HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/1/1989Tuesday, August 1, 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,
August 1, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C.
Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent was Margaret C. Bowman due
to illness. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; William G. Collins, II, Asst. County Attorney;
and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rabbi Jay Davis of Temple Beth Shalom gave the invocation,
and Chairman Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler advised that he had a request from Finance
Director Ed Fry to move Item 6 - Investment Resolution - to the
Consent Agenda.
The Chairman further'advised that the Administrator has
requested two additions: First, under his matters, as Item 8A -
Set Agenda and date for Joint City/County Meeting, and second as
Item 9C(2) - Discussion of the Library Bid.
G.a
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously moved and
added items on today's agenda as requested above.
Fr- 'I
A U G 11989 F -
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird asked that Item K be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Minutes of Regular_ Meeting of_June _27, 1989
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 27, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of June 27, 1989, as written.
B. Final Plat Approval - Catalina Oaks PRD
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Wiegers:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keatin , A CP
Community Develop ent D' ector
THROUGH: Stan Boling 13AICP
Chief, Current Developm nt
FROM: Robert E. WiegerZrrent
Staff Planner, C Development
DATE: July 21, 1989
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE CATALINA OAKS PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 1, 1989.
.-PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
i-`�Catalina Oaks Planned Residential Development (PRD) is a proposed
52 unit, zero lot line, single family subdivision of a ±8.57 acre
parcel of land. The subject site is located at the northeast
corner of 10th Street and 6th Avenue. The property is zoned
2
...RM -10, Multi -family Residential
�_*D-2, Medium Density Residential
designation.
Catalina Oaks PRD:
(up to 10 units/acre), with an
(up to 10 units/acre) land use
Project Area: ±8.57 acres
Number of Lots: 52
Type of Units: Zero lot line, single family
Project Density: ±6.07 units/acre
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Catalina Oaks PRD received special exception approval from the
Board of County Commissioners on November 24, 1987. Subsequently,
the. developers applied for, and received, revised preliminary PRD
approval from the Planning and Zoning commission on March 23,
1989. Pursuant to these approvals a land development permit has
been obtained and building permits have been received for several
units, in accordance with the PRD ordinance.
The owner/applicant, Catalina Homes, inc., is now requesting final
PRD approval and has submitted:
1. A final PRD plat substantially in conformance with the
approved preliminary PRD;
2. a warranty maintenance agreement for 25% of the total
cost of publically dedicated improvements (i.e. water &
sewer infrastructure);
3.. a certified cost estimate for the warranty maintenance
agreement;
4. a performance bond guaranteeing the warranty maintenance
agreement;
5. a contract for construction of remaining required
improvements (i.e. grading, sodding, sidewalks, etc.);
6. a certified cost estimate for the contract for con-
struction; and
7. a cash deposit and escrow agreement guaranteeing the
contract for construction.
ANALYSIS:
1. Utilities: The development will receive water and sewer
service from Indian River County. All utility infrastructure
has been constructed, inspected and approved by the Utilities
Department. The Utilities Department has also approved the
submitted warranty maintenance agreement with cost estimate.
2. Public Works: The County's Public Works Department has
verified that the submitted contract for construction of
required improvements, with cost estimates, is acceptable.
3. Attorney's Office: The County Attorneys Office has reviewed
and approved:
a. The warranty maintenance agreement and performance bond.
b. the contract for construction of required improvements
and cash deposit and escrow agreement; and
C, the Catalina Oaks Homeowners Association documents.
All applicable County regulations have been satisfied for final
PRD plat approval.
A U G 119893 poor 7-1 �';�Gt 445
,AUG 11989 RooK 77 pnu 446
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioner) grant final
PRD plat approval to the Catalina Oaks PRD; accept the submitted
warranty maintenance agreement and performance bond, and the
contract for construction cash deposit and escrow agreement; and
authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute the submitted
contract for construction of required improvements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) granted Final Plat Approval
for The Catalina Oaks Planned Residential Development;
accepted the warranty maintenance agreement and perform-
ance bond and the cash deposit and escrow agreement; and
authorized the Chairman to execute the contract for con-
struction of required improvements.
COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD.
C. Release of Easement - Oslo Park Subdv. (C. Mosley)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: James E. Chandler DATE: July 18, 1989
County Administrator
FROM: Charles W. Heath GwG,E✓
Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Release Of Easement Request By:
Charles H. Mosley
450 17th Court S.W.
Vero Beach, Florida 32962
DIVISION HEAD CONCORRENCE: Robert Keating, AICP FMK
Community Development Director
REFERENCES: Tax Parcel Control Number:
26-33-39-00004-0007-00007.0
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of August 01, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Charles H. Mosley, owner of the
subject property, for the release of the common five (5) foot side
4
lot utility and drainage easement of Lot 7, Block G, Oslo Park
Subdivision Unit No. 3, being the northerly five (5) feet of Lot
..7, Section 26, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, as recorded
.:in Plat Book 04, Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River
:County, Florida. It is Mr. Mosley's intention to construct a
.four(4) foot metal fence for a swimming pool enclosure as required
:by County building codes.
=•ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision Corporation,
and the Indian River County Utility, Road & Bridge, and
Engineering Divisions. Based upon their review, there were no
objections to the release of the easement. Staff analysis, which
included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately
handled on-site.
RECOMMENDATION: •
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a
.resolution, the release of the common five (5) foot utility and
.drainage easement of Lot 7, Block G, Oslo Park Subdivision Unit
No. 3, being the northerly five (5) feet of Lot 7, Block G, Oslo
Park Subdivision Unit No. 3, according to the plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 89-75
releasing the common 5' utility & drainage easement
of Lot 7, Block G, Oslo Park Subdv., as requested
by Charles Mosley.
5 a00K 7 [.A a 447
r -1
AUG i 4989�
BOOK. 7 � ,. � PD,GE
RESOLUTION NO. 89-75
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN THE OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION
UNIT NO. 3 LOT 7 BLOCK G, PLAT BOOK 04,
PAGE 19, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves
no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian
River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Charles H. Mosley
his successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose
mailing address is 1450 17th Court S.W., Vero Beach, Florida
32962 Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
6 •
described easements:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commis-
sioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock , and adopted on the 1st day of
August , 1989, by the following vote:
Commissioner Wheeler _gye
Commissioner Eggert _ate
Commissioner Bird _--.Ay-e
Commissioner Bowman _---&b-sent
Commissioner Scurlock Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 1st , day of August , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By
Gq6fN C. Wheeler
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
The northerly five (5) foot utility and drainage easement, being
the northerly five of Lot 7, Block G, Oslo Park Subdivision Unit
No. 3, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 04,
Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
6
D. Bid #89-67 - Tree Trimming
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DAA: July 20, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMUSSIONlM
TW: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID489-67\MM TRIMMIM
1. BACKGROUND.,
The Subject Bid for Road &Bridge was properly
advertised and PTO' (5) Invitations to bid were
sent out. On July 31, 1989, bids were received.
Four (4) Vendors submitted proposals for the camndity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. A-1 Tree Experts was the lowest bidder that
met all requ remmi
.3. FUNDING:
Requistions will be done on as needed basis and funding will
be verified by the Budget Office.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recamnends the Award of a Open End Contract. The initial
Contract period shall start with the date of the Award and shall
terminate one (1) year frau that date and to authorize the Purchasing
Manager to renew the contract for an additional one year subject
to satisfactory performance, vendor acceptance and detp*+*;*�tion
the renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded under Bid #89-67
an Open End Contract for Tree Trimming to A-1 Tree
Experts, the lowest bidder meeting specifications,
as recommended by staff and per the following Bid
Tabulation:
AUG 1989 7 ��oK l F+Cc 440
J
r—
-I
AUG, g d�
EOOK 17
F°E�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date `6-29-89
Z840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960
PURCHASING DEPT.
�V
BID TABULATION
c
T.Momow: 1705) W74000 ��� : .� � _
Submitted By Dominick L Mascola .
PURCHASING MANAGER
*
Bid No.IRC89-67 Date Of Opening June 28,1989
Recommended Award A-1 Tree Experts ��OR10$ 400.00 $50.00
Bid Title Triaming t Cutting Services
1. A-1 Tree Experts $400.00 Daily Rate 8hre day)
50.00 Hourly Rate
2, l I Tree Service, Inc. $696.00 Daily Rate (8 hra day)
$87.00 -21our y Rate
3. 'Able Tree 00.00 ;
$87.50 Hourly Rate
4. Paul 6ottardo, Quality Tree Services $800.00
,
$100.00 Hourly Rate
9- Karlan Gardens F No Did --
I
E. Bid #89-69 - Sidewalks
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 20, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TH)2U: James E. Chandler, County Admirl4trator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directpr
Department of General ioeor
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CVO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-69\SIDEWALKS
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Sidewalks was properly
advertised and Twelve (12) Invitations to bid were
sent out. On June 29, 1989, bids were received.
Four (4) Vendors submitted proposals for the cailmodity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. P.A.V.C.O. was the. lowest bidder that
met all requirements.
3. FMING:
Requisitions will be done on as needed basis and funding
will be verified by the Budget Office.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recamnends the Award of a Open End Contract. The initial
Contract period shall start with the date of the Award and sha11
tertilinate one (1) year from that date and to authorize the Purchasing
Manager to renew the contract for an additional one year subject
to satisfactory performance, vendor acceptance and deternli.nation
the renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded under Bid #89-69
an Open End Contract for Sidewalks to P.-A.V.C.O., the
lowest bidder meeting specifications, as recommended
by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
• s BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dote' 6/29/89 R j
IND nth SuC, Vem Dena,. Fug Isco PURCHASING DEPT.
. Vc
�P
r«w.� uon sgaaoo i..,.
BID TABULATION -
Submitted By DoffMck L Mascola
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid NO -IRC 89-69 Dote Of Opening 6-28-89
Recommended Award P.A.V.C:o. Construction, RIO''
Bid Title Sidewalks
1. P.A.V.C.C. Construction Inc. S12.25 /s (Item 1
$15.25 /sy (Item 2)
2. J. B. Walker.Construction, Inc. $16.20 /sy (Item 1)
(1.80 s.f
$20.70 /sy (Item 2)
(2.30 s.
3.'Muniev-Mubbard Construction Inc. S19,00/s(Item 1)
S23.00/sy (Item 2)
' drew Sid
10.-W. P. Austin Construction Corp. No Bid
$2.47 /sY
11. McCleary Excavatin No Bid
S. C. .• Industries No•Bid
12. The Murphy Construction Co. No Bid
6. Jobear, Inc. No Bid
7. owl -t Associates, Inc. No Bid
S. Trodglen Paving, Inc. No Bid
9. Carlson Florida Construction Services* Inc. No Bid
'
��: r
AUS 11989 9 �oo� F;. ,- `-L
BOOK 7d
AUG 11989
F. Bid #89-70 - Curb & Gutter
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DAZE: July 20, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Dir r
Department of Genera i
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SEW: IRC BID#89-70\CURB & Gu=
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Road & Bridge was properly
advertised and Twelve (12) Invitations to bid were
sent out. On June 28, 1989, Twelve (12) bids were
received. Two (2) vendors submitted proposals for the
ccamodity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. P.A.V.C.O. Construction was the lowest
bidder that met all requirements.
F[li IMG:
Requisitions will be done on. as needed basis and funding will
be verified by the Budget Office.
Staff rids the Award of a Open End Contract. The initial
Contract period shall start with the date of the Award and shall
tenninate one (1) year frau that date and to authorize the Purchasing
Manager to renew the contract for an additional one year subject
to satisfactory performance, vendor acceptance and detendmation
the renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded under Bid #89-70
an Open End Contract for Curb & Gutter to P.A N.C.O.,
the lowest bidder meeting specifications, as recom-
mended by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
10
G. Bid #89-71 - Straight Sand Endwalls
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 20, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY C0WUSSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County 'strator
H.T. -Sonny° Dean, Director
Department of General Serv'
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CFO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-71\STRAIGRT SAND ENDWALW
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Road & Bridge was properly
advertised and Seven (7) Invitations to bid were
sent out. On July 31, 1989, bids were received.
Two (2) Vendors submitted proposals for the commodity.
A U G
1„,
Date = 6-29-89
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
189025th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 32960 PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By DomWck L Mascola
.""'h°".` (M) as'e°°°
2 `•,'`
PURCHASING MANAGER
#
Bid No iitc 89-7o Date Of Opening 6-28-89
Recommended Award P.A.M.o.
Construction, RI
Bid Bid Title Curb E Gutter
I. P.A.V.C.O. Construction Inc.
$6.50 11F (Type F)
$7.50 LF (Type E)
$6.50 LF(Drop Curb
2. Fersch Construction Inc.
$16.00 LF (Type F
$16.00 LF (Type E)
'
10.00 LF(Drop Curb
1. Carlson r d Construction Services Inc. No Bid
10. Owl E Associates, Inc. No Bid
4. Gulf Constructors Inc.
No Bid
11. W. P. Austin Construction Corp. No Bid
S. McCleary Excavating
No Bid
12. Hunley-Hubbard Construction,inc.No Bid
6. The Murphy Construction Co.
No Bid
7. Trodglen Paving, Inc.
No Bid
8 Thomas G. Carr
No.Bid
9. Jobear, Inc.
No Bid
G. Bid #89-71 - Straight Sand Endwalls
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 20, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY C0WUSSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County 'strator
H.T. -Sonny° Dean, Director
Department of General Serv'
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CFO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-71\STRAIGRT SAND ENDWALW
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Road & Bridge was properly
advertised and Seven (7) Invitations to bid were
sent out. On July 31, 1989, bids were received.
Two (2) Vendors submitted proposals for the commodity.
A U G
1„,
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. K & S Rip Rap was the lowest bidder that
met all requirements.
3. FUNDING:
Requistions will be done on as needed basis and funding will
be verified by the Budget Office.
MENEENEENEEMi
Staff recommends the Award of a Open End Contract. The initial
Contract period shall start with the date of the Award and shall
terminate one (1) year frm that date and to authorize the Purchasing
Manager to renew the contract for an additional one year subject
to satisfactory performance, vendor acceptance and determination
the renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded under Bid #89-71
an Open End Contract for Straight Sand Endwalls to
K & S Rip Rap, the lowest bidder meeting specifica-
tions, as recommended by staff and per the following
Bid Tabulation:
'Date
=6-29-89 �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida =60
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
�vr
;Submitted By. Dominick i-Mascola
eaom 567 -SON i , f
PURCHASING MANAGER"
Bid No.titc 89-71 Date Of Opening 6-28-t
Recommended Award K b S Rip Rap Services, $10,780.00
Bid Title Straight Sand Endwalls
1. K d S Rip Rap Services Inc. * $10,780
2. J . Walker Construction Inc. * $27,665
y
*These are accumulative .
• totals for various line
Items.
12
H. Bid #89-73 - 6th & 8th Gravity Sewer/Pump Sta/Force Main
The Board reviewed memo of CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 21, 1989
TO: ' BOARD OF 00= COMMISSIONERS
IM;U: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of Genexal
FROM: Daninick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SEJBJ: IRC BID#89-73\6th & 8th Gravity Sewer/pump Sta/Force
Main
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for 6th Ave & 8th Gravity Sewer/Pump Sta
& Force Main was properly advertised and Twenty (20)
Invitations to bid were sent out. On June 14, 1989 bids
were received. Four (4) vendors submitted proposals for
the cxmmdity. -
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Ted Myers Contracting Co. was the low bidder
that met all requirements.
ts.
3. PONDING:
Monies. for this project will be taken from Utilities Water
&Sewer Impact Fees.
4. RECOMMENDATICJf!1:
Staff reoomends the Award of a Fined Contract for $106,172.90
to the low bidder, Ted Myers Contracting Co. for the ..
subject cmmmdity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded #89-73 for 6th
Ave. & 8th Gravity Sewer/Pump Sta/Force Main to
the low bidder, Ted Myers Contracting Co. in the
amount of $106,172.90 as recommended by staff and
as per the following Bid Tabulation:
13
AUG 198pou 17
AUG 1 `1989 BOOK l / f,i,t 456
. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
184026th Stmt, Vero Brack Florida 52960
Dote
ME 16, 1989
PURCHASING DEPT.
V c
13M U74os
*
BID TABULATION
submitted By DoITr,...=
PURCHASINGAAGER .
Bid No. IRC 89-73 Date Of Opening
Recommended Awwt TED KYERs CONTRACTING ��OR1D4' 06.172.90
Bid Tale 6 & 8th st Bower/pump 9ta/iorce
ain
INr- CO $106,172.90
2. RELIMLE CONSTRUCTION SERVICE INC $109,370.00
3. KENOVA CONSTRUCTION CORP $109,931.75
'
4. A.O.B. UNDERGROUND $131,255.75
1Bid _899-75 - Thermoplastic_ Grinder
The Board reviewed memo of CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 17, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CC1MMIISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Sery
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-75\ZHERMOPLASTIC GRINDER
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Then aplastic Grinder was properly
advertised and Eight (8) Invitations to bid were sent out.
On July 5, 1989, bids were received. Six (6) vendors sub-
mitted proposals for the commodity.
2. ANALYSIS:
.,{.Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Pavemark Corporation was the low bidder
to met all requirements.
'3. FUNDING:
jMonies for this project will come from Account #111-245-541-066.49
Total Budget Funds is $4,000.00.
4. pEba►-ATIoN:
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $3,200.00
to the low bidder, Pave Mark for the subject cam-adi.ty.
14
r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded #89-75 for
Thermoplastic Grinder to the low bidder, Pave -Mark
Corporation, in the amount of $3,200 as recommended
-by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ia�o ssen street, veru Beaeti. Fbrida s2s6o 'PURCHASING
�p x
•: "M eaaooe i' •�
.c
* *
Recommended Award Pave -Mark �LORI 3,200.00
Date, 7/14/89
DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dortanick L Mescola
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 89-75 Date Of Opening 7/5/89
Bid TRIO Thermoplastic Grinder
1. Pave -Mark
$3,200.00
2 Florida Transcor Inc.
$3,895-00
. EDCO
$4,365.00
4. Hiway Narking Systems,
Inc. $4,632.00
S. Tennant Company
$11,579.00
6. M-9 Company, Inc. of Wisconsin N/!
J. Bid 89-76 - Traffic Signal Equipment
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
15 ROOK �w� `" c4 5 7
Q U G 11989
L
AUG 119 9 Boer 77 r- E 458
DATE: July 20, 1989
TD:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler,County Adminis ator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Se ice
Dcaninick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-76\TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Traffic Signal Egui�t was properly
advertised and Seven (7) Invitations to bid were
sent out. On July 31, 1989, bids were received.
Seven (7) Vendors submitted proposals for the ccmrodity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. See Memorandmn Enclosed. These were the
lowest bidders that met all requirements.
3. FUNDING:
Requisitions will be done on as needed basis and funding will
be verified by the Budget Office.
4. REOO244ENDATION:
Staff recammends the Asgard of a Open End Contract. The initial
' Contract period shall start with the date of the Award and shall
terminate one (1) year frcan that date and to authorize the Purchasing
Manager to renew the contract for an additional one year subject
to satisfactory performance, vendor acceptance and det�ernination
the renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded under Bid #89-76
an Open End Contract for Traffic Signal Equipment to
the low bidders as indicated on the following Bid -
Tabulation:
16
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date = 7/13/89 1
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960 PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
r.ae�or,.: host as»000 O - s,,,,wi, T.3eM: sz�,o Submitted By Dominick L Mascola
? �' PURCHASING MAH'.GER t
Bid No. 89-76 Date Of Opening 7/5/89 '
Recommended Award COR1Bid Title Traffic Signal Equipment r
f1."Clifford of Vermont 4. Control Technologies 7. Brooks Products
Group 1 $5,457.00
Group II N/B
Group III N/B
v
0
c�
2. Traffic Control Components
Group 1 N/B
Group II $3,940 Item 4-8 only
Group III N/B
11
Group 1
N/B
Group I
N/B 1
Group II
N/B
Group 11
I
N/B
Group I11
$7,974 Item 1-2 4-7 only
Group III
$1,020.00 Item 8 only
. Cable Matic Comm
Group 1
$3,814.60
Group II
$15;300 Item 8 only
Group 111
N/B
3. Indicator•Control-s 6. Transit Cor
Group 1 N/B Group I
t
Group II $1,760.00 Item 3 only Group 11 $10,853.00
1
Group 111 $1,920.0 Item 4 only Group 111 $10,350.00 a !
_.
, 1
1
AUGF"_ -1
11989
BUUK 77 f'kgGG 460
K. Bid 89-77 - Refuse Container Truck
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 21, 1989
M: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi. s
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
I
1 SUBJ: IRC BID#89-77\REKW CO MnM TRUCK
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Refuse Container Truck was properly
advertised and Seven (7) Invitations to bid•were sent out
On July 12, 1989, bids were received. Seven (7)' vendors
submitted proposals for the cc:mmodity.
2..' ANALYSIS:
F frw4.
'.`Staff has reviewed the suinittal to ascertain adherence to
-; specifications. Heintzelman's Truck Center was the low
bidder that met all requirements.
3. FUNDING:
Monies for this project will gene Iandfi.11 Capital Budget
Acoount. Total Budget Fund is $70,000.00. See. Attached Miro.
Staff reams the Award of a Fixed Contract for $72,356.00
to the law bidder, Heintzelman's Truck Center for the ••
subject commodity.
Commissioner Bird had a question regarding the Alternate #1
listed at a lower price, and Director Dean explained that the
alternate was the manual transmission. The original bid asked
for an automatic transmission. Due to the problems they have had
out there with drive shafts and axles, they felt it would be best
to go to the automatic transmission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent, the
Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid 89-77 for a Refuse
Container Truck to the low bidder, Heintzelman's Truck
Center, in the amount of $72,356 as recommended by staff
and per the following Bid Tabulation:
18
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
184025th Street. Vero Beach. Florida 32960
�V
�.._i
Recommended Award Heintzelman's Truck Center �LOR1D
72,356.00
Date 7/12/89
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Mascola
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 1kC#89-77 Date Of Opening 7/5/89
Bid Title Refuse Container Truck
Ford LT 9000 or equal
1. Heintzelman's Truck Center
$72,356.00
Alt #1
$64,607.00
2. Southland Equipment Corporation $73,103.54
3 --Palm Peterbuilt Truck
$73,270.00
4. Costal Ford Company
$73,372.24
Alt 11
Alt #2
-$73,839.24
$75,880.24
E H C 0
$74,657.00
6. Transit Company
$75,148.00
7. Palm Beach Int. Truck
$76,946.87
L. Bid 89-81 - Service Bodies for Dodge Trucks
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Dominick Mascola:
DATE: July 20, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COWUSSIONERS
TH12U: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of Genera Serv'
FROM: Dcminick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-81\SERVICE BODIES FOR DODGE TRUCK
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Service Bodies For Dodge Trucks
was properly advertised and Four (4) Invitations to bid
were sent out. On July 12, 1989, bids were received.
Two (2) vendors submitted proposals for the commodity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Johnny Stamm was the low bidder to met
all requirements.
19 ,�
77 ,AUG 1 1989
600K i'4E 462
'. 3. FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come frau Account #471-235-536-066.42.
Total Budget Funds is $16,700.00.
4. 1tD00ma2mATION:
- Staff recmrnnds the Award of a fixed contract for $6,170.00
to the low bidder, Johnny Stamm, for the subject commdity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded Bid 89-81 for
Service Bodies for Dodge Trucks to the low bidder,
Johnny Stamm, in the amount of $6,170, as recommended
by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date= 7/12/89
Z84025thStreet,Vero Beach.Florida 829B0
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Mascols
PURCHASING MANAGER
*
Bid No. 89-81 Date Of Opening 7/12/89
Recommended Award Johnny Stamp LORI $6,170.00
Bid Title Service Bodies for Dodge Trucks
1. Johnny Stamm Equipment $6,170.00
2. Tho son Equipment $6,796.00
M. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney's Office:
TO: ,B,00arrd• of County Commissioners
FROM: 69"Cea"R. Iter, County Attorney's Office
DATE: July 26, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 8/2/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
U.S.#1 (S. of Oslo Road), Tax I.D.
#30-33-40-00000-5000-00004.0, in the name of
THOMAS J. TATTERSON, SR.
20
F7J
Lot 13 of SEMINOLE SHORES - Water 8 Wastewater
Assessment in the name of FRIEDHELM
SCHWABE et ux
Lots 7 and 8, Block O of ROCKRIDGE SUB.
REPLAT UNIT NO. 4 in the name of MARION F.
WHITTON
Lots 2 and 3 of RIVER SHORES ESTATES, UNIT #1
In the name of DONALD R. NICHOLS et ux
Information on the above release requests is on file in the
County Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Chairman
to execute Release of Liens as listed above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASE OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
N. Investment Resolution
The Board reviewed memo from Finance Director Fry:
TO: The Honorable Board DATE: July 25, 1989 FILE:
County Commissioners
(;�D/
THROUGH: Joe Baird
Director, OMB
FROM: Ed ry
Finance Director
SUBJECT: Investment Resolution
REFERENCES:
Presently, the investments of the County are governed by
Resolution 83-55. When Resolution 83-55 was written, it
was based on Section 125.31 of the Florida Statutes and
_-listed the allowable investments. However, the Resolution
was inconsistent in.that it stated that all investments as
authorized by 125.31 F.S. were allowable, but then failed
to include in the list investments that were authorized by
125.31 F.S. Also, since Resolution 83-55 was adopted,
125.31 F.S. has been amended by the Legislature twice.
AUG 11989 21 Pm. 77
Fr,- -7
AUG 11989, Poor 7 7 4 64
For the past few bond issues that have been done by the
Board, the Ordinances and Resolutions that were adopted
authorizing the bond issues defined "Authorized Investments"
as.those investments specified in Section 125.31, Florida
Statutes, as amended.
I would like to have the attached resolution adopted by the
Board in order to provide more consistency with Section
125.31, Florida Statutes and other Ordinances and Resolutions
that have been adopted by the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 89-76
authorizing the investment of surplus funds as pro-
vided by Florida Statutes 125.31.
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 76
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE INVESTMENT OF
SURPLUS FUNDS, AS PROVIDED BY FLORIDA
STATUTES §125.31.
WHEREAS, Indian River County from time to time has
funds on hand in excess of current needs; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of
Indian River County that funds be Invested In such a manner
as to yield the highest return possible consistent with
proper safeguards for the handling of government funds; and
WHEREAS, It is necessary for the Board of County
Commissioners to authorize the investment of surplus County
funds to achieve the maximum public benefit by insuring that
said funds earn the hiohest interest allowable while
deposited in prudent and safe investments, securities, and
Institutions,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1.
For the
purposes
of this resolution the term
"surplus
funds"
is defined
as funds in any general or
special
account
or fund of
Indian River County held or
controlled by the County Commissioners or the Clerk to the
22
Board of County Commissioners which, in reasonable
contemplation, will not be needed for the purposes intended
within a reasonable time from the date of such investment.
Surplus funds shall not include any funds subject to any
contract or agreement on the date of enactment of this
resolution; such funds shall not be invested contrary to
such contract or agreement.
2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County hereby authorizes the investment of surplus funds In
the control or possession of the Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners In those investments authorized by
Florida Statues §125.31, as may be amended from time to
time.
3. This authorization shall be continuing In nature
until revoked by the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners.
4. This resolution replaces any conflicting prior
resolutions adopted by the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bird and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn,K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Absent
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this _1st day of August, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Attest Gary .`W eeIer
Cha' man
Xa r n CTe
Q.
198923
® 2 3 BOOK 17
AUG 11989 boa 77 F',a,UE 466
PROPOSED JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH
Administrator Chandler advised that he met with City Manager
John Little Friday, and if it is acceptable to the Commissioners,
we could meet next week. Mr. Little will be out of town for 2
weeks following that; so, it could either be next week or the
last week in August. The 3 items Mr. Little had proposed for an
agenda of that meeting are:
1) Discussion of possible use of Pocahontas Park Physical Arts
Building for jury selection.
2) Overall Downtown Planning
3) Joint Recreation Agreement
Commissioner Scurlock did not see, other than downtown
redevelopment, why the rest could not be matters that would be
handled administratively with recommendations back to the Council
and Commission.
Administrator Chandler believed the other two items are
mainly informational to bring everyone up to date.
Commissioner Bird asked that discussion of the proposed
firing range be added to the above proposed agenda mainly for
informational purposes.
After some discussion, it was agreed to set the Joint
City/County meeting for Tuesday, August 8, 1989, in the first
floor Conference Room of the County Administration Building.
6TH AVENUE SEWER ASSESSMENT
Director Pinto reviewed the following memos:
24
DATE:
JULY 26, 1989
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
Approximate
COUNTY ADMINSTRATOR
THRU:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
Acres
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE VICES
FROM:
WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
�INEER
CAPITAL PROJECTS E
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
6TH AVENUE SEWER ASSESSMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US 88 -08 -CS
We have received copies of four letters which were sent to
Commissioner Wheeler over the last week regarding the assessment
hearing on the 6th Avenue sewer project.
All parties in question were notified of the Preliminary Assessment
Hearing as prescribed in the County's code governing assessment
procedures.
None of the parties in question attended the Preliminary Assessment
Hearing. The Department of Utility Services has complied with all
rules governing assessment projects, and we feel that the assessment
is justifiable. However, the four parties now wish to be heard by
the Board of County Commissioners. We are of the opinion that the
decision to be heard by the Commission on the Agenda under "public
discussion," is one which must be made -by the Board.
Attached please find copies of the four letters and a copy of a
memo to Terry Pinto explaining the basis of the assessment on these
properties.
DATE: JULY 24, 1989
TO: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
(N,
FROM: WILLIAM F. McCAINI
CAPITAL PROJECTS EgdINEER
SUBJECT: SEWER FLOWS AND ASSESSMENT FOR 6TH AVENUE SEWER SYSTEM
We have received three letters from property owners along the route
of 6th Avenue who, for one reason or another, missed the preliminary
hearing and now wish to be heard. The properties in question are
zoned as follows:
We took 50% of each property and assessed it for 6th Avenue; we also
assessed 50% for Indian River Boulevard. Based on the zoning of the
property, that which is zoned RMIO could ultimately generate 2,500
GPD and the CG could potentially generate 1,300 GPD. The sewer
system was sized and designed accordingly to handle the ultimate
flow from these properties. The zoning associated with this project
is mixed similarly and therefore all properties were assessed on an
equal square foot basis.
25
F�.� 61
Zoning By
Approximate
Parcel No.
Percentage
Acres
Smeltzer 7
95% @ RMIO
- 9.06
5% @ CG
Beal 8
85% @ RMIO
10.41
15% @ CG
White 9
60% @ RMIO
- 6.97
40% @ CG
We took 50% of each property and assessed it for 6th Avenue; we also
assessed 50% for Indian River Boulevard. Based on the zoning of the
property, that which is zoned RMIO could ultimately generate 2,500
GPD and the CG could potentially generate 1,300 GPD. The sewer
system was sized and designed accordingly to handle the ultimate
flow from these properties. The zoning associated with this project
is mixed similarly and therefore all properties were assessed on an
equal square foot basis.
25
F�.� 61
1 V�
c -j
S
15 �yy
®CP
F� �� �- )
F�a,,r 46
Fred Smeltzer came before
the Board and stated
that he was
told by his neighbor that you didn't have to hook up if you
didn't want to, and he wished to know if that is true.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that there are two elements
to it. There is a special assessment to pay for that portion of
the line that goes in front of your property, and in addition to
that, at the time you actually did receive service, you then
would pay for the ERUs you are requesting service for. Commis-
sioner Scurlock continued that Director Pinto had indicated that
if the property owners were willing to agree forever to only
develop their property at one unit per acre, the assessment would
I
be based on that as opposed to paying for the ERUs needed for
future potential development. Certainly at some time the
expansion of the sewer will make that property worth a good deal
more, and he personally questioned if the owners would be willing
to enter into such an agreement.
Mr. Smeltzer could only speak for himself. He stated that
he has put 5 acres up for sale and will keep 3. When his acreage
sells, he will pay this off, but right now he cannot afford to
make these big payments on a 5 year basis.
Commissioner Bird asked what the assessment on Mr.
Smeltzer's property would be, and what the initial payment is
that he has to make.
Director Pinto stressed that everyone must understand that
the project hasn't been built yet. We have just done the
preliminary assessment and are just awarding the bids. After
that, the project will take 3-4 months to complete; then we come
back for final assessment, and for 90 days after that, these
people have the option of extending into a payment plan or paying
the whole amount. Mr. Smeltzer has one parcel of 190,312 sq. ft,
and a second parcel that has 13,485 sq. ft. The second parcel
more reflects what a normal single family home would be assessed,
or $1,284. The 190,000 sq. ft., which is acreage we have to look
at as potential development, would be assessed about $18,000.
26
-d
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the county does not
really want to be in the finance business and that is why our
interest rate is high. The other option would be for owners to
go to the private sector and borrow the money over a longer
period of time, probably at a lower interest rate.
Director Pinto further clarified that in about 10 months,
Mr. Smeltzer will have to pay 1/5 of his total assessment of
$20,000.
Mr. Smeltzer indicated that this made it clearer to him, and
he felt he could handle something like that.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to accept and continue with
staff's recommendation which we have approved
previously and not to consider in a favorable way
any appeal today.
Director Pinto further pointed out that when someone makes
the choice of the 5 year payment after that 90 days, the first
payment isn't due until a year later.
Commissioner Bird requested that Director Pinto write
letters of explanation to the others who wished to appeal their
assessments but were not present today.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT W/CUSTOMER SERVICE, INC.
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:
�, ay
AUG 11989 27 _ �oa� ! Faer
L_
AUGFr__ I
,��7:y
�OGK � � 470
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority'personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a��
n
in the matter
in the Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of dr
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy df
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 *aid newspaper. A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this oZ,Q day of A.D. 19
ZLLh
I±P9e 1 7
(CI '
(SEAL)
•� "t iPUBLICNOTICE °wYATii
On Tuesday. AuyuCommissloj989, at 91 ners Of ndian :wj
guard of County
County. Florida. wig meet In the County Adminis-
FL�ot gconiaMer 184025 lttakleo Or Beach"
County of the Laurelwood Utility Sy am. which
Is now owned end operated by Custom Said
vice. Inc., tot a total price of "Interestedtopar-
over ten years et 560 pe year
ties are invitedatwhich khearings u�nty
will m9 this purchasetation pursuant to 126.3401.
Florida kStatulese a s..•nre9arding the. advlsabUny of
this. ;Nish to appeal zany, decision
one who may will need to
An may be made at this meed Mel need to
ensure that a verbatim recon
Ings is made, which Includes testimony and e0,
dance
on which the aPP� is based
Director Pinto made the following presentation:
DATE: JUNE 27, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS ! /
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT }
DIRECTOR OF UTILI ERVICES
PREPARED AND HARRY E. ASHER
STAFFED BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AD INISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED WASTEWATER SYSTEM LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CUSTOMER SERVICE, INC., AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BACKGROUND:
Customer Service, Inc., currently owns and operates a .100 million
gallon per day wastewater system in Indian River County, Florida,
under a franchise known as "Customer Service, Inc., Water and Sewer
Franchise" (CSI).
Indian River County currently supplies water service to the
approximately 250 customers served by Customer Service, Inc.,
wastewater system. Customer Service, Inc., has approached Indian
28
River County with a proposal to lease/operate its existing
wastewater system for a period of ten years. The proposed lease fee
is $50.00 per year for the ten year period, plus taxes. Indian
River County, through the Department of Utility Services, currently
bills the existing customers of Customer Service, Inc., for the
wastewater service through a Billing Agreement with Customer
Service, Inc.
ANALYSIS•
Indian River County's policy has been to acquire/service such
privately held utilities to expand its regional and subregional
water and wastewater facilities. The leasing of this system will
assist Indian River County in implementing this policy, in addition
to expanding the customer base and service area of the County's
wastewater system. It is projected that Indian River County will
have its regional facility servicing this area within the term of
the lease.
Wastewater services can be provided to the Customer Service, Inc.,
existing franchise area without any significant effect on the
operating costs of the County facilities and with no effect on the
rates and charges of the existing County customers.
It is proposed that, with the approval of the Lease Agreement, all
customers within the CSI franchise area pay the current Indian River
County wastewater rates, which will result in an increase over the
current rates of CSI.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Lease Agreement
for wastewater service with Customer Service, Inc., and approve the
implementation of Indian River County wastewater rates for the
Customer Service, Inc., franchise area, based upon the outcome of
the Public Hearing,
RATE COMPARISON
CUSTOMER SERVICE, INC. VS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
-CURRENT
GALLONS
SEWER
RATE
3000
5000
7000 .
BILLING CHARGE
$1.84
$1.84
$1.84
$1.84
BASE FACILITY CHARGE
$1.53
$1.53
$1.53
$1.53
CONSUMPTION CHARGE
$2.86
$8.58
$14.30
$20.02
$11.95
$17.67
$23.39
CUSTOMER SERVICE, INC.
GALLONS
WATER'RATES
3000
500a
7000
FIRST 2000 GALLONS
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
EACH ADD. 1,000 GALS.
1.75
$1.75
TOTALS .
$6.75
$10.25
$13.75
CUSTOMER SERVICE INC.
SEWER RATES
UP TO 5000 GALS. 125% OF
WATER CHARGE
$8.44
$12.81
$12.81
5000 TO 9000 GALS
5000 GAL. RATE PLUS 1000
$3.50
OF WATER CHARGE OVER 5000
GALS.
TOTAL SEWER CHARGES
$8.44
$12.81
$16.31
INCREASE IN RATES
$3.51
$4.86
$7.08
AUG 1 1989
29
R�J� er
7-7 f',,r
��
Director Pinto noted that Laurelwood at one point in time
had a water franchise and a wastewater franchise. When the
county water system became available, we connected the Laurelwood
development into the county system and they became county
customers at the same time we took over two other franchises in
the area. Laurelwood had its own wastewater treatment facility,
but at that time, the county was not in a position to offer
county service from a regional facility or to take over their
operation. Since that time, the County has begun the process of
taking over all the smaller facilities with the aim of eventually
putting them in some regional facilities. We have negotiated
with the owner of the Laurelwood utility and have come to an
agreement to take over his wastewater facility, put the customers
on the county rate system, and take over the complete operation
of the existing wastewater system there with the intent of
connecting that into a South County regional system in the
future.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is the requirement for
a second public hearing for a rate adjustment since it is a
change from their existing structure.
Director Pinto advised that the County Attorney's opinion is
that it is not required since they are going onto the approved
County rate structure, and there is no surcharge involved. If
there were a surcharge, it would be different.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that the rates based on
5,000 gpd would have from an $4.86 to a $7.00 monthly increase.
Director Pinto confirmed that and explained that one of the
problems with the existing system is that the total approved rate
structure has not been charged to the people; so, some of the
people there will receive a larger increase only because the
utility company hasn't been charging them what is actually
allowed. What we have to make our comparison on is the rate
structure that is approved in the franchise.
30
Commissioner Scurlock believed that in the long term we are
looking to phase this facility out and bring it onto the county, -
treatment facility, at which time the on-site facility would be
removed, and certainly from an aesthetic standpoint, that would
be an improvement.
John Schenck, 495 23rd Avenue, believed you would have to
know where the present facility is located, as you can't see it
from any improved property.
Director Pinto advised that there is a new development that
has built rather close to it, and over the last few months, we
have received numerous complaints about odors from the ponds and
some noise from the plant. We have determined that there are
certain things we will have to do to alleviate those problems
when we take it over.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if in Director Pinto's opinion,
the removal of the facility would be a positive rather than a
negative, and he replied absolutely.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Mr. Schenck, 495 23rd Avenue, resident of Laurelwood for 10
years, stated that the letter sent to the residents was obtuse
and unclear, and he believed most people in Laurelwood don't know
exactly what they will be paying and over what period of time or
how much would be special assessments and how much would be sewer
charges.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that, as he understood it, the
proposal is to bring Laurelwood on the county rate structure, and
he did not believe there would be any impact fees assessed to
come under the county system.
Director Pinto confirmed that it would be handled exactly
the same as the neighboring Treasure Coast and Ixora systems
were; it will be coming on to the system under the county rate
structure and there are no assessments involved; no impact fees.
Mr. Schenck believed there is a fee to the developer, and
Commissioner Scurlock believed the question is what the residents
AUG 1 `1989
F-
31 PuoK
AUG 1 `b'9
Ll
mor T1 r,r ,C. 4 1
will have to pay, and under the county rate structure if someone
is using 7,000 gpd, it will be an increase of about $7.00
monthly.
Mr. Schenck did not see this as an advantage to the
residents because the system works the way it is now. He also
felt there will be other costs involved when the plant eventually
is removed.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that Mr. Schenck asked what it
would cost him, and it will cost him more per month, but there
will be no impact fees and all the other costs are borne by the
system; so, whether or n-ot that property remains vacant or gets
improved, etc., that cost won't be borne by him.
Director Pinto addressed the advantages of going on to the
county system. He advised that he met with the home owners
association. This is only a system of 400 customers so every
$400 spent on repairs or on the operation of that system means
$1.00 per customer. If it remained an individual franchise
utility, there isn't any possible way in the next 5 years, they
could substantiate the cost to operate that facility with the
rate structure that is existing, and any major improvement would
result in a tremendous per unit cost back to the customers.
When they are on the county system which has a tremendously
bigger base, you wouldn't even see that cost. The long term
benefit of connection to the county system is that the rates
would be stabilized into the county rate system.
Mr. Schenck pointed out that their rates have been stable
for ten years, and it has been very profitable plant for the
developer.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the owner could come
in and ask for a rate increase at any time.
Mr. Schenck continued to contend that the letter was
insufficient, and they did not have complete enough information.
Director Pinto noted that he and Mr. Asher did meet with the
Property Owners Association, and they were satisfied. Actually,
32
the initiation of us taking this system over came from that
direction, and they represent about 50% of the owners.
Mr. Schenck advised that he started that association and
chartered it, but he is no longer a member of it.
Director Pinto explained that there have been major
improvements made to the wastewater facility as it is there now,
and if the developer wanted to take the cost associated with
those improvements and come in for a rate increase, an increase
undoubtedly would be justified.
Commissioner Scurlock believed he and Mr. Pinto have been
working with Mr. Robinson for about 5 years trying to find an
acceptable way to bring this plant onto the county system.
Commissioner Bird felt that actually the people in
Laurelwood are getting a real good deal as most people coming
onto the county system would have to pay a $1,250 impact fee, and
Commissioner Eggert further noted that it appears there are
problems out there already with odor and noise, and there is the
potential for having a lot more fixing to do.
Director Pinto agreed there are problems, and we have to
work diligently to remove the system from that area. He agreed
with the comment made that the more efficient the operation, the
less cost to the customer, and that is exactly our intention in
taking this system over.
Mr. Schenck asked about the time frame anticipated in
hooking up to the county line.
Director Pinto explained that actually is not part of the
takeover. The county is going to go in and operate the system
and we hope to have a South County system within the next 5
years.
Mr. Schenck stressed that the county will be using the
system as it is for the next 5 years so all that will happen is a
change in ownership and an increase in rates.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that there could be an
increase in rates anyway. The developer could come in for a rate
33
mor `'1�
,AUG-, 11989
RGGK l7 'F',1G 4 76
hearing and justify his expenses, and the people very possibly
could end up with a rate much higher than the county rate
Director Pinto noted that we could keep the system
independent and all the costs involved in its maintenance and
operation would be assessed to the 400 customers, and we could
add a surcharge and treat them independently, but he would not
recommend we do that. He stressed the environmental advantages
of removing these small plants and emphasized that we must look
at the total benefit to the county from a regionalization
program.
Malcolm Grinnell, 2255 4th Place, noted that the letter he
received from Mr. Pinto cited a total price of $500 to be paid
over 10 years, and the people want to know if that is an
individual home cost.
Director Pinto explained that is what the County is paying.
The people are going onto the county rate structure, and that is
all they will pay. Our agreement with the owner is that we pay
$50 a year for our lease.
Raymond Shea, 530 24th Court, wished to know why the county
can't run this system on the same rates as Laurelwood. He felt
the obvious answer is that the County is less efficient.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the other answer is that the
franchise is not charging an appropriate rate right now, and they
are losing money and Mr. Robinson would be appealing to the
Commission for a rate increase.
Peter Robinson, President of Customer Service, Inc., and
developer of Laurelwood, believed if anyone will look at the
books on Customer Service, they will see that they have been
subsidizing the sewer company. He discussed the history of
developing Laurelwood, noting that they originally wanted to do a
regional plant but were turned down at that time. The policy
then was to put in a small utility plant with every subdivision
with the result that there were complaints about bad water and
the county then had to step in and put in good water and the
34
price went up. He further explained that what Customer Service
has is a sewer plant and that is all they own; the lines
technically are owned by the County. Mr. Robinson advised that
the only reason they haven't come in for a rate increase is
because they have been in the process of working this arrangement
out with the county, and he could guarantee that if a rate
analysis were done, the rates would be higher. He believed
everyone is better off having the county develop the larger
system.
Mr. Shea felt that every time a government entity takes over
something, the price goes up, and he repeated his belief that the
County cannot be doing an efficient job if they have to raise the
rates.
Commissioner Bird explained how it was the custom for these
small utility systems to be subsidized by the developers while
they were still trying to sell lots, but pointed out that those
who did come in for a full blown rate analysis, did have their
rates increased. He further noted that the County has not raised
our rates in 5 years. Even though our customer base has grown
tremendously, we have been able to handle it.
Mr. Shea stressed that his rates will be increased 70%, and
there is no way that can be justified.
Director Pinto pointed out that if the developer was making
a lot of money from the system, he would not want us to take it
over. He again brought up the environmental benefits of getting
rid of the small systems, noting that the DER has officially
commended us for our efforts in working towards a regional
system. He further pointed out the various other small systems
in the county that have failed and the county has had to take
them over at great expense and charge an impact fee to bring them
onto the system.
Mr. Shea contended that their system has been working fine
and that government does nothing but raise rates unnecessarily
and make dire predictions.
35 '1f 7`7
U 1989 LRo0K l �.�;�.
J
AUG 1198,,E
'r.�C 8
Mrs. Ruth Chapman of Rockridge Subdivision spoke of the
Rockridge residents' thankfulness to have the sewer system that
has just been completed and wanted the Laurelwood residents to
realize what a severe health hazard has been eliminated for them.
She expressed her support of the Commission in their efforts to
have a regional system for the good of everyone.
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 authorized
the Chairman to execute the Lease Agreement for
wastewater service with Customer. Service, Inc., and
approved implementation of the County wastewater
rates for the Customer Service, Inc., franchise area.
LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this. day.
of 1989, by and between CUSTOMER SERVICE, INC., a
Florida corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Corporation",
and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County", ,
NOW WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Corporation owns and operates a sewer
system in Indian River County, Florida by virtue of a County
franchise known as 'Customer Service, Inc. Water and Sewer
Franchise'; and
' WHEREAS, the County furnishes water to sqme of the
citizens of Indian River County, Florida who are served by such
sewer system; and
WHEREAS, for reasons of efficiency and economy it is
desirable -that the County be authorized and empowered by the
Corporation for and on behalf of the Corporation to lease the
36
M M M
sewer system and the land upon which it is located and to
continue to operate the sewer system under County control; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation and County have agreed upon
the terms and conditions to be contained in said lease; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, for and on behalf of the County of Indian
River, have authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute this
Lease Agreement on behalf of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation has by resolution agreed to
enter into this Lease Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises herein contained, it is agreed as follows:
1. The Corporation hereby leases to the County the
Corporation's sewer system and all of its appurtenances including
the land upon which it is situate being described as follows:
The West 10.34 acres of Tract 3, Indian River Farms
Subdivision, Section 14-33-39.
2. The term of this lease shall be for a term .of ten
(10) years and may be cancelled sooner by the County upon 30 day
written notice to the Corporation at its last known address. In
the event that the County cancels this lease and returns the
system to the Corporation, the system sAall be returned in the
same operating conditions as delivered to the County less
reasonable wear and tear and not in violation of any governmental
regulations either County, State or Federal. In the event that
the County cancels said lease and returns the system to the
Corporation, the County shall, at the option of the Corporation,
dismantle and remove the plant and bear the expense of all
environmental testing which may be required by any governmental
agency at the time that the County decommissions or removes the
system from service.
3. The rent for the entire term shall be Five Hundred
Dollars ($500.00) payable in.annual installments of Fifty Dollars
($50.00), the first annual payment in advance at the time the
A U G 11989 989 476
AUG
GOOK 77 Ff1 E 480
County assumes control of the system and on the same day each
successive year thereafter.
4. The County shall hold the Corporation harmless in
all respects having to do with the operation of the sewer system
and the control of the land above described and shall not cause
any liens or encumbrances to be placed against the land or the
system without the consent of the Corporation.
5. During the term of the lease, the County shall pay
the ad valorem and personal property taxes on the leased property
and if the lease is cancelled as provided herein, the taxes shall
be prorated.
6. At any time during or at the end of the ten year
term of this lease, the County shall have the option to purchase
the entire system and the land upon which it is .located upon 30
day written notice to the Corporation of its intention to
purchase. At the time of purchase, the sewer system shall be
determined to have no monetary value and the purchase price
established will be the fair market value of the land at its
highest and best use, without deduction for the cost of removal
of the sewer plant or system. The value of the land for the
purchase by the County shall be determined by an appraisal done'
by an approved appraiser acceptable to both parties. If there is
a dispute concerning the appraisal the parties shall select a
second appraiser and average the results of the two appraisals.
The purchase price shall be in cash at time of closing. If
during or at the end of the ten year term, the County has not
notified the Corporation at least 30 days prior to the end of the
lease that it intends to exercise its option, the lease will
terminate and the County will remove the system from the land
unless the Corporation notifies the County in writing that.the
system shall remain on the land.
9
7. Under a previous written agreement, -the County is
acting as agent on behalf of the Corporation for the•purpose of
billing the sewer customers, however, upon execution of this
38
.agreement that agency relationship will terminate and the County
shall have complete control of the operation of the system.which
shall include all maintenance, repairs and billing. The
Corporation shall have no liability for any costs whatsoever with
respect to the operation by the County of the system.
S. Should the County exercise its option to purchase
the property, closing shall take place within 60 days after
notice and the 'STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS' contained
in the Far/Bar 002-87b (1/88) Contract shall apply except,
however, the County shall bear all expenses of closing including
a reasonable fee for the Corporation's attorney.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and
seals thisIxt- day of 1989.
(corp; seal)
WitneiP
Witness
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY
_ &04q— 9 4VAlz�
GARY vq WHEELER
CHAIR N
ATTEST:
K Q -
CUSTOMER SERVICE,
BY
PRESIDENT',,
ORCHID ISLAND ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR R/W ABANDONMENT
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:
ICU G`� 482
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority'personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
- L_,07 'r s
a
0
In the matter
In the _ Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the §aid newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me thisday A.D. 19—
S'
t6leFlt 8#
(SEAL) -__... «..,..
consider a petition for the
and vacation of all of an.
=tying on Goverthment
P 31 South, Range 39
r.pa, more Jarucuwnyaescnnea as rouowVg':1": C
':.The subJeet properly b described as: _- ,..:y ;. • .
'a:4 Being a road right-of-way hdng in a por
tion of Government Lot ' Section 23,
Township 31 South, Range 39 East, In- .
dim River County, Florida, the boundary
of said right-of-way being more particu-
lary described as follows h•
BfTI >LQt4. run
Wor1b;000 08'33From the southwest comer of 60 +..
ti 4 along the WeetBrre of Govemmirit.
Lot 4.502.93 feet to arrItM"pipe for the
ppooint of beginning of the right-ot-way to .
De 'dascrithed herein, thence run South
t.890 04' 43" East along the South fine of
the North 831.81 feet of said Govem-'
ment Lot 4,1034.04 feet, more or less, to
a concrete monument on the West right-
of-way
ightof-way line of State Road A-11 Ak thence
nm North 240 24' S8" WesL along said
State Road A -1 -A right-cf-way Me,
105.88 feet; thence Leaving the right -of-
run southwest -
on a loeurve to tiRoad A-Iro right having as
radius of 25.00 feet a central angle of
115° 20' 15 and an aro distance of ,
50.32 feet; thence run North 89° 04.43"
West 988.98 feet, more of lase, to a
poi
Lot nt on4; thence run South 00° 08'
36" West 80.00 feet to the Point of i
Beginning. Containing 1.413 acres, more
or lose.
A public hearing at which parties In Interest and
citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard,
will be held by the Board of Canty Commission-
ers of Indian River County, Florida In the County
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis•
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. August 1. 1986
at 9:05 am.
Anyone who wish to appeal Wj decision
which may be made at this meeting will need tc
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which Includes the testimony and:evi. I
dente upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -GARY WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
July 12,1989
Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation, as
follows:
40
T0: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ing AICP
Community De elo ent Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling42 CP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner, urrent Development
DATE: July 21, 1989
SUBJECT: ORCHID ISLAND ASSOCIATE'S REQUEST FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ABANDONMENT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 1, 1989.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
Bruce Barkett, Esquire, on behalf of Orchid Island Associates, has
submitted a petition for abandonment of an unnamed "paper street"
right-of-way now lying within the Town of Orchid. The subject
uncleared and unimproved right-of-way is approximately 550' north
of the Spring Place Subdivision. The right-of-way runs approxi-
mately 900' west from S.R. A.I.A. and connects to the existing
portion of Jungle Trail that runs through the Orchid development.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way.
This application was originally scheduled and advertised for the
February 1, 1989 Board of County Commissioners meeting; however,
the applicant withdrew the application from consideration until
the Jungle Trail re -alignment issue had been resolved. The
applicant has now re -activated the application and has agreed in
writing to pay all costs of necessary readvertising.
Three county departments recommended denial during the initial
(January/February 1989) review process; however, the applicant has
now addressed the concerns of these departments. These
departments are now recommending approval of the requested
abandonment with certain conditions specified at the end of this
report.
ANALYSIS:
The subject right-of-way was established to connect Jungle Trail
to S.R. A.I.A. in the general area. Prior to the establishment of
the subject right-of-way, a right-of-way had been located about
800' to the north of the subject right-of-way (see attachment #2).
This northern right-of-way was swapped for the subject
right-of-way when the northern right-of-way was abandoned in 1983
in conjunction with a development proposal. A letter of credit
was posted to guarantee construction of the new road. The subject
right-of-way was created via a right-of-way swap, to provide
41
A U G 11989
ri'�f4-30
AUG G I X989
ll
psi yea
noK FAqt. A
access and accommodate utilities services to parcels which at the
time of the swap, were either land -locked or served solely by
Jungle Trail. At the time of the right-of-way swap, staff was
concerned with how access and utilities services would be provided
to area land -locked parcels; thus, the subject right-of-way was
established. These land -locked parcels are now under a unified
ownership and the need for the subject right-of-way is greatly
diminished.
It is a matter of public record that the applicant is proceeding
to develop almost all of the area of the Town of Orchid, which
would encompass the area of concern. The applicant intends to
provide access and utilities to the area of concern through the
proposed development. It is the Town of Orchid's responsibility
to ensure that provisions for access and utilities are provided,
if the proposed development does not materialize and/car property
ownerships change.
Since this request was originally analyzed by staff, the
re -alignment of Jungle Trail has been conditionally approved. The
new Trail alignment has been moved further east where it inter-
sects with .the subject right-of-way. The staff wants to ensure
that the public has the right to access Jungle Trail via a S.R.
A.I.A. entry road, as is presently provided by the existing
subject right-of-way. The best way to achieve this would be for
the applicant to grant a 60' wide public access easement (which
overlays the Orchid development's entry road) from S.R. A.I.A. to
the new Jungle Trail portion. This easement would ensure public
access and needs to be granted prior to the recording of the
attached resolution.
As part of the abandonment application review, the Public Works
Director has indicated the need to minimize access points to S.R.
A.I.A.. This could be achieved with a limited access easement
provided along S.R. A.I.A., which would effectively limit dis-
ruption of the traffic flow on S.R. A.I.A. This would give the
development a curb cut on the east and west side of S.R. A.I.A.
and create only one major intersection for the Orchid development
(such as with John's Island) rather than a series of inter-
sections. This is desirable from the County's standpoint to
enhance traffic flow and from the development's standpoint in
trying to achieve a secure community. The applicant is agreeable
to establishing the limited access easement along S.R. A.I.A.
SUMMARY:
The subject right-of-way was established to service what were
landlocked parcels, and to provide for public access to Jungle
Trail from S.R. A.I.A. in the general area in which it is located.
Because of the assembled acreage covered by the Orchid develop-
ment, the concerns of servicing land -locked parcels has diminished
greatly. Public access from S.R. A.I.A. to the Trail can be
assured by the applicant by granting a public access easement from
S.R. A.I.A. along the Orchid development's proposed entrance road
whichcrosses the new Jungle Trail portion. In addition,. a
limited access easement can be established to assure limited
access along the development's S.R. A.I.A. frontage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the subject
right-of-way and that the Chairman of the Board of County Commis-
sioners be authorized to execute the attached resolution
(attachment #3), with the following conditions that:
1. Prior to the resolution being recorded, the applicant must
pay the cost of readvertising.
2. Prior to the resolution being recorded, the applicant shall
grant a limited access easement which limits the number of
42
access points along the Orchid project's western S.R. A.I.A.
frontage to one access point.
3. Prior to the resolution being recorded, the applicant shall
grant a 60' wide public access easement from S.R. A.I.A. to
Jungle Trail over the Orchid project's S.R. A.I.A. entrance
road.
4. Upon construction of a paved public access easement road to
the re -aligned North Jungle Trail, the staff is directed to
release Florida National Bank letter of credit MD -1652 posted
by Orchid Island Limited Partnership to guarantee its
construction by April 1, 1990.
ORIGNAL
R -O -W
PROPOSED ,,
ABANDONMENT
43
A, UG 11989
60' PUBLIC ACCESS
EASEMENT'
ORCHID ACCESS
ROAD
r",_
,AUL i989
Planner Boling referred to the map and advised that the 50'
R/W is a county road and there is nothing built there. It orig-
inally was intended to be a common ac"cess point for several
unassembled parcels of land in the area. This took place when
this was still in the unincorporated area of the county; since
then the parcels have been assembled, and Orchid Island
Associates now is requesting abandonment. Staff recommends
approval subject to the conditions listed.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Darrell McQueen, speaking on behalf of Orchid Island
Associates, advised that they have a bit of a problem with
staff's recommendations. In Condition #2 staff has asked that
they provide a limited access easement along their entire
property line on A -1-A to have only one access coming into the
property. With the realignment of Jungle Trail, they put all of
their development inside Jungle Trail except a triangular piece
to the north, and they are looking to put a golf maintenance
facility in that area. The triangular piece is about 12 acres
with about 8 acres remaining north of the Trail. They would be
using a 1 to 2 acre site for the maintenance facility. They
would propose to access that maintenance facility from A -1-A, and
they would propose to grant a limited access easement south of
a point which is about 800/900' north of their entrance. They
would have no problem with granting a limited access easement
from that point south; so, on Condition #2, they would like the
Board to agree to restrict the limited access easement to a point
just about parallel with the northerly extension of Jungle Trail.
Planner Boling believed that the main concern of Public
Works Director Davis was that if an access point were to be
allowed to that northern triangular piece that it be as far away
from the entrance road as possible.
Mr. McQueen confirmed that they can easily move the access
point 800-1,000' north of their entrance.
44
� � r
Asst. County Attorney Collins asked if there is some use for
that 8-12 acres other than the golf maintenance tract because it
is his recollection that when the Jungle Trail realignment was
addressed, there was provision for a curb cut off Jungle Trail so
the golf maintenance facility could cross Jungle Trail to get to
the golf course.
Mr. McQueen explained that was not meant for the fertilizer
trucks and the trucks that deliver to the maintenance facility;
that was for golf course maintenance only.
Commissioner Bird believed Mr. McQueen is talking about a
very limited number of trips a day, and Commissioner Scurlock
asked if he understood that staff doesn't have a problem with
what Mr. McQueen has proposed.
Planner Boling confirmed that they did not have any problem
with it if the access point is far enough north of the entrance
road.
Chairman Wheeler noted that Jungle Trail is specifically
designed to be used by the heavy equipment needed for the moving
of citrus; so, why couldn't it be used for the fertilizer trucks,
etc., needed for golf maintenance.
Mr. McQueen felt there would be a lot of resistance to that.
The Historical Society wants to keep the Trail passive looking,
and he believed their whole intent is to limit the traffic on the
Trail as much as possible to those who are out there to enjoy the
historical value of the Trail.
Chairman Wheeler asked Director Davis if he had any objec-
tions to Mr. McQueen's proposal, and he confirmed he did not.
Mr. McQueen next addressed staff's condition #3 and stated
that in all the discussion on Jungle Trail, they never envisioned
having turning points so the public could access Jungle Trail by
way of the project's entrance road. He was not sure that is in
the public interest, and noted that they will provide utility
easements along all the roads throughout the development for
maintenance of utilities.
AUG 1 198^ 45 poor; 77 11�1U 8
AUG 1 i�8
pooK I6 f'.4c 488
Discussion arose regarding the 2 present access points to
the Trail from the north and the south, and it was noted that
what is being considered is having the public come in the
development's entrance road and turn onto the Trail before they
get to the development's guardhouse.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if that isn't a public road, and
Planner Boling advised that it is in the development and it is in
private property, but the guardhouse control will be on the other
side of Jungle Trail.
Commissioner Scurlock believed, for all practical purposes,
the public can get to that point before a guard comes out. He
did not have any problem with the access point because it is
going to be there, but, on the other hand, he did not feel we
want to advertise and publicize any more traffic entering and
exiting onto A -1-A. He felt our aim actually is to try to
encourage access from points other than A -1-A.
Mr. McQueen explained that they want to limit most of the
yard maintenance and construction vehicles to entering on CR 510
and not allow them to come through the front gate, which is the
same as it is done at John's Island. If the Board feels the
public needs access to Jungle Trail at this point, they may be
able to put in some language to limit it to automobiles or some
lesser vehicles. He did not believe you will see the Historical
Society ask for additional access to Jungle Trail.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the developer's main concern
is that they do not want to co -mingle traffic right at that main
entrance, and he agreed that John's Island and some of the other
beach developments have tried to control that by having a
different access for maintenance vehicles.
Chairman Wheeler asked what would be wrong with swapping
that 60' R/W for the same R/W to the north so the county has
control over that road.
Mr. McQueen noted that they are dedicating to the County in
46
total that property lying east of Jungle Trail and the County
could provide access to it wherever they wanted.
Attorney Collins pointed out that we could not construct an
alternative access because there is going to be a conservation
easement over that tract and that would prevent the building of a
road.
Mr. McQueen believed if there is a public need for it,
something could be done prior to setting up the conservation
easement.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the better way to do it would be
to go ahead and keep the public access and to limit right and
left hand turns and put up no outlet signs. We have the ability
any time in the future to abandon that if we so choose, and he
felt we should maintain our flexibility and if there is a
problem, we have options to work with the developer in the
future.
Commissioner Eggert felt the whole point of Jungle Trail is
to be able to drive the length of the Trail to enjoy its ambiance
and understand its historical significance. She noted that the
public already has two access points to Jungle Trail, and
commented that she personally would hate to drive into her
development and see a multitude of signs at the first crossroad.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Davis if he wants to
have less access on and off A -1-A or more, and Director Davis
advised that our arterial road policy is to consolidate access
points and limit them as much as possible. However, CR 510 is
also an arterial connection. His feeling is that it might be
best to encourage access to Jungle Trail on the existing north
connection to A -1-A.
The Board members indicated their agreement, and Commis-
sioner Bird believed that protects the integrity and the corridor
atmosphere of the Trail.
Mr. McQueen referred to Condition #4 which just states they
47 ROOF pkq
I
�UG 1 aUGK 7 7 F,1.�E 490
would build the public access easement road to the realigned
Jungle Trail if need be.
Attorney Collins noted that was his recommendation, but if,
in fact,. this is going to be abandoned and we are not going to
have a public access easement constructed, there is no need to
hold this letter of credit and we can release that right now.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Resolution 89-77 abandoning the subject
R/W as recommended by staff, with Condition #1 to
remain the same; Condition #2 to be modified to
have the limited access point 800 to 1,000' north
of the entrance road, and Conditions #3 and #4 to
be deleted.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-77
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING,
ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF ALL OF AN UNNAMED ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING IN GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 39 EAST RUNNING ROUGHLY PERPENDICULAR
TO A.I.A.
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1988, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Bruce Barkett, Esquire of
Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close, vacate,
abandon and disclaim any right, title and interest of the County
and the public in and to all of an unnamed road right-of-way lying
in Government Lot 4, Section 23, Township 31, Range 39 east
running westerly from A.I.A., lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes 5336.10 notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said
right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within
any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continu-
ity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to
any.given private property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
48
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in
and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly
described as:
BEING A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT
LOT 4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE BOUNDARY OF SAID ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, RUN NORTH
00°06'36" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4,
502.93 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE RUN SOUTH
89°04'43" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 831,,,81 FEET
OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, 1034.04 FEET, MORE OF LESS, TO A
CONCRETE MONUMENT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD
A.I.A.; THENCE RUN NORTH 24°24158" WEST, ALONG SAID STATE
ROAD A.I.A., RUN SOUTHWESTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 115°20115",
AND AN ARC DISTANCE OF 50.32 FEET: THENCE RUN NORTH 89004143"
WEST, 966.98 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE
OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00006136" WEST,
60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1.413
ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
is hereby forever close, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, discon-
tinued, remissed and released.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within THIRTY (30) days from the date of adoption
hereof; and
3 The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. -Bowman Absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 1st day of August , 1989.
WM
ATTEST:
Py K(/Barton,
State of Florida ,.+
County of.Indian P
1198-91)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
GaryW eeler, Chairman
Boar of County Commissioners
49
4,91
F1
AUG 11989
BID #89-79 - NO. COUNTY LIBRARY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RELOCATION
General Services Director Dean reviewed the following:
DATE: July 24, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
AM
.H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Se i
jn
FROM: Dcmi.nick L. Mascol �,. CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
81EW: IRC BID#89-79\NORTH COMM COMMUNITY LIMIA v-
L-WERGROUND LFrILITIES RELOCATION
1. BACKGROUND:
Kenova Construction was the single bidder for the above
bid and was awarded to them by the Board of County
Cc mni.ssicners on July 5, 1989 for $19,995.00. At this
Point In Time Kenova Construction can not keep its com-
mitments and has gone out of business.
2. ANALYSIS:
Due to "Time is of the Essence" the County has negotiated
With Ted Myers Construction for $22,645.70. for the
relocation of Underground Utilities.
.,,.3. FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come frau The North County
Construction Funds, Site Improvements, which has a Budget
of $91,000.00.
4;*'. RECXNIMIDATICN:
To reject Kenova Construction Corporation as non-responsive
bidder and award Fixed Contract in the amount of _$22,645.70
to the responsible bidder Ted Myers.
Commissioner Bird wished to know why the utilities need to
be moved, and Director Dean explained that they run right under
the building and must be moved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously rejected Kenova
Construction Corporation as a non-responsive bidder
and awarded a Fixed Contract in the amount of $22,645.70
to the responsible bidder, Ted Myers Contracting Co., as
recommended by staff.
50
1.10.1. Form of Proposal
z ..
BID PROPOSAL'
•• INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Proposal Ted Myers Contracting Co. , Inc.
(Bidder's Name)
ost Office Box 229, (6290 Old Dixie Highway), Winter Beach, Florida 32971
CBidder's Address)
:•oto furnish and deliver all materials and to do and perform all work in
accordance with the Contract Documents attached hereto for the INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY PROJECT' # 88-06 NORTH COUN'T'Y CITY LIBRARY - UNDERGROUND UT=_
TIES FEIACATION WORK. Indian River County, Florida.
To: `The County Administrator, Indian River County
-1840 25th Street
-Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Gentlemen:
.The undersigned Bidder has carefully examined the. Contract Documents
and•the site of the work and is familiar with the nature and extent of
the work and any local conditions that may in any manner affect the
work to be done, and the equipment, materials and labor required.
The undersigned agrees to do all the work and furnish all materials
called for by said Drawings and Specifications, in the manner
'prescribed therein, in accordance with the Contract Documents and to
the standards of quality and performance established by the Owner, for
_...the Unit Prices stated in the Bid Schedule, for each of the items or
combination of items stipulated. It is understood that certain
quantities shown in the schedule are approximate only, subject to
increase or decrease and for the purpose of bid comparisons for
determination of low Bidder. It is further understood that payment will
be in accordance with quantities placed in the construction as more
specifically provided in the Instructions to Bidders and Technical
Specifications included as part of the Contract Documents.
1. To do any extra work, not covered by the above schedule of prices,
which may be ordered by the Engineer upon authorization by the County
Commission, and to accept, as full compensation therefore, such prices.
as may be agreed upon in writing by by ,the Engineer and the Contractor.
;�.
51 ,4. T . 6.
@0o'K 6 J F'b :`r.'�9- 3
SCHEDULE OF OUDNTITIES, PRICES AND TOTAL BID
NORTH COUNTY*COMMUNITY LIBRARY SITE
.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RELOCATION WOW
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
..
General:
The contractor shall furnish
all labor, superintendence,
materials,
plant, power, light, -fuel,
water, -tools,
appliances,
equipment,
supplies, and all other means
of construction
for.properly
performing
the work.
ITEM
ITEM
UNIT,.TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY . UNIT DESCRIPTION
PRICE
PRICE
•1. - 250
2 ;1
LF 8" WATER MAIN
$ 12.$�
$ 3, 217.50
.
3.
EA.s 90BEND
187.00
•187.00
1
4' 1
EA. 8" x 6" TEE
233.20
233.20
EA. 8' x 6" RED.
156.20
156.20'
;�.
51 ,4. T . 6.
@0o'K 6 J F'b :`r.'�9- 3
F `� " N
A
�� �` BOOK. A PAGE 0-k
S.
6•
1
2
- EA.
8" TEE
260.70
260.70
7.
260'
EA:
6" SHUT OFF VALVES
407.00
814.00
LF
6" IRRIGATION Rmsuim
10.23
21659.80
8;
1
EA.
. 6'= 22�" SEND a
134.20
134.20
9.
2
EA,
6" 45' SEND
134.20
268.40
10.
1
EA.
6" g0".BEND
140.80'.
140.80
11.
3
EA.
.6" Caps Abandoned
220.00
660.00,--
12.
4
EA.
8" Caps Abandoned
244.20
976.80 ✓
13.
1'
EA.
8" Tapping Sleeve/Valve
2,090.00
21090.00''
14.
1
EA.
Fire Hydrant
1,512.50
1,512.50✓
15.
1
EA.
Remove/replace fire hyd.
544.50
544.50--
16.
190
LF.
6" Water Main
10.89
2,069.10 ✓
17.
1
EA.
Tie in 8" Water
440.60
440.00-1
18.
1
EA.
6x4 Tee & 4" valve
616.00
616.00W
2
EA.
Install sewer lead, tap
main
'
& dewater
12639.00
3,278.00`
20..
1
EA.
2" irrigation service &
& valve with box
297.00
297.00''
21.
1
IS.
Staking
11100.00
'12100.00'
22•
1
I.S.
Mobilization
990.00
990.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID ..................$ 22 645.70
WRITTEN AMOUNT OF TOTAL BID .......... $ Twenty-two thousand six hundred forty-five
dollars and seventy cents
2. To begin work within ten (10) calendar days from the date of receipt
by him/her of Notice to Proceed, and to complete the work no later than
fifty SO_) calendar days after the date of Notice to
Proceed.
3. To reimburse Indian River County, as liquidated damages,.,for each
calendar day elapsing between the date herein specified as the -date of
full completion and the actual date of such full completion- of the
contract work, the amount of two hundred dollars (5200) per•:.calendar
_
day..r• .
Dated this 21st day of July 1g 8_ 9 ?•.:
+ , Respectfully submitted,
r
Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc. .._
Contractor
3.•�.. ~) .'•� ' X42 .'.
-.. Post Office Box 229
Winter Beach, FL 32971
Address
(407) 567-8390
Phone
By.
52
I
7-7
DISCUSS BID 89-85 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following:
DATE: July 27, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County istrator_
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General S s
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-85\NORTH COUN'T'Y LIBRARY
SEBASTIAN, FL
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for North County Library was properly
advertised and Nine (9) Invitations to bid were sent out
On July 24, 1989, bids were received. Five (5) vendors ,
submitted proposals for the commodity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Ivey's Construction was the low bidder that
met all requirements.
3. FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Library Capital Project
Funds.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the award of a fixed contract for $1,240,247.00
to the low bidder Ivey's Construction, for the subject
ccanmdity.
AUG 11989
L_
53 `7
1
1
• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960
PURCHASING DEPT. JULY 25, 1989
ALT#1 FIRE PROTPCTION SYSTEM VER
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Mascola
Tel.ohone: (305) 567-8000
4 :;,• ,. 2
Suncom T4160how 224.1011 .•
C• •a —�
• PURCHASING MANAGER
#
B d No. Date Of O
IRC 89-85
�LORI��/
JULY 24,"1"9'99
Recommended Award
Bird Title
COUNTY COMM
INORTH LIBRARY
1. IVEY'S CONSTRUCTION
$1,240,247.00 ($62,012)
1
ALT#1 $38,244.00 COMM
SEPT1, 1989COMP SEPT 1, 1990
THE BID
2. Di PRIMA COMPANIES
$1,837,000.00 4$91,850)
NOT WITHDRAW•FROM THE COMPETITION AFTER THE OpENTNr.
ALT#1 $28,000.00 COMM
AUG 21, 1989 COMP MARCH 21,1990
OF THE BID. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL FORFIETUE OF LID
•
- - "'-
BOND AS L•IQUEDATED DAMAGES.
1 1989 COMP MAY 26 1990
4- SPEEM-E rONATRUCTION CO.
$1,861,700.00
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PURCHASING GUIDELINES 4-b
ALT#1 $25,300.00 COMM
365 FROM ARO
(b) After bid opening - Normally, withdrawal without
5. MJA ANDERSON $
$2,153,000.00-
.penalty will not. be permitted after bids have been
opened for 45 days; however.
consideration must be
ALT#1 N/A COMM
SEPT 1, 1989 COMP MAY28, 1989
given to obvious error and inability to perform.
The best interest
of the Board must be sezved when
considering
requests for withdrawal after bids have
been
opened.
** WITHDRAW BID
CD
0
Administrator Chandler advised that after the bid opening,
we received a request from Ivey Construction to withdraw their
low bid of $1,240,247 as they claim it was a miscommunication and
their bid should have been $1,840,000. Mr. Ivey is here to
present to the Board documentation of any error and justification
for withdrawal of their bid. The architect feels it is a good
bid and should be accepted. If the Commission is not convinced,
as a result of Mr. Ivey's presentation, then staff would
recommend taking the bid bond. If the Commission concurs with
what Mr. Ivey presents, it then would be staff's recommendation
to reject all bids, redesign and rebid.
Mr. Ivey came before the Board and advised that they made an
error when they started to write the bid down; they had a miscom-
munication and his daughter misunderstood what was phoned in. He
explained that they have the bid on a computer and as they get
adjustments from subs,'they plug the new figures in.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that it then apparently is not
Mr. Ivey's contention that they missed some particular item, but
just that his daughter misunderstood the total dollar bid figure,
and Mr. Ivey agreed.
Mr. Ivey submitted the following copy of their bid figure
print-out, noting that their computer paper doesn't have the
company name on it, but it is titled North County Library, dated
7/24/89, and it does set out the bottom line bid figure of
$1,840,347.
®
55 �' "' �jl
AUG 1
J
Boom=
-7
mor 77 498-
56
-ionlit]
;Material labor Subs Notal !alternate I
.......... .
,-ec
10001GENERAL CONDITIONS
44801
700601 227451
972851
Gen Gond mar Fljp- Hat 6% Lab 6% 269'
4204'
4472:
................
JOTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS
........................
#- —
47491
-----------
74264-' 22745:
101757;
. . ........... .
0:
2010::Subsurface Investigation
M 2513
0:
I 10 Site Clearing
»
.. .. .......
:n 2513
0!
220WEarthwork
M 2513
2266*A'- -11-imerock Base
M 2513
01
4
2280 termite control
797:
797:1
................
2480 landscape work
35786::
357861:
2513 asphalt conc. paying
943561,
94356:1
2720istorm sewers
--4
:n 2513 i
0:
2726lunderdrains
4
In 2513
0 :
2810:: irrigation
5252-,
5252:'
. .. ....... .
.curbs and gutters
1 1602:
11602;
—iii-oiconcrete work
27674:
218811
495551
Webars
0.
.
....................
.
0:
5120' structural steel
182399;
182399"•
—0M:
'eel
joists
ER01m
:n 512 0
.............
o :
530etal decking
206000'-
206000i
. . ... ..............
5400'cold formed metal frame
M 9250
0!
555001metal fab
0: and railings
0:
perimeter les
31851
3185!
61 00'rough carpentry
30 0 0::
3000::
6000!
. ............
6200'finish carpentry
0
Oiarchitectural woodwork
6709:
6709
0
7200!insulation
n 9250
0:
7410 preformed roofing and siding
M 5300 =
0
.7 and sheet metal
0:
7900.- joint sealers
0:
:skylights
273031
27303:1
8 110' : steel doors and frames
—iii -11
40681
488!
4556;
wood doors,
61501
9236
7073!
8410 :aluminum entry and storefront
.2 8000: -"
2180001
8520 aluminum windows
:n 8410
0 ;
8710! finish hardware
10265::
..... .......
1540
118051
...........
lasr. and glazing
--
- -- ------in 8410
0:
8460:: Automatic entrance doors
':Alt 1
M« «
0! 1300-0
_9200ilath and stucco.
:n 9250
o:
9213::prefab glass reinf. members
15000-
............
15000!
. .......
-�i-5*0':gypsum drywall
1690001
1690001:
9262:;exterior sheathing
...............
n 9250
o:
q. 665ile
27500:
27500;:
9510! acoustical ceiling
29740:
297401
9650r esilient flooring
n 9680 1
0'
9680icarpet
43500:
43500:
9900 inting
1 15500: 1
10 160. toilet partitions
11380i
1680' !
....... . . ..... . .. # . . . ........ . .... . . ......
10200 :louvers and vents
3601
100:: -
.
10440'signage
... . .....
. ...........
1.565-
11565'
2:: fire extinguishers
...............................
. ....................y«»».»».«..
1661 1225:'
;
1391
10800:'toilet accessories
...... . . -
300, 2135:
— -----------
2435:
. . . . . ............
10830:'mirrors
»
1
0:
0;
56
11132+ rojection screens
30j
2671:317
-
;.......
�.
ua.
10350 i flagpole
50:
28_0:
1250:
158_0=
:bike rack
370;
2464;
25844
0
.Plumbing
-
-
35000:
35000;
�-
i~Qi
:HVACi-
1� 63 3
163843
0:
16000: Electrical
...........;............
'-
.«.....-............-y
-
2199501
..•Y............
219950;
.y
i
0:
15300:Fire Protection
Wt 1
o:
22670
0:.
:
0:
_---- --------------_----------i--------- ---
--=
1601722=
:Subtotals
�.. _
51617;
7516: 1542589;
1601722:
35670
........._._....,......__.
.,
:Labor Burden @ 3599
�
2631:
2631:
:Sales tax CO 6%
3097:
:
'_.
3097;
;Subtotals547141
101471 1542589:
................
1607450;
35670
;General conditions from above
_ _
4749'=
_..
74264= _22745:
.....-.
101757'
..._.
:Subtotals
'
594631
84411:
1565334:
1709208:
35670
i
=
i
:Overhead Ca 1% - 5% - I %
:
595:
4221:
15653:
204691
357
;Subtotals
1729676:36027
CASE 1 :Profit 5%
_.
86484;
1801
S: ubtotals
1816160;
7:.2
....-...may......._..-.._.....
:Bond @ 1.199
=
19978:
416
:Owner's protective insurance
822:
Bldg permit (based on $1,001,.
3387:
:TOTAL BID 0 599 PROFIT
s
1840347
33244
i
i
i
i
i
i
Commissioner Eggert asked who signed the bid that was
brought in here, and Mr. Ivey stated that he did, and his
daughter, Tammy, wrote in the bid figure.
Commissioner Eggert commented that the reason she asked is
that when she looked at the bid sheets, the signature looked to
be the same writing as the written out figure of $1,240,247, and
it caused her to feel that unless Mr. Ivey's daughter's writing
is identical, Mr. Ivey also wrote that figure.
Mr. Ivey stated that figure definitely is not in his hand-
writing.
Commissioner Bird understood that the glasswork in this
building is a major item and under "glass and glazing" the figure
shown is only $8,400.
L-
57 FOO R 4(`r. 400-
r
U�72 11989
Mr. Ivey advised that glass would be included in several
different items.
Commissioner Bird wished to know something of the history of
Ivey's Construction.
Mr. Ivey informed the Board that they work out of Merritt
Island and have been in business 16 years. They have done some
schools and a lot of work at Kennedy Space Center. They have done
commercial and industrial work, and the last couple of years they
have done 12 million dollars a year. They do a good deal of
their own concrete and steel work, but not the mechanical,
electrical, A/C, etc.
Commissioner Bird believed we have 3 options - we can accept
the bid or we can try to force him to do the work, in which case
he feared we would end up with a very inferior product. We can
allow him to withdraw his bid and not forfeit the bond or allow
him to withdraw the bid but require forfeiture of the bond.
Attorney Collins believed the Board can only call the bid
bond if we accept Ivey's bid and he refuses to perform. If the
Board decides not to accept his offer, than they have determined
not to call in the bid bond either.
Commissioner. Scurlock asked if there is a option to allow
the gentleman to withdraw, but agree to pay all the costs associ-
ated with the original bid and with readvertising as opposed to
calling the entire bid bond.
Administrator Chandler noted that to a large extent it is
the intent of the bid bond.
Commissioner Scurlock felt if Mr. Ivey made a legitimate
mistake, we should, at the very minimum, recover the cost of
going through the whole process.
Attorney Collins noted that the way the law stands, you are
not allowed to withdraw your bid once it has been opened because
it undermines the whole bidding system.
It was noted that Ivey's new bid is now second to the low
bidder, and Commissioner Scurlock personally believed that if Mr.
58
Ivey were trying to play some game, he would have recomputed his
figures so that he was still the low bidder.
Discussion continued at length regarding the Board's options
re forfeiture of the bond, etc., as well as the possibility that
Mr. Ivey could go to court.
Mr. Ivey stated that he personally felt the County hadn't
been hurt because if he hadn't turned in his bid, the County
would have had to redesign and rebid the whole project in any
event because all the bids were substantially higher than the
estimate, but Commissioner Eggert pointed out that Mr. Ivey's
original bid falls within the architect's estimated cost of
construction.
Commissioner Bird noted that Mr. Ivey's new bid, which he
claims is what the figure should have been, is in the middle of
the other bids, all of which are from reliable companies and all
of which are considerably over budget It, therefore, is his
inclination to tell the architect that he has missed his mark in
the design of the building with the result that we ended up with
a cadillac when we had ordered a buick, and possibly we should
have him redesign the building so it would come in under budget.
His concern would be about incurring any future architectural
fees for redesign, and he asked how the architect felt about
this.
William Bibo of Stottler, Stagg 8 Assoc. stated that the
architect feels they have brought the proper bid to the county
irregardless of the "no -name" sheet which Mr. Ivey just
presented, and he felt it is interesting that sheet shows the
building permit was based on $1,000,000, not $1,800,000. Mr.
Bibo believed they would require additional funds to redesign.
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that we have a
fixed cost contract with Stottler, Stagg, and the fixed cost
specified is 1.3 million. It spells out that if all the bids are
in excess of that fixed cost and we reject, then the architect
will redesign at no expense to the county. Conversely, if we
PilOK 77 `gI 501
AUP, 1989 59
,AUG 1'08,9
F.aF tr.,. _
80OK 2
feel there is a bona fide bid less than that fixed price and we
reject and redesign, then we have to pay for the redesign.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that we have 3 other reputable
companies that bid and all came in around 1.8 million. They
probably all got their bid figures from a lot of the same sub-
contractors, and they all came in within the same range.
Administrator Chandler noted that if the Board feels an
error was made on the part of Mr. Ivey and that his real bid
should have been $1,840,000, then, in his opinion, all bids will
have exceeded what our fixed unit price contract is, and,
therefore, that redesign would be incumbent upon the
architectural firm at no expense to the county.
Chairman Wheeler asked why the building permit was based on
$1,000,000, and Mr. Ivey could not answer. He explained that he
did not put the bid together himself, -and he, therefore, was not
sure that it is.
Chairman Wheeler noted that because of Ivey's mistake, they
have opened the county up to having to pay additional fees for
architectural design, possibly litigation, etc. He personally
felt if he were a judge, he would look at the time the bids were
opened, and those would be the bids.
Attorney Collins agreed that the presumption would be
against Mr. Ivey because of the concern for the competitive
bidding process.
Commissioner Bird asked -if Stottler, Stagg did not design a
similar library in Brevard County, and Mr. Bibo confirmed that
they designed a much more elaborate building there and the
pricing of that bid was in line.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he felt the very worst
thing we can do is force Ivey's to come in and construct the
building for 1.2 million, and Mr. Ivey emphasized that he cannot
accept the bid at that price.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the only hook we have is the
60
J
$60,000 bid bond, but Attorney Collins again pointed out that we
can only call the bond, if we accept Ivey's bid.
Commissioner Bird felt if we accept his bid, then we let
Stottler, Stagg off the hook. He has heard comments from some
contractors to the effect that they have designed a building that
would be very expensive to construct; he did feel they have
missed the mark on some of the things they put in this building
which have caused it to come in so far above budget; and he was
in favor of having them redesign and not have to pay for it.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed with Commissioner Bird that
there are some problems with the architectural design and that
ran up the cost. He finds it hard to believe that one contractor
would miss the mark by $600,000.
Commissioner Bird believed that actually a $1.8 million
project is not that big a deal to these major construction
companies.
Mr. Ivey agreed that it really is not. All the contractors
use basically the same subs and 800 of the work is subbed out.
He stated that he could provide the Board with a list of all the
subs and the numbers they supplied and would submit this for the
Board to review if desired.
It was indicated the Board did wish to review such documen-
tation, and it was submitted by Mr. Ivey. The Chairman thereupon
recessed the meeting for 10 minutes so Board members could review
the material presented.
The Board reconvened with the same members present, and
Commissioner Bird wished to know, if it comes to the point that
we ask that the building be redesigned, if the architect then
would have access to some of the details of these bids or the
ability to meet with some of the contractors who bid in order to
determine which items are heavy and where we apparently missed
the mark on the construction cost. He asked what the architect
would normally do in a case like this.
61
POCK 1 6 f'A F• lU
�A" I 'V 89
MOX 77 r,sIA 504
Mr. Bibo stated that they normally would sit down again with
the Commission and committee and determine what items would be
considered to be left off of the building or redeveloped, in.one
way or another. It usually is very difficult to get the line
item costs from the contractors, but whatever they can get would
be of help. They do have an estimator on their staff and they
take off the building according to the materials, labor, etc.
Commissioner Bird did not see where sitting down with lay
people on the Commission and the Library Committee would be the
answer. He believed he would want to talk to the estimators of
each of these other construction companies and see just what it
is in the building that is driving up the costs.
Mr. Bibo agreed but noted that it may turn out that none of
this is out of reason and it may be there are some areas that
would have to be cut.
Administrator Chandler agreed that we could contact the
other bidders and see if they would voluntarily supply us with,
some of this information. Legally they do not have to do this.
Attorney Collins stressed that the contract does say that if
the fixed limit of construction cost is exceeded by the lowest
bona fide bid, the architect may cooperate in revising the
project's scope and quality as required to reduce the
construction cost, and if the owner chooses to proceed in this
manner, the architect without additional charge shall modify the
drawings, documents, etc., as necessary to comply with the fixed
limit.
Discussion continued regarding our options regarding
accepting Ivey's bid as valid or rejecting it as not being valid,
etc., and Administrator Chandler believed it would have to be a
rejection on the basis that an error was made in the transmittal
of that bid.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that once that bid is
declared invalid, we then would have to go to the next low bid
and reject all bids.
62
Administrator Chandler agreed and stated that staff's recom-
mendation then would be to reject all bids because all bids then
were in excess of $600,000 over what we have budgeted.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to agree that Ivey Construction made
a mistake in the transmittal of their bid and, therefore,
reject their bid as not being valid; to then reject the
remaining bids as being in excess of budget; and to ask
the Architect, per our contract, to redesign the building
to come within the budget at no extra charge.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if staff is totally
satisfied that is what our contract with Stottler, Stagg says,
and Attorney Collins advised that it speaks of the "fixed Limit"
and under Basic Compensation sets out the basic fee as a percent-
age of an estimated construction cost of $1,310,250 for 17,470
sq. ft., and if that is not fixed, he was not sure what is.
Administrator Chandler believed the architect has indicated
it is a fixed fee contract.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed some concern that when we
look at reducing the costs, it may result in ending up with less
square footage, and if we had to have a choice between having an
adequate library building and automation which will cost
$300,000, he personally would want to have the proper building
and worry about the automation later.
Administrator Chandler did not believe you can assume at
this point that the redesign will necessarily involve a reduction
of square footage as there are many things to be considered.
Commissioner Eggert stressed that we should be able to do a
nice library within the budget that has been set forth.
After further discussion, Commissioner Eggert wanted to be
sure that it is totally understood that it is staff's recommenda-
tion at this point that we go with the Motion as stated.
19839
6 3 F �.,
AUC7 l 989
ROOK 77 Fact 506
Administrator Chandler confirmed he had no problem with the
Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0),
Commissioner Bowman being absent.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested to Mr. Ivey that he, in good
faith, does owe the County something for the extra cost he has
caused us through his mistake, and we would appreciate his
consideration of some contribution back to county to alleviate
that cost.
Mr. Ivey indicated that he was willing to consider that, and
he would do the right.thing.
MacWILLIAMS PARK - DNR PROJECT AGREEMENTS RE PAVING 6 DRAINAGE
UNDER FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
cp�K
SUBJECT: MacWilliams Park
FBIP Project B89003
Development Project Agreements
REF. LETTER: Linda D. Reeves to Ralph Brescia
dated July 19, 1989
DATE: July 24, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Department of Natural Resources has requested the execution
of the attached Project Agreements which provides payment for the
paving and drainage improvements to prevent discharge into the
boat basin at MacWilliams Park.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff .recommends the Board authorize the Chairman execute the
attached documents.'
64
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board -unanimously (4-0) authorized
the Chairman to execute a Development Project Agreement
with the DNR under the Florida Boating Improvement Program
for paving and drainage improvements at MacWilliams Park.
COPY OF PARTIALLY SIGNED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
I.R.BOULEVARD PHASE III - AMEND. #4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., CP
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase III -
Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement
DATE: July 24, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
To properly delineate upland areas and wetland areas within the
needed right-of-way parcels, remainders, and Impoundment No. 22
needed for mitigation, staff has required the services of the
Biologist of the staff of Boyle Engineering Corp. The attached
Amendment No. 4 to the original agreement between Boyle
Engineering Corp. and Indian River County provides for the
Biologist's expenses of $673.05.
In addition, Boyle is requesting release of half of the final 10%
of the retainage on the contract since permitting and
right-of-way acquisition is not complete and is delaying final
payment to the Engineer.
!: _RECOMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Amendment # 4 increasing the
,-,:contract amount by $673.05 and release of one-half of the
.;".retainage ($2,580.85).
.r, Funding in the amount of $673.05 and $2,580.85 to be from fund
``'309-214-541-033.13 Indian River Boulevard North.
65
AUG '689 R
AUG 1989
F',1�t 5 0C:.3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Engineering Serv-
ices Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation
increasing the contract amount by $673.05 and approved
release of 1/2 of the retainage ($2,580.85).
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD NORTH EXTENSION
AMENDMENT NO.4
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Dated September 23,1986
SECTION 1- GENERAL
This Is an amendment to the existing PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(AGREEMENT) dated September 23, 1986 between Boyle Engineering Corporation
(ENGINEER) and Indian River County (COUNTY) (Amendment). The Amendment is for
services to be performed by ENGINEER pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
AGREEMENT related to Wetlands Mapping - Indian River Boulevard Property Appraisal beyond
the scope of the existing AGREEMENT.
The ENGINEER agrees to perform the additional professional services as described in the
following text and the. specific tasks as defined in Exhibit Al attached hereto and incorporated
herein. A Summary of Total Cost is presented in Exhibit A2 attached hereto and incorporated
herein. Certain assumptions have been made in preparing this Amendment. To the extent
possible they are stated herein, and are reflected in Exhibit Al. However, if the actual scope or
assumptions are not as stated herein, the COUNTY agrees to negotiate a mutually acceptable
revised scope and budget.
0
SECTION II - SCOPE OF SERVICES
Pursuant to request by the COUNTY, the ENGINEER shall assist the COUNTY In identifying
wetland/upland areas within the parcels under consideration for purchase as part of the Indian
River Boulevard Project right-of-way and mitigation site. The work will consist of identifying
wetland/upland areas on aerial photographs utilizing both resource materials provided by
COUNTY and in -field observation. ENGINEER will be assisting Mr. Roland DeBlois of the Indian
River County Planning Department during the in -field observation. COUNTY is responsible for
providing access to the site(s).
SECTION IV - TIME OF COMPLETION, AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT
The services of this Amendment will be provided on July 19, 1989 and it Is agreed that the
duration of the AGREEMENT is extended to September 30, 1989.
SECTION V - COMPENSATION
A. General
Compensation of ENGINEER shall be on the basis of a "Cost Plus a Fixed Fee" as set
forth in the AGREEMENT.
66
B. Increase In Budget
The "Cost" budget for the work set forth in this Amendment is $613.98, and the "Fixed
Fee" is $59.07. The "Cost Plus a Fixed Fee" for the services related to this Amendment
will not exceed $673.05 without written authorization by the COUNTY. In the event of a
change in scope, the "not to exceed" figures for cost and fixed fee will be adjusted to a
mutually acceptable amount commensurate with the change in scope.
A manhour budget/costs for this Amendment is shown in detail In Exhibit Al.
A summary of total cost for Engineers Services for the PROJECT, including this
Amendment, is provided in Exhibit A2.
The AGREEMENT is hereby amended as specifically set forth herein. Those provisions in
sections I thru IV of the Agreement relevant hereto shall remain in full force and effect and are
Incorporated herein. All other sections of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect
and are Incorporated herein.
This Amendment No. 4 to the AGREEMENT regardless of where executed, shall be governed
by and construed according to the laws of the State of Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment this
/,Qx day of GG .c r2. — 1989.
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
By:
Managing Engineer
f
Wittness:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By: '4.
Gao C. Wheeler
Attest:
ae e K v' Bart n
APPROVED BY:
By: Cl-"� &,J .
William G. Collins, II Joines W. Davis, PE
Assistant County Attorney Public Works Director
.i
Jdseph A. Baird, ames E. Cha dler
Budget & Management Director County Administrator
EXHIBIT Al
Amendment No. 4 to the
AGREEMENT
Field Trip: Daniel J. Homblette @ 8 hours (p 19.04 Q 2.33 = $ 388.42
Administration: Charles M. Green @ 2 hours Q 29.13 0 2.33 = 148.36
536.98
Direct Expenses (0.35 @ 220 miles) 77.00
Fixed Fee 11 % 59.07
$673.05
AUG 67
Ii
AUG 1 `09
R' `1 7 ; �E
OGS
EXHIBIT A2
Amendment No. 4 to the
AGREEMENT
Wetlands Mapping - Indian River Boulevard Property Appraisal
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COST
Environmental
Coordination Phase
COST
FIXED FEE
TOTA
Amendment No. 1
$ 17,909.00
$ 1,973.00
$ 19,882.00
Amendment No. 2
3,890.00
428.00
4,318.00
Amendment No. 3
36,381.52
4,250.70
40,632.22
Amendment No. 4
613.98
59.07
673.05
Environmental
Coordination Phase
24,549.37
2,800.63
27,350.00
Preliminary and Final
Design (Excluding Bridge
over North Canal)
99,261.63
10,915.42
110,177.05
Bridge Structure over
North Canal.
16,961.11
1,951.69
18,912.80
Construction Phase
97,110.00
-
97,110.00
Revised Total
$296,676.61
$22,378.51
$319,055.12
Cost, Fixed Fee and Total for Environmental Coordination, Preliminary and Final Design, Bridge
Structure over the North Canal and the Construction Phases are taken from the September 23,
1986 AGREEMENT.
Amendment No. 1 approved March 10, 1987
Amendment No. 2 approved January 19, 1988
Amendment No. 3 approved January 24, 1989
MISCELLANEOUS INTERSECTIONS, PHASE ll - RECONCILIATION CHANGE
ORDER 6 FINAL PAY REQUEST (DENNIS L. SMITH)
The Board reviewed the following memo:
68
------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director 71
and
James D. White, P.E
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile; C. T.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Reconciliation Change Order and Final Pay
Request from Dennis L. Smith for
Miscellaneous Intersections, Phase II
DATE: July 20, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The construction of the Miscellaneous Intersections, Phase II has
been completed by Dennis L. Smith, Inc. The project has been
accepted by the County Engineer.
The final contract price has been decreased by $14,814.03. This
is due to underruns of quantities in the original contract.
The contractor is requesting final payment in the amount of
.$5,519.62.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the change order #5 to reconcile the
contract and final payment to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., in the
amount of $5,519.62. Funding is from Fund 101-156-541-067.21
Zone 6 Traffic Impact Fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Change Order #5 to reconcile the contract and authorized
final payment to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., in the amount of
$5,519.62.
69
AUG 1 1989
CHANGE ORDER
(Instructions on reverse side) No. 5
PROJECT: Intersection Improvements DATE OF ISSUANCE: June 26, 1989
OWNER: Indian River County
(Name, 1840 25th Street 8603
Address) Vero Beach, FL. 32960 8560
CONTRACTOR: Dennis L. Smith, Inc. OWNER's Project No. 8532
P.O. Box 2954
Vero Beach, FL. 32961— ENGINEER: Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
2954 1835 20th Street
CONTRACT FOR: Roadway Improvements Vero Beach, FL.: 32960
ENGINEER's Project No. 86-584
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Description: 'Miscellaneous Items '
Purpose of Change Order: Reconcile Contract
Attachments: (List documents supporting change)
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
Original Contract Price
Origt 1 Contract Time
$ 237,926.75
days or date
Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No.. 4
Net change t�revious Change Orde
$ 17,458.44
days
Contract Price prior to this Chpnge Order
Contract Time Prior to this ange Order
$ 2 5 5, 3 8 5_ 19
days or este
Net Increase (decrease) of this Change Order
Net Increase (de ease) of this Change\rder
$(—) 14,814.03
says
/
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders
Cont ct Time with all approved Change Orders
$ 940,571-16
--TF
days or dale
7Q/�e�
APPROV
�1
L�
1)Y . Erigi eer by Owner
EJCDC No. 910-8-B (1983 Edition)
8' /- g-9
Prepared by the Engineers' Joint Contract Documents Committee and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America.
70
CHANGE ORDER 3 (A.O.B. UNDERGROUND) - WATER LINE EXTENSION FOR
ANTHONY OLIVER UNDER KINGS HWY S LINDSEY RD. CONTRACT
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: JULY 18, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y RVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS ER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER WORK FOR A.O.B. UNDERGROUND
KINGS HIGHWAY AND LINDSEY ROAD - CONTRACT # 2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW 87 -23 -DS
BACKGROUND
On June 27th, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a Developer's Agreement with Mr. Anthony
Oliver for water service to his property on 14th Avenue off of 2nd
Street. (See attached copy.)
ANALYSIS
We want to have A.O.B. Underground, who is currently under contract
:with us, do this job as a change order to their existing contract at
the same unit prices. The cost for this work is $6,925.00 and does
'comply with existing unit contract prices. (See attached cost
sheet.) The monies for this work will come from account No.
472-000-169-069.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached change order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Change Order #3 with A.O.B. Underground for extension
of water line for service to Anthony Oliver.
71 u: s
AUG I
AUG
T
800K a,c
'.11A -----Partial Payment arm
PARTIAL PAYMENT ESTIMATE
(NUMBER CHANGE ORDER #THREE
I
Contract
Items •
1 This
Period
-ime of
Contractor •
A O p Underground.
Inc
Ouan.l
:me aP
Owner
4. 1 25
I L.F.
►ssociation):
300 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1 300 1 $4,800.00
.te of
Completion:
(Amount of
Contract:
(Dates of Estimate:
'
iginal
4. I 1
1
10riginal 9
61925.00..
1
(From June 1, 1989
$1,525.00
I 1 1 $1,525.00
I
viaed
I
1
1
I Revised s
.6,925.00
1
1 To July 1?, 1989
scription
of Job:
I
I 1
I
I
I
Second Street
and Fourteenth
Avenue Water Main
I
Contract
Items •
1 This
Period
I Total to Date
am10uantity
1 Unit
(Unit Price 1
Ouan.l
Amount
I Quan.1 Amount
4. 1 25
I L.F.
1 $ 16.00 i
300 1
$4,800.00
1 300 1 $4,800.00
4. 300
L.F.
$ 15.00
40
$ 600.00
40 $ 600.00
4. I 1
I Ea.
1 $1,525.00 1
1 1
$1,525.00
I 1 1 $1,525.00
I
t TOTAL
I
1
1 1
t 1
I
1
I
1 1 $6,925.00
1
I
I 1
1
I
I
1
1
f 1
t
1
1
1
1
1
i 1
1 I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I hereby certify that I have carefully inspected the work and as a result
of my inspection and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the quantities
shown in this estimate are correct and have not been shown in previous estimates
and the work has been performed in accordance with the contract documents.
Indian River County
A. 0. B. Underground, Inc. Board of County Commissioners
DATE: /GJ DATE.
Milan River n Approvell Dale
Admin. %—u
(.nn31
-
utiliti
r'i!sk Mgr.
72
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT EXPANSION
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: JULY 24, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: '. CHANGE ORDER NO -b 2
SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT EXPANSION
IRC PROJECT #UW-88-OWC
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS E ER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services is now in the process of
finalizing the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant construction
contract. We have a final Change Order to bring to the Board for
approval.
ANALYSIS
Throughout the project, we have had to make various field
adjustments; the negotiated total for these adjustments is
$14,505.50. There were also some deletions in the projects totaling
$5, 712.00; therefore, the net balance due the contractor is
$8,793.50 after the original contract price.
Attached please find the summary sheet for these changes plus an
explanation on an item -by -item basis. The funds for this overage
will be -transferred from Account No. 472-000-169-041.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order
No. 2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Change Order No. 2 w/CDM and Butler Construction Co.
for South County R.O. Plant Expansion Project.
AUG
73 f'i;�� 1 = D��,
CHANGE ORDER
,ROOKl E4_��.b1s
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Description: See attached detailed items of change.
Purpose of Change Order: Add and correct items to original contract work scope.
Attachments: (List documents supporting change) Descriptions, correspondence and back-up materials.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
2 (Final)
(Instructions on reverse side)
S 1,154,115.00
No.
South County R.O.
days*)Wr c
Previous Change Orders No._1 to No.
PROJECT:
Plant Improvement.Project
DATE OF ISSUANCE:
July 5, 1989
OWNER: Indian River County
a..s
Contract Price prior to this Change Order
(Name, P.O. Box 1750
S 1,296,906.00
269
Address) Vero Beach, FL 32960
Net Increase (f(OQXamx) of this Change Order
CONTRACTOR: Butler Construction Company
OWNER's Project No.
58
210 Hardee Lane
Rockledge, FL
ENGINEER: Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc.
S 1,305,699.50
660
Beachland Blvd.
CONTRACT FOR:
Vero
Beach, FL 32963
6706-18
ENGINEER's Project No.
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Description: See attached detailed items of change.
Purpose of Change Order: Add and correct items to original contract work scope.
Attachments: (List documents supporting change) Descriptions, correspondence and back-up materials.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
Original Contract Price
Original Contract Time
S 1,154,115.00
269
days*)Wr c
Previous Change Orders No._1 to No.
Net change from previous Change Orders
S 142,791.00•
--
_
a..s
Contract Price prior to this Change Order
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order
S 1,296,906.00
269
Net Increase (f(OQXamx) of this Change Order
Net Increase FEi>fKrXg**of this Change Orde-
8,793.50
58
S
d...
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders
Contract Time with all approved Change Orders
S 1,305,699.50
327
days!"%
RECOMMENDED: APPROVED: APPROVED:
CDM, Inc.
by �« by Uaie
g:. �f' ^ern S� % Z1
EJCDC No. 110-8-11(1983 Edition) �� Legal
Commissioner Bird commented that as one Commissioner, he
does not see the necessity for having 58 pages of backup; in
fact, he considers it a waste of time and materials and would
suggest in the future that staff make a cover sheet and summarize
74
as completely as possible and just say that the backup material
is available if anyone wishes to refer to it.
Administrator Chandler stated that they are working on this.
CODE WATER ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
Asst. County Attorney Collins reviewed the following,
recommending that we delete the subject dedication requirements
from our ordinance and look at some other means of accomplishing
the same thing:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM:oC.- William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: July 26, 1989
SUBJECT: Code Water Access Requirements
The County Subdivision and Platting Ordinance, Section 10(r)
requires every subdivision that fronts on a natural water
body for a distance of 600 feet to dedicate a 15 -foot access
easement for each quarter mile to the water, and to
construct a walkway thereon from the nearest publicly
dedicated street to the water. The County can waive this
dedication requirement in return for the fair market value
of the easement being contributed to a fund to be used for
capital improvements to the parks system. Similarly, the
site plan review provisions of Section 23.3(1) has the
similar standard required prior to site plan approval.
The legal standards for such dedications were set out In a
1983 case by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in West
Palm Beach in the case of Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward Countx.
The essence of the ruling to that case was t at "reasonable
dedication ... requirements are permissible so long as they
offset needs sufficiently attributable to the subdivision
and so long as the funds collected are sufficiently
earmarked for the- substantial benefit of the subdivision
residents." I believe that this "impact fee" type analysis
Is Inappropriate in view of the United States Supreme Court
rulings in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.
However, even were we a5le to persuade the circuit court to
disregard the appellate court ruling and apply the Nollan
tests, the Nollan ruling sets up a very strict standar�or
government action which involves a physical invasion of
property. In such cases a compelling government interest
must be substantially advanced. While providing public
access to pu is water bodies is a legitimate function of
government, I am not sure whether it could withstand the
stricter scrutiny of the compelling standard. It would also
be questionable whether providing access easements without
accompanying parking would substantially advance the
public's access to water.
AUG 75 PUCK�g FAGE'p
J
A
Since the fl ung of a lawsuit contesting this dedication
requirement by the Associates Management Group, Inc., the
County has been requiring developers to escrow funds pending
the outcome of the litigation. I have now determined that a
defense of the ordinance would be fruitless and expose the
County to unnecessary attorney's fees and court costs. I
will continue to defend the County in the Associates
Management Group, Inc. lawsuit on the basis of a knowing,
voluntary waiver of rights by the developer.
At this time a number of projects including the Grand Harbor
Beach Club, the Sea Oaks Docking Facility and certain
oceanfront subdivisions have the waterfront dedication
requirement as a condition of C.O. Such conditions are now
clearly inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Board directs staff to suspend the
operation of Section 10(r) of the Subdivision and Platting
Ordinance and Section 23.3(i) of the site plan review
standards and draft the necessary ordinance amendment to
delete these requirements. This is consistent with the
Position that County Attorney Vitunac has been taking on
this matter for over a year.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0)
directed -staff to suspend operation of the Sections
of the Subdivision & Platting Ordinance and of the
site plan review standards listed above and to draft
the necessary ordinance amendment to delete these
requirements.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if by this action we open up
Pandora's box for some of the monies generated in the past.
Attorney Collins noted that there is a 4 year statute of
limitations, but there may be some that will fall under this.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
76
r
CITY OF VERO BEACH REQUEST QUIT CLAIM DEED TO MARINA PROPERTY
The Board reviewed memo from Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 14, 1989
RE: REQUEST FROM CITY OF VERO BEACH
1 have received the attached request by letter from the City
Attorney of Vero Beach, dated July 12, 1989. The request
asks that the County execute a quitclaim deed to the City
marina property so that the City can proceed with a grant
application to the Florida Inland Navigation District.
I believe the City has title to this property anyway, and
this quitclaim deed wi I I not divest 'the County of any real
claim to title. Staff recommends approval of this request.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute a quitclaim deed to the City
of Vero Beach marina property as recommended by staff.
AUG 11989 77
AUG 1 192q-, BOOK 7 7
COUNTY DEED
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
THIS DEED, made. this 1st day of August ,
1989, by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; _TLORIDA, a politIEal
subdivision of the State of Florida, party of the first
part, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960, and the CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, a
municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State
of Florida, party of the second part, whose mailing address
Is P. 0. Box 1389, Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389.
WITNESSETH that the said party of the first part,
for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00)
to it in hand paid by the party of the second part, receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and
sold to the party of the second part, its heirs and assigns
forever, the following described land lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the first
part has caused these presents to be executed in its name by
Its Board of County Commissioners, acting by the Chairman of
said Board, the day and year aforesaid.
(Official Seal) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By Its Board of County
Commissioners
Attest:
_ _
By
r yBa tong erk Gary C Wheeler, chairmane_1
EXHIBIT "A",
Veromar Subdivision PBI 1-88, Lots 1 through 12 inclusive
and Lot 13 less the south 5 feet and Lots 28 through 34
inclusive, the easterly one-half of abandoned Rio Vista
Blvd., that lies west of Block 13 from the south boundary of
Lot 28 to a point of 15 feet south of the southern boundary
of Lot 7, Block 1, and the east 15 feet of Rio Vista Blvd.,
from Avenida Palm to a point 15 feet south of the southern
boundary of Lot 7, Block 1, all of the 20 foot service
Street in Block 13 lying south of Lots 1 to 6 inclusive and
lying west of Lots 7 to'13 inclusive, Block 13.
78
M - M M
STATE/COUNTY SHARES INHOSPITALIZATION PROGRAM
�I
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following and stated that
she would just like authorization for a supportive letter to be
written as she felt it would be helpful.
TO. Board of County CommissionersDATE:
THRU: Jim Chandler
County Administrrtdfr
Joyce M. Johnsto
FROM: Director of WelfaIA—e-101
uly 1z,
STATE/COUNTY SHARED
SUBJECT: INHOSPITALIZATION
PROGRAM
�Ia lil 11
146 /(
REFERENCES:,
"4hen the 1989-90 budget was presented to Governor Martinez in June, one of
the items he vetoed was the State/County Shared Inhospitalization Program.
As you can see by the attached memo, the Florida Association of Counties is
:masking Indian River County to do anything we can to encourage our
i legislative delegation to support the effort being initiated by the Hospital
Association and Senator Myers.
As each of you are aware the State/County Shared Program will provide
approximately $80,000 for extended services at Indian River Memorial Hospital
for low income families. .
You as Commissioners have made generous county tax dollar commitments to
health care for our residents in the past through funding the Health
Department and especially the Primary Care Program. The Hospital Taxing
District, again through County tax dollars, provide many services for
emergency health care. These funds from the State would provide expanded
services from a broader tax base for Indian River County residents.
I' would_ j`encourage each of you to support this effort. It will demonstrate
concern for the Taxing District Hospital's effort to improve the health care
for Indian River County residents which enhances the effort the Indian River
County Commissioners have made in the past and continue to make each year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
Commissioner Eggert to work with the Chairman to draft
an appropriate letter to the Legislative Delegation.
79 r�, F=,
A U G `989 goo l 1 ���
" 71 �
6
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board unanimously (4-0) adjourned at
11:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
80
C�
Chairman