HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/1990B4C:>AF2E> ACTION & 1MF'LEMENTAT 1ON
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER'COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 10, 1990
9:00 A.M. — COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
ADMINiS'tWVriON BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P.'Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.. '
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - none
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a.Chairman Eggert req.addn.of disc.of Notice of Non -Compliance reed from
DCA as Iten 10A(1) would make our .Carp Plan Use Item already on .Agenda 10A(2) ;also
req.addn item regard House Bill 2981 relatng to certif.of Co.residents for Medicaid as
Itan 12A -also noted has been req.Item 10C re telephone cmTmn.Ac1m.B1dg/Cthouse deferred
until 4117 &should be deleted fr Agenda.
b.Atty Vi unac req. arerg.item be added reg proposed settlement on 6th Ave&&.r/w in
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �eariigr io�renextdlm�eeting' is
none
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Approved. A. Received and,Placed on File _
in the Office of Clerk to the
Board: Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services
Required Health Unit State/Local
Contract Reports for the First
Quarter Period Ending Dec. 31, 1989
r•
Approved. B. approval of City of Sebastian -
Appointments to County Committees:
rLloyd Rondeau, Transportation Planning
'
.7 Committee
Frank Oberbeck, Alternate, Transportation
Planning Committee
Approved. C. Proclamation designating April 19 -May 6
1990 as Soil and Water Stewardship Week
Approved. D. Proclamation Designating April 18, 1990
as Visiting Nurse Assn. Day in IRC
Approved. Florida City & County Management Assoc.
Annual Conference
(Memorandum dated 3/28/90)
APR 101990 BOOK
APR 101990
BOOK
7.
9:0� 8.
*Approved staff's recommenda-
tion. When consultant's'
report is received, the ERU's
may be adjusted based on
consultant's report.
Res. 90-45 adopted. Alt. #1
9.
10.
Chairman, Admin. & Bob Keating
auth, to go to Tallahassee,
Possibly April 30th regarding
letter from Dept. of Comm.
Affairs.
.Accepted staff's rec. plus 4
-. �"er changes.
• �.
s:•
.� ; LAX•
etas."•=,';: •
fabled until April 17th.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
none
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Impact Fees for FEDD Investment Corp.
(Memorandum dated 3/27/90)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Resolution Providing for Certain
Paving and Drainage Improvements
to 134th Street from Roseland Road
to Catholic Church Entrance in
Town of Wauregan Subdivision
(Continued from 2/27/90)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S -MATTERS
none
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
9 mu 1� � � `Q% `� 't
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Disc. re: CLUP (not in compliance) letter from Dept. of Comm. Affairs
Z.Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map
(Memorandum dated 3/29/90)
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Telephone Communications,
Administration Building
to Courthouse
(I,iemorandum dated 3/28/90)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFF2rF. nF tiAmanrmpmm 7%mm .,,,,,..,,_
none
6. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
F.
Agreement, IRC & Tom Curl
Approved.
Temporary Water Service
(Memorandum dated 3/28/90)-
G.
Agreement, IRC & Robert G.'.&
-
Approved.
Sue Ann Fenimore, Temporary
Water Service
(Memorandum dated 3/26/90)
H.
Agreement, IRC & Dr. Rumberger
Approved.
Temporary Water Service
(Memorandum dated 3/28/90)
I.
Agreement, IRC & Mr. Wiggins
Approved.
Temporary Water Service
(Memorandum dated 3/28/90)
Approved.
J.
IRC Bid 90-59, Concrete Saw
(Memorandum dated March, 1990)
7.
9:0� 8.
*Approved staff's recommenda-
tion. When consultant's'
report is received, the ERU's
may be adjusted based on
consultant's report.
Res. 90-45 adopted. Alt. #1
9.
10.
Chairman, Admin. & Bob Keating
auth, to go to Tallahassee,
Possibly April 30th regarding
letter from Dept. of Comm.
Affairs.
.Accepted staff's rec. plus 4
-. �"er changes.
• �.
s:•
.� ; LAX•
etas."•=,';: •
fabled until April 17th.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
none
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Impact Fees for FEDD Investment Corp.
(Memorandum dated 3/27/90)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Resolution Providing for Certain
Paving and Drainage Improvements
to 134th Street from Roseland Road
to Catholic Church Entrance in
Town of Wauregan Subdivision
(Continued from 2/27/90)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S -MATTERS
none
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
9 mu 1� � � `Q% `� 't
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Disc. re: CLUP (not in compliance) letter from Dept. of Comm. Affairs
Z.Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map
(Memorandum dated 3/29/90)
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Telephone Communications,
Administration Building
to Courthouse
(I,iemorandum dated 3/28/90)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFF2rF. nF tiAmanrmpmm 7%mm .,,,,,..,,_
none
I
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
F. PERSONNEL
Administrative Policy Manual
Approved. (Memorandum dated 3/30/90)
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Approved. 1. Florida Beach Erosion Control
Program - Grant Opportunities
for Construction and MainLendi,ue
at County Oceanfront Parks
(Memorandum dated 4/3/90)
Approved. 2. Change Order No. 2 - Miscellaneous
Intersections Phase 3-A Roadwork,
Dennis L. Smith, Inc.; and
Change Order No. 1, Miscellaneous
Intersections Phase 3-A, Signalization _
Signal Construction Co., Inc.
(Memorandum dated 4/4/90)
H. UTILITIES
Approved. 1. Sludge/Septage Facility
(Memorandum dated 3/29/90)
Authorized staff to proceed. 2. Property Purchase for Proposed
Also auth. staff to contact State North County Water Plant
about feasibility for park land (Memorandum dated 3/30/90)
'
being a� for/treatment plant.
3. Vista Royale Wastewater System
Approved.. Improvements, Final Payment
(Memorandum dated 3/30/90)
Approved. 4. Developer's Agreement with Oslo
Plaza Associates for a Sewer
Force Main to be Installed on
Oslo Road
(Memorandum dated 4/2/90)
Approved. 5. North County Distribution System
Water Main Extensions
(Memorandum dated 3/30/90) -
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY.
Auth. stipulation of settle- none
sent proposed by Barnett
Sank in the case of Proposed settlement foreclosure suit with Barnett Bank vs Gales, a
3arnett vs Gales. property owner on 6th Avenue.
12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIR14AN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
.-ai}mnan and Att. to draft 1. Disc. re: amendment to county's contributions to the medical
?es. or letter voicing our assistance program - House Bill 2981 - amending s. 409.267, FS
>bjection to this House Bill
B. VICE CHAIRI-.AN RICHARD N. BIRD
C. CO1*1ISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
BOOK 7 9
L L APR 10 1990
1
13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. Approval of -Minutes of 3/20/90
Approved. Meeting
B. Approval of Minutes of 3/27/90
Approved. Meeting
C. Extra Engineering Services
Approved. (Memorandum dated 4/2/90)
BOOK I PAGE —i
yi
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
Tuesday, April 10, 1990
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,
April 10, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia
Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition of a discussion of
the Notice of Non -Compliance received from the DCA as Item 10A
(1), which would make our Comp Plan Land Use item, which is
already on the Agenda 10A (2). She also requested the addition
of an item regarding House Bill 2981 which relates to certifica-
tion of county residents for Medicaid as Item 12A. Chairman
Eggert noted it has been requested that Item 10C re Telephone
Communications Administration Building/Courthouse be deferred
until April 17th and it should be deleted from the Agenda.
Attorney Vitunac requested an emergency item be added re-
garding a proposed settlement on 6th Avenue R/W involved in
bankruptcy proceedings as Item 11A, and the emergency is that
the court hearing is before the next Board meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and deleted
items on the Agenda as described above.
BOOK
APR 101990
L_
F_
APR 101990 QooKj� F�cE
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following was received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board§;
DHRS Required Health Unit State/Local Contract
Reports for the First Quarter Period ending
December 31, 1989.
B. Appointments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
appointments made by the City of Sebastian, as follows:
Lloyd Rondeau, Transportation Planning Committee
Frank Oberbeck, Alternate " " It
C. Proclamation - Soil and Water Stewardship Week
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously designated
the week of April 29- May 6, 1990 as SOIL AND WATER
STEWARDSHIP WEEK.
2
WHEREAS,
production of
the soil; and
P R O C L A M A T I O N
the well-being of our people depends upon the
ample supplies of food, fiber and other products of
WHEREAS, the quality and quantity of these products depend
upon the conservation, wise and proper management of the soil and
water resources; and
WHEREAS, protection of our surface waters from pollution is
dependent upon protection of soils from being blown or washed
into those waters; and
WHEREAS, conservation districts provide a practical and
democratic organization through which landowners are taking the
initiative to conserve and make proper use of these resources;
and
WHEREAS, the soil conservation movement is carrying forward
a program of soil and water conservation in cooperation with
numerous agencies and countless individuals:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
April 29 - May 6, 1990 be designated as
SOIL AND WATER STEWARDSHIP WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board further acknowledges the
value of our soil and water resources to the public welfare, and
desires to honor those who protect those resources.
Dated this 10th day of April, 1990
3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN.RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Carolyn . Eggert hairman
F_
APR 101990 BOOK A FnE'@9""
D. Proclamation - Visiting Nurse Association Day
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously designated
April 18, 1990, as VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION DAY.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
DESIGNATING APRIL 18, 1990
AS VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION
DAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Visiting Nurse Association of Indian River
County is celebrating its 15th Anniversary as a non-profit
organization for the purpose of providing home health care to the
residents of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Visiting Nurse Association provides home
health care services to individuals regardless of race, creed or
ability to pay for such services; and
WHEREAS, the services include skilled nursing care;
physical, occupational and speech therapy; home health aide
personal care; medical social services; and private duty care;
and
WHEREAS,
the
Board
oranProfessional
Advisory Board allserve as Volunteers
governing body of the Visiting Nurse Association. Area
Physicians approve all policies pertaining to the medical -nursing
aspect of home health care, and act in an advisory capacity in
other hea.1th related matters; and
WHEREAS, the Visiting Nurse Association is vital to the
county in preventing disease and promoting, maintaining, or
restoring health and minimizing the effects
disability; of illness and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida that April 18, 1990
be designated as
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION DAY
in Indian River County. The Board further urges all citizens of
Indian River- County to encourage and support the Visiting Nurse
Association in all its endeavors.
Adopted this 10th day of April, 1990
.. _ Y161.L !.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Carolyn V4gert, Cha3�
4
E. Out -of -County Travel
The Board reviewed memo from the Assistant to the County
Administrator:
TO: James Chandler DATE: March 28, 1990 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: FLORIDA CITY & COUNTY
MANAGEMENT ASSOC.
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
FROM: Randy Dowling REFERENCES:
Ass't. to County Administrator
I am requesting to attend the annual Florida City and County Management
Association conference in Tampa on May 17-19.
Sufficient funds are available in the County Administrator's travel
(001-201-512-034.02) and seminars (001-201-512-035.43) accounts.
The conference tentative program is attached.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -County travel for Randy Dowling to attend the
Annual Florida City and County Management Association
Conference in Tampa May 17-19.
F. Temporary Water Service Agreement (Tom Curl)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain:
A P R 101990 5 BOOK
F_
BOOK 9 PACE 795
DATE: MARCH 28, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
SUBJECT:
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY:
BACKGROUND
AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND TOM CURL
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
WILLI CAIN
CAPITAL ENGINEER
DEPAR OF L TY SERVICES
Tom Curl has requested that a temporary water service be installed
from the water line on 58th Avenue to service his property at 5785
36th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, prior to the installation of
a water main on 36th Place.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
5785 36th Place until such time that a water line is constructed on "
36th Place by assessment. Tom Curl agrees to pay all fees required
to make this connection. He further agrees to participate in the
assessment and to, reconnect to this water line as required by
IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Tom Curl
on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Agreement with Tom Curl for Expedited Temporary Water
Service.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
6
G. Temporary Water Service Agreement (Fenimore)
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: MARCH 26, 1990
TO: JAMES E- CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AND ROBERT G. & SUE ANN FENIMORE
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE -
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIRECT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Robert G. & Sue Ann Fenimore have requested that a.temporary service
be installed from the water line on 43rd Avenue to service their
property at 4275 4th Place, Vero Beach, FL 32968, prior to the
installation of a water main on 4th Place.
ANATNATS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
4275 4th Place until such time that a water line is constructed on
4th Place by assessment. Robert G..& Sue Ann Fenimore agree to pay
all fees required to make this connection. They further agree to
participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line as
required by IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Robert G. &
Sue Ann Fenimore on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Agreement with Robert G. & Sue Ann Fenimore for
Expedited Temporary Water Service.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
7
uL
�vboor.fr�
� AFR 101990 J
F,
APR 101990
BOOK PAGE
H. Temporary Water Service_ Agreement (Dr. Rumberger)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain:
DATE: MARCH 28, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND DR. RUMBERGER
rrFMPORARY-WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: W CCA1N
CA L JECTS ENGINEER
nF.P ME OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Dr. Rumberger has requested that a temporary water service be
installed from the water line on 5th Street, S.W., to service his
property at 525 32nd Avenue, S.W., Vero Beach, Florida 32968, prior
to the installation of a water main on 32nd Avenue, S.W.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
525 32nd Avenue, S.W., until such time that a water line is
constructed on 32nd Avenue, S.W., by assessment. Dr. Rumberger
agrees to pay all fees required to make this connection. He further
agrees to participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this
water line as required by IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Dr.
Rumberger on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Agreement with Gerard D. Rumberger for Expedited
Temporary Water Service.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
8
I. Temporary Water Service Agreement (Mr. Wiggins)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain:
DATE: MARCH 28, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI VICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MR. WIGGINS
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
CAP B6EeTS-ENGINEER
DEP OF UTILITY SERVICES
-BACKGROUND
Wiggins has requested that a temporary water service be
:.•installed from the water line on 5th Street, S.W., to service his
.J.property'at 520 32nd Court, S.W., Vero Beach, Florida 32968, prior
_..to the installation of a water main on 32nd Court, S.W.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide a temporary water service to
520 32nd Court, S.W., until such time that a water line is
constructed on 32nd Court, S.W., by assessment. Mr. Wiggins agrees
to pay all fees required to make this connection. He further agrees
to participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line
as required by IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. Wiggins
on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Agreement with James L. Wiggins for Expedited
Temporary Water Service.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
9
BOOK F'? �E 79S
r
APR 101990 BOOK 9 P°,GE M
J. Bid #90-59 - Concrete Saw
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola:
DATE: - MARCH , 1990
TO: BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
i
,THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
. H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Se
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
tr Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID #90-59 Concrete Saw
On request from the Traffic Engineering Department the bid for the Concrete
Saw was properly advertised and Thirteen (13) Invitations to Bid were
sent out. On March 21, 1990 bids were received. Five (5) vendors submitted
proposals for the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
'Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to specifications.
Tool Industrial Supply was the low bidder that net all requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Traffic Engineering Other Machine
Equigrnnt, which has a budget of $7,500.00.
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $4,943.00 to the low
bidder, Tool Industrial Supply for the subject project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #90-59 for a Concrete Saw to the low bidder,
Tool Industrial Supply, in the amount of $4,943,
and approved a Fixed Contract with Tool Industrial
Supply for same, as recommended by staff per the
following Bid Tabulation:
10
IMPACT FEES FOR FEDD INVESTMENT CORPORATION
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: MARCH 27, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO 1
0
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT (SERVICES
PREPARED
AND STAFFED HARRY E. ASHER
BY: ASSISTANT DIRECT R OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: IMPACT FEES FOR FEDD INVESTMENT CORPORATION
BACKGROUND
The Developer proposes to construct two 20,070 square foot buildings
located on Lots 10 and 16 in the Interstate Commercial Park on 90th
Avenue.
Based,upon the drawings submitted for review, the buildings could be
subdivided into 16 units. Each of the 16 units is to be plumbed for
water and sewer service.
The Department has classified these buildings under Section 6(c)21
of Ordinance 84-18, which provides the following determination
"Warehouse - per @ 5,000 square feet gross floor area or part
thereof," equal to 1 unit (ERU).
11
BOOK 1 F'`tj
Dote :3 / 22 /90
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th StmL4 Vem Beak, Ftor as 32960
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
TO.nn..t MM W74 MM
�P •a Submitted By Dominick L Mascola
Z ' � .+.onmr= 224-101t
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 90-59 Date Of Opening 3/21%90
Recommended Award Total Industrial Supply R19�
Bid Title Concrete Saw
4,943.00
1. Total Industrial Supply
4. Blanchard Machinery
936 Old Dixie
(Sturdi Saw by Miller)
4115 Georgia Ave (Target Super 1814E)
Vero Beach,. F1 32960
$4,943.00
West Palm Beach, F1 33405 $5,363:00
2. .Blanchard Machinery
5. Garbers Supply
4115 Georgia Ave
(Kohlef.20 HP)
1130 7th Court (SB -18-W)
West Palm Beach. Fl 334o5
g4.995.00Vero
Beach, F1 $6,169.00
i
3. Allstate Equipment
+
3295 S. Military Trail
(SB -180)
Lake Worth, F1 33463
$5,157.75
'1
IMPACT FEES FOR FEDD INVESTMENT CORPORATION
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: MARCH 27, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO 1
0
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT (SERVICES
PREPARED
AND STAFFED HARRY E. ASHER
BY: ASSISTANT DIRECT R OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: IMPACT FEES FOR FEDD INVESTMENT CORPORATION
BACKGROUND
The Developer proposes to construct two 20,070 square foot buildings
located on Lots 10 and 16 in the Interstate Commercial Park on 90th
Avenue.
Based,upon the drawings submitted for review, the buildings could be
subdivided into 16 units. Each of the 16 units is to be plumbed for
water and sewer service.
The Department has classified these buildings under Section 6(c)21
of Ordinance 84-18, which provides the following determination
"Warehouse - per @ 5,000 square feet gross floor area or part
thereof," equal to 1 unit (ERU).
11
BOOK 1 F'`tj
I
APR 101990
BOOK J9 PAGE 91
The Developer has taken issue with the above classification and has
requested reclassification under Section 6(c)26 of Ordinance 84-18,
which states the following: "In the event that a business or
structure is described in the schedule by general classification but
the particular nature of said business or structure would result in
an inequitable connection charge if the schedule were used, the
Utility in its discretion may determine that a higher or lower
number of units shall be used. Multiple use of an individual
structure or group of structures shall be classified to include all
uses."
TRTTT_V07C2
The Department believes that the development would be correctly
rated under the current Ordinance 84-18 Section 6(c)21 as set out
above. This classification would require the Developer to pay the
following:
1. Payment of impact fees for 4 units - the minimum number of
units based upon the total building size - 20,070
sq.ft./5,000 sq.ft. = 4 units, or payment for 16 units if
that is to be the ultimate utilization of the facility.
The Developer, through his attorney, requests relief under Section
6(c)26 (set out above), and proposes to pay for 3 units as outlined
in the attached Developers Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends against the proposed
Developers Agreement and recommends the following:
The payment of impact fees for 4 units - the minimum number of
units based upon the total building size of 20,070 square feet
for each building until such time as the buildings are
constructed, leased and final determination of use is
available.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that this individual was
referred to him, and as the Board is aware, CH2M Hill has been
engaged to do an analysis of our existing rate structure, which
will include ERUs as well as connection charges, meters, etc.
Based on that he referred the individual to the Utilities Direc-
tor who has done an analysis on this particular item, and the
recommendation at this time is to charge the minimum and then
adjust it based on what the consultant comes back with in 90-120
days, at which time we will be readdressing our fees.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the recommendation is payment
of impact fees for 4 units for each warehouse, or 8 units total.
Utilities Director Pinto explained that what we have is a
situation where in the construction of the building it has not
been determined how many individual storefront warehouses they
are going to build. They know there will be 4; so, we said we
12
I
M M M
will base it on 4 now, and if you divide that into more individ-
ual units later, we then will charge based on that.
Chairman Eggert noted that the memo says the developer
proposes two 20,000 sq. ft. buildings, and she believed what Com-
missioner Bowman is asking is whether that is 4 units for the 2
buildings together or 4 for each building.
Director Pinto advised that it would be 4 for each building.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that is the minimum. He
felt the other thing that has to be realized is that when we are
basing the ERUs on some gallonage, and that presently is 250
gallons, that number is still an average number. There will
always be a range that will represent one ERU; that is simply a
not -to -exceed figure. No consultant will ever come up with a
number that is exact for every residential unit. It obviously
will vary depending on the number of people in the home and the
water usage; so, there has to be a range. For instance, in our
residential category, which is the easiest, we have customers on
our system currently using less than 1,000 gallons per month and
we have in that same category customers using almost 100,000 gpm
for irrigation, etc. We are directing the consultants to look at
this very specifically to see if we have erred in any way, and
when that study is complete, he believed that would be the time
to make any major adjustment.
Director Pinto understood the developer's concern, but
thought it is very important to note that the impact fee and the
structure of it is crucial to the development of utilities in
Indian River County. Without those fees, you wouldn't be looking
at any utility or any capacity for expansion. We do want to be
fair, and it is being looked at as a warehouse, but they are
individual separate units with individual bathroom facilities,
and, therefore, we are saying we should go by what the present
ordinance says.
Commissioner Bird wished clarification on the difference
between staff's recommendation and the applicant's request.
13 Mir.
APR 1® 1990 "'3
F,
APR 10 1990 �oo� 79 F��ct $0
Director Pinto advised that the developer wants 3 units
total per building and does not, under any circumstances, want to
be charged more than that, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that,
in other words, it is 6 units versus 8, which is 2 impact fees or
$2400.
Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing
FEDD Investment Corporation and wished to address the difference.
He advised that they have been told that they have the potential
of subdividing into 16 spaces, but that is not necessarily the
developer's plan. How the warehouse is divided into spaces will
depend on what the market demands. They have been told by the
Utilities Department that the applicant could be charged as many
as 16 impact fees if subdivision actually took place in that
manner. His client has been trying to convince them that
consumption ought to have some relationship to how many impact
fees are being charged. They are asking that they pay up -front a
total of 3 impact fees per building and that the consumption be
monitored to see if more is justified. Mr. Henderson noted that
they are running into a problem with the interpretation of the
ordinance. Sub -section 21 says for every 5,000' of warehouse
space, you get charged one impact fee. That makes great sense
when there is one user of the entire warehouse, but when you have
warehouses being subdivided, which is a common approach these
days, it does not.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the difference in their approach
and staff's recommendation is only about $2400, but Attorney
Henderson pointed out that potentially there is a difference of
$30,000 per building. They do not mind the up -front approach,
but they are asking the county to look not at the number of
tenants who move into the building, but rather the consumption,
which is what they feel the charge should be based on.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Director Pinto is recommend-
ing a minimum of 8 until the analysis, and then if the tenants do
14
-I
M M
increase to 16, they would, in fact, be liable for impact fees
with no consideration of consumption.
Director Pinto would not say that consumption is not con-
sidered; it is considered on an individual unit basis, which is
0-250 gpd.
Chairman Eggert believed it is considered that each
individual bathroom uses 250 gpd, and what if all 16 only used
that much.
Director Pinto contended that this would be no different
than if Rockridge as a whole added up all the use in their
subdivision and said it should be charged by consumption. He
stressed that this warehouse is not one big operation; it is
individual units, each of which is rated at 0-250 gpd. Even if
they use absolutely nothing, they are still rated as a single
unit.
Chairman Eggert asked how they came up with the figure for
usage for motels, and Director Pinto advised that we do have a
problem with motels. That was based on a national figure, and it
turns out the rate is lower than it should be. We have a mistake
there, and our recommendation is going to be that this should be
increased.
Chairman Eggert then brought up super markets, hair dressers
where it is figured by the sink, etc., and Commissioner Scurlock
advised that we have identified that those numbers also were
based on national standards; we have found there is a problem;
and that is exactly why we hired CH2M Hill to do the analysis.
Director Pinto emphasized his belief that it is dangerous to
fool around with the ordinance until the study is completed.
Attorney Henderson believed it was recognized that the
attempt to classify different uses could result in some inequi-
ties, and he believed that is why Section 26 was adopted. They
are simply asking that the county apply Section 26 and look at
the unfairness that can result here. He contended they would be
paying the same impact fees as an 80,000 sq. ft. building, and
15 BOOR �� F��"c �J
F,
APR 101990
BOOK PAGE -805
this is only 20,000 sq. ft. They feel the intent of the
ordinance was to equate different uses to the estimated
consumption of those uses.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are saying that
once the rate analysis is in, whatever the new classifications
are and how we address them will be applied to this.
Utilities Director Pinto clarified that he is saying that if
they choose to subdivide into 16 units prior to the completion of
the rate analysis, they would pay the 16 units. If there is a
rate change and they haven't finished their construction or
subdivided, then whatever that rate was, that is what they would
pay. That study should be completed in 90-120 days.
Attorney Henderson noted the problem this creates is that
the approximate construction cost of this single building is
around $450,000, and the difference in the impact fees they are
discussing is potentially $30,000 or 80 of the total, and that is
causing a problem in terms of the lender commitments that are
being sought.
Commissioner Bird commented that the exterior of the build-
ing doesn't change, but the interior is flexible. He can see
where the number of tenants in this building could change over
the years; so, why don't we just set what is reasonable to begin
with because he did not think we can keep going back in there_ and
changing every time that they reconfigure the inside.
Director Pinto noted that is exactly what we do; we have to.
Attorney Henderson stressed that he is just asking that the
county analyze consumption based on actual use.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how that would enhance their
position with the lender. He pointed out that rate structure is
more than just usage. There are several fully acceptable stand-
ards for charging - meter size - square footage - consumption,
etc., and our consultant is looking at the broad base and coming
back to us with a recommendation. He did not know how we can
enter into an arrangement saying that no matter what they do,
16
M
-I
i M M
Attorney Henderson's client is not going to be liable for more
than this. If we are going to reduce it to the minimum, he felt
it has to be open ended to whatever the study determines.
Attorney Henderson stated they do not mind it being open
ended as long as the ultimate number is based upon a consumption
analysis. His client is comfortable that even if all 16 units
were occupied, it still would not result in consumption that
would justify paying for more than 4, and Commissioner Scurlock
noted that it is possible our rate consultant will come back with
something that adjusts that.
Discussion continued at length, and Commissioner Scurlock
pointed out that another thing to consider is the potential peak
demand on your system. We must consider peak use, and that is
why we have the ranges. You design for peak demand and plan on a
20% reserve.
Attorney Henderson contended that if you.later determine
your peak consumption is less than anticipated, you adjust for
that and reiterated they do not mind being subjected to the rate
analysis as long as the county looks at this building as a single
warehouse.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we are being asked to
look at a "what if." He would recommend that we charge the
minimum of 4 and 4 for a total of 8 and then let the future use
of that building and how it is charged be determined by what our
consultant comes back with.
Commissioner Bird discussed the possibility that we could
come up with a different figure today without waiting for the
study.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are paying a large
amount to a reknowned firm to do this study and come up with the
numbers, and he personally can't compute any number today.
Debate continued at length as to inequities in the categor-
ies, what approach is fair, etc., and Attorney Henderson pointed
17 BOOK F. GE Ou
F,
APR 1®990
BOOK 79 FACE 80"�
out that the county recognized that motel use was hard to equate
to a single family residence use, and they think the same type of
approach should be taken with this type of mini -warehouse. There
is no category in here for that kind of use. At total build -out
each unit would have half a bath, and perhaps a fractional ERU
should be considered, but if they have to wait for the study, so
be it.
Commissioners Scurlock and Bird believed the Commission is
saying that there may be some problem with this category, but the
Commission cannot just pull a number out of a hat, and Attorney
Henderson stated that they are not asking the Board to settle on
a number today.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Attorney Henderson had a
problem with a Motion for 4 & 4, which would be 8 units, and the
future to be determined by the CH2M Hill study which will be
available in 90- 120 days, and if they develop prior to that,
they will be charged whatever the impact fees are under this
ordinance.
Attorney Henderson stated the only problem they have with
that approach is that it presents his client with uncertainty at
this point in time. They have to wait out the study, and then it
is possible the rate might be the same or possibly even more.
Commissioner Bird noted that if it is more, they can spread
it over 5 years, but Attorney Henderson stressed that this is
simply a case where this category does not fit this use, and that
is what Section 26 is all about.
Chairman Eggert asked if anyone present wished to speak on
this matter.
Tom Furness, 75th St., expressed his belief that as the
county grows, we are going to have a need for the type of
building that FEDD is getting ready to do, and he believed we
need to come up with some way to charge these impact fees based
on the use; otherwise, you will discourage this quality type of
development.
i
18
L_�
17J
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously established
the ERUs for this particular project at 4 + 4, or a
total of 8 for the 2 buildings; agreed that when -our
consultant comes back in 90-120 days, if the new
ordinance that results helps them or hurts -them, so
be it, but in the interim, the existing ordinance be
interpreted as valid and the way we do business.
PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - 134TH ST. (ROSELAND ROAD TO
CATHOLIC CHURCH ENTRANCE
Public Works Director Davis made the following presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director / /( /� "-
FROM. Ro ' crVD . P.E., County Engineer
g Cain,
Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.E., County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Special Assessment Paving of 134th Street
In Roseland
DATE: April 4, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In response to the recent request by the Board of County
Commissioners that the Public Works Department conduct a
traffic study in the above referenced area to better define
the assessment proposed by staff for the paving of 134th
Street from the northerly property line of St. Sebastian
Church to Roseland Road, the Public Works Department has:
1) Prepared an overall aerial map of the area.
2) Conducted a Seven -Day -Hourly count of all ingress and
egress driveways to the Church as well as on 134th
Street just south of Roseland Road (in its current
barricaded condition). This is a peak season
condition.
3) Accomplished liaison activities with the Pastor of the
Church, Father Joseph V. LeSage to secure demographic
and operations activity information relative to the
Saint Sebastian Parish. (see attached letter of March
29, 1990). This data was refined through a follow-up
meeting with Father LaSage.
4) Radar spot speed checks were accomplished alongUS I in
the vicinity of the Church driveway by e
ty
Traffic Engineer.
r
19
BOOK 79 FADE 809
5) Since the church's request was for a "Locked Gate
Control" at the parking lot adjacent to the south end
of 134th Street, for Saturday, Holy Days and Sunday
Masses only, a detailed traffic and parking study was
accomplished on March 31 and April 1, 1990 by Traffic
- Engineering Staff.
6) Based on the above information and reconnaissance of the
areas surrounding the church, a projection was made
relative to the additional church traffic which could
use 134th Street should the present fixed barrier be
converted to a moveable gate.
Based on the most recent proposal to pave 134th Street,
St. Sebastian was to pay $15,149.72 as its fair share
of the total assessment of $83,973.34 which represented
75% of the estimated cost of accomplishing the needed
work.
On Saturday, March 31, 1990, between 3:30 and 5:30 PM,
for the 4PM Vigil Mass, a peak total of 247 vehicles
were parked on the church site. Of these vehicles, one
car entered the church site by driving around the fixed
barrier on 134th Street. This represents an
approximate vehicle occupancy of slightly over two per
vehicle based on the 500 persons attending this mass.
Of the parked vehicles, four left via 134th Street
while 96 (38%) turned left (northbound) and 147(60%)
turned southbound on US1 at the conclusion of the mass.
At the Sunday masses, the numbers were as follows:
7:30-12Noon 448 Total Parked Cars
Vehicles occupancy 950 = 2.12 persons per car
448
Cars leaving: 3 via 134th Street; 182(40%) northbound
US 1; 262 (60%) southbound US 1
Baseu on this traffic study, staff is of the opinion that if
134th Street were open, approximately 80 trips ends (one
direction) would utilize 134th Street on Saturday afternoon
(4:30PM) and 150-160 trip ends would utilize 134th Street on
Sunday from 7:30 AM to 12 Noon. Due to. Sunday School. for
children from 9:00 AM to 10:15 AM, the majority of the
Sunday traffic would use the road at that time. The total
peak season weekly trip ends generated from the church would
be 230-240.
At the present time, approximately 25 homes exist on 135th
Street. These units presently generate 200 trips per day,
or 1,400 trips per week. In the future as the lots are
developed, approximately 43 single family homes could front
on 134th Street. If this occurs, residential land use could
produce approximately 350 trip ends per day, or 2,450 trip
ends per week.
Based on these figures, the following church impact would be
240 church trips per week/2,690 total trips per week or 8.9%
based on full build -out. In its current development state,
this percentage would be 14.6% assuming the church impact
does not increase. It is our opinion that the church will
expand and this impact may increase.
As currently calculated, the church's original assessment is
18.04% of the total project assessment. This percentage is
based on 39.7% of the church property (total site is 9.57
acres) lying in the 134th Street benefitted area (as defined
by original parcel boundaries included in the entire church
property) . Staff is of the opinion that only 39.7% of the
total church property should be assessed since the church
20
M
has an additional driveway on US 1 and if a movable gate is
installed at 134th Street, the connection would be limited
to specific hours.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Apply staff's original assessment to the church of
$15,149.72 based on 3.8 acres lying in the benefitted
area. In addition, increase the assessment payment
schedule to five years. A typical parcel assessment is
$1,371.
Alternative No. 2
Based on the traffic study, assess the church 14.60 of
the total assessment cost. As both the subdivision and
church expand, this percentage should remain stable.
This alternative would result in a higher assessment
to the remaining property owners.
The current County Special Assessment Ordinance does
not provide for assessments to be calculated on a
traffic study method, however, the Board does have the
power to equalize and adjust assessments subsequent to
a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends no change in the original assessment roll
as considered Feb. 27, 1990, however, Alternative No. 1 is
recommended to increase the payment schedule to five years.
Discussion followed on the figures presented, with Director
Davis pointing out that the residential impact is on a daily
basis and the church impact is only Saturday and Sunday. In
addition, they are projecting that a percentage of the traffic
still will use U.S.I whether 134th Street is open or not. He
felt comfortable that there will be about 240 church -related
trips per week that will use 134th Street, but noted the only way
this can be verified is to open up 134th Street and count the
traffic.
Chairman Eggert felt that when people hear 8 trips per day
per residence, they think it means they go out and come back 4
times a day, and she asked if the daily residential count
includes the postman, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc.,
coming to those houses. This was confirmed.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this count was done during
a peak season and probably would decrease during the summertime.
APR 10 19,9® 21 BOOK
L
BOOK 79 PAGE 81
Traffic Engineer Dudeck explained in detail how the count
was arrived at based on a breakdown of the area the various
parishioners come from.
Public Works Director Davis advised that staff feels that
the original assessment roll was reasonable.
Chairman Eggert opened the public hearing and requested the
cooperation and courtesy of those present. She announced that
today we have received 30 letters in favor of removing the
barricade and paving the road and 10 letters in opposition.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Paul Wolff informed the Board that he lives in Roseland one
block off of 124th. He does go to St. Sebastian Church, and it
seems strange that he has to go out on Roseland Road all the way
to U.S.I to get to his church when 134th originally was open for
several years before they closed it. His kids play on that
street and he knows the dangers involved, but you can't protect
them forever, and he felt we will have a real problem if we start
closing streets for everyone who wants one closed.
Henry Dolan, 444 Ponoka Street, noted that their parish
consists of many senior citizens. Those who live north of the
church are forced to cross U.S.I, which is a 4 -lane highway, and
with the speed of the traffic, it is dangerous for them to have
to make that turn on U.S.I. The closure of 134th Street deprives
those citizens of the opportunity to exit in safety to a traffic
signal and then proceed north. Also because of the access to the
church being limited to one road, they have back ups in the
church property that last as long as 25 minutes or more, which
causes some of the parishioners to leave the service early and
disrupt the service for others. He would like to see the
barricade removed and the street paved.
Commissioner Bird wished it clarified as to whether staff's
recommendation is to go ahead and pave 134th Street using the
paving assessment formula in the memo and to install a portable
type of gate structure at the rear of the church.
22
M
M
- M M
Director Davis advised it is our feeling that the church
should install that gate on their property, not in the county
R/W, and that the church be allowed to open that gate on Saturday
evenings, Sunday services, and Holy Days. That burden would be
on the church because it would be protecting somewhat their
private property rights so that people would not use the church
parking lot as a short cut on a daily basis.
Commissioner Bird did believe there is a minimal amount of
flow from the church on days other than Saturdays and Sundays and
wondered if possibly the flow is minimal enough that it would not
be disruptive to the neighborhood but yet it would enable someone
from Roseland to use that way on some other week day.
Director Davis believed that just the entrance on U.S.I
would not be such a bad situation on a non peak use.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the gate is to protect the
church or the residents on 134th Street, and Director Davis felt
it would be mutually beneficial.
Attorney Vitunac did not think the county can get into
scheduling the opening of the gate on Holy Days. That is too
much an involvement in the private affairs of the church. He
felt the Board's decision should be to open it or close it, and
if it is closed with a temporary structure, then it is up to the
good faith of the church to keep it closed except on their most
busy days.
Gene Deinbach of Little Hollywood advised that when his
family goes to church, they go down U.S.I and then go back out
134th Street because it is plain "Hell" trying to get across
U.S.I. coming out.
Attorney Gregory Gore came before the Board representing St.
Sebastian Parish. He noted that originally the County Commission
was happy to accept $10,000 towards the paving of the road, and
now they are asking $15,000 which apparently represents 18.040 of
the total impact. He believed based on the figures, the church
is paying more than its fair share. The church agrees closure of
APR 101990 23
APR 101990 BOOK -19 PAGE 81
the barricade on a periodic basis would be mutually beneficial.
They would also ask that the assessment pay off be spread out
over 5 years rather than 2 years. The church has no problem with
the $15,000 spread over 5 years, but Mr. Gore reiterated that
would be 18.04% of the total based on 14.6% present impact and
eventually only 8.9%.
Dan Milliken, Rivers Edge Subdivision, advised that he
sympathized with the people on 134th Street because when 134th
Street wasn't paved and it was being used, there was a tremendous
amount of dust raised, but now with it being paved, that would be
eliminated and he would think they should be glad to have it
paved, especially since the church would only be using it a few
hours a week. He believed the church would be satisfied with
Saturdays, Sundays and 6 Holy Days a year.
George Schum, Sebastian Highlands, stated that he is a
volunteer fireman, and he felt in order to cut down the response
time, it is very important that barricade be removed so that the
Roseland Fire Department can enter the church grounds via 134th
Street rather than having to go all the way out to U.S.I.
Wayne Sims, 134th Street, noted that he spoke at the last
meeting. He did not feel the traffic study is a fair analysis
because he does not. agree it is the peak season of flow, which he
believed is more December, January and February. He emphasized
that the church will continue to grow and traffic from the church
will increase faster than from the residences on 134th Street.
The 23 or 25 residents of 134th Street are against the paving,
and they will be paying a majority of the cost for paving a road
they don't want. Mr. Sims also objected to billing based on
acreage, and he wondered if the church would pay part of any
repair expense when that was necessary.
Commissioner Scurlock believed maintenance is the county's
responsibility after we install the road, and.this was confirmed
by Director Davis.
24
_I
Michael Guest, 114 Hinchman Avenue, informed the Board that
he is one of those 80+ citizens of the community, and he wished
to stress the safety factor of opening 134th Street.
Dennis Dernbach, 170 Kildare Drive, felt that anyone who is
in business in the county can testify to the fact that the end of
March and beginning of April is a peak period based on receipts.
He found it interesting that the people on 134th Street would
object to the paving and not want to let the church people use a
county road that is paid for by county taxes. He did not
understand how the County Commission could put up the barricade
in the first place. The church is prepared to pay up to 18% of
the impact fees on the whole road, which he felt is more than
adequate, and he urged the Commission to approve the paving and
opening of the road as proposed.
Dave Marshall, resident of Sebastian, would just urge that
the Commission open the road. He did not see that it has to be
paved and felt that should be left up to the residents, but he
felt the safety factor is very important. He further pointed out
that on the basis of the common good, we are looking at 25/30
families versus 800 or 900 families. He believed the impact
would be only 15/20 minutes before and after each church service,
or on Saturday about 30/40 minutes and on Sundays 60/80 minutes_.
Looking at that small amount of time opposed to the safety
factor, he felt makes this a very reasonable request.
Commissioner Bird inquired where the original request for
paving 134th Street came from, and Director Davis advised that it
was staff initiated to some degree. There was previous discus-
sion before the Board on the use of this road by the parishion-
ers, and basically it was decided some months ago that the road
either should be paved or should not be connected to the church
because there was a problem with dust. It is very difficult to
maintain an unpaved road where there is frequent traffic, and we
recommended the road either be paved or closed.
AP On 10 19A
25
BOOK
BOOK F1 PAGE 815
Shirley Mahalick, Breezy Village, could not understand what
the complaint is from the people on 134th Street when they only
have traffic from 6 to 8 hours a week when her neighborhood has
the traffic from Henry Fischer's trucks 6 days a week from 6
o'clock in the morning until 8 or 9 o'clock at night.
Emily Johnson, 134th Street, informed the Board that she has
been to previous meetings on this same matter and signed a
petition that they did not want the road paved. That was in
March of 1989, and the residents also sent cards and letters
opposing this when the meeting was held this February; so, she
did not think after the first meeting that they had to go around
and get up another petition. Mrs. Johnson stated that she lives
on 134th Street which is unpaved and they like to be able to eat
out on the porch. The paving of 134th would eliminate dust
there, but 81st Avenue which is right around the corner wouldn't
be paved, nor would 133rd Street, and the church traffic will use
those streets to beat other cars to get out on Roseland Road.
She felt that the people on 135th Street would be concerned also.
Mrs. Johnson did not see if you are going to open the road just
for church services and for Holy Days, what good that will do for
access for emergency vehicles the rest of the time.
Judy Morgan, 135th Street, agreed that if they pave 134th,
the overflow will come onto their road and then they will have
a.11 the traffic and dust. She contended that unless the church
puts a fence up, the barricade won't do any good because people
are driving around the barricade.
Frances Betz, resident of Vero Lake Estates, noted that
134th Street is their nearest entrance off of Roseland Road to
the church. In Vero Lake Estates, they had all dirt roads until
they got together and paved the main street. Before the road was
paved, you couldn't picnic on your porch because of the heavy
dust. She is proud of the fact that that they have their road
paved and now she does not mind the traffic even though it has
about doubled since the road is paved.
26
-I
W
Norbert Resop, 134th Street, commented that everyone keeps
mentioning the county taxpayers paying money for 134th Street,
but there isn't once cent of county money in this street except
for the grading of it once a week The only money spent there was
for a swale at the church end which drains water off the church
property onto their property. He did not see why the Board can't
make that a private street because the county doesn't have any
money in it. He further objected to the fact that 126th Street
was paved for $8 a lineal foot, but he is being assessed $13.73 a
lineal foot; so, what do the residents gain by the few dollars
the church would put in. Mr. Resop referred to the road count
and stated that last Sunday he saw at least 30 people coming back
through the barricade.
June Holt, 134th Street, informed the Board that she
personally observed the church traffic Sunday, and she didn't see
any problem with the traffic coming out of the church onto U.S.I.
She felt there are problems there that they can correct, and she
would recommend the church enlarge their own driveway for one
thing. Mrs. Holt pointed out secondly that there is a shopping
center about 1/5 of a mile north of there, and coming south,
people cannot make a left turn into that shopping center. They
have to come down to the Catholic church to turn around and go
north, and she sat there and watched them have a problem with
people making a "U" turn and people coming out of the church to
make a left turn going north. That is a real hazard, and the
Road Department ought to be addressing that because whether 134th
Street is opened or not, that problems remains a serious one.
Also another problem is that people from Wabasso and even further
south come up Roseland Road to dump their garbage there since the
Wabasso dump was closed, and that road has a lot of traffic.
Mrs. Holt also understood that when people did come through 134th
from the church, the traffic would back up almost a block up to
her corner. She did not see any kind of a block like that at
27
BOOP( u`r.�
I
APR 101990
BOOK e � PAGE 81 d
U.S.I, and, in fact, from her observations, anyone entering
U.S.I. only sat there 20 seconds, possibly 30.
. Gary Morgan, 135th Street, noted that 11 years ago there was
a petition to have the barricade put up. In regard to the
traffic survey, the barricade should have been blocked off so
they could have got an accurate count because people drive around
it. There is a driveway on both sides of that barricade that
they are using going in and out; in fact, he personally counted 6
vehicles going around the barricade within 2/3 minutes. Mr.
Morgan emphasized that he built in this neighborhood because of
the dead end streets. He felt a better solution would be for the
church to put a "demand" light on U.S.I. and leave 134th Street
alone. Except for the church, the road does not need to be
paved.
Charles Fitch, 134th Street, agreed that they have quite a
busy street on Sunday morning with people going down and dropping
off someone by the barricade; they have had as many as 57 cars
between 11:30 and 12:00 on Sunday. He felt the barricade has
become something that is just a cosmetic feature because anyone
can go around it. He felt this all comes down to the basic
question of whether.the residents have any rights at all in
signing a petition and not wanting the street paved and exposed
to all that traffic.
Wayne Sims of 134th Street, wished the Board to know that
although someone earlier said it took them as long as 25 minutes
to get out of the church grounds, he saw a member of the church
at breakfast, who told him that he was one of the last to leave
the church and said it took him 12 minutes to get out of the
church property. Mr. Sims felt that backs up his contention that
the study was not made during the peak season.
Chairman Eggert determined that no one else wished to speak
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
28
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to accept staff's Alternative
No. 1 with a 5 year payment plan and approve Resolu-
tion 90-45 confirming the assessment roll.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about the figures on the road
paving petition, and Director Davis explained that there was not
a voluntary petition to initiate the project. The majority of
people in the benefitted area did not favor the paving.
Commissioner Bird advised that he plans to vote for the
Motion. Although, he does have sympathy for the residents in that
it was not a voluntary petition paving request and we are to some
extent forcing this down their throats, he does feel it will
enhance their property and it is a 5 year payment plan.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the property to the south of
the church were to be developed, is it possible that road could
be extended through their property because he doesn't want to go
though this again.
Director Davis pointed out that area is in the City of
Sebastian so the county has no jurisdiction over it. He felt
that would only happen if the church would allow access to their
property and if the City of Sebastian would approve a site plan
allowing that. He did not feel this is very likely, but noted we
can certainly notify the City of our concern.
Commissioner Bowman expressed concern about paving taking
place before sewers are installed, and Commissioner Scurlock
advised that if we have those plans, we put sleeves there before
the paving.
Commissioner Bowman then asked about the possibility of
closing the median on U.S.I. and having a no left turn sign
there.
Director Davis advised that was not considered in the
traffic distribution use of the site. He noted that you could
sign a no left turn restriction out of church property, but that
APR. 10 lwo 29 BOCK
I rC
I
_I
APR 10 1990 BOOK `79 pn� 819
also is in the City of Sebastian and they would have to enforce
it. In addition, the DOT would be involved in any closing of the
median.
Commissioner Bowman felt the stacking lane on the left side
of U.S.I. may be insufficient, and Commissioner Scurlock
suggested that Commissioner Bowman agenda the items she has
brought up for the next Transportation Planning Committee
meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 9o- 45 ,
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL
FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO 134TH STREET FROM-ROSELAND
ROAD TO CATHOLIC CHURCH ENTRANCE IN TOWN
OF WAUREGAN SUBDIVISION
�, on January 16, 1990 the Board of County
Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 90-10 providing for certain
paving and drainage improvements to 134th Street from Roseland
Road to Catholic Church entrance in Town of Wauregan Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1990 the Board of County
Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 90-13 setting the date and
time for a public hearing to discuss the advisability, costs and
amount of the assessment against each property owner; and
WHEREAS, this hearing was held on February 27, 1990 and
continued to April 10, 1990 and input from property owners and
the public received;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. The attached assessment roll for certain paving and
drainage improvements to 134th Street from Roseland Road to
30
Catholic Church entrance in Town of Wauregan Subdivision is
approved, pursuant to Section 11-47, Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Indian River County and payment schedule proposed in
Resolution 90-10 is hereby extended from two years to five years.
The foregoing resolution was offend by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. „g
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler , ye
The *Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed
and adopted this 10th day of April - , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
CAROLYN,�X. EGGERY hairman
RESOLUTION 90-45 W/ATTACHED ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
DISCUSSION RE DCA NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Community Development Director Keating informed the Board
that we were notified by telephone Friday that the DCA would send
us a Notice of Intent to Find the Comprehensive Plan Not in
Compliance, and we just got the original letter today. The DCA
Statement of Intent is as follows:
31
APR 101990
F
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
BOOK 79 PAGc 821
IN RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )
ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE ) DOCKET NO. 89-NOI-3101-(N)
NO. 90-3 )
FEBRUARY 13, 1990 )
STATEMENT OF INTENT TO FIND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
The Florida Department of Community Affairs hereby issues
its Statement of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan of Indian
River County, adopted on February 13, 1990, Not In Compliance
based upon the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
(ORC report) issued by the Department on December 14, 1989, which
is hereby incorporated by reference, and changes made to the
plan, as adopted, which were not previously reviewed by the
Department. The Department finds that the plan is "not in
compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida
Statutes (F.S.), because it is not consistent with Section
163.3177, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan, the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), for the following reasons:
I. EFFICIENCY OF LAND USE
A. Inconsistent provisions. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan grouped under this subject heading are as follows:
1. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is not supported by the
data and analysis because it allocates more residential acreage
and allows for the development of more residential dwelling units
than are projected to be needed by the date depicted on the map
(2010). Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (8), Florida Statutes; Rules
9J -5.005(2)(a), 9J -5.006(1)(g), 9J -5.006(2)(c); and 9J-5.006(4),
F.A.C.
2. The data and analysis in the Future Land Use and Housing
Elements do not present a consistent projection of demand for
32
future dwelling units and residential acreage. Sections
163.3177(2), and 163.3177(6)(f); Rules 9J -5.005(5)(a) and 9J-
5.010(2), F.A.C.
3. The projections in the data and analysis of demand for
residential units do not utilize the same residential categories
and densities as are used in the FLUM. Section 163.3177(8); Rule
9J -5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.
4. The adopted goals, objectives and policies do not ensure
that residential development in the Agricultural area will
proceed in a manner that preserves agricultural values and
provides for a clear separation of urban and rural land uses.
Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Rules 9J -5.005(5)(b); 9J -
5.006(2)(b); 9J-5.006(3)(b)l; and 9J -5.006(3)(c)2, F.A.C.
5. The adopted goals, objectives and policies do not
ensure that public sanitary sewer and potable water facilities
within the Urban Service Area will be expanded in a manner that
discourages urban sprawl. Sections 163.3177(3)(a), (6)(a) and
(6)(c), F.S.; Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)l., and 7., and 9J -
5.011(2)(b)3., and (c)1., F.A.C.
6. The plan fails to discourage the proliferation of urban
sprawl because the densities and intensities of uses assigned in
the FLUM to rural and agricultural areas will encourage
development in these areas without meaningful controls or
regulations designed to discourage the proliferation of urban
sprawl. Rules 9J -5.005(5)(b) and 9J -5.006(3)(b)7., F.A.C.
B. Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise the FLUM to be consistent with the data and
analysis by ensuring that the map provides for residential
dwelling units and acreage consistent with the projected need.
2. Revise the data and analysis in the Future Land Use and
Housing elements to present a consistent projection of future
demand for residential dwelling units and acreage.
3.
Revise the data and analysis to
project the
demand for
APR 10
1990
33
BOOK 6 PAGE tj
residential units consistent with the residential categories and
densities shown on the Future Land Use Map.
4. Expand the goals, objectives and policies to include
sufficient planning controls in the Agricultural area to ensure
the protection of agricultural uses and the separation of urban
and rural land uses.
5. Expand the goals, objectives and policies to require
the maximum use of public facilities to discourage urban sprawl,
to require that all new urban development within the 1995
sanitary sewer and potable water service areas connect to
available public facilities, and to require that new development
served by public facilities pay a fair and proportionate share of
the costs, based on the benefits received by existing and future
residents, of providing such facilities.
6. Revise the plan to discourage the proliferation of urban
sprawl in rural and agricultural areas by adjusting the densities
and intensities of uses assigned in these areas and/or by
including within the plan meaningful controls and regulations for
clustering, open space, transfer of development rights or other
techniques that will effectively discourage the proliferation of
urban sprawl in these areas.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Inconsistent provision. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan grouped under this subject heading are as follows:
1. The adopted plan does not further the following State
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to the preservation
of agricultural lands, the separation of urban and rural land
uses, and the provision of infrastructure in a manner that
discourages urban sprawl:
Goal (16)(a), to direct development to those areas that have
the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth;
Policy (16)(b)l., to encourage efficient development in areas
which will have the capacity to serve new development; Policy
(16)(b)2., to encourage the separation of urban and rural land
34
M
M
uses; Policy (18)(b)l., to develop land in a way that maximizes
the use of existing public facilities; Policy (16)(b)3., to
allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the
benefits received; and Goal (23)(a), to maintain and expand
commercial agricultural operations.
B. Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise the plan to further the above referenced goals
and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
A. Inconsistent provisions. The inconsistent provisions of
the plan grouped under this subject heading are as follows:
1. Policy 6.12 in the Conservation Element is not
consistent with Policies 10.1.2.2 and 10.1.2.4 of the Treasure
Coast Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan because the policy does
not require the preservation of at least 25 percent of each
native plant community which occurs on-site, because it limits
the required set-aside to a maximum of 10 percent of the total
property and because it excludes agricultural operations.
B. Recommended remedial actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise Policy 6.12 to be consistent with Policies
10.1.2.2 and 10.1.2.4 of the Treasure Coast Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Plan is not consistent with the Treasure Coast
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
2. The Plan is not consistent with the State Comprehensive
Plan.
3.
The
plan
is not
consistent with
Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C.
4.
The
Plan
is not
consistent with
Section 163.3177, F.S.
5.
The
Plan
is not
"in compliance",
as defined in Section
1693.3184(1) (b), F.S.
APR 10 1990 35
e
APR 101990 B00K MCUE 825
6. In order to bring the plan into compliance, the County
may complete the recommended remedial actions described above or
adopt other remedial actions that eliminate the inconsistencies.
Executed this C�\ day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee,
Florida.
Division Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Director Keating advised that most of the reasons for
non-compliance relate to urban sprawl and the DCA's contention is
that too much land was allocated for residential use - there is
insufficient protection of AG uses - inadequate policies to
discourage proliferation of urban sprawl - and also inconsistency
with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council policy of 25%
preservation of native areas. He felt it is strange that while
the TCRPC found us in compliance with their plan, the DCA used
our inconsistency with the TCRPC plan as one of their reasons to
find us not incompliance.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that one of the things he is
the most concerned about is that the Commission dedicate enough
resource through our Chairman, the Community Development Direc-
tor, and the Administrator, not only to travel to Tallahassee to
begin our discussions on this issue, but give them enough
resource if, in fact, they should need any outside help, and that
we also solicit support from the community who have appeared at
the public hearings and supported our concept. By this, he
refers not only to the AG interests, but also to the Civic
Association who were in here with a request to reduce some
densities that had been suggested on the east side of 1-95.
Commissioner Scurlock thought we must not underestimate the
magnitude of our potential problems here. We are a small county,
36
M -
and sometimes because of -that we don't get listened to as much.
He emphasized that we believe strongly in the Plan we adopted; we
had vigorous debate during a variety of public hearings; he felt
very comfortable with the Plan we adopted; and he believed we did
make some compromises in an effort to get it approved. He,
therefore, would support whatever resources are necessary to
support our Plan as it was conveyed.
Chairman Eggert advised that she has talked with Paul
Bradshaw of the DCA and pointed out to him that we were pulled
into the Hutchinson Island Plan; that we are a county that has
tried very hard to control its growth and stay ahead of things
and be a very responsible county, and still we are being treated
just like every other county in Florida where there is none of
our uniqueness and special care. We have Brevard County above us
and St. Lucie below us, and we are in here trying to hold our
own, but we seem to be given no recognition for that.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he can understand the urban
sprawl concept; however, our community and our constituency has
supported low density and low rise, and that is the constant
message they have conveyed to us. Yes, there is an additional
cost for infrastructure with lower densities, but our community
has indicated they are willing to pay that additional amount to
have that kind of low density, low rise growth. He agreed we
should have concurrency, but finds it very difficult to say that
the state knows more about our community than we do. We have a
long range water and sewer plan; we have a long range transporta-
tion plan, a long range re -use plan, etc., and as long as we
provide for all this, he felt they should pay attention to the
local community.
Commissioner Bird agreed, and also agreed that we should put
together the proper team we need to convince the DCA of this. He
wanted the staff to hear this and be as committed on this thing
as we are because he believed we are still the bosses of the
staff and that's the approach he wants to take and he wants it to
37 BOOK vE a
� APR 101990 J
L
800 f PAGE OC i
be tough. Commissioner Bird felt one thing the DCA is hung up on
is this 1 unit to 5 acres in the AG. They think that is
encouraging residential and discouraging AG, but the fact is that
1 unit per 5 acres does not cause a great proliferation of
residential. There are very, very few units being built in this
county on 5 acre tracts, and, in fact, he believed our Comp Plan
most probably presents one of the lowest overall densities of any
coastal county in Florida on either the east or west coast.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the DCA actually recommends
increasing densities east of 1-95. In other words, they want to
pack the density, and then in the long range, the pressure is for
more developable land and you just end up with the total acreage
at a higher density.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed, and stated that he totally
supports Commissioner Bird and Commissioner Scurlock and felt we
should do whatever we can to send a team to Tallahassee.
Chairman Eggert informed the Board that she is trying to set
up with Administrator Chandler and Director Keating the date of
April 30th to go to a compliance meeting to find out exactly
where the DCA is coming from.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we can also authorize the
Chairman to send a letter to some of the affected parties.
Chairman Eggert advised that she already has contacted some
by telephone, but she will be happy to send letters also because
she does think it is important that we get total community
support. She noted that there is to be a review of the upland
issue in the TCRPC. They are trying to work out something with
the AG situation, and while they may or may not change, it is
possible we may find it easier to come into compliance. She
further informed the Board that she brought up the question of
whether the DCA remembered that St. John's is sitting out there
west of 1-95 acting as a great wall.
Director Keating advised that it very hard to get from the
DCA the specific criteria they used in reviewing our Plan. He
38
s r �
noted that staff has been dealing with the DCA lower level staff,
and he did not believe they have been delegated a lot of
authority; so, he felt our Chairman talking to the higher level
DCA staff would help to get something definitive. He asked if
Administrator Chandler felt staff had the direction they need at
this point.
Administrator Chandler felt they did. He believed this
probably would be the first of many meetings with the DCA.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE MAP
Community Development Director Keating made the staff
presentation, as follows:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert 14. Keatizig, A
Community Develo ment erector
THRU: Sasan Rohani 5. & -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Robert M. Loeper led/L
Senior Planner
DATE: March 29, 1990
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LAND USE MAP
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 10, 1990.
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:
On February 13, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
newly revised Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. As
required by state law, all development and development regulations
approved by the county must be consistent with the plan and future
land use map.
Among the changes made on the new map from the previous land -use
map was the redesignation of the Gifford area from a MXD, Mixed
Use Designation to either residential, commercial or industrial
designations. Map A depicts the Gifford area future land use
pattern as approved in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Since
adoption, it has been brought to the attention of staff that
several properties may have inadvertently been granted an
incorrect land use designation due to either mapping error or the
use of incorrect data.
39 BOOK
19 u ujjam
C7
APR 10 1990
.1
APR 101990 Fd ,r ��
BOOK FAGS
In eliminating the MXD designation, staff's intent was to provide
for a reasonable and orderly development pattern, accommodate
those uses which have been legitimately and legally established
and remove the uncertainty inherent in the MXD designation.
In its analysis of this area, staff reviewed the existing land use
and development pattern, zoning pattern and overall land use
distribution in the county. This review consisted of mapping
non -residentially zoned areas, determining the existing uses of
these areas, and classifying the existing uses as either
commercial, industrial, government, residential, agriculture or
vacant land. To identify the existing uses, the staff used the
property appraisers use classification system, property appraisers
use data, and field survey results.
Based on this review, staff identified all existing uses which
were consistent with the zoning of the property on which they were
located, and the staff assigned such property a land use
designation consistent with its use. Map B shows the existing
generalized development pattern of this area. The staff's intent
was to not create non -conformities. •Properties with uses which
were inconsistent with their non-residential zoning designations
(vacant and residential) were reviewed by the staff. Staff
examined surrounding uses, surrounding zoning and development
potential. As a result some properties with commercial or
industrial zoning were redesignated to a residential land use
category. Properties which were zoned for residential were
generally assigned the M-2 Residential designation.
Alternatives & Analysis
Since it has been brought to the attention of staff that mistakes
may have been made or irregularities exist, staff has again
reviewed the land uses in the area between 58th and 43rd Avenues,
south of 45th Street, and one parcel on the south side of 41st
Street just west of the FEC Railroad. Based on this more in depth
review, staff concedes that several errors or ommissions had
occurred and that several changes to the land use map are
warranted based on the staff intent and determination. Map C
shows the land use designations which would be consistent with the
original criteria and intent of staff.
The county Attorney's Office has reviewed this matter and has
issued an opinion whereby in certain instances the county may
administratively make adjustments to the land use map. These are
limited to those cases where an error or oversight occurred and
the resulting correction would be consistent with the overall
intent of the plan and the resulting change would not negate the
concurrency requirements of the plan.
Several alternatives are available to correct this oversight. The
first of these is to direct staff to correct the land use map
shown on Map C and report these changes to the Department of
Community Affairs during the next plan amendment submission
timeframe. The second alternative is to direct staff to initiate
an amendment during the next submission timeframe. Lastly, the
commission may take no action thereby requiring any individual
property owner to seek an amendment during. the July submission
timeframe.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners concur
with staf intent to correct the land use map as shown and direct
staff to notify the Department of Community Affairs of these
corrections as an Evaluation and Appraisal Report during the next
plan amendment submission timeframe.
40
a
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
.TRB ' .. .. TrT.. Ttt •. \
a A—� \.FEB.13,1990
j RIAH_8 ; RM -8 \�` CL
49th SRM -6'
�.� t ltutttuutt A11 ut tout ' ' -- - Bill
,. R-8 •.. IRM. -10
>I:
RIS -6: .a .r 'c�
Mco
.- . �:. .:_..-• - oo t <�;�,3r: � COM/IND
-1 Tran i TIa :1x•F�'���%`/z•,�� g.� _ :.i;__ ti� :*- -t tr�,JF��e-yoy�� -.r.-- �r:���%.. rX'�'Yay:
y� i <is.`•Y'-�'Y���;; :'ia �''�__� .r�M.�f"{ - � ,��fF'h �°' �� Y , ?;� ...j�t,M ,
-T RMH-8'PB
� �. �I � �s�;;.s.�=n•`:: mat •���. '- '� , !r� � ' ;7rs ' {p� y� �, s_ .
max,. � ��':..,.. �.zR,a,'Y:%:"> I, •-•.•:.. :i ;i'T T !� '�f f '• •V4' s:�;., *?.:P:..��S~�
. aY Ij x _xzw a.: �. ' Yr•.',' F
Pill is
t1 th ST . -°•
- _ ® L-2
E'' CH Q� .
j "�` i 'O ru e .�i fst yY ,-.-.�-,,�. �� j ,i _ +u. \.L• e T-:yC':: '•+•p `�t'.`l{.
1 ? ' � .Y � t'"R .'C�:�- r. t L �'1 li=-�l�.��iF• lf�.
t W---•1�•• 'I ,•�- 1� • 4...•�...m. •;s¢, -•+ •,r•.- `�• a:. ' E1( M; 's area not shadedcc V)
,f �Q .(ru k:: • •.Y. tstit'.J�YI r�
t t
co I
RS-
RM-
�y ,du, L E� ntt�
RS �- �, ;.+� IL`. = =SUBJECT
41st 6rtal AREA
ditto tmin ism unnum iifferrmnnn --'
0
r
r
w
:tiV::ti :� •:•:: <:L':
• �ii
:•Y:•: :.:i.:•I {Y
.............................. 7;';::::�: i gid'::::• •r• . `
ll
}y {
MG
d•J:
f
t
�•M
• y
t
nC ¢
• r to
fI 41t• M A.D .I•C•At-
':,..ate, ':y�'�y.�^t,•.v'` . t j{•
1
I
I
EXISTING
LAND USE MAP
(GENERALIZED
I Nolom-
SUBJECT
AREA
goo
-I
Com
IND
PUB/GOVT
F-1
VAC
AG
I Nolom-
SUBJECT
AREA
goo
-I
Xr
w
04
00
CORRECTED
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
I ®- COM/IND
PB
❑ M-2
(area not shaded)
E E SUBJECT
s. AREA
1
r
APR 10 1990
B00'K
Director Keating stressed that the most difficult area to
deal with was the Gifford area because of the large MXD district,
and there have been some errors and omissions made in changing it
into specific Land Use designations. He then addressed specific
properties that were mistakenly changed. For instance, the
property a little bit east of King's Highway and just south of
North Gifford Road (the Miller property) showed up as single
family in our survey and we had allocated M-2 in the CLUP map;
that was definitely an oversight based on incorrect data, and it
should go to a commercial designation. The corrected Land Use
Map they are recommending shows that the Miller property would be
commercial, and there is some property on the far east end of
that segment that also shows up primarily as residential in the
survey they did. Actually it is mostly industrial in there with
some single family mixed in, and they feel it should be an
industrial category.
There is another property on the south where the Public Use
boundary was extended too far just to reflect one parcel. The
City of Vero Beach city limits is one parcel to the east and
county property is just to the west, and that was an obvious
oversight. There is another one further west - a Public Use
piece of property, which is the Mosquito Control District, and it
should be referenced that way. Then we have one other piece that
is not depicted there. It is just south of Lindsey Road just
west of Old Dixie; that somehow showed up single family on our
initial surveys, and that should be designated industrial.
At this point it was noted that there are quite a few
interested property owners present, and they should be allowed to
state where they disagree with staff.
Chairman Eggert first wished to note that she disagreed with
a piece of property - the industrial property across the street
from the airport, which is right up next to the railroad tracks
and has been industrial for a long time. Her biggest problem is
that we put sewer and water in here; Gifford is constantly
44
telling her that they need areas to bring jobs there; and to her
this parcel which we have eliminated is a good parcel for that
purpose. The map shows it M-2, but she believed we actually want
it to be commercial/industrial.
Board members indicated their agreement with the Chairman
and Commissioner Scurlock proposed a Motion, but Attorney Vitunac
interjected that we can't do rezoning and re -Comprehensive
Planning now. Today is just for correcting obvious errors and
whatever is corrected must have been a mistake.
Debate followed as to what constitutes an obvious error, and
Commissioner Scurlock believed this actually was a mistake on our
part as Commissioners.
Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Commissioners want to
change their minds, this will have to be done in the next Compre-
hensive Plan amendment submission period. All we can correct
today are typos and obvious errors where it can be shown from the
record that they should have been something else and somehow got
on this map incorrectly.
Asst. County Attorney Collins further clarified for the
record that if the Board is making a change in policy or there is
a dispute as to whether this particular use should be in this
particular place, that is something that should have been argued
during the Plan adoption period. What staff is suggesting is
that if there was an error in the nature of disputing a Land Use
as residential when there was actually a commercial operation on
the site; that is a clear error; it is a ministerial oversight
that can be corrected. The Comprehensive Plan is to be amended
only once every 6 months, but it also says if a court was to
review it, they would look at the appropriateness and complete-
ness of the Plan in coming to a decision; so, if they looked and
saw there was a commercial egg farm on a piece of property and
you showed it as residential, the data which the Plan and its
policies were based on was inaccurate and the whole thing is
flawed. Attorney Collins felt that the Board can correct those
45 BOOP, lu �',1GEOPJ
APR 10 1990
I
r
BOOK .79 FREE 835
ministerial oversights to reflect what is actually out there, or
if you drew a line to show a boundary between public and private
property in error by moving it over 10 acres, you can correct
that - that is an obvious error, but you can't just sit down and
go back and revisit the policy decisions about where should this
land use be or where should that be without going through the
Plan amendment procedure to see what the impact will be.
Debate continued at length in regard to something being a
policy decision as opposed to correcting an oversight, and
Chairman Eggert contended that if something was misunderstood by
the majority in the first place, she did not feel it would be a
policy change.
Commissioner Bird stated that as far as he was concerned, it
was an oversight that we didn't spend more detailed time on these
particular changes in the Comprehensive Plan. We really didn't
target in on this area and have it explained that there were
quite a few parcels being changed in here.
Chairman Eggert felt what was said to us was that this was
no longer going to be a whole Mixed Use District in that the
zoning for the residential was reduced from 14 downward for the
top cap. That says to her that you simply took off the MXD and
left everything else the same. But the problem is that we didn't
leave everything else the same; we took out some of the things
that were already there. That is the statement that she
misunderstood - that we were removing the designation of MXD and
lowering the cap on residential, which says to her that nothing
else changed. In other words, her understanding was that we are
just not calling it MXD any more and if something was industrial
or commercial, it would be called industrial or commercial.
Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating his understanding of
what constitutes the mistake policy because he will be the expert
who will be speaking for us in court.
Commissioner Bird asked what court? He believed we did make
a mistake unknowingly, and if we correct this and send it to the
46
state and say this is what we have done, are they going to take
us to court over that?
Director Keating commented that he can answer Attorney
Vitunac's question to the extent that staff didn't spend time
with the Commission on these particular changes because at the
final adoption hearing and at previous meetings, the concern was
focusing on other areas of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. He, therefore, did not feel the Board
members had all the pertinent information on this that they
needed, and from that respect, it would be an oversight.
Attorney Vitunac believed the change that was made reflected
the change staff meant to make when they did this, and Director
Keating confirmed that they meant to make a couple of these, but
a couple of them, they did not. For instance, the Miller
property they did mean to make the change - the property to the
east, they did not mean to change. He felt the ones that we are
dealing with that are controversial are the ones on the fringes.
Commissioner Bird asked if he was saying that the areas that
are shown in white (outlined but not shaded in) under the cor-
rected Future Land Use Map are the areas that are now going to
revert to M-2, including all the commercial property on the east
side of U.S.I.
Senior Planner Loeper explained in regard to that commercial
property, we are only dealing with the area that is not east of
U.S.I., and he pointed out the specific parcels with changed Land
Use.
Chairman Eggert inquired about the status of those parcels
east of U.S.I that are shown in white, and Planner Loeper advised
that those have nothing to do with what we are talking about, and
those have no change.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested we have a motion to at least
accept the corrections on MAP "C" where staff has identified that
they had the wrong identification and then we can go on and look
at the specifics.
4 7 BOOK FAIA
r°
APR 10 1990
BOOK , 9 PAGE 83.7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
Corrected Future Land Use Map - MAP "C".
Chairman Eggert asked that we first discuss the piece of
property next to the railroad and across from the Airport, which
is shown on the following map:
MAP C
a
Q
,.
m
�
LLJ
r
'j
W
H
m
.� a�
W Z
m �Q
v IL 6.
6.
EJ Lj
0 W
LJ..
a
i
t
48
_I
s � �
Attorney Robin Lloyd informed the Board that particular
property is the Indian River Industrial Park, Inc., property;
they have a survey and it is 20+ acres. His contention is that
the planners were not totally familiar with this piece of prop-
erty, which, as recently as 4/5 months ago, was Light Industrial,
and they were going for a site plan to put a factory in there.
He stressed that this property is in a very badly blighted area;
it is right across the street from bars that are in terrible
disrepair; and there is nothing about this property that is
residential. Attorney Lloyd pointed out that the Plan states
that we want to have reasonable economic development, and if you
are going to have it anywhere, you want it right next to the
railroad tracks. He did believe the Planners made a mistake
because this is basically an industrial area, and there is an
industrial corridor all along 41st Street between U.S.I to 58th.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that his observation from
driving that area and looking at the maps is that what Attorney
Lloyd is suggesting is the logical transition, and he is not sure
what exactly did or did not happen in the Planners' minds.
Planner Loeper explained that when developing the overall
Land Use Map, we were dealing with a lot of generalities, and in
specific areas such as this, staff did not have the luxury of
having the time to go out and look at every individual parcel and
make the determination on that basis. .
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Board has enough latitude
to accept the request of Mr. Lloyd, and Attorney Vitunac felt
that the Board has heard the presentation; they can make the
decision to declare it was a mistake and make their ruling.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed with
Chairman Eggert that there is a transition and that
the subject property should be IL, the way it was
before.
49
BOOK f'�1�r 83S,
,
BOOK .79 PAr'E 83
Ron Rennick next came before the Board and advised that he
owns property (11 acres) immediately adjacent and east of the
Mosquito Control property, as shown on the following map:
s
Mr. Rennick advised that his property was zoned CH.' If it
has been changed, it has been done so without any notice to him,
and if that is the case, he felt that he has been deprived of his
right to due process. Mr. Rennick expressed his belief that
50
MAP C
a
¢
m
C] �
? c W w
D
U a
o m aLU
Q ya
I W Z
ab.
V 3 y....o
0w_.
__.__..-.._ -. _—
U cc,
. ! As
LL
'• � , �
s
Mr. Rennick advised that his property was zoned CH.' If it
has been changed, it has been done so without any notice to him,
and if that is the case, he felt that he has been deprived of his
right to due process. Mr. Rennick expressed his belief that
50
staff made a major screw up when they changed it to Governmental,
and now they are covering it by trying to change it to Residen-
tial. He stressed that the major areas in this whole corridor
between South Gifford and North Gifford Roads have been
industrial and commercial for many years.
Mr. Rennick informed the Board that he has owned this
property between 10/15 years. He has had plans to develop it
into a nice business park, and now that water was just put in
there last year, it is getting ready to develop. He contended
that you don't develop commercial property until you have
residential in the vicinity because that's what makes commercial
useful. He further noted that this property is adjacent to the
Mosquito Control District property, which has offices there,
parks their trucks there, and he felt it generally would be
considered a commercial zoning district if it were anyone other
than government using it. He did not think it is appropriate for
residential lots to be next to that. When this property was
zoned Governmental, it made it impossible to use, and at this
point, when you have CH zoning and a Land Use Plan that is not
consistent with it, you just put the property in limbo and you
can't do anything with it. Mr. Rennick felt it should stay
commercial. Mr. Rennick further noted that the people to the
east of him, the Finks, had their property, which was their
homestead since the early 1900's, declared residential so they
could build another house for a family member. They have lived
there for many years and asked for that zoning fully realizing
that industrial was on both sides of them. Mr. Rennick again
stressed that the change to his property was done without proper
notice.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that there has been ample notice
in the newspapers relating to all the Comprehensive Plan actions.
She noted that her question is that staff apparently has changed
half of what was CH into Public and then to the east of the
Residential, taken all that Industrial and changed it to Public
R l 0 1990 5,
AP eooK
,
APR 10 1999 q Do�'�
or 41
on the east side and Residential on the west side. She asked if
this wasn't all Industrial.
Senior Planner Loeper confirmed it is all presently zoned
Industrial; the parcels owned by the County created the Public
District, and the rest was given the Residential designation.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the latitude on "Public" is.
pretty wide open; so, Residential in between is not necessarily
any transition.
Director Keating agreed that this is a very unusual
situation with Residential on 2 sides and then 2 parcels in the
middle, one of which is Mosquito Control.
Commissioner Bird was not sure what our status is today in
regard to making these corrections, but noted that if we were
going over this as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan process
a month ago, there is not a doubt in his mind, that he would have
voted for the Commercial.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that staff believed what they
were doing was the right recommendation, but he also does not
concur with that now.
Chairman Eggert stated that where she still stands is that
this isn't a change in policy but a change in understanding that
map, which map was not brought in front of the Board.
Attorney Vitunac continued to contend that if the Board made
a mistake in understanding what was presented, then it should
come back in 6 months because what we are correcting today, as
Attorney Collins said, are only ministerial errors that are
obvious from the record.
Commissioner Bird commented that he is having a hard time
differentiating with voting to return the property represented by
Mr. Lloyd to what it was and then turning this down just because
there doesn't happen to be a commercial use on this property
although it has been zoned Commercial for years.
Commissioner Wheeler referred to the 20 acres to the north
and asked if the building to the right of that is on one parcel.
L
52
Senior Planner Loeper advised that property, which is
located between Floral Park over to Palm Gardens, is 7 different
parcels.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that now you are talking about a
very broad area and talking about a major change, but Chairman
Eggert advised that what she is talking about is that she
"goofed" on Gifford, and she believed the Comprehensive Plan
"goofed" on Gifford; so, she felt that whatever is the correct
way to change it is what we should pursue.
Commissioner Bird did not think that correcting this, even
if we make these major changes, will have any significant effect
on the Comprehensive Plan. It is a very small area out of the
overall county, and he did not feel that the DCA will object to
our making these corrections.
Attorney Collins advised that it would not be the DCA that
objected; it would be the neighbors who feel they have been
adversely affected who might object and could seek injunctions.
He felt that only clear errors can be changed and not when you
get into the area of "what should it have been."
Chairman Eggert did not see where there was a problem if the
properties just went back to what they were before.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the bottom line is that the
Commission is saying that we want to leave it the way it was, and
then just take the chance of someone filing an action against us.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to "leave
it the way it was - Commercial."
Chairman Eggert asked if we are satisfied all the way
through this area now, and Attorney Lloyd stated that he was not
sure exactly what the last vote consisted of.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that the last vote was "to
take it back to the way it was all the way over to the "P" - that
53
BOOKl u F'," lj 8��0
APP 10 1990
BOOK A PAGE
843
in-fill area, or, more specifically, FROM the Green depicted as
Public on the map TO the other Green along 41st that is depicted
as Public, except for the RS -6 that is in there."
Attorney Chris Marine next came before the Board represent-
ing Mr. and Mrs. Jim Studer. He wanted to know if his client's
property, which is on the north side of South Gifford Road, was
included in the change in the last Motion.
In discussion, it was noted that it was not in the last
Motion which was for property south of 41st Street, and the first
Motion was on property north of 41st Street adjacent to the
railroad tracks.
Senior Planner Loeper referred to the map and pointed out
the property referenced by Mr. Marine, explaining that the line
on the map did not follow a property line and this property was
split. He further explained that a slight adjustment was made to
that line to include that entire property; so, this property
would be included correctly in the earlier Motion to adopt Map
"C" as amended.
Attorney Marine was satisfied with that explanation.
Chairman Eggert commented that now that we have brought the
one parcel north of 41st and the parcel south of 41st back to
their original status, she still saw a little neighborhood node
in the middle of Map "C", and Director Keating explained that was
too small to put in the map; it is grandfathered in.
Attorney Robin Lloyd came before the Board on behalf of
Planned Foods, Inc., (Robert Geary, Sr., Ed Geary, Mary Ann
Chesser, noting that they are all part of the family, and
actually Mr. Geary, Sr., is the parent of Mrs. Studer) He
referred to the following map:
54
L
a
LU
wCO
in
cc a
OC -�
OW
U?
F—
LL
s
Attorney Lloyd pointed out that the portion of this property
next to Ranch Estates and Floral Park is currently zoned CH and
then the eastern portion of the property is IG. This was a part
of the MXD, and his clients had a contract on the 10 acres
immediately adjacent to 56th Avenue, based on being able to place
a warehouse there and a small office in front. This property had
been surveyed and appraised, and these people had talked with the
APR 10 1991
55BooK FIS FADE1184
MAP C
Oftm
V
z
w u�
�
o
N m
in Q
EM ❑
�...f
Attorney Lloyd pointed out that the portion of this property
next to Ranch Estates and Floral Park is currently zoned CH and
then the eastern portion of the property is IG. This was a part
of the MXD, and his clients had a contract on the 10 acres
immediately adjacent to 56th Avenue, based on being able to place
a warehouse there and a small office in front. This property had
been surveyed and appraised, and these people had talked with the
APR 10 1991
55BooK FIS FADE1184
tl 7
BUOK A F -AGE 845
County. He realized this whole thing being addressed today has
been forced on the County. This is a problem all over the state,
but he did feel there has been a mistake made on this property
andda mapping error. The egg farm is to the north of it and runs
significantly to the west of it.
Attorney Lloyd then passed out another map, as follows:
al,�y
._ .
N
4
N
m
Q .
tj
b
pc
m
._ .
N
N
m
C
b
pc
m
Al
v °
Vol?
N
N
m
C
b
pc
m
Al
v °
Vol?
N
Y
•i
Y
..
M
l�
tva
_a I
56
_.
Attorney Lloyd noted that this map covers the portion
running from 49th Avenue to 56th Avenue on the north side of 41st
Street and advised that when his clients first approached the
Planning Department to check on moving towards getting the
warehouses built, they were told the heavy red dotted line coming
through the middle of Mary Chesser's property was where the CLUP
line ended; however, after they took Mr. Loeper out there and
after further study, it was determined that line, on the map on
which the Board had voted, actually had fallen on the solid red
line in the middle of the Studer property. Mr. Lloyd emphasized
that there is an error there somewhere; they can't even read the
maps themselves, and there is no way his clients could have been
on notice. They will not argue notice today, however, but
basically would just ask the Board to change the property back to
where it was - Heavy Commercial and Industrial..
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it is true that staff had
trouble determining between the dotted line and the solid line,
and Planner Loeper commented that he did not know where the
dotted line came from. When he got involved, he determined the
solid bine. He believed there may have been a question initially
regarding exactly where the line was, but the dotted line does
represent the present zoning boundary between the CH and IG.
Chairman Eggert noted that the solid red line goes right
down the center of someone's property, and Planner Loeper
explained that solid line represents the line that is shown on
the adopted Land Use Map, and that line is the one he was refer-
encing earlier when he explained that it had been adjusted to
correct for the Studer property which Attorney Marine was inquir-
ing about.
Attorney Lloyd agreed that solid line now has been moved to
the west to the next black dotted line.
Discussion continued at length as to exactly which dotted
line (red or black) was being referred to, and Chairman Eggert
believed Attorney Lloyd was asking that the property clear over
APR 101 1990 57 &OOK 1 „c b
APR 10 1990
BOOK Ft1GE
to 56th Avenue be returned to what it used to be, which was
confirmed by Attorney Lloyd.
Commissioner Bird clarified that what we are talking about
is changing the designation of that property back to Commercial
and Industrial and then let the zoning remain in place as it was.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to return
the subject property back to the way it was - Heavy
Commercial and Industrial - as described above.
The Corrected Future Land Use Map, including all the correc-
tions agreed to by the Board today, is as follows:
58
-I
TRG TRT TRO
co A -:'I—
A-1
PAD" W-6
49tn bi IRM -6% I
SAMINANXIN�W1 --- --- Masi Ita,
RM -10
SIR
N
RS -6
dam
Tiall.
RMH-8 RM -10
A
Un
t.0
45th ST
.uz
K.K.-
If
am -10 t it
C9
RS -6 -C
RIS -0 41st
Air
WE
CORRECTED
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
CL
CIS
COM/IND
PB
M-2
(area not shaded) K
CH >
-0
SUBJECT
noon AREA 0
f
11
I
I
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
;S
EIS
CD
CD
RS -6
cc
....... ..
"ll ol vtm! -!Kr.
00
C�
45th ST
.uz
K.K.-
If
am -10 t it
C9
RS -6 -C
RIS -0 41st
Air
WE
CORRECTED
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
CL
CIS
COM/IND
PB
M-2
(area not shaded) K
CH >
-0
SUBJECT
noon AREA 0
f
11
I
I
_I
APR 10 1900
�DDr 7.9
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY MANUAL
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following:
.................................................................
To:+ James Chandler, Date: March 30, 1990
County Administrator
From: Jack Price, Personnel Sub: Administrative
�. Policy Manual
I.�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attached is the Administrative Policy Manual unit "HIRING" which
will appear in the Personnel Section of the manual.
This policy has been reviewed by your staff, the Administrative
Assistant to the Board of County Commissioners and the County
Attorney. Their suggestions have been incorporated.
The "Date Effective" at the top of each page reflects the date
of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Please recommend Board approval of this policy.
Commissioner Scurlock had only one question, and that
related to the statement that "Nepotism will not be practiced or
tolerated in employment decisions." He assumed the definition of
"nepotism" is the same as that in the Florida statutes.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that it is in conformance
with state law, and Attorney Vitunac explained that you cannot
hire a relative to work under your direct control.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, a Commis-
sioner's child could work for the Constitutional Officers.
In further discussion it was noted that a department head
can hire a relative of some other department head, but not his
own relative, and Personnel Director Jack Price advised that the
key word is "advocacy." There is no admonition relative to us
hiring the relative of a high ranking official; the statutes
restrict the official from playing an active role in pursuing a
favor for that relative. Nepotism as it relates to us involves
action by the high ranking official, and absent that action,
there is no nepotism.
Commissioner Scurlock next expressed the hope that we are
not necessarily establishing $2,000 as the amount for relocation
60
assistance, and Administrator Chandler clarified that is the
maximum, and it depends on the individual basis.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Administrative Policy Manual unit "HIRING," which
will appear in the Personnel Section of the manual.
COPY OF SAID "HIRING" UNIT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM - GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
OCEANFRONT PARKS
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director•
SUBJECT: Florida Beach Erosion Control Program -
Grant Opportunities for Construction and
Maintenance at County Oceanfront Parks
REF. LETTER: Michael P. Walther to Jim Davis dated 3/26/90
DATE: April 3, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Prior to July 1, 1990, the Florida Department of Natural
Resources will be accepting project construction grant
applications (75% State/25% County Funding)for beach erosion
" control projects to be constructed during FY 91-92.
Staff is of the opinion that the County should apply for
grant funds for the following projects:
'1) Dune walkovers and dune vegetation at Treasure Shores
Park (this project, since it is on state owned land,
may qualify for 100% funding).
2) Dune maintenance and walkovers at Golden Sands Park.
3) Dune Maintenance at Wabasso Beach Park.
BOOK
APR 10 1990 61
-1
COOK 79 PAGE 851
Projects # 2 and # 3 are maintenance projects needed to
place fill along the existing dune escarpment at Wabasso
Beach Park and Golden Sands Park. If this sand is not
replaced, the dune structures could be damaged during a
major storm surge event.
Coastal Technology Corp., Coastal Engineers, Vero Beach, has
submitted the attached proposal to design and prepare grant
applications for the County's submission. The compensation
to the consultant would be not to exceed $2,500, and would
be billed on an hourly basis.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative # 1
Authorize the attached Work Order to the Master
Professional Services Agreement between Indian River
County and Coastal Technology. Since Coastal Tech is
the County's consultant for the Treasure Sh6res Park
DNR FRDAP grant application, the firm is very
knowledgeable of the Treasure Shores site and the
Coastal conditions.
Alternative #.2
Request staff to prepare the applications and proceed
to design the three projects.
RECOMNUMATIONS AND FUNDING
Since Coastal Tech has specialized expertise in coastal
engineering, staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding
not to exceed $2,500 is budgeted in Parks Department Fund
001-210-572-033.13($60,000 budgeted). Once applications are
complete, the Board will consider county funding obligations
when resolutions are presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 as recommended by staff and auth-
orized the Chairman to sign Work Order to the
Master Professional Services Agreement w/Coastal
Technology.
62
COASTAL TECH
COASTAL, STRUCTURA4 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
60020TH PL.. SUITE B, VERO BEACH. FL 3298014071582.8500
31310
March 26, 1990
Mr. Jim Davis, P.E.
i,�. y�✓
Director of Public Works
199,7 To
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
a
Vero Beach, FL 32960
w� ', _ ." q,,
�"�i•.
RE: FLORIDA EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM
C►,
Dear Jim:
Per our discussions, this letter is to provide a proposed scope of
work and fee estimate for engineering services relative to
preparation of an application to the
State of Florida Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) for funds
from the DNR Erosion Control
Program. These services are offered
as a "Work Order" under our
"Master Agreement" dated June 23,
1989. The following is a
proposed scope of work:
SCOPE
In general, the Engineer will prepare a formal application to the
DNR for funds under provisions of Section 161.091, Florida Statues
via the DNR Erosion Control Program for State fiscal year 1991-
1992. The application shall cite the use of funds for the
following construction:
(a) Dune overwalks and dune vegetation not addressed by the
County's Florida Recreational Development and Assistance
Program application for Treasure Shores Park.
(b) Dune :maintenance (via sand placement and vegetation) and
a dune overwalk at Golden Sands Park.
(c) Dune maintenance at Wabasso Beach Park.
The Engineer shall prepare cost estimates for the above
construction. ' The Engineer shall complete the application form
[DNR Form 72-108 (Rev. 8/89)] and attach the following items for
submittal.by the County to the DNR:
(1) A resolution adopted by the County Commission (a draft
resolution will be prepared by the Engineer).
(2) Site plans for each site (as provided by the County and
revised by the Engineer to illustrate improvements not
already shown).
(3) Map showing public access and public vehicular parking
spaces.
(4) Legal descriptions of each site (as provided by the
County) with reference to DNR monuments (as determined
by the Engineer).
Engineering fees are estimated at ........................$ 2,500.
The Engineer shall submit an invoice to the County upon completion
of the work. All services are proposed at the attached Hourly Rate
Schedule.
If you wish us to proceed with these services, then please sign
below and return this letter to us which will then serve as a
"Work Order" and our authorization to Proceed. If you have any
questions, 'please contact me at your convenience.
. Sincerely,
7ich
T TE HNQI�OGY -�OARPORATION
(J(
ael P. Walther, P.E.
President
MPW:lae
Attachment
SIGNED: ,(J rC. - DATE: y /O 90
63
APR 101990 BOOK f9 F'„,E
APR 101990
BOOK f'AGE 85
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY.CORPORATION
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE 2/1/89
TITLE
HOURLY RATE
Principal
$
75.00
.Project Engineer/
Research Associate
•
$
60.00
Staff Engineer
$
55.00
Engineer'Technician
$
35.00
Draftsperson
$
35.00
Clerical
$
30.00
2 -Man Crew
$
55.00
3 -Man Crew
$
65.00
EQUIPMENT
Comp.uter
$
30.00
Jon Boat/Motor
$
50.00/Day
PRINTING CHARGES - per sheet
Blueprints
'(sizes up to and including
24 R 36)
$
2.00
Mylars
$
10.00
Xerox copies
$
.10
DIRECT EXPENSES
Cost X 1.1
SUBCONTRACTED EXPENSES Cost X 1.1
V,
MISCELLANEOUS INTERSECTIONS, PHASE 3-A - (CHANGE ORDER 2 - DENNIS
SMITH, INC.) 6 (CHANGE ORDER 1 - SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION CO.)
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
64
It
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: 1) Change Order No. 2 - Miscellaneous
Intersections Phase 3-A Roadwork -
'Dennis L. Smith, Inc.
2) Change Order No. 1 - Miscellaneous
Intersections Phase 3-A Signalization
Signal Construction Company, Inc.
DATE: April 4, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 24, 1989, the Board awarded a construction
...contract in the amount of $213,683.51 to Dennis L. Smith,
:::Inc. for road widening improvements and a contract in the
amount of $86,340 to Signal Construction Co., Inc. for
,,:.;.signalization for the following intersection improvements:
8th Street at 43rd Avenue
8th Street at 20th Avenue
45th Street at 43rd Avenue
(signalization only)
The design was performed by Lloyd and Associates, Inc. The
construction began Nov. 13, 1989.
Almost immediately, it became apparent that there were
inconsistencies with the contract document bid schedules and
the amount of materials shown to be constructed on the
plans. Change Order No 1 to the Dennis L. Smith, Co.(DLS)
contract was recommended and approved on March 6, 1990
increasing the DLS contract by $6,420 due to changes in
drainage design at 8th Street/43rd Avenue.
At this time, two additional change orders are being sub-
mitted as follows:
Change Order No. 2 to Dennis L. Smith Contract - This
Change Order increases the contract by $35,392.25 for
the following reasons:
1) The Engineer underestimated the quantity for
asphaltic concrete leveling course by 821 tons at
a cost of $31,132.25. This amount would have been
even greater if County staff had not changed the
pavement design during construction at 8th Street/
20th Avenue.
2) The Engineer omitted adjustment of valve boxes on
8th Street/20th Avenue and new valve boxes were
recently installed at 43rd Avenue/8th Street. The
additional cost is $1,000.
3) The Public Works staff changed the slope -of the
road to -reduce asphalt quantities which resulted
in the need for a swale and grassing at a cost of
$2,500.
4) The Engineer omitted driveway replacement at 20th
Avenue/8th Street at a cost of $760.
65
BOOK
BOOK 19 PgE 855
Change Order No. 1 to Signal Construction Co. contract
- This Change Order decreases the contract by
$9,462.50 due to the following:
1) Many items shown on the plans were not included in
the Bid Schedule prepared by the Engineer. Other
bid quantities were inaccurate. Instead of a
Change Order increasing the contract, the Traffic
Engineering Division has elected to perform much
of the work (estimated at $13,000 if contracted to
Signal Construction) with county staff. These
items resulted in a decrease to the contract of
$2,447.50
2) Prior to construction, FPL installed three new
poles that we could joint use. This resulted in a
decrease to the contract of $7,015.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In reviewing the Change Orders, it is evident that the bid
schedules prepared by the Engineer did not reflect
quantities shown on the plans. The alternatives are as
follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve both Change Order No. 2 to the Dennis L.
Smith, Inc. contract increasing the contract amount by
$35,392.25 and Change Order No. 1 to the Signal
Construction Co. contract decreasing the contract
amount by $9,462.50. Since the work is completed and
these change orders have been signed by the Engineer,
the Contractors are entitled to compensation. The
additional funding in the amount of $25,929.75 is
available in Fund 109 - Secondary Road Trust Fund.
Alternative No. 2
Approve both Change Orders as stated in Alternative No.
1, but request the design engineer to participate in
funding the overage. At this time, the Engineer has
been paid $66,765.15. The total engineering contract
amount is $75,491 leaving an unpaid balance of
$8,725.85.
In addition to the inaccurate quantities contained in
the bidding documents, the county staff has had to
rectify drainage and slope conditions at 43rd Avenue/
8th Street and although not yet complete, the slopes
appear too steep at 20th Avenue/8th Street inter-
section. The Public Works staff has had numerous
difficulties on the three projects to date. Three
additional projects under the same contract are still
in the design phase.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
G= Alternative No. 1 is recommended.
attached for approval.
66
A budget amendment is
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 as recommended by staff and author-
ized Change Order No. 2 to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., and
Change Order No. 1 to Signal Construction Co, as set
out above.
(No Budget Amendment was included at this time.)
CHANGE ORDER
NO. 1
DATED March 5, 1990
OWNER'S PROJECT NO. 8906 ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO. 87-656
PROJECT Miscellaneous Intersections Phase III A
OWNER Indian River County
CONTRACTOR Signal Construction CONTRACT DATE 10-24-89
ompany, Inc.
CONTRACT FOR Signalization
NATURE OF THE CHANGE:
1) Change Signal Construction "Notice to Proceed' date from
November 13, 1989 to date of completion of 8th Street and
43rd Avenue paving and drainage improvements portion of
Project No. 8906. Estimate new date to be March 12, 1990.
2) See attached list of changes which are required to:
a) Correct discrepancies between the original
Schedule of Bid Items and the Plan Sheets for:
8th Street/20th Avenue; 8th Street/43rd Avenue;
' and 45th Street/43rd Avenue, and
b) To accommodate Florida Power & Light recommendations
for location of power supply to*controller cabinets, and
c) To correct other quantities, and
.d) To indicate items to be furnished and installed by the
owner.
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract price
and Time:
Original Contract Price
Contract Adjugtment by previous Change Orders
Net ()(Decrease) resulting from this
Change Order
Current Price Including This Change Order
67
$ 86,340.00
$ -0-
$ 9,462.50
$ 76,877.50
BOOK N�,r.
APR 101990
rv�
BOOK . %� F'AF. 85," �
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order 180
Calendar Days
Net (Increase) (Decrease) resulting from
this Change Order -0'
Calendar Days
Current Contract time including this
Change Order 180 Calendar Days
The above changes are approved:
The above changes are accepted:
�!na'wi RNo C%
Approved Dale
Admin.
Leg31
bo
I Dept
5 C
CRISK M.9r.
F
By: —JUM Fic _I 0 MKj z
Date: — D
C
By: SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.
Title:_ Vr�-)c
Date: �3
ACCEPTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Chairman
• Date
CHANGE ORDER
• (Instructions on reverse side) No. 2 k
PROJECT: MISCELLANEOUS INTERSECTIONS DATE OFISSUANCE: 3-30-90
PHASE III A
-v. OWNER:. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(Name, 1840 25TH . ST. s .
Address) VERO BEACH, FL 32960
S.
CONTRACTOR: DENNIS L. SMITH, INC. OWNER's Project No. 8906
P.O. BOX 2945
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-2954 ENGINEER: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
20TH STREET
CONTRACT FOR: INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 1835 1835BEACH, FL 32960
@ 8TH ST. & 20TH AVE., 8TH ST. & VERO
43RD AVE. & 45TH ST. & 43RD AVE. ENGINEER's Project No. 87-656
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Description: SEE ATTACHMENTS
Purpose of Change Order. ADDITIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS TO COMPLETE JOB.
Attachments: (List documents supporting change)
68
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price
$ 213,683.51
Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No. "--
$ 6,420.00
Contract Price prior to this Change Order
$ 220,103.51
Net Increase (decrease) of this Change Order
$ 35,392.25
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders
$ 255,495.76
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
Original Contract Time
days or date
Net change from previous Change Orders
days
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order
days or date
Net Increase (decrease) of this Change Order
days
Contract Time with all approved Change Orders
Unman River Fs I Approved I Dais I
or
APPROVED: APPROVE OD udgat
Dept.
by oma« by
i
� 4 - �D
SLUDGE/SEPTAGE FACILITY
Utilities Director Pinto made the following presentation:
DATE: MARCH 29, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR/
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO����C
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED
AND STAFFED HARRY E. ASHER
BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SLUDGE/SEPTAGE FACILITY
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 1988, Indian River County received a grant in the
amount of $1,836,570.00 from the DER/EPA to construct a
sludge/septage facility for Indian River County including capacity
for the City of Vero Beach. The Board of County Commissioners
authorized the Department to proceed with the design and required
rate study to fund the facility. On.September 27, 1989, after the
...design and the initial rate study had been completed by Camp Dresser
--and McKee, Inc., the City of Vero Beach advised Indian River County
:. that they were declining to participate in the facility. On October
5, 1989, Indian River County through its Consultant, Camp Dresser
and McKee, Inc., advised the DER/EPA of the City's decision and
requested their comments as to the impact of that decision on the
grant. On November 16, 1989, the Department of Utility Services
staff, and their Consultant,, met with DER in Tallahassee and
discussed the City of Vero Beach's decision to withdraw from the
proposed regional program. The DER advised the following:
69 BOO!(
APR 10199U
BOOK S Mu 8 39
(1) That a Public Meeting must be held to discuss the revised
project.
(2) As set forth in the Grant. Agreement, an inter -local
agreement will be necessary in order to obtain grant
funding for any Vero Beach sludge/septage handling
capacity.
(3) The withdrawal by the City of Vero Beach would result in a
grant eligibility reduction from 60.1% to 43.50.
(4) The decision of the City of Vero Beach not to participate
does not relieve the County of the project schedule
requirements,.and that the County should proceed without
further delay.
:�'.. On December 21, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners held a
special called meeting to comply with DER requirements and to
.discuss Vero Beach's withdrawal from participation in the project.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. presented the current status of the
project to the Board as presented by DER. Camp Dresser and McKee,
Inc., presented a projected time schedule to bring the project to
construction. The Board of County Commissioners directed the
Department to proceed with the time chart as established and to make
contacts with the City of Vero Beach and Brevard County in an
attempt to enlist their participation. The Department has met with
the City staff and has drafted, at the City's request, a proposed
inter -local agreement for septage handling capacity only.
The original construction cost estimate for the facility, including
the City of Vero Beach sludge/septage capacity, was $5,800,000.00.
The projected construction cost deleting sludge capacity for the
City, but providing septage capacity, is estimated at $5,200,000.00.
ANALYSIS
Due to the delays caused by the City's withdrawal from the initial
project, Indian River County could not comply with the original
Grant Agreement time schedule for bidding. Therefore, Indian River
County is losing a percentage of the grant funds, equal to the
increaee it the ENR Construction Index, after the original bid date
-for bidding of the project. The City's withdrawal from
participation in the sludge portion of the project also has
necessitated a redesign of that part of the project. In its effort
to move forward with the.,project without further delay, the
Department of Utility Services -has negotiated the attached Work
Authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., Consulting
Engineers. The Work Authorization provides for the following
services:
Redesign Services $66,509.00.
Services during the Bidding Process 29,011.00
Special Services which provide the Rate
Analysis, Rate Implementation, and
preparation of an Engineer's Report for
a Bond Official Statement. 44,132.00
Funds for these services will be paid from 472-000-169-057.00 until
the final funding from the EPA Grant and a Bond Issue are obtained.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services
of County Commissioners of the
provide the specific services, and
Agreement.
70
recommends approval by the Board
attached Work Authorization to
the authorization to execute the
® � r
Commissioner Scurlock felt there are some questions that
need to be clarified for the Commission. One is why we designed
the original facility to include the City of Vero Beach, and
another relates to the additional rate implementation and to the
preparation of an engineering report - was that included in the
original request for proposal?
Director Pinto explained that when we proposed the project,
it was proposed based on the 201 Facility Plan, and the City of
Vero Beach is in the 201 Facility Plan as being part of that
watershed. We went to the City of Vero Beach, and they gave us a
letter of intent to be part of the system but have since backed
out. We proceeded based on their letter and since they were part
of the 201 Facility Plan. Removing themselves not only removes
them from our sludge facility, but says they will not comply with
the approved 201 Facility Plan, which really negates any further
grants or loans from the government for their facility.
Chairman Eggert inquired if we are going to ask them again
if this is what they are sure they want to do, and Administrator
Chandler advised that staff is still working with the City on the
septage agreement and hopes to know in a week or 2 if that will
be resolved or not.
Chairman Eggert commented that from conversations with some
of the members of the City Council, including the Mayor, they
seemed to not quite understand what the process is with sludge
and septage, and although she realizes the clock is ticking, she
thought a workshop might be helpful. Possibly if we give them
the information again, the result might be different.
Director Pinto wished to make it clear to the Board that he
would suggest that we proceed immediately, even with the
redesign,
and
if,
at
the
same
time, we
want
to
talk with
the
City, go
ahead
and
do
it.
He
stressed
that
we
already are being
penalized and our grant is being reduced not only because of the
City backing out, but because the project is behind schedule.
71 BOOK F.1GE
AIPR 10 1990
APR 10199® BOOK l'g P;: UE 86
Chairman Eggert believed we are designed for the larger
plant, and Director Pinto emphasized that he is suggesting that
we
go ahead
and
do
the
redesign,
and then
if the City does want
to
come back
in,
we
can
use the
original
design.
Commissioner Bowman commented that apparently a letter of
intent has no validity.
Commissioner Scurlock recapped that what we have seen is
that the City of Vero Beach decided to opt out of a 201 Facility
Plan that was approved by the EPA and DER. The City gave us a
letter of intent to participate in that program; they have
reneged on that and now wish to pursue only as to septage; and we
have had that on-going negotiation. The City feels it is to
their benefit to go ahead and handle their own sludge. They will
be participating as to septage if, in fact, they sign the agree-
ment. He believed the real fact of the matter is that if they
sign no agreement, they will be participating in the septage
portion because the bottom line is that at some time they are
going to show up at the gate and the County is going to have to
make some provision to treat that septage. When that happens,
there will have to be a fee established. Concurrently with that,
as we move forward into the future, what you are allowed to do
with sludge may or may not change. He personally felt that at
some point in time, the City will be looking to participate in
our facility, and then there will be a cost to participate based
on the market conditions at that time.
Discussion ensued as to how the City will handle their
sludge now and in the future, and Director Pinto expressed his
confidence in our plans for the future. He noted that we went
through this same thing when we built our water plant and chose
R.O. We were criticized for using the R.O., and now you see the
Citylof Vero Beach is building an R.O. plant. We think we are on
target and doing the right thing, but we have to move on it.
Commissioner Bowman still suggested that we have another
workshop and give the City one more chance.
72
M
Director Pinto agreed that we can do that, but urged that
the Board doesn't let that hold us up as time is of the essence.
Further discussion ensued regarding setting up a workshop
with the City. Commissioner Scurlock expressed his belief that
if the City Council wanted to know more about it, they would
request a workshop.
It was generally agreed to leave it that the City of Vero
Beach should let us know if they are desirous of a workshop.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Work
Authorization with Camp Dresser S McKee, Inc., to
provide the services described in the above memo
dated March 29, 1990.
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION
u
DATE: March 26., 1990
COUNTY NO. US88075L
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. CDM PROJECT NO. 6706-17
(CONSULTANT)
Consulting engineering services related to the redesign, bidding,
construction and implementation of the Regional Sludge Facility to be
located adjacent to the Gifford Wastewater Treatment Plant.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Master Agreement for Utilities Service"
dated November 1, 1988, the attached Scope of Services, and the
attached Project Budgets revised through negotiations with Indian
River County staff. Sections I through XVIX of the Master Agreement
and specific Article numbers and paragraph Aumbers listed hereunder
describe the Scope of Services included on the project.
A. Re -Design Services per Master Agreement
T -Fie Engineer wiII redesign the regional sludge/septage facility
to reduce its capacity based on the City of Vero Beach's
non=participation. Additionally, the Engineer will submit the
re=design to the regulatory agencies for their review concerning
permitting and funding.
B. Services During Bidding per Master Agreement
Tff Engineer wilesass'i`st in obtaining bids, respond to Contrac-
tor's questions and prepare Addenda as required; attend the bid
opening, tabulate bids, review bids for conformance with contract
documents, recommend award and prepare contract documents for
execution.
C. Special Services per Master Agreement
The Engineer will provide assistance in rate analysis and rate
implementation with respect to sludge, septage and grease user
charges. Prepare an Engineer's Report for a Bond Official
S-tatement.
73 a~
APR 10 1990 BOOK ' l �,�;,t
APR 101990 Boa: a F'a.H860-1
III. CONSULTANT ENGINEER INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with Florida
Statutes.
B. Comprehensive and Automotive Liability with:a minimum coverage of
$100,000/$300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or accidental
death.
C. Comprehensive General Liability with a minimum limit of
$100,000/$300,000 covering property damage.
D. Liability for Property Damage, while operating motor vehicle,
with minimum limits of $100,000 per occurrence.
E. Contractual Liability including limits established for Items
IIIB., Ci., and D above.
F. Umbrella coverage, Excess Liability with minimum limits of
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
IV. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
Cost Element #1 - $ 66,509
Cost Element #2 - $ 29,011
Cost Element #3 - $ 44,132
For the Basic Services performed under Section I, the Owner agrees to
pay the Engineer a cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) amount not to exceed
$139,652.00.
The CPFF amount shall consist of all direct and indirect costs as
described below incurred in or directly attributable to the perform-
ance of the services plus a fixed fee.
A. Direct Costs
1. Direct Labor Cost. The Engineer shall be compensated for the
services o its personnel on the basis of direct labor cost
(chargeable salaries without fringe benefits) as incurred by
the Engineer's personnel for the time such personnel are
directly utilized on the work. The salaries of any personnel
assigned are subject to modification by the Engineer through-
out the term of this Agreement as part of scheduled company-
wide personnel evaluation.
2. Travel Expenses and Subsistence. The Engineer shall be paid
actual costs of travel expenses including air fare, automo-
bile rental, if required, mileage charges, parking, tolls,
and taxi, lodging, and subsistence where such expenses are
directly related to the performance of the work.
3. Other Incidental Direct Costs. The cost of other services as
may be required hereunder, --but which are not normally in-
cluded as part of the overhead of the Engineer, shall be re-
imbursed to the Engineer. Such other services as required to
complete this Agreement may include but are not limited to
the following: computer/program and word processor charges,
printing costs, reproduction costs, telephone and telegraph
costs, laboratory analysis charges, field equipment rental
charges, mailing, shipping costs and special equipment pro-
. curement .
4. For work done by subcontractor or consultants, at the actual
cost to the Engineer of such services.
B. Indirect Costs
Overhead and Fringe Benefits. In addition to the payments as
hereffibefore Provided, t e Owner agrees to pay to the Engineer a
charge for overhead and fringe benefits (expressed as a factor
times direct labor costs) incurred by the Engineer during the
74
M
life of this Agreement. The indirect cost rate factor shall be
one hundred and seventy-five and eight -tenths percent (175.8%) of
all direct labor costs of employees of the Engineer. This over-
head factor shall be subject to review by EPA and revised if
necessary as a result of the review. If revised, the revised
overhead factor shall be used on succeeding monthly billings.
C. Fixed Fee
The Owner agrees to pay the Engineer a fixed fee of $16,084.00
and to make monthly partial payments of the fixed fee in propor-
tion to the cost of services rendered. The entire fixed fee will
be -due to the Engineer whether or not the direct and indirect
costs estimates are reached.
SUBMITTED BY:
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC.
(Consultant)
By
Donald G. Munks
vice President
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By L �.
Carolyn ly. Eggert
Chairrept ld
DATE:
90
DATE: !J�—
/0
— 9�
ORIGINAL ON
FILE, INCLUDING
SCOPE OF SERVICES,
IN
THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
Commissioner Wheeler left the meeting at 12:20 o'clock P.M.
PROPERTY PURCHASE FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH COUNTY WATER PLANT
Commissioner Bird advised that his firm has an exclusive
listing on the property being considered. He explained that he
had a sign on the property, and county staff contacted him for
information on the property. He thereupon declared a conflict of
interest, filed the following disclosure form with the Deputy
Clerk, and left the Chambers.
75 BOOK A F 0_1L 01
APR 10 1990 1 1-861
APR 10 190
BOOKfru 865
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST
hereby disclose that on
19 7Q
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
, by whom 1 am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
/ /-c / 6. .
f
Date Filed
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
The Board reviewed memo and map as follows:
76
f
DATE:
TO:
MARCH 30, 1990
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM1i
F. M
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJE G
BY: DEPARTMENT OF TY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPERTY PURCHASE FOR THE PROPOSED NORTH COUNTY
WATER PLANT
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 1990, the Board of County -Commissioners approved an
agenda item allowing the Utilities Department to investigate
suitable locations for the North County Water Treatment Plant. This
was necessitated by the inability to locate the plant per our master
plan on park property.
ANALYSIS
After consideration of the pertinent factors governing the location
of the plant, such as:
1) Proximity of a discharge point for the brine waste line
2) Size of property, in close proximity to Hobart Park so
that public lands could be utilized for the well field
3) Accessibility of the site to the proposed service area
4) Ability to buffer the site from any surrounding residential
property
5) Property cost - either impact fees will be used for the
purchase, or we will sell existing property owned by the
Utilities Department to finance the purchase
we wish to pursue the purchase of a 10 -acre site (approximate size)
on the northwest corner of King's Highway and Hobart Road. The
staff of the Utilities Department feels this site best suits our
needs. (See attached exhibit.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the following two actions:
1) Have an appraisal done on the subject property.
2) Proceed with negotiations to purchase this property.
77
BOOK
Boor, 1 0 P',n 86,7
'
1 W CAVA
•
I
1 TA°IO�Ot►O° •
1
• " 1
I 0 1
0
HOBART ROAD K 77th ST.
os COAL \ 1
r
° rvWmd •
�
\
rFEW
►•tdlpei ' •
r � \
Y \ 1
----as CANAL - - - - --
a 1
. 3 r
0 PLANT
it SITE
•
800 0 600 120011 ° 1
•
r •
SCALE IN FEET 1
r '
4 CANAL NORTH WINTER BENCH RDAD 1169th ST..
•
R
�u
oil
I
CONCEPTUAL WELL LOCATIONS
XHO
HOBART PART
P41
Chairman Eggert had a question because on the map there
seems to be a lake on the property but the information provided
says the property is high and dry.
Engineer William McCain advised that the field investigation
of the property has shown no lake; there is a small retention -
type pond. He believed the lake actually is on county -owned park
property.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we have another issue in-
volved in this. We had an original master plan with a site
proposed by Boyle, which site he pointed out on the map. His
question is that we have an on-going issue about that cemetery
property, and he is concerned why we would not look at that
78
particular site which would be no cost to the County; it would
also eliminate the problem of the cemetery using the facility;
and you would not have to run lines for wellfields across the
golf course because they could run down the property Line.
Attorney Vitunac explained the reason we are trying to get
the cemetery back is because the land is restricted by a clause
that it has to be used for P&R purposes. He noted that he wrote
a legal opinion that we could use the park property for a loca-
tion for the wastewater plant because the effluent was used on
the golf course, but there is also an opinion by him that the
water plant has no special use for the park more than for any
other land.
Commissioner Scurlock felt possibly we could proceed with
the state to release it for public purposes as opposed to a
private cemetery, and Attorney Vitunac agreed that approach could
be tried.
Utilities Director Pinto noted that staff looked at various
properties and came up with the 3 alternatives, one of which is
the piece that was in the original master plan. There are some
inherent problems with that piece; it is not so much running the
line out along the property line as running it to where you end
up placing the wells, and another fairly major concern is that
the brine discharge has to be sent to an area that will be
permittable, and with this piece, it is more difficult to get to
that area.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we paid a lot of money for
the master plan and wished to know why Boyle thought it would be
a good site when they outlined it in the plan.
Director Pinto explained that the master plan chose the
general area; staff looked at available pieces; and at the time,
that was an available piece of ground. He stressed that they
have looked at 3 sites intensely and have looked at the overall
area.
79
c -a
BOOK
APR 101990 BOOK 79 pr,;E
Attorney Vitunac interjected that actually we are not trying
to get the cemetery land released, we have to buy other land and
swap for it.
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that we hope to
have a determination this week from CIBA-Geigy. We have options
up through the end of this month on about 40 acres west of King's
Highway.
Discussion continued about the 3 sites that were looked at,
and Chairman Eggert commented that her understanding had been
that if we were to purchase the CIBA-Geigy site, that could be
declared recreational and part of the Hobart land could be
declared unrecreational and be used, and Commissioner Scurlock
stated that was exactly what his proposal was - to look at
acquisition of the CIBA-Geigy property and we would take that
into future plans for the development of the golf course; we
would contact the state and get them to release a like amount of
public property that has deed restrictions on it; and, therefore,
we get a free piece of property that we could build a plant on.
Director Pinto emphasized that what staff is saying is that
what is proposed is the location we like best; however, if the
Park wants to deed us some land in that same area, that would be
fine.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss the possibility
of a swap of properties and did not see why the state would not
trade a 10 acre site for a 40 acre site.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that we are pursuing the 40
acres from CIBA-Geigy to square off the Park property, and
Commissioner Scurlock asked why we have not pursued the option he
is talking about to get a site for the water plant.
Chairman Eggert suggested that we table this matter until we
can hear about the CIBA-Geigy property.
Director Pinto asked if we could do both things, pursue what
has been discussed, but in the meantime give him authorization to
talk with the owners of the property he proposed about price.
80
_ M M
Commissioner Scurlock did not have any problem with talking
to those owners, but stressed that he was concerned that the
Motion he originally made in regard to looking at trading that
piece of property for county park land has not been pursued.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to proceed to
look in a more in-depth fashion at what Mr: Pinto has
proposed, but also direct staff to get with the state
and look at the possibility of park land being available
under the concept he has proposed.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he wanted Attorney Vitunac
to contact the state in this regard.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3-0, Commissioner
Wheeler having left the meeting and Commissioner
Bird having declared a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Bird returned to the meeting.
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (FINAL PAYMENT)
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities staff:
BOOK AFAE O
APR 1 1990 81
DATE:
TO:
THRU :_
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
_; BACKGROUND
BOOK 9 PAGE 8 I 1
MARCH 30, 1990
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO,
DIRECTOR OF UTIL ERVICES
JOHN F. LANG /
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL PAYMENT
The Vista Royale project was awarded November 14, 1989, and the
Notice to Proceed was issued and dated December 20, 1989. The
project had ten days of delays associated with weather. One change
order was issued for similar work at the County Grove. The project
,.::was substantially complete as of March 5, 1990, and 10% retainage
was held for work to be completed on the sand filters and static
screen.
ANALYSIS
All work has been completed, including touch-up of paint work and
site cleanup.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends to the Board of County
Commissioners to authorize the final payment to the contractor in
the amount of $13,436.00 from Account No. 472-000-169-073.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Wheeler having left
the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
final payment to Allen's Environmental Equipment in
the amount of $13,436 as recommended by staff.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT W/OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES (SEWER FORCE MAIN)
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer McCain:
82
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
APRIL 2, 1990
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS EG, ER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTIL T S
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES
FOR A SEWER FORCE MAIN TO BE INSTALLED ON OSLO ROAD
;o BACKGROUND
..:..The above -listed developer wishes to build a shopping center at the
-•=northwest corner of 27th Avenue and Oslo Road. The developer also
• requires sewer service at his proposed facility. To this end, we
wish to enter into a developer's agreement for the construction of a
::Regional Lift Station on.the project site, as well as a Force Main
-:-on Oslo Road to serve the surrounding area.
CY: _
"ANALYSIS
In keeping with our wastewater master plan, an 8 inch line will be
required on Oslo Road. The line will run from 27th Avenue to
Lateral J,•where it will proceed north and temporarily tie into the
Whispering Palms Lift Station. For details of the agreement, see
the attached developer's agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached _developer's
agreement with Oslo Plaza Associates.
Chairman Eggert wished to know just what this development is
as they don't seem to know about it in. Planning.
Administrator Chandler believed they have made some prelimi-
nary submissions to Planning but there has been no formal review
as yet.
Utilities Director Pinto felt that without this capacity,
they probably wouldn't be pursuing developing. Whether they get
their project approved or not, if they want to go ahead under
these terms, it is a crucial expansion for us, and he would
recommend approval of the agreement.
APR 10 1990 83 BOOK Fri F.
_I
BOOK 79 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Wheeler having left
the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Developer's Agreement with Oslo Plaza Associates.
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND
OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES
Granting reimbursements for oversizing certain
offsite utilities required by the County
THIS AGREEMENT made this 10th day of April
1990, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960,
(County), and Oslo Plaza Associates (Developer);
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Developer, in conjunction with the construction of
Oslo Square Shopping Center, is extending offsite sewer facilities
to serve the subject project; and
WHEREAS, the County has required the Developer to oversize the
offsite utility improvements to serve the regional area and has
agreed to reimburse the Developer for the cost of.oversizing these
offsite utilities;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
other good and valuable consideration, the County and the Developer
agree as follows:
1. The Developer shall construct all necessary offsite
utilities, including oversizing necessary to serve
the subject project and surrounding area.. The County
and the Developer are in agreement as to compensation
for the oversizing of offsite utilities and impact -
fees as outlined below:
2. The Developer will be responsible for h maximum
$135,000.00 contribution towards the construction of
the pumping station and force -main system.
84
r
3. The Developer will be responsible for all impact fees
based upon the proposed project uses.
4. The Developer will be responsible for contracting with
a utility contractor to implement the construction of
the pumping station and force main system to the exist-
ing County pumping station.at Oslo Square Shopping
Center. The Developer will be reimbursed by Indian
River County for all construction costs for the pumping
station and force main system to County facilities
exceeding the sum of $135,000.00 plus Phase I impact
fees. The contract amount and the Utility Contractor
must be approved by the Director of the Department of
Utility Services.
5. The Developer will be responsible for all engineering
expenses related to the design of the pumping.station/
force main system to County facilities; however, the
County will provide the Developer with: 1) the location
of the pumping station on-site; 2) the force main size;
3) selection of pumps and 4) the conceptual routing of
the project from the shopping center site to the County's
existing pumping station.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Developer have caused
these presents to be executed in their name the day and year first
above written.
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
APR 10 lo,
OSLO SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
BY
Tim Slat
C/O Oslo Plaza Associates
319 Monroe Drive
West Palm Beach,.FL 33405
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY U
Caroly Eggert
Chairm n
^� Approved r Utili Matters:
illl 41/1 {
Terrance G. Pinto, Director
85 Department ofUti ty S rJvices
BOOK F,1GE
F3
SPR 10 IS90
BOOK 79 PAGE 875
5
NORTH COUNTY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS
The Board reviewed the following memo:
DATE: MARCH 30, .1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINXOi
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JOHN F. LANG
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL PECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER MAIN
EXTENSIONS
BACKGROUND `
The Department of Utility Services has a number of franchise and
purchased water treatment plants north of 65th Street, in addition
to the privately operated facilities. The South County Water
Treatment Plant Expansion Project (UW -89 -07 -WC) will provide excess
capacity initially for the South Region.
The Department proposes a water main extension in three phases to
link these small package facilities together and then to eliminate
them in the North Region. The plants to be affected are:
Sandridge Golf Course KOA
Hobart Park Park Place
Wabasso School New Horizons
Breezy Village Aspen Whispering Palms I & II
Pelican Pointe GDU Pipeline to River Run,
Reflections on the River
Phase I construction would link the Breezy Village, Park Place, and
Pelican Pointe Water Treatment Plants with an estimated cost of
$350,000.00. Phase II construction would start at 65th Street and
58th Avenue, proceed north to S.R. 510, east to U.S. #1, and then
north and connect to Phase I. Phase II has been estimated at
$1,1007000.00. Phase III construction would start at north
termination of Phase I and proceed north on both sides of U.S. #1 to
Schumann Drive and River Run respectively. The estimated costs
associated with Phase III are $800,000.00. A fourth phase to be
constructed in conjunction with the North County Water Treatment
Plant would consist of constructing water mains on U.S. #1 east
right-of-way from S.R. 510, south to connect at 49th Street.
ANALYSIS
All water mains in the four phases would consist of master plan
;` sized mains. The linking of the Breezy Village, Park Place, and
.Pelican Pointe Water Treatment Plants would eliminate the
possibility of water outages due to plant failures. The Phase II
..and III constructions would place large mains in right-of-ways prior
to additional development, as well as to allow elimination of the
listed package plants. Phase I financing would be from impact fees
on an interim basis ultimately to be included in a bond issue to
finance Phase I through IV and a North County R.O. Plant.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners conceptually approve the North County
Distribution System Water Main Extension Project and authorize
negotiations with engineering firms for design of Phases I.- III.
86
Commissioner Scurlock felt there needs to be a clarification
in the memo where it talks about negotiations with engineering
firms. He explained that actually we have done an RFP; there
have been 13 responses; and we are in the process of short
listing. It is not negotiation; it is a competitive request for
proposal process.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the North County Distribution System Water Main
Extension Project and authorized negotiations with
engineering firms for design of Phases I - III.
SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUIT REGARDING PROPERTY ON 6TH AVENUE
Asst. County Attorney Collins informed the Board that the
owner of the subject property, who is being foreclosed on, deeded
us a 5' strip of R/W on 6th Avenue. The bank that is doing the
foreclosing on the mortgaged property included us in the suit
because we were deeded the 51. The bank has offered to execute a
partial release of the mortgage over the 5' that was dedicated to
us if we agree we will never convey that 5' to a third party,
which could affect the access to the property. They also ask us
to indemnify and hold them harmless in the event we ever do
convey it to a third party.
Attorney Collins advised that it looks to him to be an easy
way out of a lawsuit and he would recommend we accept settlement,
which can be accomplished by authorizing him to sign a
Stipulation on behalf of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
Attorney Collins to sign the Stipulation described
above.
APR 1 01990 87 BOOK 79 PACE 876
BARNETT BANK OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
a Florida banking corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT L. GALES and CAROL R. GALES,
his wife; INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State
of Florida; et al.,
Defendants.
�ooK 79 PA�r 87 d
IN THE CIRC( .OURT OF THE NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCb.i IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 90-0052 CA 09
JUDGE: VOCELLE
STIPULATION
Plaintiff, BARNETT BANK OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a Florida banking
corporation, and Co -Defendant, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, stipulate as follows:
1. On January 23, 1987, Defendant mortgagors, SCOTT L. GALES and CAROL
R. GALES, executed and delivered to Co -Defendant, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a warranty
deed conveying the easternmost five feet of the real property foreclosed upon
in this action. The warranty deed was recorded at Official Record Book 758, page
1104, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida, and specifically
conveyed to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY:
The East 5 feet of the following described property lying parallel
to the Westerly right-of-way of 6th Avenue:
The North 166.50 feet of the East 535.00 feet of the North J of the
SE $ of the NE I of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
less and except the East 35 feet thereof.
2. The real property conveyed by Co -Defendants, SCOTT L. GALES and
CAROL R. GALES, as mortgagors to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY as specifically described
in the aforementioned deed was subject to mortgages and subsequent modifications
thereof made by Co -Defendants, SCOTT L. GALES and CAROL R. GALES, in favor of
Plaintiff as mortgagee. Plaintiff's mortgages and modifications thereto are
more fully set forth and described in the Amended Complaint filed herein.
3. Plaintiff and Co -Defendant, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, acknowledge and
agree that if INDIAN RIVER COUNTY abandons transfers, conveys, or otherwise
disposes of the \ al property conveyed by Co -De( :ants, SCOTT L. GALES and
CAROL R. GALES, to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY in that certain warranty deed recorded
at Official Record Book 758, page 1104 of the public records of Indian River
County, owner(s) or mortgagee(s), or both, of the mortgaged real property (less
the real property conveyed by Co -Defendants GALES to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY) shall
88
M
I
have ingress, egress, and access from the mortgaged property to the public �f
right-of-way presently described as 6th Avenue. I
4. If Co -Defendant, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, abandons, transfers, conveys,
or otherwise disposes of the real property conveyed by Co -Defendants, SCOTT L.
GALES and CAROL R. GALES, to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, in that certain warranty deed
recorded at Official Record Book 758, page 1104 of the public records of Indian
River County, to any person or entity, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, agrees to indemnify,
defend, and hold harmless any owner(s) or mortgagee(s), or both, of the real
property (less the real property conveyed by Co -Defendants GALES to INDIAN RIVER
i
COUNTY), from any loss, damage, or injury resulting from any such abandonment, i
transfer, conveyance, or disposition of the real property.
5. In return, Plaintiff agrees to partially release its mortgage liens j
from the subject real property owned by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY and further agrees
to a partial dissolution of the amended notice of lis pendens on the subject
real property owned by Co -Defendant, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
6. Plaintiff and Co -Defendant, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, agree to execute
any instruments necessary to effectuate the foregoing terms and conditions and
further agree to the entry of court orders regarding the same.
BARNETT BANK 0 INDI VER COUNTY
DATED: April l 3 1990 By:
Robert C. Na Esq.
Attorney for Plainti f
DATED: April 1(21— , 1990
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
p
B)G„�'a�C
y:
William G. Collins, II
Assistant County Attorney
HOUSE BILL 2981 REGARDING MEDICAID CERTIFICATION BY HRS
Chairman Eggert reviewed the following memo from Welfare
Director Joyce Johnston:
89
BOOK I � F.3;F8 79
TO: COMM. earolyn Eggert DATE: "ril 9, 1990 FILE:
SUBJECT: House Bill 2981
Amending s.409.267, FS
Joyce M. Johnsto
FROM: Director of Welfar REFERENCES:
HOUSE SUMMARY: With respect to county contributions to the medical
assistance program:
1. Provides a procedure- for adjustment by the Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services of disputed balances.
2. Authorizes the department to assess interest at the rate of 1
percent per month on balances more than 30 days overdue.
3. Provides procedures and timeframe for payment of such interest by
the county.
The affected dollar amount on Indian River County would have been
$47,601.43 since October 1, 1990. As the Statute is now: H. R.S. is
responsible for the certification of county residents for medicaid and sending
the monthly bill. County is responsible for the verification of accuracy and
payment of county share of billing within 30 days. This provides a very
good check and balance system.
With this amendment, the County would no longer have the responsibility to
verify residency. Payment will be made in full. Request for adjustment will
be made to HRS and they will decide if their errors should be corrected. If
they agree, the County will be credited the next month for the overpayment,
the average monthly over -payment being approximately $9,500.00.
Chairman Eggert pointed out the dangers of having the
procedure set up so that HRS will be the party that will decide
if their errors should be corrected, and asked that the Board
protest House Bill 2981 amending s.409.267, FS.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) author-
ized the Chairman to write a letter expressing our
opposition to House Bill 2981.
Said letter is as follows:
90
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
April 16, 1990
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Gregory L. Coler, Secretary
Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative
Services
1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Coler:
Suncom Telephone: 224-1011
House Bill 2981 amending S409.267,FS has been brought to the
attention of the Board 'of County Commissioners of Indian River
County.
With respect to County contributions to the medical assistance
program, the bill:
1. Provides a procedure for adjustment by the Department
of Health. and Rehabilitative Services of disputed
balances;
2. Authorizes the department to assess interest at a rate
of 1 percent per month on balances more than 30 days
overdue;
3. Provides procedures and time frames for payment of such
interest by the County.
The affected dollar amount on Indian River County would have been
$47,601.43 from October 1, 1989 through February 28, 1990. As
the Statute is now: HRS is responsible for certification for
medicaid and sending the monthly bill. The County is responsible
for the verification of accuracy of residential status and
payment of the County share of billing within 30 days. This
provides a very good check and balance system.
With this amendment, the County would no longer have the
responsibility to verify residency. Payment will be made in
full. Request•for adjustment will be made to HRS, and they will
decide if their errors should be corrected. If they agree, the
County will be credited the next month for the overpayment.
Based on current figures, our average monthly overpayments would
be approximately $9500.00.
The Board of County Commissioners protests this change and wishes
to continue with the current Statute. To add to our frustration,
we have just heard that the April HRS billing for the whole
State of Florida is incorrect and must be redone. This lowers
our confidence in this system suggested by the amendment all the
more. The County does not need this extra burden of payment.
Please do all you can to defeat this amendment.
Sincerely, '/
Carolyn K.JEgg �j�, •-
Chairman 9 BOOK FnE sd,
APR 1 X990
B®QK,r6 9 Fn- 8SI
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL_ DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those
Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:32 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
----a
Clerk hairman
TV
92