HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/1989BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1 AGENDA
REGULAR 1MEETING
:DECEMBER 12, 1989
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Margaret C. Bowman
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 AM
DEC 121999
*
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Jr.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1) Auth..to negotiate -on contract for Construction
2) Contract for constr.of Phase III of the Jail.
3) Contract for Main Library - Bid#90-6
4) Scheduling of a sludge/septage workshop
5. CONSENT AGENDA
02.
A. William Priestly's request for
Site Plan Approval Extension
for the Jungle Club
(Memorandum dated 11/27/89)
B. Final Plat Approval for Walking
Horse Hammock Subdivision
(Memorandum dated 11/30/89)
C. Department of Community Affairs
Land Development Regulation
Assistance Grant Contract
(Memorandum dated 11/30/89)
D. Routine Utility Lien Releases
(Memorandum dated 12/4/89)
E. IRC Bid 90-22 - Vehicles 1990
(Memorandum dated 11/29/89)
F. IRC Bid 90-24 - Monitoring Well
Installation
(Memorandum dated 11/29/89)
G. Authorization to amend IRC Ordinances
in reference to SBCCI Technical Codes
(Memorandum dated 11/21/89)
H. Appointment of Robert.L. Heald to
Finance Advisory Committee
T. Budget Amendment 017, Donations for
Gifford Basketball League
(Memorandum dated 12/5/89)
Manager
ep.er
DEC 121989
6. CLERK TO THE BOARD
None 1
9:05 AM 7. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
r! �
BOOK . S 8 F'ACL,
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) Batchelor request to Rezone
4± Acres from A-1 to RFD
(Memorandum dated 11/21/89)
2) ORDINANCE CREATING THE ROSELAND
ROAD STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT: PROVIDING
FOR THE CREATION OF THE TAXING
UNIT: PURPOSE: DETERMINATION OF
COST OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE
OR OTHER APPROVED SERVICE: LEVY
OF ASSESSMENTS: ADOPTION OF
BUDGET: EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
OR ASSESSMENTS: DISPOSITION OF
PROCEEDS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR
STREET LIGHTING OR OTHER
PURPOSES: INCORPORATION IN CODE:
SEVERABILITY: AND EFFECTIVE DATE
(Memorandum dated 12/5/89)
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
9. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Board of Adjustment's request for
Board of County Commissioner's
Consideration of Ambersand Beach
Subdivision: Splitting of Lots
(Memorandum dated 12/1/89)
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Sale of Surplus Telephone Equipment
(Memorandum darted 11/17/89)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
9. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1) Selection of Consultant and
Professional Engineering
Services Agreement for
Replacement Bridge over the
South Relief Canal at 20th
Avenue
(Memorandum dated 11/30/89)
2
Reconciliation Change Order
and Final Pay Request from the
Masters Group for Golden Sands
Park Dune Walkover Improvements
(Memorandum dated 11/30/89)
3) Master Agreement and Work Orders
1 and 2 for Professional Civil
Engineering and Land Surveying
Services - Kimley Horn and
Associates, Inc.
(Memorandum dated 12/5/89)
H. UTILITIES
1) Emergency Action Project, Summer
Place Phase One Water Project
East Side of A1A
(Memorandum dated 12/1/89)
2) Proposed Waterline on 43rd South
of SR -60 (19th P1. to 12th St.)
(Memorandum dated 12/1/89)
3) Assessment on A1A North of
Windsor Polo Club
(Memorandum dated 11/3/89)
4) Petition Assessment Project for
a Potable Water Main in Citrus
Gardens Subdivision
(Memorandum dated 11/16/89)
5) Engineering Design Change with
regard to the North County
Subregional Sewer Project
Contract #3
(Memorandum dated 12/1/89)
10. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
DEC 12199
>"'1 mei
BOOK t F',1s[5 /
JEC 121989
11.
BOOK 8 PAGE 574
COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
B. VICE CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Regional Transportation Systems
Planning and Research Center
(Memorandum dated 11/17/89)
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
12. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
A. Approval of Minutes of 11/21/89
Meeting
B. Wabasso Collection Center
(Memorandum dated 11/28/89)
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH
MEETING WILL NEED T
MADE WHICH INCLUDES
BE BASED.
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
0 ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
Tuesday, December 12, 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, December 12,
1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler,
Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested the deletion of Item 9-H3 -
Assessment on AIA north of Windsor Polo Club, and the addition of
the four following items:
1. Authorization to negotiate on contract for Construction
Manager/Owners Representative.
2. Contract for construction of Phase III of the Jail.
3. Contract for Main Library - Bid 090-6.
4. Scheduling of a sludge/septage workshop.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of 3 bond resolutions
dealing with the refinancing of the bond on the Gifford water and
sewer system project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added
and deleted the above items.
BOOK 78 F,1 ME
DEC 12 1989
I.__________
it
DEC 1 2°9.
BOOK 78 PAGE 5 th
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item H be
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
removed from
A. Request for Site Plan Approval Extension for the Jungle Club -
William Priestly
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/27/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
a4t
Robert M. Keating, AIC
Community Development 1�'irector
THROUGH: Stan
Chief, Current
FROM: John W. McCoy,
Staff Planner,
Boling, AI
Development
Current Development
DATE: November 27, 1989
SUBJECT: WILLIAM PRIESTLY'S REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
EXTENSION FOR THE JUNGLE CLUB (SP -MI -88-01-02)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 12, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On December 8, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
major site plan application submitted by William Priestly.
Approval was give to construct parking lot improvements at 1060
6th Avenue.
Due to financial constraints, the applicant has been unable to
commence construction prior to the expiration of the approved site
plan. However, if no construction has begun by December 8, 1989,
the site plan approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the
Board of County Commissioners. Pursuant to County regulations,
since the written request was received by staff on November 15,
1989, before the site plan expiration date, the Board of County
Commissioners can extend the site plan expiration date as request-
ed.
No regulations have changed since the time of site plan approval
that would apply to the site plan application.
2
1
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.2(G)(2), Appendix A of
the Zoning Code, Mr Priestly is requesting a full 1 year extension
of the approved site plan. It has been the policy of the Board to
grant extensions to projects which conform to current codes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Mr. Priestly's request for a one year
extension of the approved site plan; the new expiration date to be
December 8, 1990.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
a one-year extension of the approved site plan; the
new expiration date to be December 8, 1990, as
recommended by staff.
B. Final Plat Approval for Walking Horse Hammock Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/30/89:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
441
Robert M. Keating AIC
Community Develop ent rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, ICP
Chief, Current Development
lial.C�Vi'�.
FROM: Cheryl A. Twore
Staff Planner
DATE: November 30, 1989
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR WALKING HORSE HAMMOCK
SUBDIVISION - SD -88-04-04
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 12, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Walking Horse Hammock Subdivision is a proposed 45 lot subdivision
of a ±23 acre parcel of land located on the south side of 5th
Street S.W. and immediately west of the Hammock Acres Subdivision.
The subject property is zoned RS -3 (Single -Family Residential up
to 3 units per acre) and has an LD -1, (Low Density Residential 1
up to 3 units per acre) land use designation.
DEC 21989
3
ROOK 78 PAGE 57/
EC 12 1969
BOOK
Walking Horse Hammock Subdivision:
rr�) /n�' AGL.
I I��.iL 5 /,
Project Area: ±23 acres
Number of Lots: 45
Lot Sizes: 12,052 to 32,350 square feet
Proposed Density: 1.96 units/acre
At its regular meeting of January 31, 1989, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval and the
owner's agent, Monte Falls, is now requesting final plat approval
and has submitted the following:
a. a final plat in conformance with the approved prelimi-
nary plat;
b. two executed warranty maintenance agreements; and
c. both a letter of credit and a performance bond guaran-
teeing the executed warranty maintenance agreement.
ANALYSIS:
All required improvements have been constructed by the developer,
and have been inspected and deemed acceptable by the Public Works
and Utilities Departments. The County Attorney's office has
reviewed all related documents and has indicated they are legal
and sufficient for final plat purposes. All applicable
requirements regarding final plat approval have been satisfied
with the acceptance of the warranty maintenance agreement and
posted securities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Walking Horse Hammock Subdivision and
accept the warranty maintOnance agreement and posted securities
(letter of credit and performance bond).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for Walking Horse Hammock
Subdivision, and accepted the warranty maintenance
agreement and posted securities, as recommended by
staff.
4
C. Department of Community Affairs Land Development Regulation
Assistance Grant Contract
TO:
FROM:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/30/89:
James Chandler
County Administrator n�
Robert M. Keating, AICP 0444
Community Development Director
DATE: November 30, 1989
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
ASSISTANCE GRANT CONTRACT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 12, 1989.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
At its meeting of October 24, 1989, the Board authorized the
chairman to execute and the staff to submit an application for
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Land Development Regulation
Assistance grant funds. The application was for the $49,816 that
has been earmarked for Indian River County.
Recently, the state notified the County that its grant applica-
tion has been approved. Along with this notification, the state
provided three originals of a proposed contract between the DCA
and the county. These documents must now be executed in order to
obtain the referenced funds.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Both the dollar amount and the scope of services contained in the
application have been incorporated within the contract. There-
fore, the attached contract is consistent with the application
previously approved by the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize tha chairman to execute the attached contract between
the DCA and the county.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the DCA Local Government Land Development Regulation
Assistance Program Contract, and authorized the
Chairman's signature.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DEC 1 2 198g
5
BOOK. 78 rA E 570
DEC 12 i989
BOOK 0 'U [AGE 58
D. Routine Utility Lien Releases
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/4/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: December 4, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 12/12/89
ROUTINE UTILITY LIEN RELEASES
I have processed, and request the Board authorize the
Chairman to execute, the following routine lien -related
items:
(1) Release of Assessment Lien
Lot 1 of KINGSWOOD ESTATES SUBD.
State Road 60 Water Project
(2) Release of Assessment Lien
Joseph and Nancy Fitzsimmons
Rockridge Sewer Project
(3) Release of Assessment Lien
Donald R. and F. Merilene Nichols
River Shores Estates Water Project
Information and/or documentation for the above releases is
on file in the County Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment Liens as listed in the
above memo.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
6
E. IRC Bid #90-22 -- Vehicles 1990
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/89:
DATE: November 29, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General��Serv'
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#90-22/VEHIC'TFS 1990
BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Vehicles 1990 was properly advertised and
Twenty -Four Invitations to bid were sent out. On Nov22,f1989
or 9he
bids were received. Two (2) vendors submitted proposals
commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Florida State Contract #070-00�-1 was the
low bidder that met all requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will cane from Various Divisions Budget
Accounts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Award of a fixed contract for 1990 Vehicles
to the low bidder Florida State Contract #070-001-90-1 for the
following. 1/2 Ton Pick Up, 3/4 Ton Pick Up, Suburban 4 x 4, Van
namy Card, Truck One Tbn-Chassis-Cab, Mid Size Vehicle.
.Eco
DEC 12 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #90-22 as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
[HOF r 8 F`AGL 5
DEC 12
989
()
BOOK ( FAGE
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
:MO 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960
a�•
ER
PURCHASING
BID TABULATION
- Submitted By
Swaim 1•11~1111S1,Iatt
Oste,11/29/B9
DEPT.
Domerdt L Mascots
MANAGER
Date Of Opening 11/22/89
Vehicles
.
7•141410.00413 moa /174•013
''
«
Recommended Award State Contract 070-001-40-1 F1-ORIDA
•PURCHASING
Bid No. 90-22
• $ Bid Title 1990
2. Truck Pickup 1/2 Ton 4 x 2 1. State - $8,698.36
5. Truck One Ton Chassis Cab
1. State - $10,752.00
- 2. Sunrise - $10,530.00
2. Sunrise -512,406.00
3. Charlie - $10,698.00
3. Charlie - $12,719.00
2. Truck Pick Up 3/4 Ton 4 x 2 1. State - $8,698.36
6_ *Mid -Size Vehicle 4 Door Sedan 6
1. State - S10,640.79
•_ . 2. Charlie - $11.999.90
Station Wigan
2. Charlie - 910,336.45
3. Sunrise - $12,009.00
3. Sunrise - $12,111.00
3. Suburban 4 x 4 1. State - $11,874.87
2. Sunrise - N/B
3. Charlie - NIB
•
4. Van Economy Cargo Type 1. State - $9,569.73
•peauire'Gas V6 Engine 3.1 Litre
. 2. Charlie - $11,094.55
Charlie offered gas 4 Cylinder 2.5L
3. Samriee - $11,200.00
Sunrise Ford -Fort Pierce. Florida - Charlie Dodge of F1 -Fort Pierce. F1
F. IRC Bid #90-24 -- Monitoring Well Installation
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/89:
DATE: November 29, 1989
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General S
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#90-24/MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Monitoring Well Installation was
properly advertised and Fourteen (14) Invitations.
to bid were sent out. On Nov. 27, 1989 bids were received.
Three (3) vendors submitted proposals for the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Grand Water Protection was the low bidder
that met all requirements.
8
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will care from Utilities Budget Account..
in the amount of $37,546.
RECOMUIDATION:
Staff recommends the Award of a fixed contract for $4,350.00
to the low bidder, Grand Water Protection, for the subject
commodity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #90-24 as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
l8402Sih Sten; Vero Beach. Florida 32960
WA.
Somas
•
Date, 11/27/89
PURCHASING DEPT. •tr
BID TABULATION
B Mascola
SubmittedBrmhdPURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 90/24 Date Of Opening November 22.
Bid Title Monitoring Hell Installation
50••••••. 6874000 •
170N
. ?A
le ' �
Reecamended Award '4'1-012101`
T.Ia.M, t7Mf071•
• dh 4,350.00
Groundwater Protection, Inc
1. Groundwater Protection, Inc • $4,350.00
2452 Silver Star Road .
Orlando. Florida 32804
•
2. •Ardaman b Associates $6,501.00
1017 SE Holbrook Ct
Port St Lucie, Florida 34952
•
3. Adger Smith Hells No Bid
.
P.O. Box 361076
Melbourne, Florida 32936
.DEC 12 1969
BOOK
L
/' PAGE 5
DEC 12198t
BOOK 1 8 FAGE58
G. Authorization to Amend IRC Ordinances in Reference to SBCCI
Technical Codes
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/21/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keatin
Director, Community De elopment
DATE: November 21, 1999
SUBJECT: Authorization to amend Indian River County
Ordinances in reference to SBCCI Technical Codes
FROM: Ester L. Rymer, Director
Building Division
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal
-consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the regularly
scheduled meeting of December 12, 1989.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances provides for the
use of specific editions, with applicable revisions, of the Southern
Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) technical codes. These
codes are designed for adoption by state and local governments.
The purpose of the Standard Code is to protect the public's life,
health, and welfare- in the built environment. The use of
performance-based requirements encourages the use of innovative
building designs, materials, and construction systems while at the
same time recognizing the merits of the more traditional materials
and systems. This concept promotes maximum flexibility in building
design and construction as well as assuring a high degree of life
safety.
The Code incorporates, by reference, nationally recognized consensus
standards for use in judging the performance of materials and sys-
tems. This provides for equal treatment of both innovative and tra-
ditional materials and systems, provides for efficient introduction
of new materials into the construction process, and assures a high
level of consumer protection.
The Standard Codes are updated annually with revisions, and a new
edition is published every three years.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Currently the Indian River County Ordinance requires the use of the
1988 Edition of the technical codes. At the meeting of the Indian
River County Building Code Board of adjustments and Appeals held Mon-
day, November 6, 1989, The Board voted unanimously to recommend to
the Board of County Commissioners the adoption of the 1989 revisions
to the technical codes as follows:
10
STANDARD BUILDING CODE (SBC) 1988 Edition, Including
Appendix "A", with 1989 Revisions.
Ref: Article II, Section 4-31
STANDARD PLUMBING CODE (SPC) 1988 Edition with 1989 Revisions.
Ref: Article VI, Section 4-91
STANDARD MECHANICAL CODE (SMC) 1988 Edition .with 1989 Revisions.
Ref: Article VII, Section 4-101
STANDARD GAS CODE (SGC) 1988 Edition with 1989 Revisions.
Ref: Article V, Section 4-81
STANDARD HOUSING CODE (SHC) 1988 Edition with 1989 Revisions.
Ref: Article VIII, Section 4-106
NATION ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC) 1990 Edition.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION'
Staff concurs with the Indian River County Building Code Board of Ad-
justments and Appeals, and recommends the Board of County Commission-
ers authorize advertising -the attached ordinance for public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise for a public hearing for the adoption
of an ordinance amendment in reference to SBCCI
Technical Codes.
H. Appointment to Finance Advisory Committee
Commissioner Scurlock explained that many of the people on
the FAC go up to the mountains in the summertime, and in an effort
to use all of their expertise and have a quorum during the summer
months, he felt it is important that we appoint some additional
people. He noted that Mr. Heald's resume shows an extensive legal
background.
DEC 121989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously appointed
Robert L. Heald to the Finance Advisory Committee.
11
BOOK 7 8 F;1GE 5!-35
DEC 12 i989
BOOK 78 F,16E 586
I. Budget Amendment #017 - Donations for Gifford Basketball
League
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/89:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: December 5, 1989
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 017 -
DONATIONS FOR GIFFORD
BASKETBALL LEAGUE
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird(P._
OMB Director
Description and Conditions
The Recreation Department has received public donations in the amount
of $845.00 to establish a Gifford basketball league. Staff would
like to utilize these funds to offset the expenses to start the
basketball league.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached budget amendment appropriating funding.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #017, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
12
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
1
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Directori`i
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
017
DATE: December 5, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/Recreation
Athletics
001-108-572-041.12
S 845.00
$ 0
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Donations/Recreation
001-000-366-104.00
S 845.00
$ 0
PUBLIC HEARING -
A-1 TO RFD
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having
BATCHELOR REQUEST TO REZONE 4 ACRES FROM
passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Doily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Belore the undersigned authority personally appeared .1. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is BeSirress 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
. '71.1,L)
in the matter 01
in the - Court, was pub-
lished M said newspaper in the issues of
C/ ao. /U <"
• Altiani further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published al
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 al the post office In Vero Beach. m said Indlan Rover Coun-
ty. Florida. for a period of one year nevi preceding the first publication of the allached hrm
Y el
advertisement: and allianl further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person.
Or corporation any discount. rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication m 1110 said newspaper.
Sworn 10 and subscribed before me This day of 19
'11."
. • M (Business Manager)
J
*Cle,M.e4.tne-Cucud Court.Jndf RivwA:Ovnlw Flo/eclat—
(SEAM atish• at Homo
Ovavesvan aJuao29. tVa
DEC 1 2 1989
13
. NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: A-1.
Agricultural District to RFD. Rural Fringe Devel-
opment District. The subject property is owned
by Thomas G. and Joan Batchellor. The subject
property is located on the east side of 66th Ave-
nue approximately 810' north of 8th Street. The
subject property is Tying in Tract 13, Section 8,
Township 33S, Range 39E in Indian River Coun-
ty A public hearing at which parties In Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on December 12,
1989, at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to •
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed -
Ings is made, which includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Gary Wheeler, Chairman
November 20, 1989 631001
Wj
1
PAGE
J
DEC 12 t989
BOOK
it
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/21/89:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
47,1„41;f2- j /�,
Robert M. Keating �AI
Community Development irector
THRU: Sasan Rohani •,�1C
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Robert M. Loeper /21k.
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 21, 1989
SUBJECT: BATCHELOR REQUEST TO REZONE 4± ACRES FROM A-1 TO RFD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 12, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This is a request by Thomas and Joan Batchelor to rezone property
from A-1, Agricultural District (1 unit/5 acres) to RFD, Rural
Fringe Development District (1 unit/2} acres). The property is
located on the east side of 66th Avenue, approximately 810 feet
north of 8th Street. The applicant intends to split the subject
property in order to create another building lot.
On October 26, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the approval
of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the.purrent and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject parcel contains a 2 story, single-family residence and
is zoned A-1, Agricultural District. The surrounding property, on
all sides, is also zoned A-1. Agriculture is the predominate land
use in this area. The area west of 66th Avenue is devoted almost
entirely to citrus. Groves are also present on the northeast
boundary of the property. Property on the east and south is
undeveloped but cleared of most native vegetation. Property
immediately north (on the east side of 66th Avenue) contains
single-family residences on lots ranging in size from 1/3 to 2i
acres.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all
surrounding property RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up to 1 unit/2i
acres) .
14
P
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access on 66th Avenue. This dirt
road is a designated minor arterial road on the county
Thoroughfare Plan.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive on the Comprehensive Plan but is within the 100 year
floodplain as depicted on Federal Emergency Management Agency
flood maps.
Utilities
Public water and sewer are currently not available or programmed
for the subject parcel.
Analysis
In reviewing this request, staff has examined the existing land
use pattern and the future land use pattern set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan. The RFD, Rural Fringe Development District is
intended to provide opportunities for very low-density residential
development outside the fringe of suburban development and is the
highest density permitted within the Rural Residential Land Use
category. Agriculture has been the major use of land in this
area; however, residential uses have been established along the
roadways. The most significant concentration of residential uses
in the area is Pine Tree Park subdivision approximately one-half
mile away. Despite the lack of public services and paved roads,
the area's proximity to more developed areas of the county
enhances its attractiveness for low density residential
development.
The predominance of agricultural uses will provide some
limitations to development in the area as residential development
and subdivisions adjacent to active agricultural operations are
required to provide buffers. The long term development of this
area will depend on improvements to 66th Avenue and the provision
of public water and sewer. It is unlikely that these improvements
will occur in the near future.
Conclusion
The subject property is located in an area designated for rural
development and dominated by agricultural uses. Residential uses
will be restricted to very low densities by constraints provided
by agriculture, lack of roads, services and drainage. The
proposed change in zoning would be consistent with county policies
and would not create a noticeable change in existing land uses.
Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed zoning
would be reasonable and not negatively impact adjacent properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve this request.
DEC 12199
15
BOOK 8 F'!;r..5S i
DEC 1_219B9
BOOK 1 FA E 59e
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this was in the same general
low area where Ed Schlitt had a request in the discussions on the
new Comp Plan, and Robert Keating, Director of Community
Development, responded affirmatively.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this matter. There being none, he
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-32, rezoning 4± acres from A-1,
Agricultural District, to RFD, Rural Fringe Development
District; :property generally located east of 66th Avenue
approximately 810 feet north of 8th Street.
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 32
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RFD, RURAL FRINGE
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST OF 66TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 810 FEET
NORTH OF 8TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
16
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The east 348.48 feet of the west 373.48 feet of the North
500 feet of Tract 13, Section 8, Township 33 South, Range 39
East, according to the last general plat of lands of the
Indian River Farms Company as filed in Plat Book 2, page 25,
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands now
situate in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to RFD, Rural Fringe
Development District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and. adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 12th day of December ,
1989.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 20th day of November, 1989, for a public
hearing to be held on the 12th day of December, 1989, at which
time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock ,
seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn C. Eggert Rye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Rye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock --Aye
DEC 12 1989
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
nary 'j Wheeler, Chairman
17
LOO
�'3 L Dai.
DEC 12 '1989
BOOK l ; FALL
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE CREATING THE ROSELAND ROAD STREET
LIGHTING
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
• VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. rho on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal. a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
•
in the matter of r Lek, %-e.
in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
`l' __ -0-. 01 `
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that.the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.ap
Sworn to and subscribed before me this a 1 ! —' day of r• A D 19 C
(SEAL)
(Bu iness Manager)
(C nrt; Tnd = n - - eourrtrFtOrfda)--
$otary re llc, State of rionoo
MY Comrakalon ksp1res puna 39. MS
18
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County. Florida. will conduct a Public
Hearing on Tuesday. December 12. 1989 at 9:05 .
a.m. in the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th
Street. Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FLORIDA. CREATING THE
ROSELAND ROAD STREET LIGHTING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT;
PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF
THE TAXING UNIT: PURPOSE: DETER-
MINATION OF COST OF STREET
LIGHTING SERVICE OR OTHER AP-
PROVED SERVICE: LEVY OF ASSESS-
MENTS, ADOPTION OF BUDGET; EX-
EMPTION FROM TAXATION OR AS-
SESSMENTS: DISPOSITION OF PRO-
CEEDS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR
STREET LIGHTING On OTHER PUR-
POSES: INCORPORATION IN CODE;
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN 2150
Nov. 24. 1989
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance Establishing the Roseland Road
Street Lighting District
DATE: December 5, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On July 25, 1989, the Board authorized staff to proceed with
design, cost estimates, and an implementing ordinance to
establish the Roseland Road Street Light District. The
design of 19 street lights is complete along Roseland Road
from Indian River Drive to 126th Street. The estimated cost
for the first year is $3,360 for the entire district, plus
administrative costs. The benefit district includes
approximately 335 acres and 638 parcel/acres to be assessed.
The estimated cost per parcel acre is $5.27/year.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Subject to comments received by the public at the Public
Hearing, staff recommends approval of the Roseland Road
Street Lighting District.
Public Works Director James Davis advised that the assessment
is $5.27 per parcel/acre and pointed out the area to be served.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that the initial assessment
would decline because generally the first year is the biggest year
due to the capital improvements that are required, and then after
that, it is maintenance and utilities.
Director Davis explained that the high costs the first year
are for administrative costs and setting up the district. The
capital improvement expenditures are for equipment, but that cost
is pro -rated over 10 years. After receiving the petition from
the property owners in the Roseland community, we determined the
benefited area and worked with the power company to develop the
cost estimate for the 19 lights along Roseland Road. Director
Davis noted that while this district is being established for
municipal street lighting, it could be expanded to serve other
future improvements in the Roseland community.
19 BOOK
DEC 121989
78
fAWE
r �
DEO g 2 V989
BOOK
10 F'AGE 5 4
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-33, creating the Roseland Road Street
Lighting Municipal Service Taxing Unit.
20
11/13/89(J4)LEGAL(WCCnhm)
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 33
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CREATING THE ROSELAND ROAD
STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE
TAXING UNIT; PURPOSE; DETERMINATION OF
COST OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE OR OTHER
APPROVED SERVICE; LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS,
ADOPTION OF BUDGET; EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION OR ASSESSMENTS; DISPOSITION OF
PROCEEDS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR STREET
LIGHTING OR OTHER PURPOSES;
INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the residents along Roseland Road have
requested that the County establish a mechanism for
providing street lighting service at crucial locations along
Roseland Road; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the creation of a
municipal service taxing unit to raise funds through the
equitable assessment of property owners along Roseland Road
is the best available means of accomplishing the desired
goal; and
WHEREAS, provision.of street lighting in the area
will further the safety, health, and well-being of all those
residing and owning property within the boundaries of the
district;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by Indian River
County, Florida, through its Board of County Commissioners,
that:
Section 1. Title:
Creation of the Roseland Road Street Lighting
Municipal Service. Taxing Unit:
There is hereby established in Indian River County
the Roseland Road street lighting municipal service taxing
unit under the authority of, and with all those powers
conferred by, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and
Sections 125.01(q) and 125.01(r), Florida Statutes. The
1
DEC 121989
'"7
BOOK d' 8 f,.GG 595
r
DEC 12 1989
BOOK 18 PAGE 590
PAGE
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 33
real property included within the boundaries of this
municipal service taxing unit and subject to all provisions
hereof is described as follows:
All lands fronting on either side of
Roseland Road between Fleming Grant and
the West line of Old U.S. 1 (now Indian
River Drive), including all of the lands
East of Avenue Five in Van Bergen and
Hendry's Addition to Roseland, the plat
of which is recorded in Plat Book 3,
Page 39 of the Public Records of Indian
River County, EXCEPT Lots 10, 11 and the
Easterly part of Lot 9 in Block 1 of the
said plat.
All of Section 21 of Fleming Grant
EXCEPT Lots 17 through 20; ALSO EXCEPT
Tracts D, E, F and G in Riverwalk II,
the plat of which is recorded in Plat
Book 12, Page 36 of the Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida. ALSO
EXCEPT that parcel lying partly within
Tract A of the Van Bergen and Hendry's
Addition to Roseland, described as
follows:
Commence at a concrete monument on
Fleming Grant line marking the
Southeasterly corner of Lot 14 of Town
of Wauregan. Then run
N 26° 28' 14" W 734.23 feet to POINT OF
BEGINNING. Then run
N 48° 07' 19" W 145.0 feet. Then run
N 41° 52' 41" E 230.0 feet to a
non -tangent point on a circular curve,
said point bears S 67° 48' 31" W
11,459.20 feet from radius point, said
point also lying on Westerly
right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 1,
said circular curve being concave to the
Northeast. Thence Southeasterly along
the West right-of-way of U.S. Highway
No. 1, traveling along said circular
curve for an arc distance of 202.94
feet, through a central angle of 01° 00'
53". Then run
S 56° 52' 41" W 147.92 feet to POINT OF
BEGINNING (O.R. Book 706, Page 1014).
ALSO EXCEPT any parcel lying between the
Easterly line of the present U.S.
Highway No. 1 and the Easterly line of
the said Section 21 of Fleming Grant.
SECTION II. Purpose:
a. This municipal service taxing unit is created
for the purpose of providing street lighting at reasonable,
2
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 33
efficient, and proper locations, within the boundaries of
the unit, including the cost of engineering, construction,
.maintenance, easement acquisition, and any necessary
supporting service or function related thereto, as may be
determined by the Board of County Commissioners, and for the
provision of such further services as may be lawfully
authorized and determined by the Board from time to time.
b. This municipal service taxing unit may fund
all or any of the aforementioned services or improvements
through either current year funding, or tax anticipation or
multi-year notes or bonds, provided that any debt instrument
or obligation made must be repayable solely from the
revenues collected by the municipal service taxing unit
pursuant: to the authority and means provided by this
ordinance..
SECTION III. Determination of Cost of Service:
The Board of County Commissioners shall determine
each year the estimated costs of providing street lighting
and such other services as the County Commission may
provide, including. capital and equipment'. Improvements,
rentals and acquisitions, and operating. and maintenance
costs and expenses, for the ensuing County fiscal year for
that area which is or shall be receiving street lighting or
other benefits provided by this unit within the boundaries
of the unit.
SECTION IV. Levy of Assessment, Adoption of
Budget:
The Board of County Commissioners hereby
authorizes the levy of an assessment .upon each tract,
parcel, or unit, within that area which is or shall be
receiving street lighting services or benefits within the
municipal service taxing unit created hereby, with such
exceptions as are set forth in Section V below. The
assessment shall be based upon a per acre or part thereof
3
DEC 12 1989
BOOK
�9
HOF 6! 8 a;;t 598
• DEC 1 2989
ORDINANCE NO..89- 33
basis for each parcel of land in the Roseland Road Street
Lighting District. The assessment shall be levied and a
budget prepared and adopted by the Board at the same time
and in the same manner as the Board prepares and adopts its
County annual budget and levies taxes as provided by law.
Said assessment shall be levied, collected, remitted to, and
accounted for at the time and manner as for the assessment,
levy, collection, remittance, and accounting of taxes by the
Board as provided by law. The budget shall contain all or
such portion of the estimated cost of providing street
lighting and other services within the boundaries of the
unit, as determined under the provisions of Section III
hereof, as the Board shall determine to be necessary to
provide such services.
SECTION V. Exemptions from Assessment:
The following lands are exempted from the
provisions of this section for the purposes of assessments
for street lighting benefits:
a. Those parts of any platted and recorded
subdivision which lie within the corporate limits of any
municipality existing or hereafter created.
b. All lands owned and buildings operated by the
Indian River County School District for the purposes of a
school for the education of the citizens of Indian River
County to the extent state law requires this exemption.
SECTION VI. Disposition of Proceeds from Levy of
Taxes:
Those funds obtained from the levy of an
assessment on all the taxable real property within the
boundary of said unit shall be maintained in a separate
account and used solely for the purpose of providing street
lighting and 'such other benefits as determined by the Board
of County Commissioners within the boundaries of said unit
only.
4
r
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 33
SECTION VII. Incorporation in Code:
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION VIII. Severability:
If any section or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall
not affect remaining portions of this ordinance; and it
shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to
pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or
inoperative part.
SECTION IX. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt
from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and 'adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this
day of December
, 1989.
12th
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 24th day of November 1989, for a
public hearing to be held on the 12th day of December
1989, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Scurlock
Commissioner
Eggert
DEC 121989
•
seconded by Commissioner
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Coniiissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
5
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
p;.e
BOOK 8 FALL 5 9
DEC 12 1989
BOOK 78 F'ACE 600
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 33
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By /�<y �v-�-
Gary �!! Wheeler
Chair an
Attest:
By
GZ/f(lr✓
j! aceto
ey
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this 18th day of December 19 89.
Effective date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 26th day of December , 1989, at 9:00
a.m./p.m. and filed—in the O r ce of the Clerk E' the Board
-01—County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
6
1 -
ROSELAND STREETLIGHTING DISTRICT
ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR
LIGHTS $2,375.00
LEGAL ADS $25.00
G & A CHARGE $100.00
CONTINGENCY $150.00
FIRST YEAR (20% ADDITIONAL) $560.00
COMMISSIONS AND FEES $150.00
TOTAL > ' $3,360.00
$3,360.00/638 PARCEL/ACRES = $5.27 PER YEAR
ROSELAND STREEI'LIGHTING DISTRICT
ESTIMATED SECOND YEAR
LIGHTS $2,375.00
LEGAL ADS $25.00
G & A CHARGE $100.00
CONTINGENCY $150.00
COMMISSIONS AND FEES $100.00
TOTAL = ::;;;$2,750.00
$2,750.00/638 PARCEL/ACRES = $4.31 PER YEAR
D: LOTUSISTRLIGHTIROSELND
REVISED: 12-4-89
DEC 121999
27
BOOK
F,4! GF 601
DEC 12 1989
Boor. ! mE 602
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE CONSULTANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/7/89:
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1989
TO:
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV CES
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE CONSULTANT
BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 1989 approximately fifteen County initiated Request For
Proposals were mailed for the subject project. There were six (6)
responses received on November 27, 1989. The selection committee was
appointed by the County Administrator which was comprised of:
Gary C. Wheeler - County Commissioner
James E. Chandler - County Administrator
James Davis - Public Works Director
H.T. "Sonny" Dean - General Services Director
This committee met on November 29, 1989 to "short list" the
consultants and select a date for presentations. A pre -designed form
using points for qualifications in various areas of importance was
the methodology used in this process. Total points from each
committee member's form determined ranking of the firms that
submitted proposals. The short list was made up of the firms
receiving the highest number of points. These companies were
notified and presentations were scheduled and heard on December 6,
1989.
ANALYSIS:
The short listed consultants were judged on their past experience in
similar projects, personnel qualifications, what they perceived to be
the important aspects of the project, and how well they were prepared
to perform the various tasks. The committee ranked the consultants
-based on the majority votes received as follows:
1. Sverdrup, Corporation
2. Rooney Enterprises, Inc.
3. Proctor Construction, Company
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff respectfully request Board approval to negotiate with Sverdrup,
Corporation, for a contract to perform the subject consulting work.
The proposed contract will be brought back to the Board of County
Commissioners for their approval.
28
Administrator Chandler explained that interviews were held
last week with the short-listed firms, and staff would like
authorization from the Board to negotiate with the first ranked
firm, Sverdrup Corporation, and bring back a recommendation at
next week's meeting. We are also interviewing individuals, and
will be bringing a recommendation to the Board next week as to
whether we should go with a firm or an individual.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to state for the record that he -
may have some problems with Sverdrup Corporation. He gave good
credit to the County's selective ranking process, but Sverdrup
worked on our South County reverse osmosis plant, and in his
opinion, we had some fairly significant problems associated with
that project. He would like to have more comfort as to who is on
what base, and who is committed to the project.
Administrator Chandler advised that they would be prepared to
answer those questions when they bring back a recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
29
nEC 12 1989
ROOK
10 PAGE. 600
DEC112 l9
BOOK
11c,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S REQUEST FOR COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF
SPLITTING OF LOTS IN AMBERSAND BEACH SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/89:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M..
3
Keati A'"`
Community Development'Director
FROM: Stan Boling,A CP
Chief, Current Development
DATE: December 1, 1989
SUBJECT: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S REQUEST FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION OF
AMBERSAND BEACH SUBDIVISION: SPLITTING OF LOTS
6O'
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 12, 1989.
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:
On November 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustment considered a vari-
ance request in the Ambersand Beach subdivision. Because similar
conditions exist on other lots in the subdivision, the Board of
Adjustment referred the issue to the Board of County Commissioners
for consideration of a legislative resolution.
- The Subdivision
The Ambersand Beach subdivision plats (Units 1 and 2) were record-
ed in 1924, many years before the County adopted a zoning code
(1957). Thus, all lots, as platted, are considered grandfa-
thered -in lots of record which are buildable, one principal
dwelling on one platted lot. The plat, itself, established a
total of 84 ocean to river lots, each of which were traversed by a
road right-of-way known as "Ocean Boulevard" (see attachment #1).
The plat did not establish separate lots on either side of Ocean
Boulevard.
In later years "Ocean Boulevard" was abandoned and ultimately
replaced by S.R. A.1.A.. Based upon an opinion by the County
Attorney's Office, construction of S.R. A.1.A. did not split lots
into separate buildable east and west lots; S.R. A.1.A. merely
replaced Ocean Boulevard, and individual lots remained unified
across S.R. A.1.A. Thus, individual east and west lots were/are
only created when separated by recorded deed. When such east/west
lots are created, they must meet existing zoning standards to be
considered buildable as separate lots.
It should be noted that for a time, planning staff was of the
opinion that S.R. A.1.A. did in fact split each platted lot into
two individual parcels. Recently, staff brought to the attention
of the County Attorney's office the existence of Ocean Boulevard
on the plat. Based in part on the fact that S.R. A.1.A. "re-
placed" Ocean Boulevard, the Attorney's office then rendered the
opinion stated above. During the time staff was operating under
the assumption that separate lots were created by. S.R. A.1.A.'s
severing of the ocean to river parcels, a building permit was
issued in 1987 for a "half ,lot" west of S.R. A.1.A. Under the
County Attorney's office opinion now rendered, a building permit
should not have been issued under such circumstances since the new
lot did not meet the applicable minimum lot width standards.
30
Presently, the Ambersand Beach subdivision is split into three
different zoning districts. East of S.R. A.1.A., lot portions are
zoned RS -6 (Single Family Residential up to 6 units per acre) and
are comprehensive plan designated as LD -2 (Low Density Residential
up to 6 units per acre). 1 West of S.R. A.1.A. lot portions have
two different zoning districts and land use designations. Western
portions of lots 1 - 5 have an LD -1 designation and RS -3 zoning;
all other western lot portions have an RR -2 land use designation
and RS -1 zoning.
- The Applicant's Request
The crux of the issue at hand is a request by applicant Juanita
Gunther, represented by'Attorney Michael O'Haire. The applicant
owns all of Lot 2, Unit 1 from ocean to river; the lot is zoned
RS -6 east of S.R. A.1.A. and RS -3 west of S.R. A.1.A. In 1981,
two separate deeds in the name of the applicant were recorded, one
for the eastern portion of the lot and one for the western portion
of the lot. Consequently, in 1981, two lots were created from Lot
2; one oceanside and one riverside lot. (see attachment #2) The
entire platted lot measures approximately 55' X 1,005'; the
subject "half lot" portion lying west of A.1.A. measures approxi-
mately 53' X 660'. The subject lot portion fronts upon part of a
} acre lake which immediately fronts on S.R. A.1.A. The subject
lot portion appears to contain "buildable" upland area as well as
wetland areas. Properties just north of the subject lot portion
have been separated from the oceanside portions of their respec-
tive lots and have been built upon.
Nonetheless, •the applicant's newly created lots did not meet the
minimum R -1A zoning district regulations in effect at the time of
the split, nor do they now meet the current applicable RS -3 front-
age and lot width requirements. The applicant has requested a
26.77' variance from the 80' minimum lot width required in the
RS -3 zoning district. Such variances from the zoning code are
heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
'At its November 13, 1989 meeting, the Board of Adjustment heard
the variance request and voted to defer action, allowing the Board
of County Commissioners an opportunity to consider all lots
situated similarly to the applicant's, to make any appropriate
policy decisions, and to take any appropriate action for the
entire area. (see attachment #3 and #4). In essence, the Board
of Adjustment has concluded at this time that any merit the
applicant's request may have should be considered in an area -wide
context since the circumstances of the subject lot are not unique
to the lot. If warranted, special regulation of -the area would be
more appropriately addressed by Board of County Commissioners'
action rather than by the Board of Adjustment hearing individual
variance cases. The Board of Adjustment has reserved the option
to "re -hear" and continue the Gunther variance case depending on
the Board of County Commissioner's decision and possible action.
- Board of County Commissioners Consideration
The Board of County Commissioners now needs to consider whether or
not special circumstances exist for the applicant's property and
the rest of the southern portion of Ambersand Beach subdivision,
Unit 1 which warrant any special treatment or regulation changes
different from existing regulations as applied. If the Board
determines that the existing regulations are appropriate and are
appropriately applied, then it should affirm staff's position. If
the Board of County Commissioners determines that existing regu-
lations need to be changed, then it should give direction to staff
for initiation of regulation changes.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
- The Issues
The applicant's major argument is threefold:
1. S.R. A.1.A. does, in fact, split the lots, effectively
rendering separate lots on either side of A.1.A.
2. Two other property owners (immediately north of the
applicant's lot) have separate built -upon "half lots"
west of S.R. A.1.A.; the applicant is requesting to have
the same rights and opportunities.
DEC 12
16.
989
31
MGIC 78 FAU.605
.,q, � NGGY 78 F'.k �F. 6O
DEC 1i-;
3. The western portion of the applicant's parcel is large,
approximately 53 X 660' (±0.8 acres), and warrants
individual buildability due to its size. The only
dimensional criterion it does not meet is the minimum
80' width required in the RS -3 zoning district.
Staff's position is as follows:
1. As previously'stated, S.R. A.1.A. does not create two
separate buildable lots out of each platted lot. S.R.
A.1.A. traverses a single lot; one portion can contain
the principal residence, the other portion can contain
accessory uses (eg.: guest cottage, docks).
2. Adjacent to the applicant's property, two "half lots"
have been developed as separate parcels. However, these
are the only two parcels out of 84 lots where one half
of a single platted lot has been separated -out as an
individual buildable parcel. Thus, no compelling
precedent has yet been set for the entire subdivision.
The impact of changing existing regulations or granting
variances must be considered in light of the impact of
creating and developing more lots.
The applicant's lot is large in area and apparently has
enough uplands area to accommodate a separate and
complete residence. However, the critical question is:
should regulations be changed to allow more development
on lots having a substandard width? Furthermore, if it
is determined that significant lot depth can make up for
substandard width, how much of the lot area should be
required to be -uplands? What is the effect on wetlands?
What will be the effect of increasing the number of
curb -cuts directly onto S.R. A.1.A., especially
curb -cuts that are ±50' apart?
13
.
In relation to item #3, it is staff's opinion that :
a. ±53' lots, outside of an approved PRD design, are too
narrow for either the RS -6, RS -3, or RS -1 zoning dis-
trict due to side yard setback constraints. Although
residences are constructed on ±53' lots in the subdivi-
sion, increasing the number of narrow lots would only
increase the number of lots "too tight" to be developed
in the manner of most other properties in the RS -6,
RS-3,.and RS -1 districts.
b. Trading -off lot width for lot depth (outside of a PRD
design) inevitably requires a determination of a minimum
lot depth. Lot depth in this area directly bears upon
wetlands since the depth of lots include wetland areas
and even privately owned submerged bottomlands. Allow-
ing the creation of individual lots west of S.R. A.1.A.
means that substantial residential development will have
to be located adjacent to wetlands or even in some cases
perhaps in wetland areas with mitigation.
c. Increasing the number of lots will increase the number
of driveways onto S.R. A.1.A. The subdivision ordinance
prohibits the creation of lots which have direct access
onto an arterial roadway such as S.R. A.1.A. Thus,
allowing the proposed lot splits would go against a
subdivision standard that should be applied to the
request. Furthermore, due to the particular narrowness
of the proposed lots, driveways would be closer together
than normal, creating an undesirable traffic effect
(more potential conflicting maneuvers in a short segment
along a high speed roadway).
The Board of County Commissioners, the applicant, and the Board of
Adjustment each have alternatives that can affect the way
Ambersand Beach subdivision lots are developed.
- Board of County Commissioner Alternatives
The Board of County Commissioners has two basic alternatives after
considering the circumstances of the Ambersand Beach subdivision:
32
1. affirm staff's position and its application of the
existing regulations; or
2. direct staff to initiate changes in the: existing regu-
lations.
If the Board chooses to make changes to existing regulations, it
could "narrow -down" the geographical area affected by the change
in a few different, logical ways. For example, the Board could
restrict any changes to apply only to lots 1 5 which have RS -3
zoning west of S.R. A.1.A.. (all other lots have RS -1 zoning and
an RR -2 land use designation west of S.R. A.1.A.)
Regulation changes the Board may consider are:
1. amend existing zoning district widths to recognize a
special width for some or all Ambersand beach _lots;
2. create a special zoning district for some or all
Ambersand Beach lots which, among other possible stan-
dards, establishes a special lot width.
- Applicant's Alternatives
The applicant's. alternatives involve requests before the Board of
County Commissioners and the Board of Adjustment, as well as the
ability to recombine the two lot portions into the original lot 2.
The applicant's three basic alternatives are:
1. pursue a change in existing regulations by the Board of
County Commissioners to allow the proposed lot split;
2. continue consideration of the variance request before
the Board of Adjustment;
3. use or sell the entire platted lot (recombined portions)
as one buildable parcel having one principal residence
and any other allowed accessory uses or structures.
- Board of Adjustment
The Board of Adjustment has the alternative of continuing consid-
eration of the applicant's variance request. The request involves
only the applicant's lot. However, approval or denial of the
request will set a precedent for lots similarly situated.
SUMMARY
The southern portion of the Ambersand beach subdivision contains
ocean to river lots that are traversed by S.R. A.1.A., have
substantial depth, and are narrow (below all minimum lot width
standards). Certain lots have areas that greatly exceed required
minimum sizes and, from the standpoint of total area alone could
accommodate a lot split into separate individual lots. Despite
total area, however, proposed separate "half lots" would still be
below standard for width and would have direct access to S.R.
A.1.A. Changing existing regulations to allow the proposed lot
splits would allow the creation of lots not in keeping with
subdivision standards in regards to lot width and traffic design.
In staff's opinion, the Board should not change regulations to
allow the creation of narrow lots having direct access onto a
major, high speed roadway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners affirm
staff's position that the existing regulations should stand as
applied, only allowing crgation of lots that meet applicable lot
dimension standards.
33
DEC 1 2 1989
BOCK 78 F'AGE 697
DEC 12
8
0
lk IL.
Ili,& • v�
WIt WV" •.
`��► ■s
..\41yrs
':• Is a
. TA
lower.
• VT&
s
BOOK 78 F E
Old platted road
"Ocean Blvd"
*11
i
7
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
RS
1
r
v
uu
34
1
Chairman Scurlock hoped we would not get into an 8 -hour
discussion on this issue, because as far as he was concerned, the
answer is no. In fact, he remembered when we established a very
different, difficult precedent early on when we abandoned our old
AIA right-of-way for Baytree and a number of those developments,
and got nothing for it. That cut bisected all those projects
along there, and a former County Commission went ahead and
abandoned our rights and allowed them to develop their
communities, but we got a big goose egg for all of that. He
wondered, however, if we were to modify the ordinance, would it
apply to only the long lots and not the shorter lots that have the
same narrow width.
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, felt certain that
could be done. We could narrow down the scope.
Commissioner Scurlock also asked if that area of the beach is
in an erosion area or an accretion area, and Chairman Wheeler felt
that all depends on the sand transfer project at the Sebastian
Inlet, but all of that north beach area has a tendency to erode
rather than accrete.
Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone wished tobe heard in this
matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the owner who owns
property on both sides of AIA, emphasized that we are only talking
about 5 lots. Referring to an aerial view of the area, he pointed
out that everything north of Lot 5 in the Ambersand Subdivision is
zoned RS -1, which requires a density of one unit to the acre. His
client's property is approximately 350 feet deep on the east side
of AIA, but it is more than 600 feet deep on the west side of AIA,
and is one of the deepest lots in the entire subdivision.
Commissioner Eggert asked how much of that is not lagoon, and
Attorney O'Haire believed about one fifth of it is lagoon.
Commissioners Scurlock and Eggert felt it is more like a
quarter to a third.
DEC 12 1989
L_
35
BOOK 78 PAGE. 600
DEC 21589
BOOK
i
61C
Attorney O'Haire pointed out that Lots 2 and 3 have houses on
the ocean side
owned by Mr. &
owned by Mr. &
and on the river side. Lot 3, east of AIA, is
Mrs. Preston; Lot, 3, west of AIA , and Lot 4 are
Mrs. Thompson. So, they have been divided and
there are houses on each according to the Property Appraiser's
records. Lot #1, west of AIA, is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Olson, who
have built a house there. Lot #1, east of AIA, is owned by Mrs.
DeCosgrow, who also has built a home. Attorney O'Haire emphasized
again that we are only talking about these 5 lots that are zoned
RS -3 and can accommodate a house on either side of the road. This
entire thing was prompted when his client made an inquiry as to
whether or not they could build on either side of the road after
receiving an offer to
undersized lot."
Attorney O'Haire
purchase, and staff said "no, you have an
next addressed the question of whether
Ocean
Boulevard was located differently than AIA. As you go north of
his client's property, there is a zoning change, and it becomes so
narrow it is very unlikely it could be used on either side in any
case. The County Attorney's office has issued an elaborate
opinion saying these lots were not divided or split when AIA was
built in the 1950s, but were divided or split in the 1980s when
all these people acquired title to them and were given deeds for
parcels east and west of AIA. Attorney O'Haire maintained that
what really split those lots was the construction of AIA, and he
felt to say to those people who own property on either side of the
road that they can build on only one side of road really defies
all reason. In fact, Ralph Lindsey, chairman of the Board of
Adjustments, commented that this really doesn't make a lot of
sense. With regard to traffic, Attorney O'Haire didn't feel the
additional
really are
and Lots 2
curb cuts would really impact the road because we
not talking about curb cuts north of these deeper lots,
and 3 already have curb cuts. He felt this is a unique
situation. If there is a wetlands concern, it should be addressed
36
at the building permit stage, and if the County Commission has a
concern about wetlands, it should be addressed on a county -wide
basis, not in terms of Ambersand Subdivision. He felt there is an
additional alternative to the two alternatives presented by staff,
and that would be for this Board to make a factual finding that it
was the construction of AIA that divided these lots into two
separate parcels of real estate. With that finding, they could go
back to the Board of Adjustment and say that his client had no
involvement in the construction of AIA.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if they could have built on both
r
AttorneyHaire s client
sides of the road back in 1980 when O'
Haire
his property, and Mr. Boling advised that it depends on
how efficient the checking system was at the time on whether or
that arcel. He not there already was a house built on part of p
believed that at one time staff was operating under the assumption
that AIA did split the lots into two parcels.
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, believed
that the Planning Department back then hadn't asked the County
Attorney's office for a legal opinion. Had they acted upon what
is the correct criteria now, they probably could not have allowed
lot splits back in 1980 because the lots would not have met the
minimum frontage requirements. The Planning Department saw the
separate, distinct parcels back then, but did not challenge thee
splits.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the owner had a reasonable
right to believe that he had two buildable Tots when he bought the
property1980,
in since he had two titles and he had a record
showing construction of other homes on both sides of the road.
Mr. Boling didn't believe there were houses built on both
sides of the road back in 1980.
Commissioner Bird understood that with the exception of Lots
1 and 5, which are zoned RS -3, the remaining lots in Ambersand
Subdivision are zoned RS -1, which would preclude two houses being
DEC 1
1989
37 roc. 8 GE 611
DEC 1 G
BOOK 18 F;E 6. 2
built on any of those remaining lots, and Mr. Boling explained
that it would unless someone came in and obtained a variance,
using the same argument that they have a,lot of depth and a lot of
uplands area even though it is zoned RS -1.
Commissioner Bird felt we have a unique situation here and
some precedence established because we have allowed people to
build on both sides of the road, but it was his opinion that
Ambersand Subdivision was created as, and should remain, a single-
family subdivision. He felt that perhaps we should allow it on
this one additional lot and then allow no more.
Chairman Wheeler asked how we would deny the owner of Lot 5
if he came in with the same request, and Director Keating
explained that is the reason the Board of Adjustment is asking the
Board to consider making a policy decision on this matter.
Attorney Vitunac explained that this plat was filed in 1954
showing ocean to river lots 50 -ft. in width with a road down the
middle called Ocean Boulevard. The road was eventually built as
AIA in a slightly different location; the lots were still ocean to
river; people have bought them knowing the road was either there
or going to be there, and that they had one lot for one house. He
didn't know what machination Attorney O'Haire's clients did to get
two deeds. They may have requested it or it may have been inter-
family, he didn't know. Attorney O'Haire hasn't said that they
didn't have a hand in getting a deed to each side of the lot.
Attorney Vitunac believed they did that so that they could sell
off one, take the profit and build on the other and end up with a
free house. That would be fine, except that it is a self-created
hardship. They are trying to use the relocation of Ocean
Boulevard to AIA as a means to double the amount of houses, but
the lots are substandard. Attorney Vitunac stated that there is
no wrong that the County has done except for one thing, and that
is that sometime in the past they let two houses go in that should
not have gone in. The County consistently takes a position that
38
b
errors in the Planning & Zoning Department, the Building Dept. or
the County Attorney's office do not set a precedent for the future
that we can never enforce our Codes again. Further, if the Board
gives in on this, and says that because of the mistake we are
going to grant some relief, it would be setting a terrible
precedent. It would be authorizing the doubling of a 50 -ft. lot,
which would apply in other portions of the county, and this issue
would come back to haunt us later on.
Commissioner Scurlock had some sympathy for Attorney
O'Haire's clients if they bought this property believing they
could build on both sides, but after listening to Attorney
Vitunac's opinion, he felt we would be setting a precedent here
for the whole county. He questioned why the Board of Adjustment
asked this to be heard by the Board, and Mr. Boling explained that
the Commission is not being asked to grant a variance today. The
Board of Adjustments more or less tabled this item until the
Commission made a decision on whether to change the regulations in
these situations.
Director Keating advised that the Board of Adjustment has the
ability to make quasi-judicial determinations, and they determined
that this is better handled through a legislative action, which
would be a change in the ordinance.
Attorney O'Haire maintained that it was the construction of
AIA that divided those lots, physically and legally, but
Commissioner Scurlock disagreed because if you go back to the 1954
plat, it shows a road bisecting the property in conveyance of one
lot 50 -feet in width and some undetermined length.
Commissioner Bird admitted to vacillating back and forth on
this matter this morning, but he was going to go back to his
original feeling which is that Ambersand Subdivision was
originally created, and should remain, a single-family
subdivision, and that if you have a lot that has adequate frontage
on both sides of AIA, you take your choice where you want to build
your house, either on the river side or the ocean side.
t��oK
39 78 ra GE61C
DEC 12 `p 39
DEC 121989
BOOK / r E 614
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation.
Under discussion, Chairman Wheeler wondered about the
property owners' actions back in 1960 when the State came in and
wanted to build AIA. Did any of them attempt to prevent the road
coming in? Where he was coming from is that they made a profit
off the property they sold to the State to build the road, and now
they are wanting to make another profit by being able to build on
both sides of the road.
Attorney O'Haire explained that almost universally the people
gave the right-of-way to AIA because they were happy to see AIA
come along since they didn't have any access to their property and
didn't care if their Tots were split.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what happens if one of the houses
that have been built on both sides of the road burns down, and.
Attorney Vitunac advised that in his opinion, they would not be
allowed to rebuild because it would be a non -conforming use.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE III OF COUNTY JAIL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/7/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 7, 1989
THRU: James Chandler
County Ad inistrator
ii
FROM: Doug Wrig t, Director
Emergency Management Services
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract Between Owner
and Contractor for Construction of
Phase III - Indian River County Jail
Negotiations have been completed with Robert F. Wilson Construction
Company on the contract for construction of Phase III of the Indian
River County Jail and the attached four originals are submitted for
review and consideration by the Board.
40
The contract provides 425 calendar days for construction and
includes certain language that Assistant County Attorney Sharon
Brennan Phillips desired to protect the interests of the County as
well as to preclude a repeat of events that occurred with Phase II.
It is anticipated that the facility will be completed in February,
1991, and a Notice to Proceed will be issued on December 22, 1989,
if approval of the contract is achieved.
The bid for construction of Phase III was awarded to Robert F.
Wilson Construction Company on November 17, 1989, in the amount of
$5,103,000. Staff recommends approval of the contract and requests
that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary
documents so construction can be initiated.
ATTACHMENTS
Four (4) original copies of Contract for construction of Phase III
Commissioner Scurlock questioned the adequacy of the wording
on the bottom of page two of the contract where it reads: "Five
Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each and every calendar day during
which the work is not complete beyond the limit set forth above
will ]be assessed." He wondered if it should say $500.00 a day and
that each day is a new occurence.
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan felt that the
wording of "each and every day" is sufficient, and Attorney
Vitunac advised that Attorney Brennan is our expert in
construction contracts and has been to several seminars and got
this language from them.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the 12% interest rate
mentioned in Item 7.5 on Page 5 is correct, and Attorney Vitunac
explained that the new law says that if the County doesn't pay
their bills within so many days of this date, they have to pay 12%
interest.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
contract with Robert F. Wilson, Inc. for the
construction of Phase III of the County Jail.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DEC 12 1989
41
FEtoor 118 'AGE 6 N.)
r -
DEC 1 1999
SALE OF SURPLUS TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT
ROOK 78 FgE 610
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/17/89:
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 19891
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: SALE OF SURPLUS TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to expand the capacity in our telephone switching
equipment certain items were purchased. Upon arrival AT&T was called
to- make the required installation. After several unsuccessful
attempts by the technician, it was determined by their engineer that
our particular model of switch would not accommodate an expansion.
Dodgertown has contacted this writer in an effort to purchase the
above electronic parts for their telephone system at a price that we
paid, including shipping charges. The total price being $2,098.70.
ANALYSIS:
These parts are new and are only compatible with a DIMINSION
telephone system such as ours. The DIMINSION system is no longer
being manufactured and cannot be purchased except on the "used
equipment" market. For us to return the items to the vendor would
require additional cost to the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to the uniqueness with these electronic parts, staff recommends
that authorization be granted to sell the items to Dodgertown for
$2,098.70 and a budget amendment be approved to credit the fund from
which the purchase monies were expended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation to sell the electronic parts to
Dodgertown for $2,098.70 and approved Budget Amendment
#025 to credit the fund from which the purchase monies
were expended.
42
'0: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
ROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Directo
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 025
DATE: 01-11-90
,ntry
'umber
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Surplus Sales/Furniture
001-000-364-041.00
$ 2099.00
$ 0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Mailroom-Switchbd.
Communication Equipment
001-251-519-066.45
$ 2.099.00
$ 0
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MAIN LIBRARY - BID #90-6
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/8/89:
____= a===a ac=aaaaaaaa==aaa==a=aa=a= aa=====___
TO: • JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS, PROJECT MANAGER
MAIN LIBRARY
DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1989
SUBJECT: APPROVAL CONTRACT MAIN LIBRARY BID #90-6
__________________________ ==--_ ____=_==__==
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bid #90-6 (Main Library Construction) was approved at the
regularly scheduled meting of December 5, 1989. The attached
contract for $2,816,400.00 between Milne/Nichols and Indian River
County includes all required references and notations, for the
construction of the Library as per plans and specifications
provided by, Dow, Howell, Gilmore Architects.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:'
Staff requests authorization for the Chairman to sign the
contract documents for the Main Library Construction Contract Bid
#90-6.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends approval of the contract documents for the Main
Library between Milne/Nichols and Indian River County. Funding
is from account #322-109-571-066.51. ($2,956,125 Budgeted)
DEC 121889
43
E1OOK 78 PAGE
'17
DEC 12 1989
BOOK 78 Fi,;E 6I S
Commissioner Eggert noted that the contract doesn't specify
how much the liquidated damages are, and Lynn Williams, Project
Manager for the Main Library, advised that Section 0800 of the
Supplemental Conditions spells out $500 per day.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Supplemental Conditions and
other attachments will be part of the official contract, but just
were not included in today's backup material. They are part and
parcel of this contract.
Mr. Williams explained that the Supplemental Conditions and
all the contract documents were approved prior to bidding, and
this contract refers to each section of those contract documents,
just as attachments A and B, the specifications for each element
of work.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to see the amounts for the
liquidated damages included in the contract on Page 2 where there
is a space for it.
Commissioner Bird asked if we are doing the base bid or the
base bid plus alternates, and Commissioner Eggert advised that we
are doing the base bid plus alternates. Three alternates are to
do with the outside balcony, and another is for the improvement of
carpeting in one of the rooms.
Mr. Williams notedthat the adjusted base bid of $2,816,400
includes the alternates.
Commissioner Eggert advised that the ground breaking is this
Thursday, and they have indicated in letter form that they have no
objections to executing the agreement pending a clerical error or
correction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Contract with Milne/Nichols for construction of the
Main Library at a cost of $2,816,400.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
44
SELECTION OF CONSULTANT AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEEERING SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR REPLACEMENT BRIDGE OVER THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL AT
20TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11130189:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
tom/
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, CET
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Selection of Consultant and Professional Engineering
Services Agreement for Replacement Bridge over the
South Relief Canal at 20th Avenue
DATE: November 30, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff has advertised for Statements of Qualifications and Letters
of Interest from qualified consultants, reviewed those
qualifications, short listed four firms and conducted interviews
of these firms. The resultant ranking of the firms is:
1. Marshall, McCully & Associates
2. Mosby & Associates
3. Kimball/Lloyd & Associates
4. Delon Hampton & Associates
The services consist of engineering analysis and design of
replacement bridge over the South Relief Canal on 20th Avenue.
ALTERNATIVE
The only alternative is to authorize staff to negotiate contract
terms with the highest ranked firm.
FUNDING
Funding to be from Bridge Replacement Account No.
111-214-541-066.31.
DEC 12 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to negotiate contract terms with Marshall, McCully
& Associates, the highest ranked firm, as recommended by
staff.
45
BOOK 78 FACE: 610
DEC
BOOK.
F- JE. 6've
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Marshall, McCully & Associates
had ever built a bridge for us, and Public Works Director Jim
Davis advised that they are doing this in a joint venture with a
large firm that specializes in bridges.
Commissioner Scurlock wondered why Lloyd & Associates wasn't
ranked higher after they did such a good job on the bridge over by
the country club.
Director Davis explained that they were ranked #3 out of 23
firms, but the thinking was that we need to go with the eshto-beam
girders more so than the hollow -core, pre -stress slabs. The DOT
has developed problems with the hollow -core, pre -stress slabs,
which has been the typical type of bridge that Lloyd & Associates
has desicrned for us. Lloyd & Associates has indicated they can
do the eshto-beam design, but he believed the committee felt that
some of these other firms had a better handle on that type of
construction.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that makes a big difference,
because generally he was not too ecstatic about joint ventures
since they usually end up with two overheads, a flow-through and a
percentage on top of the other firm's work.
Director Davis emphasized that if we find that in the
negotiations on the contract, we will go to the #2 ranked firm,
Mosby & Associates, who has designed about 7 bridges in this
general area, but not in this county.
Administrator Chandler reported that after the Board gave
approval last Tuesday to go ahead on the repair/replacement of the
bridges that were identified by the DOT to have severe corrosion,
staff has determined that two of the Oslo Road bridges, the ones
east of 58th and 43rd Avenues, definitely will be replaced, while
a third one east of 74th Avenue is a likely candidate as well.
They feel the one on Winter Beach Road can be repaired.
Consideration was given to having the bridge replacements done on
an emergency basis by the same construction firm that is replacing
46
the bridge on 26th Street near 16th Avenue in the city. We had
hoped that we could save some time by using that contractor for
the replacement of those two bridges, but we found it would take
45-60 days for the design phase for the bridges, and we would be
talking about perhaps 4 months to get those bridges completed and
Oslo Road opened. As a result, staff's recommendation is to
continue as we originally recommended to the Commission to go
through the normal bidding process and do that work in the summer.
RECONCILIATION CHANGE ORDER #3 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST - GOLDEN
SANDS PARK DUNE WALKOVER IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/30/89:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Michelle A. centre, CET
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Reconciliation Change Order and Final Pay Request
from The Masters Group for Golden Sands Park Dune
Walkover Improvements
DATE: November 30, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The construction of the Golden Sands Dune Walkover Improvements
have been completed by The Masters Group, Inc. the project has
been accepted by the County Engineering Department.
The final contract price has been increased by $121.00. This is
due to labor costs that were not included in Change Order #1.
The contractor is requesting final payment in the amount of
$1,768.00.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the change order #3 to reconcile the
contract and final payment to The Masters Group, Inc., in the
amount of $1,768.00. Funding is from Fund #310-143-512-066.51,
Golden Sands Park Account.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
CHANGE ORDER #3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DEC 12 1989
47
BOOK 78 FAGE. 6n.
DEC ` 2 i'989
BOOK 1 Ci �`l r - .
ADOPTION OF BOND RESOLUTIONS - GIFFORD WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/12/89:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
MEETING, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1989
The following Gifford Bond items are to be added to the
agenda in preparation for the upcoming bond closing:
(1) FmHA form Resolution for $450,000 for Bent Pine
purchase by Indian River County
(2) Resolution authorizing additional $450,000 of
borrowing from FmHA in connection with Bent
Pine acquisition by amending Bond Resolution No.
86-35 to authorize, in addition to the $9.2 million
of bonds, another series of bonds, i.e., 1986-A
bonds for the $450,000
(3) Resolution awarding the bonds to FmHA and calling
the notes as of January 18, 1990 (with Escrow
Agreement between Indian River County and FmHA
attached as Exhibit "A").
Attorney Vitunac distributed copies of the 3 bond resolutions
that are required to be passed previous to the closing on December
20th on refinancing of the $9.2 million Gifford loan and the
$450,000 supplemental bond.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that when we originally made
the commitment with Bent Pine, we borrowed $450,000 at an
estimated 7-3/8% rate. Interest rates have gone down since then,
and we asked them to reduce the rate, which they did, and it will
be 7% now. On December 20th we also will be closing on the $9.2
million Gifford bond issue and bond anticipation notes outstanding
at 6-3/8% which had a 3 -year term. We will be refinancing those
with FmHA at 5% over 40 years. We are retiring it a year ahead of
schedule in order to be eligible for the substantial discount
being offered by the FmHA, but the loan has to be closed on by
December 31, 1989 in order to be eligible.
48
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously, adopted Resolution
89-153, authorizing and providing for the incurrence of
indebtedness for the purpose of providing a portion of the
cost of acquiring, constructing, enlarging, improving, and/or
extending its combined water and sewer system facility to
serve an area lawfully within its jurisdiction to serve.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-154, amending and supplementing resolution
86-35 of Indian River County, Florida, entitled:
"Resolution No. 86-35 - a resolution providing for the
acquisition and construction of additions, extensions and
improvements to the combined water and sewer system of Indian
River County, Florida; authorizing the issuance by such
county of not exceeding $9,200,000 water and sewer Revenue
Bonds, Series 1986, to finance the cost thereof; pledging the
gross revenues of such system to secure payment of the
principal of and interest on such bonds; -providing for the.
rights of the holders of such bonds; making certain covenants
and agreements in connection therewith; providing for related
matters; and providing an effective date."
To include acquisition of the Bent Pine Sewer System and the
connection thereof to the combined water and sewer system of
this county as a part of the project to be financed and to
authorize the issuance thereunder of an additional series of
not exceeding $450,000 principal amount water and sewer
Revenue Bonds, Series 1986A in connection with the project.
49
DEC 1 2 1989
BOOK. 10 PAS
r DEC 12 i989
BOOK
62
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-155, awarding $9,200,000 aggregate
principal amount of water and sewer Revenue Bonds, Series
1986, and $450,000 aggregate principal amount of water and
sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1986A, of Indian River County,
Florida, at private sale by negotiation, to the purchaser
thereof; authorizing and approving certain terms of said
bonds; providing for certain matters relating to the bonds;
determining to redeem $9,200,000 aggregate principal amount
of water and sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1986, anticipation
notes, of Indian River County, Florida, as a whole, by
optional redemption prior to maturity; providing for certain
matters relating to the redemption of the notes; authorizing
the transfer of certain funds in connection with the bonds
and the redemption of the notes; authorizing all other
necessary, desirable and/or appropriate actions in connection
with the sale, issuance and delivery of the bonds and the
redemption of the notes; and specifying the effective date
hereof.
50
USDA•FrnHA
Form FroHA 1942.47
(Rev. 3-19)
Portrlar.
LOAN RESOLUTION No .
(Fublk Bodies)
A RESOLUTION OP THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
R-153
rortnsArtov:D
0'MI NO. Oe1e-(Ot11
OP THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA
AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE INCURRENCE OF INDEBTEDNP.SS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A
PORTION OF THE COST OF ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING, ENLARGING, IMPROVING, AND/OR EXTENDING ITS
COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
FACILITY TO SERVE AN AREA 1 -AWFULLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION TO SERVE.
WHEREAS,It Is necessary for the. Coun'ty of Indian River,. Florida
(Public Body)
(herein after celled assodatlon) to rutse a, portion of the cost of such undertaking by issuance of Its bonds In the principal amount of
Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000)
pursuant to the provisions of a yesolution
WHEREAS, the assodatlon Intends to obtatn assistance from the Farmers Home Administration. United States Department of Avicul-
ture, (herein celled the Government) acting under the provisions of the Coruolidatod Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921
et seq.) In the planning, financing, and supervision of such undertaking and to purchasing of bonds lawfully Issued, in the event that nu
other acceptable purchaser for such bonds is found by the association:
NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the premises the assodatlon hereby resolves:
I . To have prepared on its behalf and to adopt an ordinance. or resolution for the Issuance of Its bonds and containing such
items and In such forms ate required by STATE statutas and as are agreeable and acceptable to the Government.
2. To refinance the unpaid Ulna, in whole of in part. of Its bonds upon the request of the Government If at any time it
shall appear to the Government that the association is able to refinance Its bonds by obtaining a loan for such pur�es
from responsible cooperative or private sources at reasonable rates and terms for loans for similar urposes and periods
of time as required by section 333(c) of said Consolidated Firm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1983(c)).
3. To provide for. execute, and comply with Form FmHA 4004, "Assurance Agreement"; and Form FmHA 400.1 "Equal
Opportunity Agreement", including an "Equal Opportunity Clause", which clause is to be Incorporated In, or attached
h a rider to, each construction contract and subcontract involving in exon of S10,000.
4. • To indemnify the Government for any payments made or losses suffered by the Government on behalf of the association.
Such Indemnification shall be payable from the same source of funds pledged to pay the bonds or any other legal per.
misslble source.
3. That upon default In the paymenta of any principal and accrued Interest on the bonds or In the performance of any eov.
•rant or agreement contained herein of In the Instrument incident to making or insuring the loan, the Government at
its option may (a) declare the entire principal amount then outstanding and accrued interest immediately due and pay-
able,
(b) for the account of the association (payable from the source of funds pledged to pay the bonds or any other
legaly permissible source) Incur and pay reasonable expenses for repair, maintenance, and operation of the facility and
such other reasonable expenses as may be necessary to cure the cause of default, and/or(c)take
repair, malnttin, and operate or rent it. Default under the provisions of thta Resolution any instrument lnddentof the a oithe
making or insuring of the loan may be construed by the Government to constitute default under any other instrument
held by the Government and executed or assumed by the Association, and default under any such instrument nay be
construed by the Government to constitute default hereunder.
6. Not to tell, transfer, lease, or otherwise encumber the facility or any portion thereof, or Interest therein, not permit others
to do so, without the prior written consent of the Government.
7. Not to borrow any money from any source, enter Into any contract or agreement. or Incur any other Ilebtlltles In con-
nection with making enlargements, Improvements or extensions to, or for any other purpose in connection with the
facility (exclusive of normal maintenance) without the prior written consent of the Government If such undertaking would
Involve the source of funds pledged to pay rho bonds.
8. To piece the proceeds of the bonds on deposit In an account and In a mentor approved by the Government. Punch may be
deposited In Institutions insured by the State or Federal Government or invested In readily marketable securities backed by
the full faith and credit of the United States. Any income from these accounts will be considered as revenues of the system.
9. Tu comply with all applicable State and federal laws and regulations and to continually operate and maintain the facility
In good condition.
10. To provide for the receipt of adequate revenues to meet the requirements of debt service, operation and maintenance, and
the establishment of adequate reserves. Revenue accumulated over and above that needed to pay operating and malnte•
nance, debt servloe and reserves may only be retained or used to make prepayments on the loan. Revenue can not be used
to pay any expenses which are not directly incurred by the facility financed by FmHA. No free service or use of the fad!.
lay will be permitted.
RESOLUTION 89-153 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
51
DEC 12 1989
M -q .
BOOK ( PAGE 625
OEC 1 2 1989 BOOK 78 r E 626
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 154
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO.
86-35 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"RESOLUTION NO. 86-35
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS, EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY SUCH COUNTY
OF NOT EXCEEDING $9,200,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE
BONDS, SERIES 1986, TO FINANCE THE COST THEREOF;
PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH SYSTEM TO SECURE
PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS;
MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
TO INCLUDE ACQUISITION OF THE BENT PINE SEWER SYSTEM AND
THE CONNECTION THEREOF TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER
SYSTEM OF THIS COUNTY AS A PART OF THE PROJECT TO BE
FINANCED AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE THEREUNDER OF AN
ADDITIONAL SERIES OF NOT EXCEEDING $450,000 PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1986A IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Authority for Resolution. This resolution is adopted
pursuant to Chapters 125 and 159, Florida Statutes (1988), as'amended, and other
applicable provisions of law, and pursuant to Section 3.04 (J) of the Original
Resolution (hereinafter defined).
that:
SECTION 2. Findings. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared
A. The Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") of Indian River
County, Florida (the "Issuer"), on June 18, 1986, duly adopted a
resolution entitled as follows:
RESOLUTION 89-154 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
52
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA'
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 155
A RESOLUTION AWARDING $9,200,000 AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE
BONDS, SERIES 1986, AND $450,000 AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE
BONDS, SERIES 1986A, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AT PRIVATE SALE BY NEGOTIATION, TO
THE PURCHASER THEREOF; AUTHORIZING AND
APPROVING CERTAIN TERMS OF SAID BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO THE
BONDS; DETERMINING TO REDEEM $9,200,000
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND SEWER
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1986, ANTICIPATION NOTES,
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS A WHOLE, BY
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION PRIOR TO MATURITY;
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO THE
REDEMPTION OF THE NOTES; AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE BONDS AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE NOTES;
AUTHORIZING ALL OTHER NECESSARY, DESIRABLE
AND/OR APPROPRIATE ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SALE, ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS
AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE NOTES; AND SPECIFYING
THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida (the "Board" and the "County", respectively),
by Resolution No. 86-35, duly adopted on June 18, 1986, as amended
(the "Bond Resolution"), heretofore authorized the issuance of
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1986, of the County in an
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,200,000 (the "Series
1986 Bonds") and Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1986A, of
the County in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $450,000
(the "Series 1986A Bonds") (the Series 1986 Bonds and the Series
1986A Bonds are hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Bonds");
RESOLUTION 89-155 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
53
DEC 121989
BOOK ! 0 PA�E 6ti d
DEC 12 1989
BOOK 78 F'3,GF
MASTER AGREEMENT AND WORK ORDERS 1 AND 2 - PROFESSIONAL CIVIL
ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING SERVICES - KIMLEY HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC..
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director,1
SUBJECT: Master Agreement and Work Orders 1 and 2
for Professional Civil Engineering and Land
Surveying Services -
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
DATE: December 5, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As authorized by the Board in July, the Public Works staff
has completed contract negotiations with Kimley Horn and
Associates for the design of four petition paving projects
and road widening improvements along Oslo from US 1 to west
of Old Dixie Highway. The Master Agreement and Work Orders
No. 1 and 2 are attached.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The staff has negotiated competitive fees and has defined
detailed scope of work. The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the Master Agreement and Work Orders No. 1 and
2.
Alternative No. 2
Not approve the Work Orders, but design the projects
with current staff. Due to current staffing shortages,
the alternative is not recommended.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended whereby the Master
Agreement and Work Orders No. 1 and 2 would be approved.
Funding for Work Order No. 1 in the amount of $25,700 is
from Petition Paving Fund 173-214. Funding in the amount of
$44,500 shall be from District 6 Impact Fees Fund 101-156,
current balance is $825,000 with $590,000 budgeted in the
attached 1989/90 Road Project Fund Program.
54
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative #1 as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
MASTER AGREEMENT AND WORK ORDERS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
EMERGENCY ACTION PROJECT - SUMMERPLACE PHASE ONE WATER PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/89:
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1989
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
;COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: / EMERGENCY ACTION PROJECT
SUMMER PLACE PHASE ONE WATER PROJECT
EAST SIDE OF A -1-A
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -:9 -09 -DS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAI
CAPITAL PROJECTS E
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY RVICES
BACKGROUND
On October 3, 1989, the Indian River Board of County Commissioners
approved Summer Place Phase One, east side of A -1-A, as an emergency.
action project. This action was based on numerous well failures and
on the recommendation of the State Environmental Health Department.
To this end, we have had plans and specifications prepared for the
project. These plans have been used to get price quotes for the
installation of the water system.
ANALYSIS
We received four price quotes for this job. They are as follows:
1. AOB Underground, Inc. $73,105.00
2. Belvedere Construction Company $77,740.00
3. Collee Underground Company $88,847.00
4. Ted Myers Contracting Company, Inc. $96,689.71
It was also requested that a best time of completion be submitted
with the price quotes. Both of the low bidders would complete the
job within 60 days. The Department of Environmental Regulation
(DER) permit was applied for on November 7th, and should be received
by the first week in December.
DEC 12 1989
55
BOOK
7
DEC z 1989
BOOK
78 ;;4,E6 o
As soon as the permit is received and the contract is awarded,
construction can begin. The funding for this project will
ultimately come from an assessment, however, it will be initially
funded from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the award of this contract to
AOB Underground, Inc., and the subsequent signing of the contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
award of this contract to AOB Underground, Inc., and
the subsequent signing of the contract, as recommended
by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WORK AUTHORIZATION #3 WITH LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES FOR WATERLINE ON
43RD AVENUE SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 60
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/89:
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED WATERLINE ON 43RD SOUTH OF STATE
ROAD 60 (19TH PLACE TO 12TH STREET)
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -89 -16 -DS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Sometime ago the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
ratified a utility service area agreement with the City of Vero
Beach. In accordance with the new boundary on 43rd Avenue, we must
now install a waterline on 43rd Avenue to serve customers with our
water system that are west of this boundary and currently on the
City system.
56
ANALYSIS
We have negotiated a Work Authorization with Lloyd and Associates
which is attached. The specific scope of this work is outlined in
attachment A of their Work Authorization No. 3.
The estimated construction cost associated with this work is
$201,000.00. The engineering fees are to be set at $22,900.00.
Funding for this project will come from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization No. 3 with Lloyd and Associates.
Commissioner Eggert noted that our engineering fees are
getting above 10%, and Commissioner Scurlock advised that the
engineering fees in the contracts that are on the Agenda today
under Utilities range from 10.5% to 9.3%, and include resident
inspection fees. He emphasized that he is monitoring these
inspection fees and gave an example of what the fees would be on a
$200,000 project using the FmHA standard fee curve for engineering
services. The standard fee would be 7.7% plus 3.6% for resident
inspection fee, which comes out to 11.3%, and we are at 10.5%.
Commissioner Eggert felt it would be helpful if the Work
Authorization stated that the engineering fees included resident
inspection.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the Lloyd and
Associates contract does not really separate the resident
inspection, but it is set out separately in the Masteller & Moler
contract which is also on today's Agenda. He felt extremely
satisfied with the numbers that we have negotiated, and pointed
out that it is lower than the normal professional fee curve for
engineering, and that you will find that the FmHA curve is about
1-11% lower than the.othe'r professional fee curves.
5 7 ROOK 78 FAGE 631
L DEC 1 2 1989
DEC 12 '989
V., o-' 6i)
BOOK ! o FAGE�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 3 with Lloyd and Associates,
as recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
PETITION ASSESSMENT PROJECT - POTABLE WATER MAIN IN CITRUS GARDENS
SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/16/89:
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SE
FROM:
RVICES
PREPARED SCOTT C. DOSCHER
AND PRIVATE PROJECTS ENGINEER ,s CQ
STAFFED DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: PETITION ASSESSMENT PROJECT FOR A POTABLE WATER MAIN
IN CITRUS GARDENS SUBDIVISION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BACKGROUND
We have received a petition for County water for the Citrus Gardens
Subdivision (southwest corner of 8th Street and 43rd Avenue).
ANALYSIS
The petition contains more than 55% of the signatures of the
existing property owners in the development. This constitutes 66 %
of the actual owners of existing homes. The roads covered by this
project are 42nd Court, 42nd Avenue, 41st Avenue, 40th Avenue, and
39th Avenue between 8th Street and 6th Street. Also included is 7th
Street between 43rd Avenue and 39th Avenue (see attached sketch).
The estimated project cost is $242,825.00. The associated
engineering cost is $22,075.00.
58
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this project in its entirety and
execute the attached Work Authorization W-6 from the short-listed
engineering firm. The entire project is to proceed as an assessment
district. Temporary funding for this project will come from the
impact fee fUnd,.with final funding to come from the assessment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
WORK AUTHORIZATION W-6 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
ENGINEERING DESIGN CHANGE - NORTH COUNTY SUBREGIONAL SEWER PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/89:
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING DESIGN CHANGE WITH REGARD TO
THE NORTH COUNTY SUBREGIONAL SEWER PROJECT
CONTRACT #3
IRC PROJECT NO. US -87 -27 -CCS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS EIINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Due to the inability to secure necessary easements along portions of
the North County Force Main System, several changes in the force
main route have been necessitated. To accommodate these changes, we
must now have the engineer modify the system design and plans.
59
DEC 1 2 1989
BOOK.18 PAGE.
DEG i a9
ANALYSIS
F
BOOK 10 E k..G`. 6i '
There are three changes that need to be addressed. These changes
are outlined as Task I through III on the attached Work
Authorization (WW -#3) from Mastelier and Moler Associates, Inc. The
total engineering cost for these changes is $4,800.00, which we feel
is reasonable. The funding for this project will come from Account
No. 472-000-169-006.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization (WW -3) with Mastelier and Moler Associates, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved -
Work Authorization WW -3 with Mastelier and Moler
Associates, Inc., as recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION WW -3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
SCHEDULING OF WORKSHOP ON SLUDGE/SEPTAGE
Administrator Chandler wanted to schedule a workshop on this
subject sometime next week if possible. He felt it probably would
take about two hours or Tess.
The Board agreed to meet at 9:00 a.m. on December 21, 1989.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING AND RESEARCH CENTER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/17/89:
TO: Board of County CommissioneiDATE: November 17, 1989 FILE:
James Chandler, Co. Administrator
Bob Keating, Community Development Director
Jim Davis, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Regional Transportation
Systems Planning and
Research Center
Carolyn K. Eggert &
FROM: County Commissioner REFERENCES:
60
I am going to put this matter on the Board of County
Commissioner's agenda for December 12, 1989 for comments to be
taken to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council for
consideration on December 15, 1989.
The memorandum of November 17, 1989 from Treasure Coast Regional
Planning outlines the Regional Transportation Systems Planning
and Research Center proposal. I am told the money involved is
$400,000 over 18 months. The 10% local participation will cover
Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River Counties. Note
that it says the local participation is acceptable in form of
in-kind services or "soft match."
I would appreciate comments from the Planning Department and
Public Works before the December 12 meeting.
I am concerned that this will develop into more than a think tank
- perhaps into a bureaucracy that will be making decisions
regarding our local transportation concerns. I would oppose
that. (Note Resolution 89-01 at bottom of page 9.)
Commissioner Eggert understood that this group has met since
the time she wrote the above memo, but apparently she and
Commissioner Bowman were not notified. What has come back is
another proposal, which is basically the same as this, except that
"a small staff of professionals would be employees of the center,
drawing upon Treasure Coast Regional Planning staff for support
and assistance." The number of employees is increased over what
was originally proposed.
Public Works Director Jim Davis felt that if the proposed
committee would have some regional clout either with the DOT
District #4 or with the State to enhance transportation funding
into this area, it might be a good thing. However, if it is going
to be just a critique committee that is going to critique some of
the action that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council is
taking on DRIs and major projects in the community, he wasn't
quite sure what benefit it would have for our county.
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, also had
some concerns, but felt such a committee probably would be a good
idea because it doesn't involve a lot of this county's dollars.
One of the advantages would be if they could focus their thinking
in the right direction in looking at the whole demand side of the
transportation function and develop some alternate techniques.
DEC 12 1989
61
800y 78 PAGE 635
Dia 1989
n
OUn
78 Fr�.UE D
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that the think tank
probably would devote most of its time to Palm Beach County, which
has the largest population of the four Treasure Coast counties.
He was also concerned that the committee would think a way to get
around the concurrency issue, which involves building only as much
development as the infrastructure will support. He also felt the
people of Florida have turned their backs on mass transit.
Commissioner Bird believed there is a need for better inter -
county travel, but he felt the biggest thing that would help this
county is another major north/south route between this county and
St. Lucie County, such as 27th Avenue.
Extensive discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of
agreeing to participation in the transportation think tank
committee.
Commissioner Eggert explained that she basically placed this
on today's Agenda to get the feelings of the Board about
participating in this committee, and the Board agreed that
Commissioners Eggert and Bowman should convey this Board's
sympathy to the group on our not participating in the proposed
committee.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the
Board would reconvene sitting as the District Board of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
62
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:58 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
DEC 1 2 1989
74' e-141"
Clerk v Chairman
63
BOOK 8 FAGE 637