS, P� Recommended Award LOR10 � •118, 932.00 Bid Title NEW END LOADER 1. Adams-DeWind $ 94,442.00 2. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp. 97,388.00 . 3. Case Power E Equipment 99.158:00 , 4. Neff Machinery 103',256.82 5. (A) Marco Machinel Co. 103,500.00 (B) Marco Machinery Co. 114,500.00 6. M.D. Moody E Sons, Inc. 118,932.00 7. Kelly Tractor Company 127045.00 8. Bud Lee Equipment NIB I 9. Lider Machinery Co. NIB t 10. Bucket Mart NIB 11. Hydraulic Maintenance 1 NIB j a 12. Pippin Tractor NIB .' 3 ,JUN 1 1989 BOOK 17 PAGE Q:.. Comm i BOOK 77 PAGE 04 isioner Scurlock expressed concern about the formulation of our specs when we bid various items. He felt a great deal can be learned in this regard by getting input .from the private sector. With regard to those of the bidders who did not meet the specifications, the question that comes to mind is just how important are the items they do not meet and are those items critical. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that his overriding concern when we draw up specs is that we don't write them so that they possibly preclude certain pieces of equipment. County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that representa- tives from Fiat -Allis of North America, the low bidder, wish to contend that they do meet specifications and they would like to be heard this morning. In general discussion, Commissioner Bird commented that when heavy equipment bidders go to the trouble involved in bidding something like this, it is kind of upsetting to have quite a few thrown out for not meeting specifications, and the Board agreed that we should hear from the Fiat -Allis representatives. Administrator Chandler advised that the basic question has to do with the weight that we have specified as the base weight of the vehicle (34,833 lbs.) He explained that we specified that based on the experience we have had at the Landfill over the years, and four of the bidders did not meet that specification. Another bidder did not meet the specification for hydraulics and electronic monitoring. Commissioner Scurlock understood this particular piece of equipment is not intended for use on the hill but for loading material into the burner and chipper. General Services Manager Dean confirmed that it is to be used for loading the burner and chipper. As to the weight, he noted that the specifications were drawn up by the Landfill Department. Roland McNeal, Supervisor of the Landfill, who has many years of experience out there, and this is the weight he felt was needed. Director Dean displayed a sample specification sheet showing where the bidder has space to set out where they may or may not meet specifications and make any comments they wish. He felt the thing that has been overlooked is the EMS system, which is a system that monitors the vital signs of the equipment while it is operating. Mr. Dean noted we recently had a piece of equipment lose its oil, necessitating repairs to the tune of $6,000. Additional discussion ensued regarding the fact that this equipment is not meant to be working on top of the hill, but Director Dean pointed out that it will be driving over tree limbs, stumps, and other very rough material. He agreed that Fiat -Allis, offered'by Adams-DeWind, was low bidder, but they did not meet the weight specification nor have the EMS system. Commissioner Scurlock debated the importance of the EMS system, noting that he has been told the most important thing about equipment is to check on it twice a day and, in fact, some people prefer mechanical gauges. Director Dean agreed that it is important to check equipment twice ay day, but pointed out that sometimes accidents occur where a limb breaks off and damages the equipment. Roland McNeal, Supervisor of the Landfill, informed the Board that one of the reasons for the weight is that the equipment holds the ground better and you do not have it tipping and swaying. He further advised that they have had good results with the EMS system. If something breaks, a buzzer automatically comes on, and you have to get out of the cab and check on it. Chairman Wheeler questioned the cost of the EMS system as related to the labor time required to check on the machine several times a day, and felt possibly over a year that time could amount to more than the EMS system. Questions continued regarding weight and the fact that Fiat -Allis is 823 lbs. lighter than the 34,883 lbs. specification. John DeWind of Adams-DeWind Machine Co. introduced himself to the Board and advised that with him is Brent MacDonald, a District Manager for Fiat -Allis. Mr. DeWind stressed that his company was 'JUIN 1 � 1989 5 eQOr JUN 12198 BOOK.77 PAGE 06 the apparent low bidder by over $20,000 and believed what is recommended involves a considerable amount of money to the taxpayer. The issue seems to be whether they meet the weight specification, and he noted that the bid asked for a weight of 34,883 lbs., which just happens to,be the exact weight set out on the brochure from Caterpillar. He further noted that when his company looked at the bid specifications and took all the options that were included and added them up, they came up with a weight that actually exceeded the 34,883 requirement; so, they did not feel that they had to take an exception. Brent MacDonald of Fiat -Allis advised the Board that the Fiat -Allis specification sheets say their operating weight meets SAE Code J-432 and SAE Code J-742. If the specs had said you must meet operating weight, that is one thing, but they said base weight, and that is different. Mr. DeWind contended that all specification sheets have different criteria they base their weights on. Some come up with the weights by putting calcium in the tires, some have it with options, some have it without options, etc. That is why all the brochures on the various brands of equipment state " that this information is intended to be of general nature only, and the dimensions, weights and capacities shown herein are approximate only." Mr. DeWind stressed that they meet specifications and they have an excellent product which they want the county to use. It has been used in a lot of landfill situations, and it is highly accepted and highly recommended. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know where their equipment is serviced, and Mr. DeWind advised Fort Lauderdale and the parts availability is very good. Adams-DeWind has been in business in this state since 1958, and they have branches in Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, and Fort Myers. Mr. MacDonald advised that in addition to that, the factory has support directly out of Atlanta and Chicago, and, of course, there is overnight air freight everywhere. 6 In regard to the EMS system, Mr. DeWind noted that actually the specifications asked for indicators. They have an air cleaner service indicator; they have an indicator that measures the volts on the alternator. The specifications asked for an engine oil filter service. They don't have that, and to the best of his knowledge, nobody has it. The standard recommendation is to change your oil filter every 250 hours, the same as you change it in your car every so many miles. They have an indicator on the dash that measures fuel level and they have a gauge for hydraulic oil temperature. It calls for warning lights for system monitor- ing; they do have that. The final system asked for is the EMS operating warning system. EMS is a Caterpillar system, and they don't have that. In further discussion, it was noted that the EMS system does not shut the equipment down, it just warns, and it was again stated that no one has an EMS system except Caterpillar. Director Dean advised that of the 7 bidders, 4 of them said they have a type of EMS system. Mr. DeWind commented that in their bid they put yes for all the indicators, and for the EMS operating warning system, which is an exception to them, they put No EMS. He noted that they do have a monitoring system. It has flashing lights with alarms, but the specs did not ask for alarms. Alarms are available. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to know why more companies don't have this EMS system if it is such an important piece of equipment. Director Pinto believed they do have such systems. He felt what is happening here is that we are trying to rewrite the specs at this meeting. If the Board is not satisfied with the specs as they were written and bid, then he felt they should be rewritten and rebid as he did not think it is fair to the other bidders. Director Pinto continued that he did not happen to agree that a Landfill operation is the same as any other operation using heavy equipment. He believed this equipment undoubtedly will be up on JUN � �g0Q) eooK i" � r,1, E 0 JUN 13 1999 77' P,�GE 08 that hill at some time, and, in any event, when you are moving heavy logs and dumping them into something 20' up in the air, weight and stability are very important. If the specs were unclear, let's go back and make them very clear. Possibly, we could have a pre-bid meeting, but he did not feel it is fair to sit here and listen to one bidder. Commissioner Bird did feel the low bidder should have the right to come in and argue his position and noted that he also was saying that while they do not have the exact EMS system, they have something very similar. Director Pinto noted that he is recommending that we not award any bid until we can get the specs clear and rebid. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert to table. Commissioner Bird was concerned about how the bids are written and whether they are written so strictly that they preclude anyone but Caterpillar. Director Pinto was concerned that what we are doing now is destroying our bidding system by changing the specifications. Commissioner Bird pointed out that they are saying their weight difference is not sufficient to be important and also that they do have a monitoring system that is very similar. Director Pinto did not argue that but felt some of the other bidders may also want to make similar claims. Commissioner Bowman felt the specs should be rewritten specifying operating weight and base weight, etc. Debate continued on how to write the specifications, with Commissioner Scurlock stressing we should get information from the private sector, with Commissioner Bowman suggesting that we should get advice from other landfill operations, and with Commissioner Bird contending that a Landfill site is not that different than other land clearing sites. 8 Administrator Chandler felt the basic determination that needs to be made is regarding the EMS system and whether there is another system that can provide that. Mr. DeWind noted that they bid this machine at $94,442 and submit that they met the specifications as asked for. Fiat -Allis is excellent equipment backed by a very strong warranty, and he contended that they actually exceeded specifications. Mr. DeWind noted that these machines are working at landfills, and Adams- DeWind Company has been in business since 1958. He pointed out that if this is a rebid, the bids will be rewritten, but everyone knows each others numbers and will change their numbers to some degree. He felt, based on the specs that were sent out, the Board should accept their bid at this time, and then in the future, it would be a good idea to have prebid conferences. Fred Sa.rg informed the Board that he is retired and has been in the long distance transportation field for many years and concerned with maintenance. He claimed the monitoring systems aren't worth anything and that the only thing that is any good is a shutdown system. Mr. DeWind confirmed that there are shutdown systems. Discussion continued at length regarding how specific or how flexible the specifications should be. Director Pinto pointed out that several companies did meet the specifications. He did feel that something good came out of the discussion today, and that is as to whether we should add an automatic shutdown feature. He pointed out, however, that if the machine should happen to shut down when it is holding a log up over the incinerator, that could pose a problem also. COMMISSIONER EGGERT WITHDREW HER MOTION TO TABLE. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to reject all bids and have the specifications revisited and rebid. 9 Boar 77 09 JUN 13 1989 r JUN 13 `1969 BOOK.77 P,g E lu Director Dean wished to state for the record that staff did not recommend Caterpillar, they recommended Trojan as the one to purchase. Commissioner Bird advised that he plans to vote against the Motion. He felt the bidding process was followed appropriately and believed we need to send out the message that this county will accept the low bid if it meets specifications. He is convinced that the low bidder came close enough with their Fiat -Allis equipment and should receive the bid. Chairman Wheeler pointed out that we do not know how much this EMS system costs, and he felt, in fairness to all the bidders, that the specifications should be revisited. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the cost of the rebid process, and Purchasing Manager Mascola felt that including staff effort, re -advertising, etc., it could be roughly $400. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with Commis- sioners Bird and Scurlock voting in opposition. B. Bid 89-65 - Traffic Signal Equipment The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola: DATE: June 2, 1989 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CX&SUSSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County 'strator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General s FROM: Dcmi.nick L. Mascold, CPO Manager I Division of Purchasing _ SUBJ: IRC BID#89-65/TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT r 1. BACKGROUND: The Subject Bid for the Traffic Signal Equipnent was properly advertised and Six (6) Invitations to bid were sent out. On May 31, 1989, bids were received. Six (6) vendors submitted proposals for the camrodity. 10 2. ANALYSIS: -::-Staff has reviewed the suhnittal to ascertain adherence to specifications. Traffic Products was the low responsible bidder to met all requirements. reitlents. ' 3 . UNDING: Monies for this project will carie from Account #109-214-541-066.51 Total. Budget Funds is $3,816.80. 4. ON: Staff reccmTends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $3,816.80 to the low responsible bidder, Traffic Products for the subject cxamlodity. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 89-65 for Traffic Signal Equipment to the low responsible bidder, TRAFFIC PRODUCTS, per the following Bid Tabulation: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 32960 ��vERc Q' T.Irohon.: 13051 887•8000 # * Recommended Award Traffic Products RI $3,816.80 $3=816.80 Gate= 5-31-89 PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION Submitted By Dominick L Mascola PURCHASING MANAGER Bid WIRC8945 Date Of Opening May 31, 1989 I Bid Title Traffic Signal Equipment 1. Traffic PartsI $ 396.00 (Item X12 only) , e 2. Engineered Casting 2,247.04 (Minus Item 12) 3. Cost Casting 2,416.60 (Minus Item 12) i i 1 4. Traffic Products 3,816.80 5. Signal Construction 4,014.08 I -I 6. Joe's Barricades N/B 1 a JUN I S 1989 11 BooK 77 I,lu 11 I SUN 131999 B011K 77 F'A E 12 C. PVC Pipe C-900 The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola: DATE: May 31, 1989 TO: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS James E. Chandler, County Aram, L szrawJ H.T. OSonny" Dean, Directeg Department of General S�FRri: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO It Division of Purchasing -,'S,UBJ:-; :PVC PIPE C-900 1. BACKGROUND: Douglas Higgins, Inc. Contractor on the Gifford Area Sewer Project has offered Indian River County, through the Department of Utility Service, the opportunity to purchase 4,640 feet of 12in c-900 PVC (Brawn) Pipe, at a reduced price. The Higgins Company does not want to transport this °material to another job out of State. "• 2. -,'ANALYSIS: ,?r„' _ t. tea... �dThe County can purchase the pipe for $4.50 per foot. At °a. this point in time Purchasing has obtained prices for this 'I Tk pipe, the lowest being $11.00 per foot. This would be a =u;, substantial savings of $30,360.00, on future County projects. 3. FUNDING: There are adequate funds available to purchase this pipe. This is an inventory account. 4. ON: Approve the Single Source Procurement from. Douglas Higgins, Inc., for C-900 PVC Pipe in the amount of $20,880.00. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Single Source Procurement of C-900 PVC Pipe in the amount of $20,880 from Douglas Higgins, Inc., as recommended by staff. 12 l D. Request for Authorization to Execute Joint Participation reement w The Board reviewed memo from the Community Development Director, as follows: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP & K Community Development Director DATE: June 2, 1989 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FDOT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 13, 1989. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Recently, the planning department was 'contacted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and informed that the county was eligible to apply for a portion of a $50,000 allocation that the District 4 office has received in the form of a Transportation Planning Grant. Since these funds are available .only to urban areas below 50,000 in population, Indian River and Martin are the only counties in District 4 eligible to receive the funds. Therefore, the county can expect to receive $25,000 if :it chooses to apply for the money. This money would be available to the county as a grant with no match required. Because of FDOT's budgetary constraints, a joint participation :agreement between the county and FDOT will need to be executed prior to June 30, 1989 in order for the funds to be available. If the Commission authorizes the chairman to execute such an agreement on the condition that the agreement is acceptable to the county attorney's office, then the timeframe should not be a problem. According to FDOT, the grant funds are to be used to address critical traffic circulation problems. In its correspondence to the planning department, FDOT identified several possible uses for the available funds. Based upon this list and discussions with FDOT staff, the planning and public works departments agreed on a general project scope for the funds. The staff proposes to use the funds to purchase computer equipment, a plotter, and permanent traffic count equipment. While the computer equipment would facilitate use of the transportation planning software currently being used by the planning department, the plotter would provide staff with the ability to plot the maps produced by the software. As for the permanent traffic count equipment, this would provide more and better data to both the county and FDOT on total volumes and seasonal variations. 13 BOOB JUN 1 1989 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: BOOK 77 N� GE 14 The subject grant funds are available to the county at no cost with no required match. For that reason, accepting the funds is a benefit to the county. As to the project scope, there are a number of alternate uses for which the grant funds could be spent. However, since the county is currently using FDOT funds to have a consultant develop a traffic circulation plan that is FSUTMS based_ and runs on the ` planning department's microcomputers, the staff will be constantly using the transportation model and regularly updating it. Not only will the computer equipment and plotter proposed for acquisition with the grant funds assist with that effort; but this equipment constitutes items that would had to have been Purchased with county funds at some future time. As to the Permanent count stations, these will provide data for updating the traffic circulation plan and for implementing a concurrency management system. RECOD94ENDATION : The planning and public works staffs recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the chairman to execute a joint participation agreement with FDOT upon approval of the agreement by the county attorney. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 89-60 authorizing execution of a Joint Participation Agreement with the FDOT regarding the $25,000 grant funds available for traffic circulation studies. 14 � � r RESOLUTION NO. 89-60 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FDOT WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation, District 4, has notified Indian River County that $25,000 of grant funds is available to Indian River County for traffic circulation studies; and WHEREAS, Indian River County proposes to continue its traffic circulation study activities to provide an acceptable transition to urban county status; and WHEREAS, the available funds will enhance the county's traffic circulation planning capacity by providing the hardware tools to use available transportation planning software; and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation has provided the county with a proposed joint participation agreement providing the conditions for use of the grant funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: 1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in their entirety. 2) The Board of County Commissioners authorizes the chairman to dxecute the joint participation agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert- , seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted on the 13th day of June 1989, by the following vote: Commissioner Gary Wheeler Ayp Commissioner Carolyn Eggert AyP Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. ASEP Commissioner Margaret Bowman Aye Commissioner Richard Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 13th day of June , 1989. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Gary Wreler, Chairman COPY OF PARTIALLY SIGNED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 1989 5 soon .77 P,t,c 1 jum 1319 BOOK 77 F�0,E 16 E. Request for County_ Participation in St. Johns River Water Management -6 st ct V�ieil'Plugging_Program The Board reviewed memo from Community Development Director Keating: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RAAK Community Development Director DATE: May 30, 1989 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WELL PLUGGING PROGRAM It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 13, 1989. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Several months ago, the.staff of the Management District (SJRWMD) contacted abandoned artesian wells in the county. ;.. both the county and the district for �.z. Probably the most important reason .,-.,.,degradation of the surf icial aquifer St. Johns River Water county staff regarding These are a concern to a number of reasons. is the water quality which occurs with the introduction of the high chloride water from artesian wells percolating into the shallow aquifer. Although the. --district does not know the specific number of uncapped artesian wells existing in Indian River, it estimates that there are a substantial number. Many of these are located in old groves. Because these wells have no cost to the property owner, there are no financial incentives for property owners to pay the cost of plugging these wells. Currently, SJRWMD offers a cost sharing program for property owners willing to plug their wells. Through this program, the district pays half the cost of the well plugging program. However, only half of the cost may exceed $600 to the property owner. That has resulted in few property owners using this program. To get more wells plugged, the district has instituted a cost-sharing program with local governments, whereby the property owner bears no cost. At present, the district has cost sharing programs with Brevard and Seminole Counties. These have been relatively successful in plugging free flowing wells. In Brevard and Seminole counties, the county's share of the program costs have been $50,000 and $30,000, respectively on an annual basis. SJRWMD estimates that Indian River County's share of a well plugging program -would be $30,000 annually. To fund the county's portion of the cost, $30,000 has been put in the community development department's 1989-1990 budget. If this appropriation is approved and participation in the well plugging 16 M M program is approved, the entire $30,000 may not be spent in the 89-90 fiscal year; this is dependent upon the number of flow wells identified by the district and the number of those proposed for plugging. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Free flowing artesian wells have long been identified as a problem. With the dependence of county residents on the shallow aquifer as a source of potable water, plugging flow wells is particularly important for this area. The cost sharing program provides an inventive for the district to plug wells in the county. By sharing the cost, additional resources are available to solve the flow well problem. Not only doesartici ation in the p p program provide more money to combat the problem; but it also commits the district to spend funds on well plugging in Indian River County something that would be less likely without cost-sharing program participation. Even if the program is implemented, uncapped flow wells to be plugged must be identified. The district, however, does not believe that will be a problem. Through its records and assistance from the Soil Conservation Service, the Environmental Health Department, and county departments as well as local -residents, a substantial number of flow wells can be identified. :`It is staff's opinion that the well -plugging, cost-sharing program is a good opportunity for the county. Not only can the county get a local problem resolved through participation in this program; -but it can do so at a reasonable cost. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners agree to ,,_.participate in the SJRWMD cost-sharing, well plugging program and agree to authorize $30,000 to fund the program for FY 89-90. i Commissioner Bowman thought this had been an on-going program for a good many years and that St. Johns subcontracted this work. Since they are a taxing district, she wished to know why they need $30,000 from us to fund this program for FY 89/90. Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that St. Johns does have a well capping program and they are actively capping wells, but he believed they are looking for funds to expand and accelerate the program. He noted that the plugging of these wells is one of the greatest things you can do to prolong the availability of the ground water supply in the county and commented that at one time he had discussed with Utilities Director Pinto whether, from the standpoint of our water system, there might be some funds available out of our enterprise fund to participate in this program since what we are doing is protecting the water supply. 17 BOOK ��� F'��rE 17 JUN 13 1989 BOOK .77 F,,u IS Commissioner Bowman brought up the fact that there are some wells that they can't cap but that are supposed to have valves and they don't, and she doesn't see any enforcement at all. Also, it says they are going to identify these, and she wanted to know who is going to identify them. Commissioner Scurlock believed St. Johns has provided a map which identifies over 22 leaking wells on the North Barrier Island. It seems they have identified more than they have funds to cap. Community Development Director Keating informed the Board that St. Johns met with them sometime ago, as well as with Environmental Health, Public Works, etc., and the District indicated they know where there are a lot of such wells. He noted that the $30,000 set out here may not be used this year; it depends on what is identified, the priorities, etc. Some of the northern counties are participating with them this year, and for some years, they have had a cost sharing program with individuals, but there doesn't seem to be much incentive for an individual to pay half the cost of plugging a well since it usually is not affecting him adversely. Commissioner Bowman inquired about the cost of plugging a well, which is different than capping, and Commissioner Bird noted that he had heard the cost would be about $1,500 for a 4" flow well. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the responsibility of the private property owner himself to plug a free flowing well, and Director Keating did not think we have any specific prohibition against this right now. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to know if, for instance, we identify that a well is contaminating our ground water, why we do not have the ability to go to the property owner, as they do in Code Enforcement for different violations, and say that he is responsible. 18 M L In discussion, Attorney Vitunac believed we do have that ability, and possibly it is a good idea for an ordinance. Debate continued regarding the plugging of these wells, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that his concern is not the well which has a use, but his problem is that you have many of these wells that have rusted out below and there is no valve on it to shut it off; so it just continues to seep and pollute the ground water supply. He felt that property owners should be responsible to repair the well so it functions property as it was intended to. Commissioner Bowman felt if St. Johns is going to subcontract this, we might just as well pass a county ordinance and sub- contract it ourselves. Director Keating pointed out that St. Johns is assuming all the administrative costs that are involved plus half the cost, and further noted that what is being discussed today is just general authorization to give them an indication of whether we will participate - all the details would be ironed out later. Commissioner Bird wished to have figures on how many wells have been plugged under the present system where the land owners have paid half the tab because if that system is working well in our county, he did not see the need for us to pay $30,000. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled the above item. F. Part Time Employee - Division of Purchasing The Board reviewed memo from Administrator Chandler: 19 DOOK tit. JUN 13 1989 .77 DATE: JUNE 2, 1989 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER, ADMINISTRATO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI AS SUBJECT: PART TIME EMPLOYEE - DIVISION OF PURCHASING Boa 77 FArjE 20 BACKGROUND: I In the process of up -dating our Purchasing system, and becoming more professional with the handling of all paperwork associated with the system we have encountered many problems. It is the opinion of this writer that we are fast resolving these problems, and systematizing the process that will meet all the needs and services of the County as well as satisfying all audit requirements. The workload on the employees in this Division has more than doubled with our new procedures, and the ever growing needs of the various Departments within the County (i.e. Emergency Medical Services, Libraries, etc.). The following chart is provided to indicate services performed: ' h 6 (As of 6/1) 1 � ifv Ja Based on the above statistics it is evident of the increase we are experiencing. It is also apparent to this writer that our staff is not able to keep abreast of this continuous increase in workload. Especially when a staff member is out for sickness, vacation, etc. The present and only clerk in Purchasing is scheduled for two weeks vacation beginning on June 12, 1989. Some of the services will go lacking during this period of time without additional help. There are sufficient monies in the present budget to- fund a Part -Time Clerk for the remainder of the 1988-89 fiscal year. kot- . It is respectfully requested that the Board review the information ;submitted and authorize a Permanent Part -Time, Staff position for the Purchasing Division. Commissioner Eggert had a question about the difference between the permanent part-time employee and the part-time temporary employee going into a full time employee in the next budget year. 20 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 55 78 108 REQUISITIONS 4500 5300 3785 PURCHASE ORDERS 4500 5300 3785 VENDOR APPLICATIONS_ -- 100 200 Based on the above statistics it is evident of the increase we are experiencing. It is also apparent to this writer that our staff is not able to keep abreast of this continuous increase in workload. Especially when a staff member is out for sickness, vacation, etc. The present and only clerk in Purchasing is scheduled for two weeks vacation beginning on June 12, 1989. Some of the services will go lacking during this period of time without additional help. There are sufficient monies in the present budget to- fund a Part -Time Clerk for the remainder of the 1988-89 fiscal year. kot- . It is respectfully requested that the Board review the information ;submitted and authorize a Permanent Part -Time, Staff position for the Purchasing Division. Commissioner Eggert had a question about the difference between the permanent part-time employee and the part-time temporary employee going into a full time employee in the next budget year. 20 Administrator Chandler clarified that they are asking for a part-time employee for the balance of the fiscal year. He confirmed that there has been a request for a full time employee in next year's budget, but he has not made a determination at this time whether he will recommend that. He believed there is no question that there is a need for part-time help. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized a permanent part-time staff position for the Purchasing Division. G. Budget Amendment #080 - Automobile for Building and Grounds uperintendent The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator: DATE: JUNE 51 1989 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: AUTOMOBILE FOR BUILDING AND GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT BACKGROUND: Mr.yDavid Nolte, County Property Appraiser has turned in a 1984, Ford automobile as surplus property, to be sold. This car has 30,000 miles omit and is in good shape. ;ANALYSIS: Lynn .Williams, Building and Grounds Superintendent has a need for a `vehicle -that can be used by him to oversee the two library projects, j `answer ---calls at night, and on week -ends along with other routine :,maintenance problems within his area of responsibility. The subject --rvehicle would serve this purpose. The Property Appraiser has asked a minimum of $1,800 for the 1984 Ford. ;',Thecost to purchase a similar new car would be in excess of $10,000. RECOMMENDATIONS: Itis requested that the Board authorize a budget amendment from General Fund Contingencies to Building and Grounds for the purchase of the 1984 Ford automobile to be used by the Buildings and Grounds Superintendent, in his work area. �-p 21 BOOK 1°.61 X9$9 TO: FROM: BOOK 77 FA ;E 22 Commissioner Eggert stated that she has a little trouble pur- chasing a 1984 car even with only 30,000 miles on it. She is mainly concerned, however, about the question of who should have a car allowance and who should have a car. Administrator Chandler noted that the original request was for a car allowance. He advised that what he has found as he has gotten into this is that there has been no clear cut policy on car allowance versus who gets a vehicle, and he believed we need an overall policy we can live with. When this item came to his desk, he considered the age of the vehicle and the cost, and believed that this individual because of his duties with the library projects, etc., should have some form of transportation or reimbursement, and he felt this was the way to go for the short range. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board approved Budget Amendment #080 for a 1984 Ford automobile to be used by the Buildings and Grounds Superintendent. Members of the Board of County Commissioners Joseph A. Bair Ct OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 080 DATE: June 6. 1989 Entry Number. Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease I. EXPENSE ;,;.. GENERAL FUND Building and Grounds Automotive 001-220-519-066.42 S 1.800.00 S 0 M7 ' ' Reserve for contingency 001-199-581-099.91 0 1 800.00 Explanation: 'Budget amendment to purchase an automobile for the Building and Grounds __Superintendent in the amount of $1,800.00 per Sonny Dean's memo dated June 5, 1989 to the Board of County Commissioners. 22 H. Bid 89-59 - Road & Bridge Complex The Board reviewed memo from the CPO Manager: DATE: June 6, 1989 FROM: Dominick L. Mascola`; CPO Manager Division of Purchasing TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CCKUSSIONERS SUBJ: TM: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General 1. BACKGROUND: IRC BID#89-59/Road & Bridge Complex The Subject Bid for Public Works Division was properly advertised and sixteen (16) Invitations were sent out, on May 17, 1989, bids were received and Two (2) vendors submitted proposals for the project. 2. ANALYSIS: ; Staff has ieviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to specifications. Rocheford Baer Construction Corporation was the low bidder and met all the requirements. 3. FUNDING. Funding -in the Amount of $35,000.00 will come frac account #111 -214 -541 -066.29 -and Road & Bridge are recommending $14,267.00 be transferred from there insurance account #111-214-541-034.59 to cover the remainding cost. 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recc intends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $49,267.00 to the low bidder, Rocheford-Baer Construction Corporation for the Road & Bridge Complex Building. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 89-59 for the Road & Bridge Complex Building to the low bidder, Rocheford-Baer Construction Corp. in.the amount of $49,267, per the following Bid Tabulation: JUN 13 1989 23 Dou 7 7 Fact 2 JUN 1 37' 198-9 BOOK ' f'' GtA. I Bid 89-62 -Air Masks _& Cylinders The Board reviewed memo from the CPO Manager: DATE: June 5, 1989 70: BOARD OF COUNTY CO*aSSIONERS MW: James E. Chandler, County H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Se;vi� FROM: Dominick L. MascolarCPO Manager Division of Purchasing SOW: IRC BID#89-61/Air Masks & cylinders 1. BACKGROM The Subject Bid for the Emergency Management Services was'ProPerlY advertised and Ten (10) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On May 24, 1989 Bids were received. Six (6) Vendors submitted a Bid for -the commodity. �. 2. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to specifications. Central Florida Fire Fiquip ent was the low Bidder & met all requirements. 3. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Account #115-122-522-066..49, #115-123-522-066.49, #115-124-522-066.49 Total Budget Funds is $16,720.00. 4. REOO*ZNDATION • Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $15,324.54 to the lora bidder, Central -Florida Fire Equipment for the subject commodity, for the Sebastian, Vero Lakes, and Roseland Vol. Fire Dept. 24 DW.6/17/89 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960 PURCHASING DEPT. 1 �V BID TABULATION P� Tel"ho : 1308) 567-8000 4 _ :. «; Submitted By Dominick L Mascots :.... Z .�Z.� PURCHASING MANGER ; # 4 Bid No. #89-59 Date Of Openin95-17-89 Recommended Award Rocheford-Baer Constructio ' RI��'� 49,267.00 Bid Title Roads Bridge Office Complex 1. Rocheford-Baer Construction Corp. $49,267-00 2. Fischer McGann, Inc. 63,566.00 3. Hunley Hubbard Construction 65,147.00 4. Croom Construction Co. N/B 1 5. Barth Construction, Inc. N/B I Bid 89-62 -Air Masks _& Cylinders The Board reviewed memo from the CPO Manager: DATE: June 5, 1989 70: BOARD OF COUNTY CO*aSSIONERS MW: James E. Chandler, County H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Se;vi� FROM: Dominick L. MascolarCPO Manager Division of Purchasing SOW: IRC BID#89-61/Air Masks & cylinders 1. BACKGROM The Subject Bid for the Emergency Management Services was'ProPerlY advertised and Ten (10) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On May 24, 1989 Bids were received. Six (6) Vendors submitted a Bid for -the commodity. �. 2. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to specifications. Central Florida Fire Fiquip ent was the low Bidder & met all requirements. 3. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Account #115-122-522-066..49, #115-123-522-066.49, #115-124-522-066.49 Total Budget Funds is $16,720.00. 4. REOO*ZNDATION • Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $15,324.54 to the lora bidder, Central -Florida Fire Equipment for the subject commodity, for the Sebastian, Vero Lakes, and Roseland Vol. Fire Dept. 24 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 89-61 for Air Masks 6 Cylinders for the Sebastian, Vero Lakes and Roseland Vol. Fire Depts. to the low bidder, Central Florida Fire Equipment, in the amount of $15,324.54, per the following Bid Tabulation: GRAND HARBOR PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT ORDER AMENDMT. & PRD SPECIAL EXCEP. APPROVAL FOR A GOLF MAiNT. SITE AND FACILITY ADDITION 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: 25 JUN 1 198 BOOK 7 f.:JL �U FF.+U Date= 5-24-89 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 184025th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 52960 PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION " Submitted: By Dominick L Mascola Telephone: tsosi 687.8000 i.:.f •� - 3 - .. - -. - PURCHASING MANAGER , Bid No.iRc 89-61 Date Of - Opening 5-24-89 t Recommended Award Central Florida Fire Equipm� RiO�' 5,324.54 Bid Title AIR MASK s CYLINDERS 1. Central Florida Fire Equipment $15,324.54 - 2, Jacksonville Fire E Safety 15,645.00 3. East Coast Fire Equipment 17,246.00 4. Fire Equipment Service, Inc. 18,823.20 5. Miami Fire 'Equipment 19,221.00 6. Mine Safety Appliances Company 20,460.00 7. American Eagle Fire Apparatus N/B 8. Broward Fire Equipment N/B 9. Del Ray Fire Equipment N/B In- All American Fire 9 SafetX N/B 1 GRAND HARBOR PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT ORDER AMENDMT. & PRD SPECIAL EXCEP. APPROVAL FOR A GOLF MAiNT. SITE AND FACILITY ADDITION 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: 25 JUN 1 198 BOOK 7 f.:JL �U FF.+U JUN I S 1989 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River Couinty, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA • Beforb 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 - In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of�¢i;L�9 WE 2 ;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 i�entered as second class mail matterat the postoffice 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.. :-: Swbm to and subscribed before me t day.Qf A.D. 19 (6ferk-ef-t ver�6auntyrF4orida)-- (SEAL) : r Notary Public, Stute of I-loridu My Commission Expires June 29, 1989 �`�� � ,a � :, ,. Baeisd Ilea Troy Rale - hsw►anoai, 4e. BOCK 7 ..P,�n 26 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the granting of a Planned Residential Development (P.R.D.) con- ceptual plan and special exception approval and approval of a development order minor amend- ment for a +- 4.9 acre golf course and grounds maintenance facility for the Grand Harbor prol- ect. The subject property Is located in the N yuerter of the NW quarter of Section 23, TOWN- SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, north of the Grand Harbor entrance road and east of the proposed Indian River Boulevard. A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners In the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, June 13,1989 at 9:05 a.m. 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. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s -GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN ;. May 22,1989 Chief Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation: .TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County .Commissioners - DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: -Ki Robert M. Keat' g,CP Community De��_g meht Director FROM: Stan Boling Chief, Current Development DATE: June 5, 1989 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDER AMENDMENT AND PRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A GOLF MAINTENANCE SITE AND FACILITY ADDITION TO THE GRAND HARBOR PROJECT. I: It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 13, 1989. 26 . DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: {Project Requests Grand Harbor, Inc. is requesting approval to add a ±4 acre site to ',the overall Grand Harbor project. The subject site, adjacent to .;::the. existing Grand Harbor golf course and the planned POD I residential area, is to be used for a golf and grounds maintenance _,facility. To officially add the site to the project, both the project development order (D.O.) and the existing overall PRD plan need to be amended to include the addition. Approval to construct the facility would require preliminary PRD plan approval and the issuance of a land development permit... normal steps in the PRD process. Grand Harbor, Inc. has applied for the necessary D.O. amendment ..and the PRD plan amendment, and has also applied for preliminary .PRD plan (site plan and plat) approval. Pursuant to State regu- lations, the D.O. amendment has been reviewed by the State and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Neither the State nor the Planning Council objected' to having the amendment handled purely on the local level. Subsequent to State and Planning Council review, at its February 28, 1989 meeting the Board of County Commissioners determined that the amendment request does not constitute a substantial deviation and can be reviewed and adopted on the local level as a minor D.O. amendment. Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of May 11, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to: a. Recommend that the Board approve the proposed D.O. amendment; b. recommend that the Board approve the PRD special exception conceptual plan with conditions outlined by staff; and C. approve the preliminary PRD plan (site plan and plat) subject to.the Board approving the D.O. amendment and the PRD special exception conceptual plan. Board of County Commissioners Review The Board is now to consider approving the requested D.O. amend- ment by adoption of a proposed resolution (see attachment #8) and the PRD special exception conceptual plan. Because the Planning and Zoning Commission has taken action on the preliminary PRD plan, approval of the conceptual plan would automatically put -into effect the preliminary plan approval along with any conceptual PRD plan conditions approved by the Board. ANALYSIS: Conceptual and Preliminary PRD Plans: 1. Size of Property: ±4.012 acres (new site) [Note: area of the facility use includes some existing golf course area; total development area: ±4.904 acres]. 2. Zoning Classification: RM -6 Residential, Multi -Family up to 6 units per acre. 3. Land Use Designation: MD -1 Residential, Medium Density 1 up to 8 units per acre. 4. Proposed Building Floor Area: 17,600 square feet enclosed building; 3,200 square feet "pole barns" JUN 1 i 27 7 r JUN 1.8 1989, COOK `j FA Q 5. Surrounding Uses/Zoning: North: vacant/RM-6 South: golf course/RM-6 East: golf course, planned for POD I (residential)/RM-6 West: proposed Indian River Boulevard, vacant/RM-6 6. Environment and Site Conditions: The site contains some significant hardwood "hammock" areas: Out of 34 existing "protected" trees on site (all oak), only 7 are to be removed; 27 are to be preserved. In staff's opinion, the facility has been well-designed to preserve trees, and thus adequately protect the site's main environmentally significant characteristics. 7. Landscaping and Buffering: A 25' (minimum) landscape perimeter buffer area is provided around the entire site. The combination of preserved trees, planted trees, and hedging will exceed landscape require- ments. The proposed perimeter buffering meets or exceeds "Type B" landscape screening requirements. 8. Open Space: Required: 50% (total PRD) Provided: 58%+ (total PRD) [4 acre site: 49%] 9. Recreation Space: Requirement applies only to residential unit development. Overall PRD exceeds requirements with golf course, tennis, club, and bikepath facilities. 10. Drainage: A stormwater permit will be issued along with the land development permit. Public Works has approved the site plan drainage layout. 11. Utilities: Water and sewer services will be provided by the County. Utilities permits will be obtained prior to issuance of a land development permit. 12. Traffic Circulation: The site is to be accessed differently in the two phases of the project. In the first phase., the project is to be accessed by a temporary stabilized, unpaved driveway which is to connect `to the existing Grand Harbor Boulevard. The route of this road is to run within the Indian River Boulevard right-of-way. In the second phase, a permanent paved driveway is to connect to the constructed Boulevard at an approved future Boulevard median cut which is to serve several parcels that "line up" with the median cut. The applicant has submitted a certified cost estimate for the phase 2 driveway construction as well as for construction of a deceleration lane, and -has agreed to escrow funds to guarantee construction. During land development permit review, Public Works will have to approve the alignment and specifications of the temporary driveway, as well as arrange- ments for temporary re -alignment during Boulevard con- struction. Public Works has requested that, as part of the land develop- ment permit application, the applicant submit a traffic impact analysis and commit to any traffic improvements indicated as necessary by the analysis. The applicant has agreed to this condition; no improvements are known to be needed at this time. The facility will be connected to both 28 - M M the Grand Harbor and River Club golf courses via internal service roads; thus, no conflicts should arise between maintenance vehicles and normal project traffic. 13. Dedications and Improvements: No Boulevard right-of-way is needed (adequate Boulevard right-of-way has already been obtained adjacent to this site). As referenced above, funds are to be escrowed to guarantee construction of the permanent driveway and a deceleration land off of the Boulevard. 14. Phases: The project will be phased in relation to a tempo- rary and permanent driveway, as referenced above. 15. Waivers: none requested or needed. All applicable PRD special exception and preliminary plan requirements are met with the application subject to con- ditions specified at the end of this report. AMENDMENT: The D.O. amendment is to be adopted by a resolution, which simply incorporates the new 4 acre site into the DRI project area and provides for assumption of all applicable D.O. obligations.All j�';:-local government DRI concerns can be addressed through normal site waplan and/or PRD ordinance requirements and review. The PRD a applications under consideration satisfy staff concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adopt the proposed resolution which approves the requested D.O. amendment to add the subject site to the DRI project for use as a golf and grounds maintenance facility. 2. grant PRD special exception approval to add the site to the PRD project for the requested use subject to the following conditions: a, prior to issuance, the land development permit shall include alignment and construction specifications for the temporary driveway that are acceptable to the Public Works Director; b. prior to issuance of a land development permit, the developer shall submit a traffic impact analysis report acceptable to the Public Works Director; any traffic improvements indicated within the accepted report as necessary shall be provided prior to the issuance of a C.O. for the facility. C. Prior to issuance of a C.O. for the facility, the applicant shall escrow funds in the amount of the submitted and accepted certified cost estimate to guarantee construction of the permanent driveway and the deceleration lane off of the Boulevard to the permanent entrance. 29 rn JUN 13 1999 BOOK JUN 1� 1989 4.0 loll A C L I ard. SUBJECT PROPERTY A AT I • ... •:t,p • -� gat :. +. �. I L IF I ns -6 ns- I GRAND HARBOR 30 Planner Boling noted that there is a use issue. The River Club Golf Course has its own facility at this time, and this proposal would combine it with the Grand Harbor golf course facility and have the one facility on the east of the Boulevard. Commissioner Scurlock questioned why staff would recommend any Boulevard access for a maintenance facility that is designed primarily to service the golf course - why don't they access that internally and not have any impact on the Boulevard? Planner Boling advised that there is going to be a planned median cut there already, and there is internal access into the project from the back of this.maintenance site itself. Commissioner Scurlock did not see why we should be faced with a maintenance building fronting right on our Boulevard when they could put it into their development internally. Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Bud Fielder of Grand Harbor explained that this consolidates both maintenance facilities into one location, and it will be screened so that it won't be visible from the Boulevard. Chairman Wheeler asked if they actually need access on the Boulevard, and Mr. Fielder stated that they do need it for deliveries because ultimately the temporary access they are proposing would be through a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Bird commented that if this were a stand-alone piece of property and a stand-alone entrance, he believed he would insist it be serviced internally, but staff has indicated it will be shared by three other adjoining properties. Commissioner Scurlock felt in a project of this size there certainly must be enough flexibility so that good planning could have worked out something which could be serviced internally and still be buffered from their units. He really had a concern about our Boulevard, and not only its aesthetics, but its free flowing nature. Planner Boling advised that staff did discuss this, and Public Works in particular didn't want any more cuts on the L_ 31 BOOK 7 f'A'EVN JUN 1 S 1989 BOOK 17 F�nE 32 Boulevard, but since there was a median cut already, it was felt this could be allowed. Commissioner Scurlock asked this maintenance facility couldn't be combined where the present facility is located, and Mr. Fielder explained that where it is now is the River Club property and there is separate ownership of that club. In the central location proposed, the consolidated facility would be under joint ownership. Commissioner Bowman asked about the zoning north of the proposed facility, and Planner Boling advised that it is multi -family with some commercial in the vicinity. Commissioner Scurlock still felt that with 800 acres, they would have the ability to work out internal access somehow, and Chairman Wheeler agreed that the purpose of the Boulevard is to move traffic not to open up development. Considerable discussion ensued as to the intersection that would be needed for the multi -family development, where the main entrance would be, etc., and Planning Director Keating believed some of the median cuts and access points were negotiated when the property acquisition was going on for the Boulevard, and the only reason they considered allowing access at this point was because the median cut and the curb cut were already programmed. Bill Nelson, interested citizen, felt Grand Harbor should be asked if they have an alternate spot if this is denied. He agreed we want to keep the Boulevard beautiful and flowing. The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously denied the request for a Development Order amendment and PRD Special Exception Approval for a golf maintenance site and facility addition to the Grand Harbor project. 32 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING NEW SPECIFIC USE TYPE: AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS PRODUCTS SALES & SERV. OTHER THAN GASOLINE "QUICK OIL CHANGE FACILITY" 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 Couinty, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Beforb 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 ate/ In the matter of In the Court, was pub- Ilshed In' said newspaper in the issues of '!fJAffiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore . been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19�_ .(Gleck.of-the Cirsuti-Courtrandian.River Cpunty, Florida) (SEAQ ....... a 11 AA. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Board of County' Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which parties In In- terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Buildingg, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FloHda on Tues-. day, June 13, 1989 at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER t COUNTY, 'FLORIDA AMENDING SEC. TION 19,CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL r. DISTRICT; SECTION 20, CG, GENERAL s' COMMERCIAL . DISTRICT; SECTION ' 20.1 CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL OIS- TRIGcT; SECTION 21. IL. LIGHT INDUS. • ucllcrwL INUU-61HIAL DISTRICT; AND SECTION 25.1: REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORD1- NANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, ' FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTAB- LISHMENT OF A SPECIFIC USE CLAS- SIFICATION LISTING TO BE KNOWN AS AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS PRODUCTS's: " SALES OTHER THANGASOLINE;_ PROVIDING FOR SPECIFIC CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A USE TYPE; AND PROVID. ING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVER- ABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A coPlaof the proposed Ordinance Is available at the nning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building Anyone who may wish to appeal an decision which may be made at this meeting will need to. ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . • BY -s -GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN May 22,1989 ,i Chief Planner Boling made the following presentation: JUN 13 1989 33 BOOK 77 E,�sE 33 JUN 13 1989; mor 77 F,gIJE 34 TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: zgekdl Robert M. KehtiiTg, AigT Community Devel pmen Director i FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Chief, Current Development DATE: June 5, 1989 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING NEW SPECIFIC USE TYPE: AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS PRODUCTS SALES AND SERVICE OTHER THAN GASOLINE It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 13, 1989. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County's existing zoning code does not have a land use �" listing that specifically addresses "quick oil change" type establishments. Presently, the code addresses automotive -related uses under two separate classification headings: "Repair Ser- vices, Heavy" and "Vehicular Sales, Service and Storage". The existing listing most similar to quick oil change type uses is "Gasoline service stations, fuel sales" which appears under the "Vehicular Sales, Service and Storage" classification heading. To date, no one has. disagreed with staff's determination that a gasoline service station is the code -listed use most similar to a quick oil change. facility. However, a developer has disagreed with the appropriateness of the .gasoline service station specific land use regulation criteria found in section 25.1 of the code as applied to a quick oil change facility. Therefore, on. behalf of Karl Hedin, Attorney Michael O'Haire has applied for a zoning text amendment to establish a specific use classification listing to cover quick oil change facilities and to establish criteria appropriate in regulating such activities. At its regular meeting of May 11, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commission- ers adopt the ordinance proposed by staff with one exception: the Commission recommends that the staff proposed requirement for a 100' separation distance between quick change project sites and residential districts be deleted. ANALYSIS: Existing Code The two classification headings and specific listings applicable to automotive -related activities are as follows: . USE ALLOWABLE DISTRICTS LISTING CN CL CG CH IL IG *Repair Services, Heavy 1.) Tire repair p p p 34 M USE LISTING *Vehicular Sales, Service A and Storage 1.) Auto fuel sales 2.) Auto parts stores 3.) Car wash 4.) Commercial parking facilities 5.) Gas, service stations fuel sales 6.) New and used vehicle P sales 7.) Used vehicle sales ALLOWABLE DISTRICTS CN CL CG CH IL IG A A P P P P P P P P P P P A P P P S P P S A P = Permitted A = Administrative Permit S = Special Exception In the CL, Limited Commercial district gasoline service stations are allowed as an administrative permit use and must meet the following criteria: "1. The use shall provide for efficient internal circulation of vehicles on site. 2. All service stations located within an IG District shall be subject to the restrictions and requirements of the applica- ble fire department, in order to ensure adequate separation from heavy industrial uses which may pose a safety hazard. [Not applicable in the CL district.] 3. All tanks and facilities for the storage of gasoline petrole- um oils and other flammable liquids shall be located under- ground and shall be subject to all setback requirements of the applicable district. 4. No outdoor storage shall be permitted.. 5. No site shall abut or be located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential district." Proposed Changes: It is the applicant's opinion that the administrative permit criteria cited above do not appropriately apply to a quick oil change facility, since some of the criteria are in place to deal with the safety and fire hazards of gasoline fuel storage. In particular, the applicant is opposed to criterion #5, which requires a 100' separation distance between project sites and any residential district. Application of such a criterion would preclude development of a quick oil change facility on a site the applicant wishes to develop which is currently zoned CL and abuts a single family residential district.. In general, the applicant feels that his quick oil change use generates less traffic, noise, and solid waste than other uses allowed in the CL district that are not required to be separated from residential districts. The applicant cites convenience stores with accessory gasoline sales as an example. The applicant proposes the establishment of a new classification listing, "Automotive Petroleum Products Sales Other Than Gaso- line", to be allowed within the CL district as an administrative permit use with the following criteria: "1. Service of automobiles with petroleum products other, than gasoline shall be within a completely enclosed buildingland outside sales of petroleum products is prohibited. 35 Boor 17 F,�1.) ;3-, _I J UN 1 199`x, BOOK F� F,,�,UE 36 2. No automotive. repair or maintenance activities, other than draining and replacement of petroleum products or minor part replacement (such as wipers, headlights), shall be permitted." Staff agrees that a specific use classification listing should be established that covers quick oil change type facilities. Fur- thermore, it is staff's opinion that since such uses so closely resemble the maintenance service (and thus, use) characteristics of the old traditional service station, it is logical to allow this use in the same districts that gasoline service stations are allowed. Times have changed. Many of the traditional service functions of service stations are being performed by quick change places; these include oil and oil filter changes, transmission and brake fluid changes, radiator fluid changes, as well as minor maintenance parts replacement (lights, wiper blades). The noise and hazardous waste generated by these activities warrant separation from residential areas, just as the code now requires separation of service stations from residential districts. Although the applicant references the characteristics of his particular operation, it should be noted that quick change op- erations vary. Quick change establishments operate in open garages with repair equipment and can have noise generation characters similar to a gasoline service station. ALTERNATIVES: Staff proposes alternatives to the requested amendment, which would: 1. establish a new use listing entitled "Automotive fluid products sales and service other than gasoline"; 2. allow the use in the following districts: CL by administra- tive permit; CG,. CH, and IL as a permitted use; and IG by administrative permit. 3. establish -administrative permit criteria that would: a. allow service• of automobiles only within enclosed buildings; b. prohibit auto repair or painting; maintenance services would be restricted to the draining and replacement of fluids and minor parts replacement (filters, lights, wipers); C. prohibit outdoor storage; - d. require proper handling, storage and disposal of gen- erated hazardous wastes e. require the storing of flammable liquids in underground tanks; and *f. require a 100' separation distance from residential districts, as presently required with gasoline service stations). *[Note: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that proposed criterion "f" be deleted from the ordinance] These changes would cover all automotive fluid and minor parts replacement uses and would treat them as gasoline service stations have been treated in the past. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached proposed ordinance relating to automotive fluid products sales and service other than gasoline, with the 100' separation distance requirement. 36 Planner Boling summarized that the issue is the 100' separa- tion from residential districts as required with gasoline stations. This change would specifically break out "Quick -Change" facilities, and staff feels the 100' separation should be retained. Commissioner Eggert commented that a lot of time had been spent in establishing the various separation distances required by code, and she agreed with staff 100% that there should be the 100' separation. Commissioner Bird believed the Planning & Zoning Commission's reason for their recommendation is that they felt it was demonstrated that there are many other uses in the CL zone that are potentially far more disruptive to the neighborhood; for instance, you can have a convenience store without that separation and it generates a great deal more traffic and disturbance. He believed that Mr. Hedin's "quick -lube" will generate very little traffic, and it probably will be the only such establishment that ever will come to us that is within 100' of a residential district. Commissioner Eggert felt the opposite. If the P&Z feels there are things that are worse than these facilities, then we should be looking to make the separation greater rather than less, and if convenience stores are that much more of a problem, they should be required to have more buffering. Planner Boling pointed out that wherever a commercial district abuts residential, they do require some setbacks and buffer yards. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he has looked at this par- ticular type use, and he believed that actually the traffic involved with it is minimal. Chairman Wheeler would question Commissioner Eggert's point that because we may be too lax with some of the uses that we should increase the separation distance. He felt perhaps we should go back and address tightening up the uses instead. He 37 BOOK 77 3 7 JUN 13 1989 BOOK 77 38 noted that he is sensitive to encroachment of any type on single family neighborhoods. Commissioner Bird commented that he personally is very sensi- tive to encroaching on people's rights to use their property. In further discussion, Planner Boling clarified that staff wants to break out the "quick -change" facilities but also still require the 100' separation distance. P&Z's recommendation is to delete the 100' separation and just have what is required in the general zoning district, which, if it abuts a single family district, is 25' and a wall. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing Mr. Hedin. He pointed out that this comes to the Board with the unanimous vote of the P&Z Commission for removal of the 100' separation. He emphasized that no 100' separation is required for automotive fuel sales where you are dealing with an extremely volatile substance, and also this site could be used for a convenience store without the 100' separation, and that is a much more intense use. Mr. O'Haire noted that this is a single purpose facility; all they do is drain the oil, put in the new oil, and screw the plug back in. The oil doesn't even gurgle because this is done with hoses. They would be happy to meet the requirement for the 25' separation and build a wall. Commissioner Eggert debated whether this is always a non - noise situation because sometimes the workers yell to each other and throw the cans around. Attorney O'Haire felt that is simply a matter of controlling one's employees. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 3 to 2 vote, 38 Commissioners Bowman and Eggert voting in opposition, approved the Pi;Z recommendation and adopted Ordinance 89-16 establishing a specific use classification for Automotive Fluids Products Sales other than Gasoline without the 100' separation requirement. ORDINANCE NO. 89-16 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 19,CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT;SECTION 20,CG, GENERAL COMMER- CIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 20.1,CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 21, IL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; SECTION 22(A),IG, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 25.1: REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE 'OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIFIC USE CLASSIFICATION LISTING TO BE KNOWN AS AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS PRODUCTS SALES AND SERVICE OTHER THAN GASOLINE; PROVIDING FOR SPECIFIC CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A USE AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners. of.Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 Section 19(c)(4) be hereby amended as follows: "(4.) Vehicular sales, service and storage (sec. 25.1(v)): Automotive fuel sales. Gasoline service station. Automotive fluids products sales and service other than gasoline." SECTION 2 Section 20(b)(5)j. be hereby amended as follows: "j. Vehicular sales, service and storage; New and used vehicle sales, Gasoline service station, Automotive parts store, Commercial parking facilities Car wash, Automotive fluids products sales and service other than gasoline.! SECTION 3 Section 20.1(b)(5)g. be hereby amended as follows: Vehicular sales, service and storage; Automotive parts store, Car wash, ,�- Commercial parking facilities, Gasoline service station, New and used vehicle sales. Automotive fluids products sales and service other than gasoline." JUN 13 1989 39 BOOK 7 FaU� �� F- Jui I S 1999, SECTION 4 BooK tl tl P,1, 0 Section 21(b)(4)f. be hereby amended as follows: "f. Vehicular sales, -.service and storage; Gasoline service stations, Commercial parking, Car wash, Auto parts sales, Automotive fluids products sales and service other than gasoline." b. Districts requiring special exception: Gasoline service stations may be allowed in the IG District upon approval of a special exception as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the requirements defined below. c. Additional information requirements: 1. A site plan meeting all requirements of Section 23 which shows the zoning designation of all properties within one hundred (100) feet of the site. 2. The location of all gasoline pumps, tanks and pump islands. d. Criteria for gasoline service stations: 1. The use shall provide for efficient internal circulation of vehicles on site. 2. All service stations located within an IG District shall be subject to the restrictions and requirements of the applicable fire department, in order to ensure adequate separation from heavy industrial, uses which may pose a safety hazard. 3. All tanks and facilities for 'the storage of gasoline, petroleum oils and other flammable liquids shall be located underground and shall be subject to all setback requirements of the applicable district. 4. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 5. No site shall abut or be located within one hundred (100) feet of a residential district. 3) Automotive fluids products sales and service other than uasoline (Administrative Permit) M a. Districts requiring administrative permit approval: Automotive fluids products sales and service other than gasoline may be allowed in the CL and IG 40 i Districts upon approval of an administrative _peri pursuant to the provisions of Section 25.2 and upon meeting the re uirements defined below b. Additional informational requirements: 1. A site plan meeting all requirements of Section 23 which shows the zoning designation of all ro ernes within one hundred (100) feet of the site. 2. A hazardous waste survey form specifying all hazardous wastes handled, used, and generated on site. C. Criteria for automotive fluids roducts sales. and service other than qasoline in the CL District: 1. Service of automobiles shall be within an enclosed building; outside sale of products is prohibited. 2. Maintenance and services performed shall be limited to the draining and replacement of fluids and minor Barts replacement (filters, lights, _ wipers). Repair services -and paint and body work are ex- pressly pryii_".L6t-_U- 3. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 4. Allgenerated hazardous waste shall .be stored, handled, and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the environmental health and county utilities departments. 5. All tanks and facilities for the storage of petro- leum oils and other flammable liquids shall be located underground and shall be subject to all setback requirements of the applicable district. Criteria for automotive products sales and service other than gasoline in the IG District: 1. The development shall be subject to the re- str`ctions and requirements of the applicable fire department, in order to ensure adequate separation from heavy industrial uses which may pose a safety hazard. ' 2 All tanks and facilities for the storage of petro- leum oils and other flammable liquids shall be located underground and shall be subject to all setback requirements of the applicable district. (4)XIY Used Vehicle sales (Administrative Permit and Special Exception) . a. Districts requiring administrative permit: Used vehicle sales shall be allowed within a CH District upon approval of an administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements defined below. b. Districts requiring special exception: Used vehicles sales may be allowed within a CG District upon receiving approval as a special exception as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the requirements defined below. 41 .77 F'A,E 41 JUN 18 1989 SECTION 5 Roos 77 P �E 42 C. Addition information requirements: A site plan meeting all of the requirements of Section 23 which shows the approximate location and maximum number of automobiles to be accommodated on the site. d. Criteria for used vehicle sales: 1. No such establishment shall be permitted on a lot of record having less than ten thousand A10,000) square feet in a CG District or fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in a CH District. 2. All vehicular sales and off-street parking areas shall have paved surfaces which meet the standards of Section 24(f)(1) or (2). Section 22(A).(b)(5) be hereby amended as follows: "(5) Commercial uses: a. Commercial entertainment, recreation and amusement; Auto race track, Drive-in theatres and unenclosed commercial amusement facilities. b. Commercial services. c. Repair services, heavy. d. Veterinary clinic and animal hospital. e. Furniture and fixture manufacturing and repair. f. Vehicular Sales, Service and storage: Automotive fluids products sales and service other than gasoline." SECTION 6 Section 25.1(v) be hereby amended as follows: "(v) Vehicular sales, service and storage. , (1) Automotive fuel sales (Administrative Permit). a. Districts requiring administrative permit: Automo- tive fuel sales may be permitted within a CN or CL District upon receiving approval for an administra- tive permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 25.2 and -upon meeting the requirements defined below. b. Additional information requirementss 1. A site plan meeting all requirements of Section 23 which shows the zoning designation of all properties within one hundred (100) feet of the site. - 2. The location of all gasoline pumps, tanks and pump islands. c. Criteria for automotive fuel sales: 1. All automotive fuel sales shall be accessory to limited retail.sales establishment. 42 M 4 M 2. The retail establishment shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from all fuel pumping areas. 3. No automotive repair or maintenance activities shall be permitted. 4. The location of all gasoline storage tanks and facilities shall be subject to all applicable standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2) Gasoline service stations: (Administrative Permit and Special Exception) . a. Districts requiring administrative permit approval: Gasoline service stations may be allowed in the CL District. upon approval of an administrative permit Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25.2 and upon meeting the re uirements defined below. 3. No vehicular sales are or structure shall be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any property line. 4. The site shall provide for separation of vehicular sales areas and off-street parking areas. 5. All designated sales areas shall provide for a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle. Drives and maneuvering areas shall be designed to permit convenient on-site maneuvering of the vehicles. (5)X$y Mobile home trailer sales (Administrative Permit). a. Districts requiring administrative permits: Mobile home trailer sales may be permitted with the CH District upon receiving approval for an administra- tive permit as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements defined below: b. Additional information requirements: 1. A site plan showing the location, dimensions, and area of the mobile home trailer sales office and the mobile home trailer display area(s). 2. The maximum number of trailer -units to be displayed on site at any one (1) time shall be noted on the site plan.' C. Criteria for mobile home trailer sales: 1. All mobile home trailers displayed shall meet the applicable building setback requirements. 2. All mobile homes displayed shall be provided with undercarriage skirting. 3. All designated display areas shall provide for a minimum of one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet per trailer. 4. In addition to the parking required for the sales office, a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be provided for each three thou- sand two hundred (3,200) square feet of trailer display area." JUN 12 1989 Boor .77 PACE 44 SECTION 7 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS 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 extend of such conflict. all Special Acts 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. grrTTnN A 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 9 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis- lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution- al, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 10 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall be come 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 13th day;of June , 1989. This ordinance was advertised in the'Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 22nd day of May , 1989, for a public hearing to be held on the 13th day of June . 1989, at which .time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commis- sioner Bird ,, and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND AN RIVER COUNTY By c u�--- Gary C. eeler, Chairman Coding: Words in WAOXffXhA type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. 44 CONSIDER PURCHASE OF MC KEE JUNGLE GARDENS Administrator Chandler reviewed his memo, as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 8, 1989 FILE: SUBJECT: MC KEE JUNGLE GARDENS FRO 'James E. Chandler REFERENCES: 'County Administrator At the meeting of April 25, 1989 the McKee Jungle Gardens Preservation Society, Inc. requested that the Commission consider purchasing the property commonly known as McKee Jungle Gardens. Staff was instructed to analyze the acquisition funding alternatives, as well as the alternatives for operating and maintaining the park if acquired. The property owner, Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. has indicated a willingness to sell, but only within certain time. constraints. A total of +/- 99 acres is involved, of which 19 acres is that formerly known as McKee Jungle Gardens (Attachment #1) . The balance of the acreage lies in the wetland areas east of the Vista Royale and Vista Gardens developments. In a meeting with Mr. Ronald Ewing, Vista Properties President, he indicated that the selling price is $2.5 million and is not negotiable. Further, the offer Is for all the parcels and they will not be considered individually. The offer Is for cash only, with no terms. Due to 'the property value two appraisals are required by law and they are scheduled to be received no later than Friday, June 9th. If the asking price exceeds the average of the two appraisals. a 4/5 Commission vote is required to enter into a purchase contract, even if• -that purchase is subject to referendum. Timing Is also a critical factor with the Vista Properties offer. If a final determination is not made in early June, Mr. Ewing indicated the offer will be withdrawn. His Board gave until June 30th to have a purchase contract. If an outright purchase is made then closing would be expected to be shortly thereafter. If the question goes to referendum, he indicated they would expect it to be scheduled as quickly as possible and the contract would stipulate the purchase is subject to referendum. Closing would be before December. In terms of funding the acquisition, there are several alternatives. However, as indicated by the OMB Director's memo, ( Attachment #2) realistically there appears to be two: optional sales or general obligation bond issue (referendum). , Although there is no prohibition to adding the McKee acquisition to the sales tax list, it was not one of the projects contained in .the first five years of the program presented to the public. As was pointed out at the •time the cash flow was presented and $1.5 million from cash forward allocated to the program, it is anticipated that, as was the intent, the original projects can be accomplished without short term financing. However, the cash flow will need to be monitored very closely and perhaps priority adjustments considered during the summer of 1990. Assuming there would be no change now in the priority of those projects initially presented and considering the cash flow, if McKee is added short term financing would be required. 4 5 1 �4 BOOK d I F,a;[ 45 BOOK 77 r,,,UF 46 If a referendum is considered, the earliest one could be scheduled is 90 days .from the date of approval by the Commission. Taking into account the time required to adopt an ordinance and a purchase contract this month, the earliest date would be October. The estimated cost is $27,000. As proposed, the. question would provide for a one year millage levy to fund the acquisition: Considering Mr. Ewing's requirement of total payment by December and the time frame for placing the millage rate on the tax roll, if approved, a short term note would be required. The total estimated expense for acquisition, including interest and issuance cost, would be approximately $2.9 million. The equivalent millage rate, based on the current roll, would be .7929. If the acquisition is approved, . a determination would need to be made concerning operation of the facility. Obvious factors would be scope, cost, funding, and by whom. Initially, the Preservation Society proposed that $500,000 be included in the referendum question for operating and maintenance purposes. As proposed, the funds would be used to establish a trust fund. The interest from the fund (approximately $50,000 annually) coupled with revenues generated by the Society would be utilized by the Society to operate the facility. However, as indicated by the County Attorney (Attachment W. this alternative is not feasible under Florida law. Estimates have been prepared for operation and maintenance by either the County ( Attachment #4) or the Society ( Attachment #5) . Both are preliminary and require further discussion and refinement. However, I believe they are realistic enough to serve as a guide to determine direction. The estimates for operation by the County, assumes that initially the 19 acre McKee site would be a passive park and there would be no utilization of the wetland areas. Approximately, $99,000 would be necessary for site preparation and "start up cost". In either, the first or second year, construction of parking facilities would be required at an estimated expense of $100,000. Additionally, at some point provision for restrooms ($30,000) should be considered. Operating and maintenance expense by Public Works is projected at about $70,000. As indicated, the preceding are preliminary estimates' only at this time. As reflected, beginning on page 36 of the Society proposal, start up and capital expense are estimated at $45,700 in the first year and $47,200 the second. Utilization of volunteers and donation of materials at varying stages are anticipated which reduced the expense. Operating costs are projected at $48,905 the first year and $73,980 the second. No provision for parking has been included at- this point.. Although. the estimates are preliminary they appear to reasonable, if the volunteers and donated materials are provided as anticipated. First year revenues are projected at $559,650. The majority, $462,500, is from individual membership enrollment. Another $65,000 is from group memberships. These memberships are proposed to be renewed annually and therefore a continuing revenue _ source. As 1 related to the Society, the estimates appear to me to be overly optimistic and even if achieved in the .first year difficult to sustain in subsequent years. However, having been in the community only five months it is difficult for me to adequately weigh that potential. If they can achieve and sustain 20% of their goal, together with a continuing volunteer effort, the plan appears feasible. Additionally, if a greater amount is generated, reserve could be established for future years. Taking into consideration the preceding factors from critical time element, with attendant restrictions, to funding alternatives, it is my recommendation that we proceed with consideration of acquisition through the referendum - process. With respect to operation and maintenance, I believe some further refinement is necessary prior to making a final decision. 46 Commissioner Scurlock had several questions. He noted that it has been indicated that the earliest opportunity for a referendum would be in October, which isn't until our next budget year, and that the referendum would cost $27,000. If the referendum were successful, borrowing probably would have to take place, and this would necessitate adding on the interest cost for more than 12 months, and he would like some figures on the difference between holding a referendum and going ahead with the purchase. Administrator Chandler figured that on an acquisition costing 2.5 million, there would be issuance costs of about $98,000 and interest expense of about $280,000, or a difference of almost $400,000. Commissioner Scurlock noted that apparently when you talk about going to referendum, you are talking about something less. than 1/2 a million in additional costs that will go to something other than improvements or the purchase of the land. As he understands it, based on past voting experience, we have about 46,000 voters and generally special elections have low voter turnout; so, with a 10% turnout, you would have about 4,600 people voting on this issue. He, therefore, felt by going to referendum we are taking about $400,000 that will be spent on nothing by the election and on interest, and for that we get the expression of about 4.,600 people. Another question he had is why have we not had -any discussion in terms of a combination of funding, i.e., a split between a Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) and a general fund expenditure. Administrator Chandler explained that since we do not have any uncommitted cash reserves available, we were looking at having to go with a note and interest, but Commissioner Scurlock noted that would be unless the Board voted the millage in. The Administrator commented that if the Commission for next year's budget wished to levy a tax equivalent to the 2.5 million 47 47 QUN 110 N8 BoaI F 1 JUN -13 1989BOOK 77 48 Fay ;, �� for this purchase, that could be done, but there would have to be some financing since we don't get all those funds in at once. Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss an MSBU with a per/parcel assessment, which he felt would represent substantial savings as in this way you would tax the most benefited residents and avoid borrowing and wasting money on interest. Administrator Chandler advised that a special district was considered, but the time elements come into play on all of this. We would have to set up ordinances, etc., to get the district established and on the Tax Roll, and you still would be looking at some short-term financing. He noted that there was some discussion with the group on this, but they indicated there had been no real interest in pursuing that alternative. Commissioner Scurlock believed that decision actually is not up to them and stressed that he personally did not feel we need to go to a referendum to have about 4,600 people tell us what to do with a 2.5 million dollar expenditure. He pointed out that we didn't have a referendum on whether or not to buy the South County Park. Administrator Chandler emphasized that in looking at the alternatives, we will be looking at short-term financing in any event, but Commissioner Scurlock noted that we would not have to if the Comission decided to go ahead. -and use some of our reserves. Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that there would be financial savings even though there might be a tax anticipation note. He felt the very worst that can happen with land acquisi- tion is that in 10-15 years you could decide to sell it for more. He did not believe you can lose even though he is not proposing to sell it. Attorney Vitunac commented that you could set your closing date for past January and then the tax money would be in, but Com- missioner Eggert did not believe that is an option and Administrator Chandler confirmed that Mr. Ewing has said he will not change his position. 48 Commissioner Bird noted that we spread the Beach Bonds out over 5 years, and he asked if we couldn't spread this the same way. Attorney Vitunac agreed that could be done, but it would have to be financed. Commissioner Scurlock felt if the Board indicates they are going along with the proposal for purchase, there may be some option to make several payments. He asked how many parcels of land are in that immediate area and was informed that there are 2,152 units. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if you assessed $25 per parcel for a year that would generate $50,000 for that year. Commissioner Bird felt that leaves a big sum for the rest of the taxpayers. Chairman Wheeler opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Grover Fletcher came before the Board representing the McKee Jungle Gardens Preservation Society and reported that as of yesterday the IRS does recognize them as a legitimate tax exempt organization. He further advised that they have received basic expressions of support from the Cities of Vero Beach, Sebastian and Fellsmere, as well as from numerous civic organizations. Attorney Vitunac noted that it was indicated some months ago that the Society might be able to raise the whole purchase price through their volunteers, and he wished to know how much they have raised and will contribute. Mr. Fletcher confirmed that was their goal originally, but they had not dreamed that Mr. Ewing would require the money all at once; they had felt it could be financed. When they heard his position, they backed off on their fund raising. He assured the Board that they will contribute whatever they can raise. The Board had questions as to the number of members in the Society and the amount of money that has been raised. JUN 13 199977 P 49 BOOK �°�,I;t 49 I JUN 13 1989 BOOK 7 d F,,q.CE 5O Mrs. Latta stated that about $40-50,000 has been raised, but Mr. Fletcher noted that they have gone through some of that. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they have about $18,000 left, and Mr. Fletcher felt they probably did. Herndon Williams, 3554 Ocean Drive, commented that what he has heard so far leads him to believe we are going to move ahead with the purchase, and if that is the position, he certainly hoped this body will consider the priorities of the expenditures we have to make in this county. He has read about the lack of affordable housing in this community; expenditures are anticipated for a new Courthouse complex, a new library, another phase of the jail, etc. Mr. Williams felt if we can afford things, it is great to buy them, but he questioned whether this particular project merits the priority it seems to be getting. Most people that he talks to are very concerned about the increase in taxes in the recent years, and he would hope that serious consideration would be given to how funds are going to be raised and what it is going to do to the other proprosed infrastructure. Mr. Williams commented that Commissioner Scurlock mentioned the small number of voters who would turn out, but actually even when only 20% turned out for the Commissioners' election, that is who elected them. He felt if the Board is going this way, it should be by public subscription, and he was also concerned about the validity of the figures presented by the Administrator. He believed the Jungle Gardens closed because it was not economically viable, and he did not know what has been changed. Mr. Williams did not deny it is a desirable piece of property, but he did question the priority in which it is being placed. Sam Alia, resident of Vista Royale, noted that it seems to be the consensus that this will only benefit a few, but he would like to point out that there have been recommendations to purchase this property since 1973. We want parks and open grounds, and he felt it is about time to go that way. 50 Claude Perosa, president of Vista Gardens Property Owners Association, 16 Vista Gardens Trail, felt we all have been in the position of selling something and are aware that the price is not always determined by the seller but by what the buyer actually offers. He further stressed that the voters must realize the alternative is not between just buying the property or leaving it the way it is since we all know that it will not stay that way; it will be developed commercially, and if that happens, we will spend millions of dollars on getting rid of the resulting traffic bottleneck. Mr. Perosa did not feel that most would object to a taxing district as he believed turning this property into a park would increase property values. Brad Rossway, attorney for the McKee Jungle Gardens Society, expressed his belief that the amount of money raised by their 1500 members has been kept intentionally low. The idea was to gain tax exempt status and then raise funds to purchase the property out- right, but Mr. Ewing's time restraints changed that. Now that they have received their tax exempt status as a public foundation, he believed the group can mobilize and raise sums of money. He also felt it is a bit premature to get into the matter of whether the county will run this or the group. He pointed out the county can always lease the property to the organization and give them a chance to run it and have a reverter clause in the event they can't. Attorney Rossway felt the group should be given anoppor- tunity to work it out. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eggert commented that she has had a lot of expression from people in the North County especially, not objecting to buying the land so much, but voicing their concern about the possibility of turning the Gardens into a tourist attraction. Steve Hawkins, representing the McKee Jungle Gardens Society, stated that the very last intention the Society has is to create a 51 1 � 1989 BOOK 77 P,iu 5 JUS .1 3 t3ooK 77 11a,r,E 5 tourist trap type scenario such as existed before. They want to preserve the beauty and the natural elements that are there, and they want to develop a resource the entire county can share in. Commissioner Bowman stated that she would never envision it as a tourist attraction but as an educational facility and a hobby facility. She did not feel the Gardens type attraction would work any more in any event. Commissioner Bowman believed that nothing has been said about the most important part of this acquisition to her mind, which is to get the wetlands, and she felt that is much more important as natural infrastructure than manmade infra- structure. Commissioner Bird asked about the status of the on-going lawsuit to get the commercial zoning restored. If we proceed with this and vote to purchase it or take it to referendum, what affect would that have on the lawsuit. He did not want to buy the property and then end up on the losing end of a lawsuit. Attorney Vitunac advised, as part of the contract, he would recommend that all litigation be voided simultaneously with the closing. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the anticipated expense of the lawsuit, and Assistant County Attorney Collins advised that the basic nature of the lawsuit is for inverse condemnation where they are saying there is no reasonable use for the front 10 acres as offices. If, in fact, the county purchases the property, there has to be a value to the property and the case would be moot and the lawsuit would be dismissed. Commissioner Bird had some problem with the value that has been placed on the wetlands in relation to the overall purchase price as he believed they are already protected, and that we don't have to buy them. He could justify it if the public has some access to those wetlands and we could have some nature walks and possibly get some benefit that way. In regard to the question of a referendum versus none, while in his experience there has never been a more dedicated sincere group of citizens working to bring 52 _ M M � � r about this acquisition, the fact is that they still represent a very small percentage of the overall population of the county. Unfortunately with voter apathy, there may be a small turnout, but even so, he felt the people should have that opportunity; if they don't choose to exercise it, that then is their choice. Commissioner Bird expressed concern about future fund raising and the generating of continuing monies because he was afraid that once the county owns the property, fund raising efforts may tend to diminish. Also, we really don't know the total cost of restoring the Gardens back to where we can be proud of them, and he feared the restoration costs and annual maintenance costs may be much greater than anticipated. Commissioner Bird felt there should be a referendum and that it should be the group's job, along with the county, to educate the public. He believed the county's history has been to support worthwhile project. Chairman Wheeler stated that basically his position has not changed since we met last, and he agrees with Commissioner Bird that even though voter turnout may well be small, the people should be given that opportunity. He stressed that the Commis- sioners are charged with looking out for the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and if we have a referendum, at least everyone has the opportunity to voice their feelings; that is the way our system works. The Chairman stressed that he personally is in favor of the purchasing of McKee Jungle Gardens and will vote for it in the voting booth and will give money towards it, but as a Commissioner sitting here voting to spend 2.5 million dollars for a non-essential service, he could not support buying the Gardens without a referendum. He does not believe in government by referendum; the Commission is charged to do a job, but to do what is essential and not necessarily decide to tax the public to acquire something just because it is nice. Commissioner Eggert noted that she stated last time that she felt there should be a referendum, and she still maintains there should be one. As to the option of adding to the Sales Tax, we JUN 13 198953 BOOK. I F,�u 5 JUN 13 BOOK 77 FADE 54 already have a lot of pressure on that money - the Public Health Building is ready to go forward, the new phase of the Jail, etc., and she feels there should be a referendum with the millages designated. Commissioner Scurlock advised that he will support what apparently is the feeling of the majority of the Board. He thinks a referendum will pass, but his position is that it will cost us a good deal more in the long run. He agreed there is no question that there will be an on-going expense involved with this acquisition, but an integral part of our way of life in our community is our atmosphere, and it is Memorial Island, and the river and the wetlands, and all those kind of things, and they are essential to the kind of community he wants to live in. Commis- sioner Scurlock felt very strongly about having a MSBU as part of the funding as he did believe there is a more specific benefit to the property that is adjacent. He reiterated that he will support the Motion for a referendum although he has stated his reasons that he felt it was not needed. He hoped all will get out and sell this. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if there is going to be a referendum, it will involve two different things - one is the decision to buy the property and the other is the decision of whether or not to pay for it with a -General Obligation Bond, and he wished to know exactly what the Board meant by going to referendum. Commissioner Eggert clarified that with her statement, she said with a specific millage request, but there has been no Motion on this yet. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that the Finance Committee recommendation regarding the 6 million contingency was that other than the 1.5 million seed money and the $900,000 for the South County Park, all the rest of the money be retained as a reserve. The Board approved this recommendation, and if we get a vote of approval, we could go right to those funds. 54 -I Some discussion ensued about going to a straw ballot, and Chairman Wheeler believed that a straw ballot has to be held in unison with another election. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that you can't call a special election just for a straw ballot. Commissioner Bird asked about wording a referendum so that we ask for voter approval to purchase the property at a certain price with the understanding that a millage would be levied in the next taxing year on a one-time, one-year basis to generate the funds to buy the property. Possibly then we could do some interfund borrowing in the interim until the tax money comes in. Attorney Vitunac noted that the tax money would be not this year but the following year, and the authorization of the voters would be to do whatever interim borrowing is necessary. OMB Director Baird interjected that we have to be careful about how the auditors look at interfund borrowing, and Commis- sioner Scurlock noted that it might have to be done by tax anticipation notes. Discussion continued as to wording the referendum so that public would know the purchase price and know how much they are going to tax themselves, and Administrator Chandler suggested that staff again confirm the price with Mr. Ewing and then bring back the wording. He felt this could be ready by the next meeting if the Board votes to go this way. Mr. Perosa again argued the cost of going to referendum and stressed that he would like to see what Mr. Ewing would do if he were approached right now and offered 2 million cash, and Chairman Wheeler stood by his position that a referendum is necessary since this is a non-essential item. After more suggestions, Commissioner Bird believed staff has to help us on the exact wording of the referendum and can bring that back at a subsequent meeting, but he would try the following Motion: JUN 13 1989 55 �.., �, EOoK F"GE e�e1� F, JUN 1 0 1999 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird that the Board. of County Commissioners schedule a referendum on the issue of purchasing McKee Jungle Gardens property, with all facts contained within that referendum re restoration, maintenance, financing, etc., to be presented at the earliest possible date, and autho- rize staff to notify the property owner of this intent and continue negotiations with him on the bottom line purchase price of the property. Commissioner Eggert felt the referendum statement should have in it the flexibility that we need to move in several directions on the method of funding, and Commissioner Bird agreed, but noted that his thought now would be a one-year, one-time millage with the idea of looking at short term interfund borrowing to keep the overall purchase price of the property at the lowest level we can. COMMISSIONER EGGERT SECONDED the Motion. Attorney Vitunac recommended that the Motion include bringing back a signed contract from Mr. Ewing subject to the referendum passing and then we can consider the contract and the referendum on the same day, and Commissioners Bird and Eggert agreed to include this in their Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion with the additions set out above. It was voted on and carried unanimously. The Board thereupon recessed at 12:07 P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:07 P.M. with the same members present. 56 TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES FOR _CHAPTER _88-294 FROM BCC TO THE HOSPITAL TAXING DISTRICT Administrator Chandler reviewed memo from Welfare Director Joyce Johnston: TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: James Chandler County Administrator FROM Joyce M. Johnston Director of Welfar DATE: June 6, 1989 FILE: TRANSFER OF ADMINI- SUBJECT: STRATIVE DUTIES FOR CHAPTER 88-294; S. 409.2663, FS FROM IRC COMMISSIONERS TO THE IRC HOSPITAL TAX- ING DISTRICTS REFERENCES: The Statute creates the Shared County and State Health Care Program for low-income persons, establishing a policy in which the State and local governments jointly provide health care services to low income persons who do not meet the criteria for Medicaid, for inpatient, in -County hospital care. Participation in this program is mandatory for each County as of October 1, 1989. There are several levels of funding provided in the Statute. The level affecting Indian River County is as follows: (a) If on July 1, 1988, a County is funding inpatient hospital services for those who would be eligible for the program, the County shall fund 350 of the cost and the State shall provide the remaining 650 of the funding required for this program. A County participating at this level shall use that portion of its budget that previously would have funded these inpatient hospital services, and that, under this program, has been offset by State funding, for funding other health programs. To receive the State appropriation, Indian River County had to meet a level of spending for in -County, in-hospital care for low-income residents. Indian River County met this criteria through tax dollars of the Indian River Hospital Taxing District. The estimated dollar amount given by State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for Indian River County is $82,670, which covers services only and does not include administrative costs. The second level of responsibility is each hospital, to be eligible to receive any of these monies, must demonstrate 5% of their total income as charity. Indian River Memorial is the only hospital in the County who met this obligation. The result of these two obligations is Indian River Memorial Hospital will receive all money allocated from the State of Florida. If the Indian River County Welfare Department administers this program instead of the hospital, the low-income residents will need to go through two levels of application: 1. Meet hospital admission requirements. 2. Apply with County Welfare for approval to have the allocated funds pay for services not covered by the hospital. To make the application and approval process as efficient as possible, it is recommended the Indian River County Commissioners legal staff, in cooperation with the legal staff for the Indian River County Hospital Taxing District write a contract for signatures transferring * administrative responsibility to the Indian River Hospital Taxing District. 57 L �JUN 13 69 _I JUN 13 1989 LOOK 77 I,aG 58 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the County legal staff to cooperate with the legal staff of the Hospital Taxing District to write a contract transferring administrative responsibility to the Hospital Taxing District as described above. AGREEMENT W/HOSPITAL DISTRICT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF RESPONSI- BILITIES UNDER SHARED COUNTY & STATE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Agreement with the Indian River County Hospital District relating to transfer of responsibilities under shared County and State Health Care Program. AGREEMENT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SHARED COUNTY AND STATE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this 13th day of June , 1989, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (hereinafter "COUNTY"), and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a special district of the State of Florida, organized and existing under Chapter 61-2275, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1961 (hereinafter "DISTRICT"), W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has established the Shared County and State Health Care Program relating to reimbursement of hospitals for certain in-patient medical services provided to qual- ifying indigent residents of the county; and 58 WHEREAS, the regulations adopted pursuant to said program authorize COUNTY to transfer any and all of its responsibilities for managing and funding said program to any hospital tax dis- trict within the COUNTY by a written agreement between the COUNTY and the tax district; and WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to transfer all of its responsibi- lities for managing and funding said program to DISTRICT, and DISTRICT desires to accept and discharge said responsibilities in accordance with applicable law and the terms of this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises, mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows: true. 1. The above recitals are incorporated herein, and are 2. COUNTY hereby transfers to DISTRICT all of its respon- sibilities for managing and funding the Shared County and State Health Care Program established by the Florida Legislature pur- suant to Chapter 409.2673, Florida Statutes, and the regulations adopted thereunder. DISTRICT hereby accepts said responsibili- ties, and covenants and agrees to discharge said responsibilities in full compliance with applicable law and the terms of this agreement. 3. This transfer of responsibilities shall continue for so long as the Shared County and State Health Care Program shall continue to exist, provided that (a) the applicable law relating to said program continues to authorize COUNTY to transfer its re - 59 JU11141 1 1989 MCK 77 59 J U I �ooK 66 sponsibilities thereunder to DISTRICT, as set forth herein, and (b) DISTRICT is in compliance with the applicable law and provi- sions of this agreement relating to said program. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have set their hands and seals on the date first above written. Attest: &Yfipy K01 Barton, 'Clerk t- :.. Attest: Eleanor Hrdina, Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Gary g Wheeler, Cha i rnt n (S E A L) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT Hugh K. McCrystal, Chairman (S E A L) DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Administrator Chandler reviewed the following: TO: James Chandler 9 County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPo�F�CFI��►i;�• Community Development Director `.; DATE: June 6, 1989 ���L P0Z�`©\l� SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN _ TM#89-930 As you are aware, the county must submit its new comprehensive plan to the state by September 1, 1889. Prior to submittal, the plan must be reviewed at public hearings before the Local Planning Agency (LPA) (Planning and Zoning Commission) and the Board of County Commissioners. These hearings 'are required by the Growth Management Act which also specifies public advertisement requirements. Staff recommends the following timetable and has begun to make preparations by reserving the chambers and drafting advertisements and schedules. The suggested hearing dates are: 60 P&Z July 25, 26* 7:00 p.m.*- 11:00 p.m. BCC August 23, 24, 25* 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. A JUN 13 �� * to be continued -if necessary n - Please chack with the BCC to see if the proposed August dates are acceptable. Since the staff must finalize arrangements for the hearings, your prompt reply will be appreciated. Please do not hesitate to call me if any questions arise. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the dates proposed above for public hearings on the new Comprehensive Plan. APPROVAL OF PARAMEDIC TIME/WAGE POLICY The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Emergency Management: TO: James Chandler. County Admiftrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Management Services DATE: June 5, 1989 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PARAMEDIC TIME/WAGE POLICY Itis respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the meeting scheduled for June 13, 1989. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Since February 1, 1989, the staff of the Department of Emergen- cy Management Services and Personnel have been researching and preparing recommended policy for the Paramedics as related to time and wage issues. The development of the policy was predicated on the fact that the Paramedics work shifts of twenty-four (24) hours on duty and forty-eight (48) hours off duty. This schedule, and the type of duties performed quali- fied the Paramedics for the exemption permitted in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The research completed by staff included a review of Adminis- trative Letter Rulings from the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. Specifically, reference is made to the Adminis- trative Letter Ruling dated October 11, 1985, which relates to the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority and its application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to employees of state and local governments employed as emergency medical service providers. 61 BOOK 77 foti,�E 61 J U14 ( 2 'M89 BOOK 7�E 62 The FLSA requires that all covered and non-exempt employees be Paid not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a work week. Section 7(k) of FLSA provides a partial overtime pay exemption for emergency medical personnel not employed by a fire protection or law enforcement agency. As stated in Section 553.8 of Part 553, emergency medical personnel may be treated as employees engaged in fire protection or law enforcement activities if their services are substantially related to those activities. The Emergency Management Services staff also researched EMS activity for the months of February and March for determination of the response profile. The results were as follows: RESPONSE PROFILE February Total Runs Fire Law Enforcement Other 823 568 221 34 70% 25% 4% March Total Runs Fire Law Enforcement Other 1,005 703 245 56 70% 24% 6% The exempt category is met since the paramedics spend an average of 70% of their time responding to fire related emerg- encies and an average of 25% of their time in response to law enforcement related emergencies. Only an average of 5% of the paramedics time is spent in response to the other category such as administrative, etc. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS When the Paramedic transition from the Hospital to the County occurred, time was of the essence and for continuity purposes the current personnel system utilized for County employees was utilized. This approach allowed for sufficient time and research to occur so the proper recommendations could be made to the Board of County Commissioners. The current system utilized for the Paramedics established a work week of 37.5 hours. The County Rules and Regulations define the vacation accrual rate as ten working days for the first five years of employment. It also identifies that the accrual rate for medical leave amounts to one day per month. Breaking this down "to a monthly tally, county employees are receiving 6.25 hours and 7.5 hours respectively. With this in mind, the 24/48 schedule the ALS employees work involves a three week cycle that averages to 56 hours per week. While their payroll sheet indicates a large number of overtime hours, these overtime hours are mandatory and continue year round. If these same accrual rates that most county employees enjoy are applied to the ALS personnel, they will only receive a vacation benefit equivalent to slightly more than one week and a sick bank that would reflect more than 3 months of accrual to compensate for one shift of medical leave. 62 Another issue involves merit raises. County employees are eligible for merit raises equaling 0% to 5% that is applied to the base pay of the person. It does not appear appropriate to apply this merit increase program to employees who have a built-in 40 percent overtime arrangement in their regular salary. This reduces the potential annual salary increase when comparing similar percent raises with comparable annual sala- ries. In addition, the Personnel Action Forms indicate that many of the Paramedics have an annual salary in the range of $12,000 to $14,000 because overtime is not included. A more realistic annual salary with the built-in overtime is in the range of $22,000 to $24,000. Because of the indicated base salary found in the PAR, in less than 60 days of operation, more than one of the Paramedics have had trouble getting personal loans since they have what appears to be an inadequate income for their desired loans. An additional problem related to the low salary reflected, is that the County Death Insurance Policy is predicated and relative to the base salary. This would reduce benefits to the family of a Paramedic who may lose his/her life in the line of duty. The final issue deals with holidays recognized by the County. Paramedics change shifts at 8:00 a.m. which means that one employee works 8 hours on a holiday and his/her relief works the remaining 16 hours on the holiday. This matter is discussed below and a recommendation is made to resolve this issue and others referenced above. RECOMMENDATION The following recommendations are jointly made to the Board of County Commissioners to resolve the issues referenced above as relate to the Paramedics/EMI's: 1. scheduled hours of work - currently 37.5 hours per week. Recommendation: Approve implementation of the FLSA exemption of 212 hours in a 28 day cycle before overtime compensation must be paid. New PAR's will be accomplished by Personnel to compute the rate of pay using the 212 hour formula. Brief guidelines will be issued to clarify hours worked, overtime, etc., under the referenced exemption. 2. Sick/Vacation accrual rates - currently 7.5 sick and 6.25 vacation per month. Recommendation: Approve accrual rates to reflect 1 sick day a month which will accrue at the rate of 12 hours/ month and 10 vacation days a year accruing at the rate of 10 hours/month with subsequent review for establishment for a sick incentive plan. The sick leave incentive should be approved and changed to reflect the 30 and 60 day time frame of 360 and 720 hours respectively. 3. Holiday Pay - currently 7.5 hours per holiday plus time and a half for hours worked on the observed holiday. Recommendation: Pay time and a half for holiday pay (12 hours = 1 holiday, time.and a half would be 18 hours) for those employees working the majority of hours on the actual holiday (i.e., those working 16 hours rather than those working 8 hours on the actual holiday). Time worked on the holiday will be compensated at straight time until the employee reaches the 212 hour threshold. 4. Funeral leave - current policy is 3 days per year. N 600K 77 f'A.GE 63 JUN 3 1989 mu 77 rnE 6 Recommendation: Approve the current system:of '3 days per year with the understanding that the "day" for paramedics equals 12 hours. 5. Jury duty - current policy is to reimburse employees at their regular rate for the hours.they attend court. Recommendation: Approve payment of straight time for the hours the EMS staff attend court. 6. Life Insurance - current policy is all employees receive no cost life insurance on their annualized salary (excludes overtime) rounded off to the next highest $1,000. Recommendation: Approve coverage of the EMS staff on their annualized salary based on 212 hours in a 28 day cycle times 13.04, which equals 1 year. 7. Percentage increases (probation, annual, etc.) - current percentage is based on base salary and overtime is not included in the figure. Recommendation: Approve policy that the percentage rate will be based on the 212 hour/28 day cycle times 13.04 to get the base annual salary. Staff respectfully requests that the joint recommendation be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and implemented retroactively in terms of benefits to February 1, 1989, when the ALS system was transitioned from the Indian River Memorial Hospital to the County. This is a fair and equitable request which will provide the EMS staff with similar benefits as other county employees. No additional funding is sought for the Department of Emergency Management Services to implement the proposed personnel recommendations. Commissioner Scurlock commented that we have been dealing for a period of time with differences in our personnel procedures with various entities; we have had one set of rules, etc., for one group and another for someone else._ This has created some problems, and his goal would be to standardize as much as possible over a period of time. Administrator Chandler believed this begins to do that, at least within our emergency services field, since what is being proposed would bring us in line with the Fair Labor Standards Act. It recognizes, in effect, the 56 hour work week and the provisions of FLSA where it says on emergency services you have a credit, so to speak, in those areas. Commissioner Scurlock believed what we are dealing with in this instance is a non-union group, and that was confirmed. 64 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the joint recommendations set out in the above memo. JAIL - PHASE II ELECTRONICS Administrator Chandler reviewed the following: BACKGROUND: In March 1988 Indian River County entered into a contract with W. R. Frizzell Architects to design Phase III of the Indian River County Jail, and to subcontract with Buford Goff and Associates to design the electronics for Phase III. Goff is to also "provide interface points to existing security system installed in phase two", at a total cost of $32,220. This contract does not includer any work on Phase II electronics as they existed then, or now. At this time, all the Contractor's work in Phase II was under warranty. Since completion of the project (Phase II), the electronics have not performed up to standards. In December 1988, this writer informed the County Attorney of the problems and "strongly recommended that you officially put Schopke on notice that we are going to start litigation and notify their bonding company". Mr. Vitunac brought this to the Board and they authorized to take whatever legal action was necessary to resolve the problems and proceed with notification of the bonding company as per the original contract. After a sincere attempt to get the problems resolved with Schopke Construction Company, which failed, the County Attorney's Office notified Frizzell to proceed as per the contract by giving Schopke notice of action against his bonding company. The procedure requires: 1. Notify the Contractor that the owner has exercised his rights under the contract to make corrections to the work and that the Contractor is responsible for all cost incurred by the Owner in making referenced repairs. 2. The Contractor be notified that he nor his Subcontractors will be allowed access to the jail to make any further repairs. (Limited only to the electronic controls). 3. Notify the Bonding Company of the action taken. The bonding company (The Hartford) has responded to this action. 65 Boo C ' z DATE: JUNE 7,-1989 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER r COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR C:f DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE II ELECTRONICS BACKGROUND: In March 1988 Indian River County entered into a contract with W. R. Frizzell Architects to design Phase III of the Indian River County Jail, and to subcontract with Buford Goff and Associates to design the electronics for Phase III. Goff is to also "provide interface points to existing security system installed in phase two", at a total cost of $32,220. This contract does not includer any work on Phase II electronics as they existed then, or now. At this time, all the Contractor's work in Phase II was under warranty. Since completion of the project (Phase II), the electronics have not performed up to standards. In December 1988, this writer informed the County Attorney of the problems and "strongly recommended that you officially put Schopke on notice that we are going to start litigation and notify their bonding company". Mr. Vitunac brought this to the Board and they authorized to take whatever legal action was necessary to resolve the problems and proceed with notification of the bonding company as per the original contract. After a sincere attempt to get the problems resolved with Schopke Construction Company, which failed, the County Attorney's Office notified Frizzell to proceed as per the contract by giving Schopke notice of action against his bonding company. The procedure requires: 1. Notify the Contractor that the owner has exercised his rights under the contract to make corrections to the work and that the Contractor is responsible for all cost incurred by the Owner in making referenced repairs. 2. The Contractor be notified that he nor his Subcontractors will be allowed access to the jail to make any further repairs. (Limited only to the electronic controls). 3. Notify the Bonding Company of the action taken. The bonding company (The Hartford) has responded to this action. 65 Boo C JUN 18 1989 ANALYSIS: LOOK 77 pnc 6 After the above was done, Frizzell contacted Buford Goff and Associates to look at Phase II electronics and give a cost figure to correct the problems. W.R. Frizzell submitted the following cost estimate: Engineering Fees $40,000 - $50,000 Demolition and Construction $300,000 Frizzell Coordination $7,000 - $8,000 RECOMMENDATIONS• It is recommended by staff to proceed •with the action to correct the Phase II detention electronic problems and authorize Buford Goff and Associates to perform the engineering to correct the deficiencies at a cost not to exceed $46,000. Funding will come from Phase III monies. The Administrator noted that this was on the last agenda and there was a question raised about the $32,000 awarded Buford Goff before and whether there was a duplication. He has now determined that amount,was a part of the contract for the design of Jail Phase III. Obviously in designing that, it would need to be compatible with whatever our ultimate solutions were going to be to correct the problems in Phase II. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to accept staff recommendation. Questions arose about litigation, and Commissioner Bird believed there needs to be more discussion on this matter. COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND EGGERT WITHDREW THEIR MOTION. Attorney Vitunac wished to bring the Board up to date. He advised that this matter was on the agenda routinely last week and was postponed until today. Friday afternoon late a letter was delivered from Schopke, the contractor on Phase II, saying that his sub -sub, ECSI, would arrive here this morning to continue warranty work on the Jail Phase Il. Months ago we wrote Schopke saying that ECSI would no longer be allowed on the job because their work had been totally unacceptable; they hadn't repaired anything; the Jail was a hazard; and to protect our own interests 66 M M M from liability, we were going to hire someone else to fix it and look to the bonding company to pay our expenses. He has not heard anything from Schopke contesting that. Yesterday morning the workman from ECSI, who is now sitting in the back of the Chambers, showed up at the Jail ready to continue the warranty work. and he was refused admission to the Jail under our orders. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he since has had a series of phone calls from attorneys all over the country begging that we let ECSI come in and finish the job, agreeing that he has been dilatory and not done a good job but saying that he has finally got it all fixed and has the panels in his hand and is ready to put them in, if we would only let him. And also saying that if we don't let him, they will fight us tooth and nail in court and it will be a long, drawn out battle, which Attorney Vitunac agreed it probably would be. He continued that he told them all they were welcome to come to the Board meeting today and see what they could convince the Board of. He believed that staff's position is unchanged. For months ECSI has not done what they promised and so this latest promise has no credibility with us. However, he did believe they have a right to make their statement to the Board and then it is up to the Board whether to continue with staff's recommendation, which is to hire a third party to fix the problem and then we will pursue our legal remedies in court against the bonding company and Schopke or let ECSI go in and try to fix it again. If it is not fixed, then we are in the same position and can hire a third party, etc. If it is fixed, then our problems are over. Attorney Vitunac further advised we asked our consultant, Frizzell, to be here today with all their facts and figures in case we have questions about any of this. Commissioner Bird.commented that he was in Attorney Vitunac's office when some attorney was on the phone in this regard, and he believed that attorney was trying to convince the County that it would be in everyone's interest to give the company an opportunity N 13 1989 67 Boa 77 F,%L 67 _I JUN 13 1989 800 77 PA.0 6 to go in and try to fix the problem. If we don't let him at least try and we force the litigation part of it, Commissioner Bird believed we are going to be involved with at least two bonding companies, a general contractor, at least two sub -contractors, and who knows who else. Chairman Wheeler asked if Attorney Vitunac is comfortable with our position in going to court and recovering our money from the bonding companies. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that we have followed the contract remedies precisely; he was comfortable that we have done what we had to do and that is what Frizzell is here to acknowledge, but it will be very involved. He could not guaranty we would win in court, but he hoped we would and he thought we would. Commissioner Bird stressed that he wants to be comfortable that we avoid doing anything that would void our warranty or lessen our chances for our day in court. Chairman Wheeler believed that Attorney Vitunac is telling us that whatever we do, it won't lessen our chances. However, he did not know that opening this up for discussion with Mr. Schopke or ECSI or whoever would be to our advantage. Commissioner Bird noted that if he can get it to work and the system starts functioning properly, that is greatly to our advantage. Commissioner Scurlock wondered if anyone has explored the possibility of this group posting a cash bond to be allowed back on the job and then forfeiting if the work is not satisfactory. Director Dean informed the Board that we gave them that opportunity, and they did not respond. Debate continued, and Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Schopke if they will respond to posting a cash bond. Mr. Schopke stated that he would have to see his sub- contractor Norman K. Dean because he is looking to their bonding company to foot all costs if this doesn't work. He pointed out that this man is here now and has one of the panels completed; we 68 are looking at a week to two weeks to see if the system can work or not. This man says it can work, and Mr. Schopke would suggest that he be allowed to try. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know what actually is wrong with the system, and Mr. Schopke felt basically it was the control panels. He asked Mr. Ferry of ECSI, who is an expert on the system itself, to explain. Ralph Ferry, of the Engineering Department of Electronic Control Security, Inc., came before the Board. He advised that he could not say exactly what is wrong with the system without seeing it, but if the feedback he has. received is correct and it is just a matter of changing the panels, it isn't that complicated. This was one of the very early panels they made; they have since recognized some deficiencies in that panel which they have corrected and have installed in other facilities throughout the country. If this is the only problem, it is a matter that can be corrected easily. Mr. Ferry stated that he knows they have been delinquent in getting here, but he does have both panels built, and one is here at the Holiday Inn. Since he did not design the original system, it is a matter of his spending a few hours studying the panel that is there to see if the wiring is the same as the new panel; if it is not, he will make the corrections necessary. The second panel is a little more complex and will require a little more time to make sure it is compatible. Assuming there are no other deficiencies, it would require this trip and one other trip within 10 days. Commissioner Scurlock asked if he is willing to post a cash bond, and Mr. Ferry noted that he is only an employee and could not say. While he realized they have been delinquent, he claimed that a definite date was set 4-5 weeks ago for him to be here and he never received notice that he would not be allowed in the facility. Commissioner Bird commented that these are the people who "'�4 � 69 aO�K C JUN 13 1999 � J JUN 13 1999 BOOK���f'° U. I7 installed this system, and if they are willing to come back under warranty and try to correct it, what is our concern? Administrator Chandler felt we may want to hear from Mr. Sebring, who is the project manager on this for Frizzell. While this person apparently is prepared to do some work on panels, it is his understanding that the problems go far beyond that. There have been promises made over a period of many months that were not lived up to. Commissioner Bird asked if the other problems are something Mr. Ferry's company would be involved with, and General Services Manager Dean noted that he did not know what has taken place between Mr. Schopke and his subcontractors, but he did not feel, based on past performance, that these problems can be eliminated just by installing new panels; there are other problems that exist. He further noted that he has been instructed by the county's legal staff not to let anyone on the premises except to work on items other than the detention electronics. Mr. Sebring, project coordinator, informed the Board that from what he understands there are some circuit boards that need to be replaced. He is not an electronics expert; he just knows it does not work, and they have gone through these motions to try to get this fixed. They made their recommendation to the county on March 10th and were advised as to how we were going to proceed with this and that's when they wrote the letter and said the contractor and subcontractor would not be allowed access to the jail to make these repairs. Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Sebring is in a position to tell us today that replacing the panels will not solve the problem. Mr. Sebring stated that, from his understanding of what the problems are, he did not believe it would. He felt there is also some electronics associated with the switches and other devices and how they all work together. Right now they get false readings 70 as to doors being open and doors being closed and secured that actually are not. Mr. Ferry commented that all the feedback they have got is that the panels don't work and he suggested that since he is here that he be permitted to inspect the facility to determine exactly what is wrong before any decisions are made as to the merit of their equipment. Commissioner Scurlock asked how that would affect our legal position, and Attorney Vitunac advised that our choice is to go by the contract and insist that ECSI fix the problem or kick him off and hire somebody else and try to charge the cost back pursuant to the contract methods. We can't have them both working simultaneously. Commissioner Scurlock noted there is nobody working on this yet and asked what another 2-3 weeks would do. Attorney Vitunac stated it would just waste that time if it doesn't solve the problem. We could notify him now that if this is not solved after a month, we would take up the same position as today, and he could waive any notice provisions. Commissioner Scurlock felt that if we let him make another try and he can't fix it, that might make our position even stronger, and Commissioner Bird and Attorney Vitunac concurred that it would. Commissioner Bird further pointed out that if we don't let him try, and we have to have a whole new system designed, we could pay $400,000 for a new system that may not work any better than what we have. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock that we allow this firm (ECSI) back on the job for a period not to exceed three weeks conditioned on them waiving any future rights. l 6, 8 71 BOOK i UN i 71 JUN 13 1,989 BOOK 77 ME 72 Attorney Vitunac asked if Mr. Schopke agreed that if after three weeks from today the problem is not solved, we can be back in the same status we are today, i.e.,'that.ECSI would be off the job and we would be pursuing our own remedies with the independent contractor. Mr. Schopke agreed and stated that he felt the County is being very lenient. Commissioner Bird wished to know in the event this gentlemen fixes the part of the system his company is concerned with but the other parts of the system still do not work, if Schopke is prepared to follow through on the warranty on this with whatever subcontractor would be involved. Question arose as to whether ECSI did the whole system including installation of the hardware or just worked with the electronic "brains" of the system. Mr. Ferry advised that if the doors are not functioning properly, it probably isn't the console that is at fault. It generally turns out that it is the ironworker's responsibility and they have not adjusted microswitches properly. His company does not touch the lock or the door, and the ironworker will have to be called back. Director Dean informed the Board that we accepted this job in January of 1988; the warranty expired in January, 1989; and we have been trying to get it fixed for that length of time. Commissioner Bird asked if Schopke, as the overall general contractor, still is prepared, even though it seems the warranty is expired although this was reported within the warranty period, to bring in whoever is necessary to get this functioning to 1000 of its designed ability in the event this gentleman does whatever he says he can with the system and says his part is working but there are still problems Mr. Schopke advised that Norman K. Dean, his subcontractor, continues to assure him by letter that he will do what is necessary to get the system up and running. 72 COMMISSIONER EGGERT SECONDED THE MOTION made earlier by Commissioner Scurlock to allow ECSI on the job site for a period not to exceed 3 weeks and have them waive any future rights. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD STATUS REPORT - PHASE 111 Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that he and staff have been working with appraisers who are appraising both the R/W and the portion of the impoundment needed for mitigation. We should be receiving final reports within a few weeks. Asst. County Attorney Collins has written a memo re the confidentiality of the reports, as follows: TO: James Davis - Public Works Director FROM:�JO William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney DATE: June 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Confidentiality of Appraisals Please find attached F.S. 125.355 which exempts appraisals from public disclosure or inspection during the negotiations phase of acquiring real property. Our eminent domain counsel, Mr. Sechen, has advised that these appraisals should not be made public during the settlement negotiations. I' would suggest that you privately advise the County Commissioners as to the preliminary appraisal results. Since the final appraisal reports are expected within two weeks, it is probably advisable not to enter into negotiations based on the preliminary estimates. It was noted that there is a typo on staff's memo, and this is actually Phase III, not Phase IV of the Boulevard. It is the section between the existing north terminus and Barber Avenue. Director Davis continued that since those reports will not be available for a few weeks, staff would like an opportunity to All 13 1989 73 ROOK 7 7 F,1GE 73 BOOP . 7 / f,, Gu 7 review them and understand all the implications. What we have seen so far looks reasonable. The question is how can staff proceed. Once the final reports are in, they would like to have some time to review them and then begin negotiations with the property owners and discuss this privately with the individual members of the Board if they so desire. He did feel it is in the County's interest to have some confidentiality. Commissioner Eggert knew Director Davis has a deadline and her question is when does the Board make a decision. Commissioner Scurlock also wondered what the Commissioners are to do when they do see the appraisal number because if they can't talk about it, what have we accomplished. Attorney Vitunac advised that after talking with the Board members individually, Director Davis should negotiate a contract that he is happy with and then he can bring a signed contract to the Board. Administrator Chandler felt that Director Davis is looking for direction to negotiate with the property owners at a figure not to exceed the appraised price. Director Davis asked if the Board would give staff the authority to use their judgment and work with the property owners. He pointed out that they are dealing with two appraisers and the figures vary to some extent. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would expect that staff will use their best judgment based on their experience and make a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Eggert agreed and did not believe that they need to come to the Board members individually. Administrator Chandler commented that where we get two appraisals in on each parcel, he believed the Commission is telling staff to use their judgment to use what they deem the correct appraisal and proceed, and Director Davis confirmed that what he wants is the flexibility for staff to make a judgment on what is the most reasonable appraisal, then negotiate and make an 74 offer to the property owner and bring it back to the Board when they have a signed commitment from the property owner. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that in order to use this new law about confidentiality, staff needs authority from the Board for either Director Davis or Administrator Chandler to sign a contract with the seller to buy this land subject to approval by the Board at a public hearing; in other words, they will be bringing back a signed contract subject to the contingency of Board approval. When staff brings back that contract, the Board then for the first time will look at the appraisals and either agree or not. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized Public Works Director Davis to proceed with negotia- tions as discussed above and bring back to the Board for final approval a contract signed by the property owner and himself or the Administrator. REQUEST TO CLOSE INDIAN RIVER DRIVE FOR JULY 4TH - (SEBASTIAN) The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., o/ Public Works Director ;lu y SUBJECT: Request to Close Indian River Drive for 4th of July Celebration DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION DATE: June 5, 1989 Lt. Ted Zeuch, Commander of Uniform Division of the City of Sebastian Police Department has requested permission to close a short section of Indian River Drive on July 4, 1989 for a July 4th parade beginning at 0830 hours. _Staff has no objection to this request, provided that: 1) Proper barricades as permitted by the Traffic Engineering Division are installed. 2) A block representative be listed as a contact person in charge of the event in case the road needs to be opened. 3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained. Al 1 Q 1989 75 BOOK 77 7 JUN 13 1999 soon 77, FaE 76 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted permission for the closing of a short section of Indian River Drive for a July 4th parade as requested by the Sebastian Police based on the conditions listed in the above memo. DEVELOPER'S REQUEST FOR CO. -INITIATED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT A NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ALONG U.S.I AT 99TH ST. Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Developer's Request for County Initiated Special Assessment Funding to Construct a Northbound Left Turn Lane Along US Highway 1 at 99th Street(Vickers Road) REF. LETTER: K.D. Hedin to Jim Davis dated June 5, 1989 DATE: June 7, 1989 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Developer Karl Hedin has submitted a site plan application to construct a "fast lubrication" and warehouse facility on a two acre site located at the southwest corner of Vickers Road (99th Street) at US 1. The Florida Department of Transportation (letter attached) and County staff are of the opinion that no new development should connect to 99th Street in this area unless a northbound left turn lane along US 1 is constructed. A recent warehouse facility north of 99th Street was obligated to construct a northbound left turn lane, however, the warehouse facility, although complete, has not obtained a CO due to legal and financial problems. Mr. Iledin is willing to pay his "fair share" cost of the northbound left turn lane, however, he does 'not feel that his small two acre site warrants the entire expense. The estimated cost of the improvement is $25,000. West of US 1, approximately 28.6 acres of land has frontage on 99th Street in addition to a 113 lot mobile home development (Breezy Village). An assessment formula to equitably distribute the costs would have to be developed. Also, portions of the City of Sebastian connect to 99th Street. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: 76 -1 Alternative No. 1 - Initiate a non -voluntary special assessment program to fund the improvement along US 1. The developer is willing to pay his "fair share", and expedite design and construction. Only land in the -unincorporated area would be assessed unless the City of Sebastian would consent to a joint project. Alternative No. 2 - Require the developer to construct the entire turn lane. Alternative No. 3 - The DOT has indicated that a median revision project is scheduled for 1991, at which time they may construct the turn lane. New development could be denied access until the turn lane is constructed. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff is of the opinion that the most equitable alternative is Alternative No. 1 whereby a Special Assessment Project would distribute the cost to all- benefitted property within the unincorporated area. Staff will communicate with the City of Sebastian to request a joint project. Funding shall be by 100% special assessment. WHISPERING 1 PALMS 1 1 MOBILE VILLAGE TOO e� _• I 17 16 __ I�—__ 2021 . I�[�f0 M n • a- ss ^'�• LS T— I nnpo 7r__gT c cr,�•J 6 o Ac oo 0 49 EC e Ose� , �•` Coto vl �� V'- - -- —• � •tri 9 s� . C Ae. Icru1 oI ..,•,.yt• y eoi.: SCALE- 1"=400' 1n prn.t ,v,�J • yG ir•• 5B•t.ap' ( .s N ST. VICKERS WAY SE ENLARGED : y,;:=— I/4 OF 1/4 19 •:L�•: z.el �,.� 11LLAGE SEC. I— — — — ios! wl s r� i, 5 I 1 ,r.`•. 60,0 L AcsK �iueg In, E HOME '; •9b — — — 'i.�..— — — Pe— I ,. all 1 • I 1 :C% i o --= _ Krt T8 TR. C cc ' �y,, � ^ S, t5 Ir.A,••s I mss' • yup! y Ingt,Y 40 OJ I AC � 4i • •.I oo J r o I q„ ri3.0 o� ' n LV oOr.o• 3C• - C ' TROPICANA —� HOMESITES S/D B SEC. 21 A /00o 0 AG O � 7nliu rj- • l 510 .'�• _ 19�'�_ ' 1f 60 00 o�°� •: _AAACCC_T��t v` _ ,: `' 9.J Ir 7 :rl A c 1 77 BOOK spy � F,1GE 77 ai /00o 0 AG O � 7nliu rj- • l 510 .'�• _ 19�'�_ ' 1f 60 00 o�°� •: _AAACCC_T��t v` _ ,: `' 9.J Ir 7 :rl A c 1 77 BOOK spy � F,1GE 77 JUN 1 1989 eooK V r, ru 78 Director Davis advised that staff has been working with the DOT for some time to try to get them to construct a northbound left turn lane along U.S.1 at 99th St. This was included in a resurfacing contract that the DOT has almost completed construc- tion of, but for some reason, that left turn lane was omitted and is not being constructed at this time by the DOT. Commissioner Scurlock noted that his concern is that we should have a consistent uniform process. He brought up the example of Bernie Grail with one office building on Route 60 that required a left turn lane, and while you could argue who benefitted, Mr. Grail or Indian River Estates, he apparently did not ask for a special assessment. Commissioner Scurlock believed that in general when new development initiates an activity that affects traffic, we tell them to go ahead and build the improvement. Commissioner Eggert believed that on U.S.1 north of Oslo Road, there was some misunderstanding between the DOT and our Community Development Department in regard to the improvement of that intersection, and she wondered if there is any chance we are into the same situation again up here. Director Davis advised that the DOT has indicated they are doing a median study of both Route 60 and U.S.I. and that this site would be looked at within a year or so. However, it was dropped out of this contract for economic reasons due to their budget problems. Community Development Director Keating felt that we do have a consistent policy. Basically during TRC staff will tell the applicant that if something is needed for a safety improvement such as this, it is his responsibility. Then they outline the funding alternatives he can pursue, one of which is the forced assessment. Director Davis further noted that any special assessment project could certainly be precluded by a public hearing, and also 78 there is the possibility that everyone in this area may want to participate. Commissioner Bird did not see why we should let the DOT off the hook since they apparently have determined this left turn lane is needed there. Director Davis noted that it is mainly a matter of timing, and Commissioner Bird felt that we should go ahead and approve Mr. Hedin's project and take his fair share contribution and escrow that amount of money and tell the DOT we think they should go ahead with their project. Discussion ensued about the warehouse facility that is in the same area but does not have a CO, and staff advised that the developer of the warehouse was supposed to build the left turn lane prior to getting his CO. It was noted that we could put a lien against that property, which would account for part of the cost. Commissioner Bird agreed we should put.a lien against that property for whatever the owner was supposed to contribute and take Mr. Hedin's $3,000 besides, and discussion continued at length about the proposed assessment and who benefits, etc. It was noted that the developer of the warehouse did not pursue a forced assessment. Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing Karl Hedin and contended that what is really happening is that the DOT by a letter is attempting to impose a moratorium. That is not right. Mr. Hedin did not create this problem and it hasn't been demonstrated that he will aggravate it to any considerable extent. He stressed that Mr. Hedin is prepared to pay his fair share, and to tell him that you go ahead and escrow your money, but we will withhold your CO until a left turn lane gets built, is not right and is a moratorium to all effects. Mr. Hedin is willing to do his part, but he is not willing to shoulder the whole load when it is not all his problem. 79 Ji1�y� BOOK 77 7 9: W IJUN 13 1989 Boa 77 Discussion again arose as to the benefitted area this lane will serve, and Commissioner Bird asked about the DOT's responsi- bility in regard to a left turn lane at certain intersections. Director Davis believed the DOT is looking at new development the way the County is. If it is a site related improvement, then the DOT probably will not participate. If it is a multi -site related improvement, then do you look at the multi -site that will benefit or at the next one coming to build and develop? Commissioner Scurlock did not believe we can set all that policy today. He noted that if he were Mr. Hedin, he would be saying that you have already got somebody on the hook for this - the warehouse got their permit and they were to be responsible 100%, and you just haven't collected from them yet. Director Davis pointed out that basically that building could sit their 10 years without a CO. This quick -lube facility could be built in the meantime, and in his opinion, that new facility will exasperate the problem because there will be more traffic attracted to 99th Street. Commissioner Scurlock again stressed the need for a uniform policy, and Commissioner Eggert believed we do have one and developers are made aware of their options in this regard. Debate continued, and Commissioner Bird believed that at some point in the future, the DOT will build this improvement and pay for it; so, why not go ahead and approve the project and wait for them to do it. Director Keating noted that it is a question of timing and as to when someone can build. Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that he was looking for a policy that is more uniform and standard; staff continued to contend that we do have such a policy; and Commissioner Bird continued to emphasize that this particular improvement is the DOT's responsibility. Director Keating felt there are two issues - first, do we want the left turn lane put in there and not make the existing 80 safety problem any worse before there is a CO - the second question is the financing. Commissioner Bird emphasized that he felt this particular intersection is a DOT responsibility to turn traffic left off of US1 to Vickers Road. He believed they have already recognized that; they have designed a project to take care of it; and he is not going to let them off the hook on it and just because they dropped it out of their project, assess our local people. He believed there are certain intersection improvements the DOT needs to fund out of their dollars that we send up to Tallahassee. Director Davis noted that, staff agrees with that and has tried to get DOT to move on this, but they indicate they don't have the funds to do it. Commissioner Scurlock suggested a Motion to pursue that at some point the DOT fund this; that we go ahead and allow the development to occur; and that staff be directed to come up with a uniform policy that is applicable countywide. Commissioner Eggert had a problem with part of that because she does feel it is a now or later kind of thing, and also in Regional Planning Council they are getting so involved with concurrency that until that road is in there, development will stop. Commissioner Scurlock believed it is the state saying that, and if that is so, he felt there will' be a major onslaught on Tallahassee. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, to approve the project at this site, escrow the fair share contribution from Mr. Hedin, and ask the Chairman to draft and sign a letter to the DOT requesting that this turn lane project be reinitiated and completed by them at the earliest possible time. 81 JUN 13 1989 BOOK F,,t I 0 JUR 13 Boa 77 FacE � Public Works Director Davis continued to maintain that staff has had a consistent policy on these issues and they have used it consistently, and all applicants have been given their options. He noted, however, that staff has told the 6 acre site across the street with the warehouse that they have to put in the turn lane before they can get the CO, and now we have told this 2 acre site, they don't have to, and that is inconsistent. Lengthy debate ensued in regard to defining policy more strictly in regard to who benefits and who will be specially assessed, and Administrator Chandler suggested that if there is a difference of opinion on whether the current policy has merit or not, possibly we should just bring that policy back for a separate discussion and clarification. The Board agreed it should be brought back at another time. Discussion continued regarding the Motion, and Commissioner Bird clarified that the intent of the Motion is to approve this project with the requirement of Mr. Hedin's escrowed funds and to put the pressure on the DOT to go ahead and complete this left turn project. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Chairman Wheeler voting in opposition. ROAD RESURFACING PROGRAM FSY88/89 - ROAD 8 BRIDGE DIVISION Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following: 82 TO: James E. Chandler, DATE: June 7, 1989 County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: FY88/89 Road Resurfacing Program - Road and Bridge Division REF. MEMO: Albert VanAuken to James Davis dated 6-1-89 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The FY 88/89 Road and Bridge Division Operating Account 111-214-541-035.31 has a current balance of $214,301 for road resurfacing. Staff has previously recommended resurfacing projects earlier this year which have been completed. Attached is a memo from the Road and Bridge Superintendent which recommends a list of roads requiring resurfacing at this time. The main project recommended is resurfacing and widening of 66th Avenue (Lateral "A") road between SR60 and CR510. Staff would recommend that a 4' paved shoulder be added to all collector roads requiring resurfacing. If this i$ included, an additional $60,000 is required. These funds could be available within the Road and Bridge Division budget line item 034.59 Other Insurance ($168,430 as of 5-31-89 available). RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of the list of Road Resurfacing pro- jects including the addition of a 4' paved shoulder to 66th Avenue. Funding to be from Account 111-214-541--35.31 ($205,550) and a line transfer from 111-214-541-034.59 to 111-214-541-035.31 in the amount of $60,000. Funding for Round Island Park paving was included in the Parks Division budget 001-210-572-035.31 ($6,000). ------------------------------------------------------- June 19 1989 ----------- TO: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROMz Albert L. VanAuken, Supt0. Road & Bridge Division SUBJECT: Resurfacing & Road Paving ------------7------------------------------------------------ The following is a list of roads that are in need of resurfacing and paving: 1) 66th Avenue (Lateral A) North Relief Canal - CR 510 3.7 mi. Widen 2' on either side Level and resurface - $170,000 2) 66th Avenue -(Lateral A) SR 60 - .5 mi. 26th St. Resurface - $ 25,000 3) 11 intersection improvements $ 2,750 4) 13th Street, 35th Ave. -36th Ave. $ 800 200' 5) Construct road to fuel pumps, Road & Bridge Complex $ 7,000 6) Pave road and parking area, Round Island Park, west $ 6,650 To be charged to Parks Dept. ALTERNATE•,, ' 1) 66th Avenue, Widen 4' on either side - Adds $ 60,000 83 J U 1 ` X89 JUN 12 1989 BOOK 77 Director Davis stressed that they are recommending 4' paved shoulders for all collector roadways. Actually the shoulder will be used as a bicycle lane but won't be designated as such. It just will designated as a paved shoulder. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the list of Road Resurfacing projects as recom- mended by staff with the addition of a 4' paved shoulder to 66th Avenue. ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT - ASSESSMENT PAVING PROJECTS (CHERRY LANE, R.D.CARTER RD., AND WALKER AVE.) The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer James White: ----------------------------------------------------------- TO: James Chandler ------ 3. County Administrator Ave) Engineering Design 18,400. ;- Aerial Photography THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director.,- .,,, 5. Printing & Reproduction (Estimated) 500• FROM: James D. White, P.E. County Engineer SUBJECT: Engineering Design Services Contract - Assessment Paving Projects 1 - 33rd Street (Cherry Lane) between 58th Ave and 66th Ave 2 - 1st Street SW (R. D. Carter Rd) between 58th Ave and 66th Ave 1 3 - 26th Street (Walker Ave) from 58th Ave to Village Green Phase II DATE: June 1, 1989 --------------------------- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff has completed negotiations with Marshall, McCully and Associates for Engineering design services for three (3) assessment paving projects. Negotiations were broken off with the other two of three short listed firms before successfully negotiating this contract. The cost of the services are as listed below: 1. 33rd Street (Cherry Avenue) Engineering Design $ 25,500. 2. 1st Street SW (R.D. Carter Rd) Engineering Design 25,500. 3. 26th Street (Walker Ave) Engineering Design 18,400. 4. Aerial Photography (Estimated) 7,800. 5. Printing & Reproduction (Estimated) 500• Total $ 77,700. Item #4 and #5 are direct billing items paid at cost by the County. 84 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 1. Approve the contract and authorize the chairman to sign. 2. Seek another Engineering firm for the projects. 3. Cancel Projects. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of Alternate #1 with funding as follows:' 1. 33rd St (Cherry Lane) - Special Assessment Funds $28,820. 2. 1st St SW (R.D. Carter Rd) - Special Assessment Funds 28,820. 3. 26th St (Walker Ave) - Special Assessment Funds and Escrow Account SP -MA -83-03-006 20.060. Total $ 77,700. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved contract with Marshall, McCully & Assoc. for engineering design services as described above, with funding as recommended by staff. JUN 18 1989 85 BOOK 77 F,�6E 8� FF - ra,rr ,,a BOOK 1 F,�a 8 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT VARIOUS ASSESSMENT PAVING PROJECTS 1 - 33RD STREET BETWEEN 58TH AVENUE AND 66TH AVENUE 2 - 1ST STREET S.W. BETWEEN 58TH AVENUE AND 66TH AVENUE 3 - 26TH STREET FROM 58TH AVENUE TO VILLAGE GREEN PHASE II THIS AGREEMENT or "CONTRACT", entered into this 7lth day of aupQ , 1989, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and MARSHALL McCULLY & ASSOCIATES, Vero Beach, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the ENGINEER, W I T N E S S E T H The COUNTY and the ENGINEER, in consideration of their mutual covenants, herein agree with respect to the performance of professional engineering and surveying services by the ENGINEER and the payment for those services by the COUNTY as set forth below. The ENGINEER shall provide professional engineering and surveying services for the COUNTY for the project described as VARIOUS ASSESSMENT PAVING PROJECTS; serve as the COUNTY'S professional engineering representativA for the project as set forth below and shall give professional engineering consultation and advice to the COUNTY during the performance of the services to be rendered hereunder. SECTION I - PROJECT LIMITS The project, as defined under this Agreement, and for which the Engineer will provide basic services, shall have limits of work generally defined by the following: 1. Cherry Lane (33rd Street) from Kings Highway to 66th Avenue, approximately one mile; SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. 86 E" AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT W/FLORIDA LAND CO.(BENT PINE UTILITY CO_) The Board reviewed memo from the Assistant Utilities Director Harry Asher: DATE: JUNE 2, 1989 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTIL T}C RVICES SUBJECT: AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/FLORIDA LAND COMPANY/BENT PINE UTILITY COMPANY ' PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: HARRY E. ASHER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES BACKGROUND On October 26, 1987, Indian River County purchased the Bent Pine Water and Sewer Utility System. A part of the payment for the system was by futures payment of $1,500.00 per connection, based on connection of a specified number of new customers to the utility system and set forth in a Promissory Note dated October 26, 1987, _:from the County in favor of Bent Pine. On November 1, 1988, Indian River County acquired the physical units of the North Beach Water Company and assumed the obligations of the Water System pursuant to a Developer's Agreement between Florida Land and the North Beach Water Company, through which Florida Land had reserved capacity in the North Beach Water System sufficient to serve 155 Equivalent Residential Units. ANALYSIS Florida Land has approached Indian River County with a proposal to sell both its existing 155 ERU's of capacity reservations in the Indian River County/North Beach Water Plant and assignment of its interest in the Bent Pine Note, which represents a balance of 60 lots at the agreed fee of $1,500.00 each. Florida Land has proposed to sell both the 155 ERU capacity reservation and assignment of its interest in the Promissory Note for the amount of $125,000.00, less $18,468.44 owed by Florida Land to the County for guaranteed revenue obligations to the Indian River County/North Beach Water System, less an additional $2,359.68, which the County shall pay to Aurora Homes, Inc., as satisfaction of a Writ of Garnishment. Acquisition/payment for 155 ERU's of reserved capacity would be from Impact Fees. RECOMMENDATION The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed purchase agreement based upon the attached financial analysis. 87 ox I r JUN 13 1989 GOOK 7 7 FtquE 88, Financial Analysis of Florida Land Company Proposal Agreement Present Value of 155 Connections 155 ERU's @ $1,140.00 (current Impact Fee) $176,700.00 Note Obligation: Present Value of 60 Connections/Bent Pine 60 Connections @ $1,500.00 each 90,000.00 Total Current Value $266,700.00 Proposed Purchase Price $125,000.00 Estimated Gross Value to be received $141,700.00 by County above Purchase Price Proposed Purchase Price $125,000.00 Less: Amount Due County under Guaranteed Revenue obligation $ 18,468.44 Less: Amount of Garnishment $ 2,359.68 Net Amount to be expended $104,171.88 ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement of Settlement with Florida Land Company and Bent Pine Utility Co. and authorized execution of same as recommended by staff. SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. =I 88 ;;j MANAGEMENT POSITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES Administrator Chandler reviewed the following: DATE: JUNE 1, 1989 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: MANAGEMENT POSITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES .The following -is the existing organization structure and salaries 4.1for management positions in the Department of Utility Services: 1. Asst. Utilities Director - Administration $32,000-47,000 2. Asst. Utilities Director - Operations $32,000-47,000 3. Environmental Engineer $30,119-45,179 I propose to reorganize the positions as follows: 1. Asst. Utilities Director 2. Utilities Operations and Engineering Mgr. 3. Environmental Engineer The actual salaries paid will be: 1. Asst. Utilities Director 2. Utilities Operations and Engineering Mgr. 3. Environmental Engineer Total: Present salaries are: 1. Asst. Utilities Director - Administration 2. Asst. Utilities Director - Oper & Eng. 3. Environmental Engineer $35,000-48,500 $32,000-47,000 $30,119-45,179 $47,000 $46,500- $34,500 46,500$34,500 $128,000 As of June, 1989: $36,000-37,800 $46,000-48,300 $45,000-47,250 $128,000-133,350 The reorganization represents a substantial savings in salaries and a more workable management system. Administrator Chandler noted that in 1988 a recommendation was made to restructure the top management within the Utility Department, but it since has been found that what had been recommended is not working as well as was anticipated. The recommendation now is to go back to the structure we had previously where we would have one person directly under the Utility Director, and it is also recommended to restructure the pay ranges almost parallel to what was in existence. The JUN 1 3 1989 89 aooK FAGE89 JUN 18 1989 �, 8001( � � F'�,-E 90 assistant Utility Director would receive an increase from $38,000 to about $46-47,000. Commissioner Scurlock commented that now that the Administrator has made his recommendation and this is at the Commission level, he would like to say a few things. First, he would like to commend Utilities Director Pinto for the work he has done in Utilities. In the 52-6 years since he -came on, we have gone from less than 1600 customers to over 12,000 customers, and if you are talking water and sewer, 26,000, which has been a tremendous movement forward, and the workload and staff have increased significantly. He felt one of the things that is extremely important is to maintain flexibility. We have noticed a real difficulty in hiring particular people for Utilities because there is a great demand all over the country for engineers and other specialized personnel. By maintaining flexibility, what he meant is to allow restructuring of an organization to accommodate the personalities and expertise of those individuals you are able to hire. Commissioner Scurlock believed this attempt to take Harry Asher, who is a numbers person and replaced Mr. Barton, and use him directly under Director Pinto as Assistant Utilities Director as opposed to having 3 or 4 people under Mr. Pinto, will serve to shed some burden. We need someone to be a creative thinker, a planner, and someone able -to move the system forward rather than someone just to deal with all the day to day nitty-gritty details. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would concur with the recommendation and wished again to take this time to say that Terry Pinto has, in his opinion, brought our utilities system from what was no age at all to where Indian River County is being looked at across the state. Commissioner Eggert agreed with the praise of Director Pinto and what has been accomplished, but noted that she has a problem with the recommendation. She believed the reason for the salary paid the Assistant Utilities Director before was his 10 years of experience that he had worked up through a lot of departments. 90 She also was bothered that this doesn't seem to have been brought through Personnel, and she felt we have a major PR problem in this. Commissioner Eggert had no problem with the reorganization itself, but she did have a problem with the salary because she felt it is too much of an increase and especially overall too much as balanced with what is going on within the building. Discussion followed in detail regarding the previous salaries and those recommended now, with Director Pinto noting that they did hire an Environmental Engineer who came in at $45,000, and we were unsuccessful with him. He pointed out that when the reorganization was authorized.previously, the Board approved expending $130,000 and what is being proposed now would be $128,000. He continued that when he started with Utilities, he and Commissioner Scurlock had a difference of opinion about the takeover of small utilities, but since then the Board and Mr. Scurlock have managed to change his thinking, and we have been on an upward approach to take over all the small utilities in the county. We are close to finalizing on some 6 individual facilities that we will be taking over within the next couple months, and this year alone, we will be taking on 6,000 new customers in wastewater and 2,300 in water. Obviously, there will be a need for reorganization sometime again in the future. The County as a whole will be looking at reorganization as it grows, and his department just happens to be the fastest growing department in the county. Mr. Pinto stressed that his department, at the department level, is unique in that it has to worry about both sides of the ledger - revenue and expenses - and that is all done in-house and must be tracked very closely. His original thought was that it would be easy to separate the operational and the administrative functions and work them directly through him, but he has found that won't work. Commissioner Scurlock believed one of the major changes is that we brought on Mr. Asher, and, in fact, he has replaced, in terms of the fina.ncial team and the acquisition team, a lot of the 91 JUN 1989 BOOK ��" {E. I UN Is 1989 boor. 77 [,,�Iu 92 activities that Joe Baird and Jeff Barton were providing, and many of the numbers are now being run right there by Mr. Asher. Director Pinto felt it is unfair 'to say that Mr. Asher in his existing position is going to get a $10,000 increase. He is moving into a different position, and Mr. Pinto felt that position is valued at what it was back when Jeff Barton was there. As far as Jeff Barton's experience and getting to the point of a salary of $47,000, Mr. Asher actually has more experience than Mr. Barton and Mr. Baird. Commissioner Eggert noted that he does not have more experience here in this county, and Commissioner Bird further pointed out that Mr. Asher would be almost at the top of the proposed new range. Director Pinto contended that unfortunately with the way the county salary s-ystem is set up right now, there is no ability for someone to move within their salary range - there is no way to do it. The only increase you have, besides that at the end of probation, is that annually the Board, for instance, says there will be a 6% increase based on inflationary needs. Administrator Chandler agreed that another area he will have to look at is the restructuring of a pay plan and how it is going to work. Quite frankly, what he has found is that what was done last summer with the consultants that were retained and were supposed to have answered a lot of questions and built a foundation on which to work has done completely the opposite, and as a result, he has spent a great deal of his time in his first five months here on personnel matters and how those are handled, mostly coming as a spin-off from that study. The Administrator emphasized that there is no foundation - right now when a pay range is established, an individual is eligible for an increase after their first 6 months of probation, but they are then eligible for no other increases unless the Commission gives an overall adjustment or the Administrator recommends an overall adjustment. 92 Commissioner Bird asked what happened to the old level system, and Administrator Chandler wished he knew. He believed it went, and he has spent a lot of time trying to find out what happened to it. He talked about the problems he has encountered because of what was eliminated in regard to people working themselves up, and noted that because of this, in some cases he has had to make decisions to deny increases where a person was promoted. He has made some of these decisions very reluctantly in light of how it would affect other positions. The Administrator stressed that there is a great need to look at this and come back with a program and policy that can be administered because, in his opinion, the study last year that was supposed to help did nothing but create more chaos and problems. Commissioner Bird asked if the Administrator felt that the additional responsibilities Mr. Asher will have under this reorganization warrant a $10,000 mid -year increase. Administrator Chandler stated that he did in terms of the lines of reporting. He advised that he wrestled with that and the implications of it as related to other positions within our county organization and further noted that the responsibilities that go with that position are considerably more than what they were at the time Mr. Asher was hired. Director Pinto believed if you look at the other departments this fits in. He stressed that you must look at where this salary comes from and how the salary relates to the top salary of Director. If you forget all the names and fit them into the study that was performed, it automatically will fall into that salary range. Chairman Wheeler believed that Jeff Barton's salary when he came to the position was $43,000 and Joe Baird's $38,000, and he believed some of these salaries have been created because people have been transferred from one position to another and that possibly we have created an artificial salary. The Chairman had a big concern. He noted that we have just been through a period in JUN 13 1989 93 BOOK r�� F'.i.E �►� JUN I S 1999 boex 77 F,,�u 4 this county with a tremendous morale problem. He did not have problem with the restructuring, but did have a question about how it affects morale until we get this worked out and develop some consistency. Director Pinto continued to contend that if you look at the other departments and the way any salary plan works,it depends on where the Assistant Director relates in the salary structure to the Director and the rest of the organization, but the Chairman asked why he would come in at the top of the range instead of the middle. Commissioners Bird and Eggert also had concerns about someone coming in at the top of their range, and Commissioner Eggert felt in this case especially so since he has only been here 6 months. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that the responsibilities and duties of this position will be far in excess of what the individual was hired for. Discussion continued as to the various duties Mr. Asher has been assuming, developing numbers re acquisitions, etc., and Administrator Chandler confirmed that Mr. Asher has been develop- ing these numbers and doing projections, but in conjunction with the Budget Director. After further discussion, Commissioner Scurlock believed that there does not seem to be any question about the restructuring proposed, but just as to where Mr. Asher comes in at the salary range, and the Board agreed, stressing that this is no reflection on Mr. Asher. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the reorganization of the management positions in the Department of Utility Services as recommended, but rather than bringing Mr. Asher all the way up, agreed to set his compensation at $40,000, which is mid range in that particular job classification. 94 BUDGET AMENDMENT #052 - CAPPELEN LEASE (SPACE FOR HEALTH DEPT.) The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 31, 1989 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 052 CAPPELIN LEASE FROM: Joseph A. Baird _ OMB Director Description and Conditions ,The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for the Cappelin lease which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March -7, 1989. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget amendment 052 in the amount of $5,063.00. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #052 appropriating funds for lease of space in the Cappelen Building for the Health Department as approved at the meeting of March 7, 1989. TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT of County Commissioners NUMBER: 052 FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DATE: May 11, 1989 Entry Number Funds-/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Building & Grounds Rent - Buildings 001-220-519-034.42 5.063.00 S 0 Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 0 5,063.00 zxpianarion: Lease of space in the Cappelin Building for the Health Department. New Space: February 1989 650 x 7/28 March 1 to October 1 650 x 7 Existing Space ($750 - $715) x 10 95 JUN 1 � 1989 $ 162.50 $4,550.00 $ 350.00 $5,062.50 C BOOK r- 7 A APPOINTMENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT_ BOARD Boa 77 FAIA. 96 The Board reviewed memo from Jan Masi, Secretary to the Code Enforcement Board: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jan Masi, Secretary to the ._Code Enforcement Board DATE: June 7, 1989 SUBJECT: Change of Rules Governing Code Enforcement Board It has come to my attention very recently that the Indian River County Code Enforcement Board is now operating under a different set of rules than were in effect at the time the Board was established in 1983. The Code Board is now being governed by the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 162 (copy attached). As you will note, one of the major differences incorporated into Chapter 162 is that a member can now serve unlimited three-year terms, as long as the member is willing to serve and the Commission approves the continued service. One of the applicants for the current General Contractor opening on the Board, Joe Garone, would.qualify under this new ruling. He has resubmitted his application and is very interested in serving on the Board again. Under FAC Chapter 162, there would be no problem with his doing so if the Commission should elect to reappoint him. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the appointment of Joseph Garone to the Code Enforce- ment Board. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Commissioner Eggert reviewed her memo, as follows: 96 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Carolyn R. Eggert __,,11t. County Commissioner PIP RE: Affordable Housing DATE: June 7, 1989 In reviewing the need for low cost (affordable) housing in this county and the limited avenues for getting financial aid from state and federal sources, the need to attract the private sector becomes even more evident. In talking with different people some possible solutions have been mentioned and � would like to know if the BCC is interested in pursuing any of them. 1. Allowing traffic impact fees to be paid over a 5 to 10 year period and go into the same assessment/bond procedure that is being done for sewer and water impact fees. 2. Set up a "welfare fund" to help pay impact fees under strict specifications for low cost house builders - help build your own home projects, etc. 3. Put more RM -.8 and RM -10 zoning in areas suitable for affordable housing. Commissioner Scurlock discussed the possibility of reducing the code requirements for minimum square footages, setbacks, etc., and the need to look at those factors, which relate to how much it costs to build a home. He asked if there isn't some ability for our Planning staff to sit down and work with the development community to see if there is anything we can do within our Codes to encourage more affordable housing, i.e., we could reduce the minimum square footage required to 800' or if we reduce the setbacks, that possibly could result in one more lot. He would like to identify a piece of property, possibly even get into some type of bond issue, and then work with the development community to see what could be done in this regard. However, he felt it should not be totally on the county to do this. Commissioner Eggert agreed, but as a general philosophical approach, she noted that we allow sewer and water impact fees to JUN 1 1989 97 BOOP( 77 FAcr 97 SUN I BOOK 77 Pt{:GE f go out over 5-10 years, anu she asked if the Board felt we can allow the traffic impact fees to be paid over a similar period. Argument about the advantages and possible results of this and the difference between the sewer and water impact fees and traffic impact fees followed. Commissioner Scurlock explained what we did with the 10 year special assessment project on Route 60, noting that what happens in actuality is that gets paid off the minute the title transfers, and it is an ability for the developer, not the home owner or buyer, to expand. He did feel that impact fees are something that should be considered although he doesn't know if it makes sense or not. Commissioner Bird suggested that Commissioner Eggert chair a workshop between our staff and the builders' association, or whatever groups would be interested, and brainstorm all of this. He then left the meeting at 3:10 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Eggert wished to know the Board's feeling about the possibility of having a welfare fund to help pay impact fees under special situations for those requiring low cost housing. Commissioner Scurlock felt that he would be opposed to it, and noted that if this were done, it would have to be monies coming from the General Fund. Commissioner Eggert also stressed the need to be sure we are putting in an adequate amount of RM -8 or RM -10 when we address the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scurlock commented that the County took the position that new growth should pretty much fund itself, and one of the things we did, in terms of philosophy, was that in the rate structure in Utilities we made a determination to put 80% of the capital expansion into the impact fee and 20% in the rate structure so that existing customers didn't have to pay for new growth. There always is the ability to adjust the impact fee to i 98 v reflect a greater or lesser proportion, but he personally would not recommend doing that. Commissioner Bowman suggested that we need to work with some creative architects also. Commissioner Eggert advised that as soon as we get the Comprehensive Plan over with, she will take this back to a workshop. SOLID WASTE DI•SP .0 SAL DI•ST:RICT MEET INCA WAS, �HE4D AT 3.:,10 R.M. THESE MINUTES• ARE, BEING �PREPARED..S'EPARATELY ) There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board unanimously (4-0) adjourned at 3:12 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Z -vi- t-1,1 /4p 01 Chairman JUN 1 � bbd 99 BOOK 77 P,4;E 99