HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/1990BOARS ACTION 1s IMPLEMENTATION
".., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
L,! -i jA J t'. ; REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 12 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn R. 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 R. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1. ICALL TO ORDER
•2. INVOCATION - none
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
NONE
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular
APPROVED. Meeting of 5/1/90
APPROVED AS B. Approval of Minutes of Regular
AMENDED. Meeting of 5/8/90
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Res. 90-76 adopted.
Approved-.
Approved.
Request staff to workshop
this item & bring back at a
future date.
Approved.
JUN 12 1990
A. Resolution - Release of Easement,
Harry & Olive Perrin, Lots 3 & 4,
Block 7, Roseland Gardens Subdivision
(Memorandum dated 5/23/90)
B. C.O.#1, CLSI, Library Automation
Contract
(Memorandum dated 5/29/90)
C. Release of County Utility Liens
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
D. Approval to Advertise for Public
Hearing for Grease Trap (Pollutant
Interceptor) Ordinance
(Memorandum dated 5/25/90)
E. Final"Plat Approval for Old Sugar
Mill Estates, Unit 7, Subdivision
(Memorandum dated 6/5/90)
BOON
✓� fret � � '� �.
JON 12,1990
BOOK
8. F
6.
CONSENT AGENDA = CONTINUED
F. Budget Amendment 063, Unemployment
Approved.
Compensation
(Memorandum dated 6/5/90)
G. Budget Amendment for Building
Approved.
Department
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
Approved.
H. IRC Bid 90-76, Re -roofing Admin.
Building
(Memorandum dated 6/5/90)
Approved.
I. Approval of Renewal of Indian
River Shores EMS ALS Certificate
of Public Convenience and
Necessity
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
7.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Jeff Barton introduced Richard Watkins, new Finance Director
none
9:05 AM 8.
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
none
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Plat Vacation Request for
Res. 90-77 adopted.
Whistlewood Subdivision,
Adoption of Resolution
(Memorandum dated 6/5/90)
9.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
none
10.
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Approved staffs
Review of Draft: Indian River
recommendation.
Lagoon Spoil Island Management
Plan
(Deferred from 6/5/90 meeting)
(Memorandum dated 5/22/90)
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Approved staffs
North County Leased Space
recommendation.
(Memorandum dated 6/5/90)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
none
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED'
F. PERSONNEL
none
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Approved. 1) iRecommendation for Award of
Low Bid, Conflict Monitor
Tester (Bid #90-70) Use of
Excess Budgeted Funds
(Memorandum dated 6/5/90)
Res. 90-78 2) Resolution Approving the
Submittal of an Application
Under the State of Florida
Beach Erosion Control
Assistance Program
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
3) Authorizing Two Resolutions
to File Eminent Domain
Res. 90-79 Proceeding - I.R. Blvd.
& Res. 90-80
Phase III Right-of-way and
Mitigation Area, Parcel 108,
Paul & Camille Hoffman
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
Res. 90-81 4) Authorizing Resolution to File
& Res. 90-82 Eminent Domain Proceedings - I.R.
Blvd. Phase III, Mitigation Area
and Remaining Parcel 110, Martin
Gregory (Owner) Richard Wiggins
(Trustee)
(Memorandum.dated 6/6/90)
Sam as item 1062 5) Resolution Approving Submittal
of an Application Under State
of Florida Beach Erosion Control
Assistance Program
H. UTILITIES
Approved. 6) Sewer Force Main Project on Indian
River Blvd. with Owl & Assoc.
C.O.#2
(Memorandum dated 5/31/90)
'JUJU 121990 eoaKj fUru
1)
Award of Contract for Heron Cay
Approved.
(90th Avenue) Water Line
Construction
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
2)
Engineering Firm Selection, Sea
Approved.
Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
3)
Engineering Firm Selection, Blue
Approved.
Cypress Lake Wastewater Project
(Memorandum dated 6/4/90)
4)
Engineering Firm Selection, North
Approved.
County Water Project - Phase I .
(Memorandum dated 6/4/90)
Approved.
5)
Engineering Firm Selection, North
County Water Service Area
(Memorandum dated 6/4/90)
Approved. 6) Sewer Force Main Project on Indian
River Blvd. with Owl & Assoc.
C.O.#2
(Memorandum dated 5/31/90)
'JUJU 121990 eoaKj fUru
JUN 12 990
COMMISSIONER
DON C.
SCURLOCK, JR.
E.
- �� PAUG Er�i�°�
BOOK '
10.
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
H. UTILITIES —CONTINUED
Conflict of Interest -
7) Property Purchase for Proposed
Dick Bird
Approved.
North Co. R/O Plant
(Memorandum dated 6/6/90)
8) -Amendment to Engineering Services
Approved.
Contract with Kimball/Lloyd and
Assoc., Inc. for Extra Services
on 43rd Ave. Water Main Extension
(Memorandum dated 6/1/90) -
11.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Auth. staff to proceed with
.the bidding process & set a
County -owned Lots on Center Beach
minimum bid & come back to
( Memorandum dated 5/29/90)
Board with info.
12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
1) TCRPC Upland Policy/Natural
Stand firm with original
position & planning staff R e s o u r c e s- A g .
r i c u l t u r e
continue to protect the
environment. ,
B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D.
COMMISSIONER
DON C.
SCURLOCK, JR.
E.
COMMISSIONER
GARY C.
WHEELER
13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
None
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, June 12, 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,
June 12, 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 led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 1, 1990.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of May 1, 1990, as written.
K yam,
SUN 1 1990 BOO
L_
JUN 12 1990 �y
BOOK
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 8, 1990.
Chairman Eggert requested that the middle paragraph on Page
76 be corrected to read that "she, Administrator Chandler, Asst.
County Attorney William Collins, and Community Development
Director Keating, met with the DCA."
The Chairman also requested that the next to last paragraph
on Page 77 be changed to read as follows: "... and that the
Secretaries of State departments and legislators essentially said
at the Treasure Coast Legislative Conference in Tallahassee....."
There were no further corrections.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by -
missioner Bird,"the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of May 8, 1990, as corrected.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird asked that Item D be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion, and Chairman Eggert asked that
Item H be removed also.
A. Release of Easement - Roseland Gardens Subdv. (Perrin)
The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Boling:
2
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: Stan Boling, ICP
Planning Director DIVI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FROM: Charles W. HeathC,(,� Robert M. Keat ng AIC,P
Code Enforcement Of cer Community Develo ent/ erector
DATE: May 23, 1990
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
Harry and Olive Perrin
Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, Roseland Gardens Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of June 12, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Harry and Olive Perrin, owners
of the subject property, for the release of the common five (5)
foot side lot utility easements of Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, Roseland
Gardens Subdivision, being the westerly five (5) feet of Lot 3 and
the easterly five (5) feet of Lot 4, Block 7, Roseland Gardens
Subdivision, Section 11, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, Indian
River County, Florida; according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 8, Page 25 of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida. It is the petitioners) intention to construct a
single-family residence on the subject property.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -6, Single -
Family Residential District, with a Land Use designation of L-2.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power and Light Company, Falcon Cable Corporation, and the
Indian River County Engineering Division, Road & Bridge Division,
and Utilities Department. Based upon their reviews there were no
objections to the release of the common five (5) foot side lot
utilities of Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, Roseland Gardens Subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of 'a
resolution, the release of the common .five (5) foot side lot
utilities of Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, Roseland Gardens Subdivision,
according to the Records of Indian River County, -Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-76 releasing the common 5' side lot
utility easements of Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, Roseland
Gardens Subdivision to Harry and Olive Perrin, as
requested.
3 BOOK, 80 i'A-L
JUN I ' 1990
r
JUN 12 7990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-76
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN THE ROSELAND GARDENS
SUBDIVISION, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 7,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT, THEREOF AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 25, OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
BOOK 80 I n'.E 29S,
WHEREAS, Indian River:.County has easements as described
below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River
County, Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Harry and Olive Perrin, their
successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address
is 6010 Falls Circle South, Apt. 308, Lauderhill, Florida 33319
Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following described
easements: the common five (5) foot side lot utility easements of
Lots 3 & 4, Block 7, being the westerly five (5) feet of Lot 3 and
the easterly five (5) feet of Lot 4, Block 7, Roseland Gardens
S/D, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 25 of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and
adopted on the 12th day of June, 1990 , by the following
vote:
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Bowman Aye
Commissioner Scurlock Avo
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 12th , day of June , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA
By (aa -e:
Carolyn ggert,firman
4
B. Library Automation Contract- Change Order #1 (CLSI)
The Board reviewed memo from Lynn William, Supt.:
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. -SONNY- DEAN, DIRECTO
B�
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS, SUPT.
BUILDING AND GROUNDS ..�✓
DATE: MAY 299 1990
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #1 CLSI - LIBRARY AUTOMATION CONTRACT
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The above referenced contract for Library Automation equipment and
Software was approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the
regular meeting of November 21, 1989. The contract is to be
implemented in four phases.
Included in Phases I and II, are four (4) modems for Data
Communications between the two Libraries. The equipment list was
initially priced with analog modems ($2,404.00 each).
Upon ordering the data circuit, it was learned that a digital
circuit was available between Vero Beach and Sebastian for
essentially the same recurring charge as an analog circuit.
Digital will -provide quicker response and less interference than an
analog circuit.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff directed CLSI to change the required modems to the digital
type during the installation. This resulted in a reduction in the
cost of each of four (4) modems. The -following change in the
contract is required:
i) Delete four (4) MB -A96-1 Integerl Modems at
$2,404.00 each, total $9,616.00. Phase I includes
two (2)9 Phase II includes two (2).
2) Add four (4) MB -D96-1 Integerl Modems at $873.00
each, total $3,492.00. Phase I includes two (2),
Phase II includes two (2).
This results in a net change to the contract of ($6,124.00) deduct.
The adjusted contract amount will be $244,758.00.
Additionally the contract includes several P-3000 report printers.
Due to an error three (3) of these printers should have been listed
as P-3050 printer. There is no change in the pricing. This is due
to a difference in printers requiring serial .port hook-up as
opposed to parallel port.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends issuance of Change Order #1 to the CLSI Automation
Contract to include the following:
5 BOOR Fbt
'JUN 12 1.990
I
,JUN 12 1990
moK '� F1cE 300
Item #1 - Delete four (4) MB -A96-1 Integerl Modems at
$2,404.00 each, total $99616.00. Phase I
includes two (2), Phase II includes two (2).
Add four (4) M13 -D96-1 Integerl Modems at
$873.00 each, total $3,492.00. Phase I
includes two (2), Phase II includes two (2).
Item #2 - Change Phase I quantities to read: Main
Library, 2 - P-3000 Terminal Printers,
1 - P-3050 Terminal Printers. North County
2 - P-3050 Terminal Printers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #1 to the CLSI Automation Contract.
C. Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sandy Bartolucciz- County Attorney's Office
DATE: June 6, 1990
SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 6/12/90
RELEASE COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following routine lien -related documents
and request the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
them:
Release of Special Assessment Lien
for ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT as follows:
1.
Tax
I.D.
#01-33-39-00027-0020-00006.5
in
the name of CHARLES 8 JANE FITZGERALD
2.
Tax
I.D.
#01-33-39-00027-0020-00006.8
in
the name of THOMAS 8 DIANE NASON
3.
Tax
I.D.
#01-33-39-00035-0190-00001.0
in
the name of ALICE H. TRENDELL
4.
Tax
I.D.
#01-33-39-00035-0190-00004.0 and
Tax
I.D.
#01-33-39-00036-0220-00013.0 and
Tax
I.D.
#12-33-39-00004-0018-00006.0
in
the name of PHILIP E MARGARET McALLISTER
5. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00035-0190-00007.0
In the name of JOHN 6 CARLA LEBAK, JR.
6. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00035-0.190-00010.0
in the name of ANTHONY E MARY CALORAFE
7. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00035-0190-00017.0
In the name of ARTHUR & GRACE BRENNAN
6
o � r
8. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00035-0210-00016.0 and
Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00035-0210-00003.0
In the name of LARRY E JERI CLOSE
9. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0220-00001.0
In the name of ROBERT W. LEMIEUX
10. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0220-00005.0
in the name of GLADWIN E LOYETTE ASHTON
11. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0220-00008.0
In the name of ALFRED 8 ELMORA WHITING
12. Tax I.D.-#01-33-39-00036-0220-00019.0
in the name of ELIZABETH NOEL
13. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0230-00004.0
in the name of JOSEPH OROPALLO
14. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0230-00005.0
in the name of THERESA M. DIPPEL CHROMI
15. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0240-00003.0
in the name of CHARLES ANTHONY BALNIUS
16. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00037-02500-00010.0
in the name of MAGGIE 0. CURRY
17. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00037-0250-00013.0
in the name of CHILTON McCLURE YOUNG
18. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00037-0250-00015.0
in the name of JACK & EVA SCHICKLER
19. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00037-0260-00001.0
in the name of CARL 6 ARLENE MIXELL
20. Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00037-0260-00005.0
In the name of JOHN 6 ELEANOR CARROLL
21. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00001-0003-00006.0
in the name of BEULAH HENKE
22. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00001-0004-00015.0
In the name of ROBERT & WINIFRED BRELSFORD
23. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00001-0006-00006.0
In the name of RUTH R. CHAPMAN
24. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00002-0008-00009.0
In the name of GLENN C. JONES
25. Tax I.D. i12-33-39-00003-0007-00014.0
in the name of MARY GRODESKI
26. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00003-0007-00015.0
in the name of LLONALD 8 VIKKI MIXELL
27. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00003-0010-00015.0
in the name of ORLANDO 8 ROSALIA MAGGIACOMO
28. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00004-0016-00001.0
In the name of MARGARET & ARMAD GAGNE
29. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00004-0016-00005.0
In the name of RAY & LUCY KINCAID
30. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00004-0016-00010.0
In the name of ORLANDO 6 ROSALIA MAGGIACOMO
7 BOOK So [g E,
►SUN 12 wu
BOOK ��1 PAGE ��
31. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00004-0018-00012.0
in the name of L.E. E ELLA LINDER
32. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00005-0000-00015.0
in the name of RALPH & ELIZABETH UMHOEFER
33. Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00006-0006-00006.0
in the name of AILEEN R. DELLI-PAOLI
34. Tax I.D. #07-33-40-00001-0012-00014.0
in the name of THOMAS & LILLIE MEEKS
35. Tax I.D. #07-33-40-00001-0013-00004.0
in the name of JOSEPH E CORINNE BLAKE
36. Tax I.D. #07-33-40-00001-0013-00030.0
in the name of WILLIAM E PATRICIA NELSON
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Partial Release of Lien Re: Payment of Existing
Impact Fees,'in the name of ALAN R. SCHOMMER
Back-up information for the above documents is on file in
the County Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens as
listed above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
8
D. DISCUSS ADVERTISING PUBLIC HEARING FOR GREASE TRAP ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney
DATE: May 25, 1990
RE: GREASE TRAP (POLLUTANT INTERCEPTOR) ORDINANCE
Attached is a copy of a proposed grease trap ordinance
requested and written by the Indian River County Public
Health Unit and the County Department of Utility Services.
Both departments have recommended that the County adopt this
ordinance. It Is now presented to the Board for initial
review and, if the Board approves the concept, for the
scheduling of a public hearing to adopt this as an
ordinance.
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval for staff to advertise for a
public hearing to adopt ordinance.
Commissioner Bird noted that as he read this, it talks about
the requirements for installation for all establishments which
are not solely single family or multi -family residences and gives
a grace period in which to comply. He pointed out that this
would include very small commercial establishments, warehouses,
office buildings, dress shops, etc, and wondered if this is
necessary. He further noted that it'also says establishments
which can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Utility Director
and Environmental Health Director, that they will not be producing
grease or pollutants in certain quantities can be exempted.
Chairman Eggert interjected that she already has talked to
Attorney Vitunac and Director Galanis about that and asked them
to rewrite this so that it is very clear exactly who has to do
this and who does not.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would prefer to name the
ones that definitely have to have these grease traps and then
exempt everybody else rather than lumping everybody into it and
then letting them out one at a time.
' 9 NOOK PAUr n�V61.
'JUN 1 � i990
JUM 121990 BOOK 80 F,1,Ee3Q
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that on Page 2 of the proposed
ordinance "establishment" is defined as something which generates
waste that contains in excess of a certain amount of oils, fats
or pollutants.
Chairman Eggert stressed that the average person coming in
here needs to be able to understand exactly what this ordinance
says, and she feels the definition of who absolutely has to have
this should be clearer and more lay oriented. The way it reads
now, it sounds like everyone has to go through the process of
getting an exemption.
Environmental Health Director Galanis felt that clearly what
they were talking about here are those establishments that
produce a product that needs to be kept in an interceptor, and
they were trying to word into the ordinance a way to go back on
those establishments that currently produce that product and
don't have an interceptor.
Commissioner Bird noted that the other half of his problem
is giving them 180 days to comply as he felt that could be quite
a burden.
Commissioner Wheeler hated to see a blanket approach put on
this. He happens to own a doughnut shop, and he contended that
if you run a business properly, possibly in some cases you may
not need a grease trap and have to incur the cost of cleaning it
out every 6 months. He felt the way the proposed ordinance is
written, you are finding these businesses guilty of contributing
to pollutants before you determine if they actually are. Commis-
sioner Wheeler noted that he got an exemption from the City when
he built his shop, and he doesn't need a grease trap because in
his family business, they don't put grease down the drain. He
also had a question about the formula relating this to the number
of hours an establishment is open a day.
Director Galanis advised it is a standard formula taken from
the State Code. The concept is the longer you are open, the more
grease you produce, and this especially applies to restaurants.
10
M M
Utilities Director Pinto stressed that it would get so
complicated to come up with a totally equitable solution, we
would have to look at each one individually, and we can't do
that. While Commissioner Wheeler does not wash grease down the
drain in his business, it is always possible someone could buy
his business and not handle it the same way.
Commissioner Wheeler continued to argue that just because
something is a food type operation doesn't necessarily mean it
should have a grease trap. He further pointed out that the
installation of one could involve some pretty big dollars.
Director Pinto pointed out that we are talking about major
dollars invested in the operation of our wastewater system, and
grease is an absolutely horrendous problem not only in the
treatment plant but in the maintenance of the lines.
Commissioner Bird asked why we can't establish some guide-
lines as to type of facilities that generate these problems and
require them to install these pollutant interceptors as a part of
their building permit process and do that from this point
forward. He did not think we should do this across the board and
just exempt certain ones or that we should make it retroactive
because he really has problems with making every food establish-
ment in this county install this thing within the next 180 days
and involve them in what could be a very significant expense.
Director Pinto advised that if it is found they can't
physically do it, there are provisions not just to exempt them
but to charge them because grease is a major problem to our
system.
Commissioner Bird continued to argue against going back on
every "Mom and Pop" operation, and Director Pinto stressed that
the cost of the problems the grease causes the system does not go
away and that cost must be distributed among those customers.
Commissioner Wheeler believed that you can pinpoint these
problems and we shouldn't just do this across the board.
11 BOOK FANG
JUN 1 2 1990
�UR 12 1990 _ �-
BOOK 80 PAGE �.�0
Director Pinto noted that while Commissioner Wheeler's shop
may not produce any grease, you can't look at just one individual
situation, and when you add all this cumulatively, it has a great
effect.
Commissioner Wheeler asked how they came up with 750 and
1250 gallon grease traps, and it was explained those are straight
out of the state standards and those two sizes are also readily
available on the market.
Director Galanis stressed that the proposed ordinance was
modeled after the state ordinance, and it is an established and
known fact that restaurants do produce grease, and the amount
produced is proportional to the number of meals they serve and
the hours they are open. Any such establishments are required to
put in a. grease trap when they are on septic tanks, but at this
point there is no such requirement when they tie into the public
sewer system.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that today we are only discuss -
Ing setting a date for public hearing, but Commissioner Bird
noted that he did not want to take a bad ordinance that he can't
vote for to a public hearing. He would rather modify it first.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff has workshopped this
particular approach with those who will be affected, and Mr.
Galanis stated that they have not.
Commissioner Scurlock felt Director Pinto and Director
Galanis should get all the restaurant owners, etc., in and
discuss it with them to get their input.. He further noted that
he personally would like to see enough provisions within the
ordinance eventually where if we can establish someone is causing
a problem, we have an ability to do something to correct that.
Commissioner Wheeler asked when someone cleans the grease
trap, where the pollutant material goes, and Director Galanis
explained that it is pumped out by an approved septage hauler and
taken to a treatment plant. In the past it did go to a pit in
12
a � �
M M
the Landfill, and it will be going to the new septage facility
when that is built.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed that we can't grandfather in
pollutants that are hurting the environment, but he did not want
the blanket approach.
Commissioner Scurlock did not like the provision that would
have Directors Pinto and Galanis on the hot seat making all these
decisions. He did not feel that would be fair to them without
having very specific criteria for them to go by.
Chairman Eggert suggested that staff rewrite the ordinance
and then bring it back to the Commission to set a date for a
public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that as he understands it, our
wastewater operation and our septage facility are enterprise
funds, and if there is a cost associated with specific types of
uses, it is just like the rest of our rate structure. He doesn't
want to pay for Commissioner Wheeler's doughnut shop, and he
doesn't want Commissioner Wheeler to be paying for his home - he
just wants to be equitable so that those people who are putting
an impact on the system pay their fair share.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that his shop is in the
City of Vero Beach; so, this ordinance will have no effect on it.
Commissioner Bird inquired what the City of Vero Beach has
been doing about the restaurants that hook up to their system,
and Director Galanis answered that the City of Vero Beach several
years ago asked him to require an interceptor in his plan review
process, and he has been doing this for the past 4 years.
Chairman Eggert suggested that this ordinance be rewritten
and brought back to the Board at the meeting of July 10th with.
the understanding that we will then kind of workshop it at that
meeting, and concerned citizens should be made aware that we are
going to do this.
Director Galanis advised that he won't be in town on Jul.y
10th, and Commissioner Wheeler asked if we can't give this back
Jugs 2 �9so 13 BOOK r, FA'a
r JUN 12 Esso
BOOK 80 f'A.�E30Sj
to staff and let them workshop it independently and then bring it
back to us to set a public hearing date.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that is what he would like to
do, and Chairman Eggert had no problem with Commissioner
Wheeler's suggestion.
Commissioner Bowman suggested that where the ordinance says
the grease trap shall be cleaned, it should specify that it shall
be cleaned by someone who is licensed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the _Board unanimously directed staff
to workshop this item and then bring it back to the
Commission at a later date to set a date for public
hearing.
E. Final Plat Approval - Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit 7
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Rison:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ingICP
Community De elo ent Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Christopher D. Rison 6110L
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 5, 1990
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES - UNIT 7
SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 12, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Old Sugar Mill Estates - Unit 7 Subdivision is a proposed 13 lot
subdivision of a ± 10.51 acre parcel of land located at the
14
northwest corner of 43rd Avenue and 12th Street. The subject
property is zoned RS -3, Single Family Residential (up to 3 units
per acre) and has an L-1 Low -Density Residential (up to 3 units
per acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is
1.48 units per acre. All roads, drainage and utilities easements
and facilities are to be dedicated to the County.
At its regular meeting of October 26, 1989, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the
subdivision. A land development permit for project construction
was subsequently issued. The owner's agent, James Beindorf, on
behalf of the owner, Sexton Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., is now
requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and Bill of Sale for the
complete, publicly dedicated required improvements;
3. an insurance bond as a security arrangement acceptable to the
County Attorney's Office to guarantee the Warran-
ty/Maintenance Agreement;
4. a certified cost estimate for the constructed required
improvements.
ANALYSIS:
The required improvements have been constructed by the developer.
The developer has submitted a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and
posted sufficient security to guarantee the performance of the
completed improvements that are dedicated to the County. All
applicable requirements regarding.. final plat approval have been
satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for the Old Sugar Mill Estates - Unit 7
Subdivision, and accept the submitted Warranty/Maintenance Agree-
ment and posted security.!
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board.unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval for Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit 7, and
accepted the submitted Warranty/Maintenance Agreement
and posted security, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
15 BOOK O F'A "E ,30
JUN 12" 1990
JUN 1 1990
B00!( 80 f��uE •���
F. Budget Amendment #063 - Unemployment Compensation
The Board reviewed memo from Budget Analyst Leila Miller:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 5, 1990
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMIIVT 063 -
UNEM PLOYMEI4T COMPENSATION - CONSENT AGENDA
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird ;\
O�
MB Director
FROM: Leila Beth Miller
Budget Analyst
Description and Conditions
The State of Florida, Department of Labor has charged Indian River County for
Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A budget amendment is
required to reflect these payments.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget amendment 063 to
refund Unemployment Compensation payments, funding to come from contingencies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #063 as recommended by staff.
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER: 063
FROM: Leila Beth Miller DATE: June 5. 1990
1EXPENSE
1. 1GENERAL FUND
;Supervisor of Elections
!Unemployment Compensation !001-700-519-012.151$ 5.00$ 0
;Clerk of the Court 11 11 11
! T7nPmn1 nvment rnTnnt=ncaf; r,n ! nn1 _inq_;;i ti_n1,) 1 r, 1 , ;; i rn nn I e. n
16
0
Franchise
Road and Bridge
tion
—L34—o3/-
-1 QQ-9";121 —
NUMBER: 063
,!Unemployment Compensation jlll—L14-741—V1L.J.0-LO4.UUia
�....a.--.»,.--- I nA —9 aa—rni —(1QQ _ Q1 (1 1 S` 1R4 -nn
;Utilities -Sewer 11 11 i
!Unemployment Compensation ;471-218-536-012.15!$ 419.00!$ 0
;Utilities -General 11 11
� Unemployment Compensation !471-235-536-012.151$ 429.00!$ 0
I
11 11 11
!Cash Forward 1471-218-536-099.921$ 01$ 848.00
I
I
;Clubhouse 11 11 11
!Unemployment Compensation 1418-236-572-012.151$ 780.001$ 0
1 11 11 11
!overtime !418-236-572-011.141$ 0!$ 780.00
LES FORM UCT29
(REV. 9/83) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L- ',OOP."ra, N,
DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYP1ST, T COMPENSA.IC, I
BUREAU O:' TAX
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
REIT -41ARSE;BR T INVOICE
THIS IS A STATEMENT OF CHARGES TO YOUR ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO YOUR FORMER EMPLOYEES.
ACCOUNT NO. QUARTER ENDINI
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK 9976197 0 14AR ala 1990
CIRCUIT COURT DATE
ATTN FINANCE DEPARTMENT MAY Ola 1990
P 0 BOX 1028 THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE MUST BE PAID
VERO BEACH FL 329617 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE.
8-49
FOR FIR T3L&8A1'lMff9A`3'SMt7Y/RNS�#J %%TT1%Ag9YA 1'j�11"StIPERrbDaA1MN'I2 OF�VABLCLL IM FIL C
LES FORM UCB-12R
y J
13
OTTO F HERKEL
EXPIRATION
NO. WEEKS
3
.423o73
001-
CLAIMANT'S NAME
SOC. SEC. NO. DATE
OF BENEFITS
CHARGES TO YOUR
7
3c-50
ejol-700W.JOHN
OFF CLAIM
PC. IN QTR.
ACCOUNT
12/23190
1
LAURA L DAVIS
266-02-6549 09/16/90
13
19950000
243-42--x870
09/02/90
PRI SCILLA ALBRECHT
26646-547276 09/16/90
14
29 600e0G
y J
13
OTTO F HERKEL
063-26-8439
10/21/90
3
.423o73
001-
700
ANI TA BEAULZEU
072-39-1019
01/20/91
7
3c-50
ejol-700W.JOHN
E MARDIS
191-03-4382
12/23190
1
066
yl ?'-
36
BOBBY J ROBINSON
243-42--x870
09/02/90
12
780.00
004-
-64
LISA .H ABERNETHY
262-55-28471
01/20/91
1
24089
q7l-^
1 ��'"
JAMES E HOOPER
266-02-7761
09/30/90
12
418.48
EGORY A WHLTTON
267-59-4475
01/20/91
7
183*89
GR
AN. 12 1990
17
Boa. F>gc
6
[JUN 12 1990 BOOK F1GE 312
G. Budget -Amendment for Building Department
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: .lune 6, 1990 FILE:
CONSENT
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
for Building Department
FROM: Joseph Baird, Director -REFERENCES:
• Office of Management 8 Budge
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners has authorized the Building Department
to pursue transfer of the building division's permit/ inspection system from the
400 to a PC system. To accomplish the above mentioned objective, the
following computer hardware and software will need to be purchased as soon
as possible:
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
1. 386SX Computer/Novel
Total $ 36,900
FUNDING:
Funding will be from the excess Cash Forward Revenue balance on October 1,
1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase of
the computer system and the necessary budget amendment.
18
network system
10
$1,950
$ 19,500
2.
Laser printer
3
2,000
6,000
3.
Computer Modems
1
1,000
11000
4.
4 mg Ram Storage
1
1,000
1,000
5.
Cubix or other communi-
cation software
1
7,300
7,300
6.
Hubs for computer
2
400
800
7.
Plan examination soft-
ware
1
1,000
1,000
8.
PC support
1
300
300
Total $ 36,900
FUNDING:
Funding will be from the excess Cash Forward Revenue balance on October 1,
1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase of
the computer system and the necessary budget amendment.
18
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
purchase of the above described computer system as
recommended by OMB Director Baird and also approved
Budget Amendment for same, if necessary.
H. Bid #90-76 - Re -roofing Administration Building
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola:
DATE: June 5, 1990
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMUSSIONERS
THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Serrvvic
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPEO Manager
Division of Purchasing •
SUBJ: IRC BID #90-76 Re -Roofing Administration Building
BACKGROUND:
On request from the Building and Grounds Department the bid for Re -Roofing
Administration Building was properly advertised and Seventeen (17) In-
vitations to Bid were sent out. On May 9, 1990 bids were received. One
(1) vendor submitted proposals for the ccm )dity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi-
cations. Cardinal Roofing was the low bidder that met all requirements.
FUNDING:
There is $136,000 in Buildings and Grounds Budget for this
project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $85,057.00
to the low bidder, Cardinal Roofing for the subject project.
Chairman Eggert commented that she has received a number of
questions about this being a single bid, and she just wanted it
in the record that staff was indeed satisfied with the bid.
J UAV 121990 19
JUN _121990 BOOK
Administrator.Chandler agreed staff was concerned we only
received one bid, but a number of responses from those we con-
tacted indicated that they couldn't provide a performance bond,
and we do need a performance bond when we are doing a roofing
project.
Commissioner Bird asked about staff having checked out the
low bidder in regard to their reputation, their background, and
their ability to do this job, and General Services Director Dean
informed the Board that staff was satisfied with the bidder.
Commissioner Bowman believed some of those who could not
provide the bond were good roofers, but Director Dean stressed
the importance of having the bond.
Some discussion followed regarding the fact that the county
previously had to sue to get reimbursed on our roof repairs, but
this was against the guaranty not on the performance bond.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#90-76 for reroofing the Administration Building to
the low bidder meeting all requirements, Cardinal
Roofing, in the amount of $85,057.00 as recommended
by staff.
(AGREEMENT W/CARDINAL ROOFING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD)
I. Renewal of Indian River Shores EMS ALS Cert. of Public
Convenience and Recessity.
The Board reviewed memo from the Emergency Management
Director:
20
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Management Services
DATE: June 6, 1990
.t r"f i
..r
SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal of Indian River Shores EMS ALS
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Town of Indian River Shores EMS BLS Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity was amended on May 2, 1989, to include
an Advanced Life Support level of service. The original
certificate was issued June 7, 1988, for a period of two years.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The ALS EMS service has continiously provided an excellent level
of service to the residents of the municipality and others when
needed on a mutual aid basis.
The vehicle and equipment utilized by the agency is state -of -the
art and the service is recommended for renewal by the Medical
Director.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends renewal of the EMS ALS Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indian River Shores for
a period of two years from the date of expiration of the original
certificate.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
renewal of the EMS ALS Certificate of Public Conveni-
ence and Necessity for the Town of Indian River
Shores for a period of two years from the date of
expiration of the original certificate.
'JUN 121990 21
BOOK
JUN 121990.
BOOK 80 FAGE 33.6
INTRODUCTION OF NEW FINANCE OFFICER
Clerk Barton came before the Board and introduced Richard
Watkins, who has just entered the Clerk's employ as Finance
Administrator.
The Chairman and Board members welcomed Mr. Watkins aboard.
VACATION OF PLAT - WHISTLEWOOD SUBDIVISION
The hour of 9:05 o'clock X.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
22
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority *personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement. being
In the matter of
in the _ __ _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of a471� 61
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for t purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the *aid newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ da� Qf . F A.D. 19 �G
(Business Managsr)
(Elertcof3he_Circuif fou�Idia4n,�Ri4fr County, Florida)
(SEAL)
"for"y;rn
gv#rvfjUrw 24, 19"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice Is hereby given of the Intention of Ty
Tarby, Trustee, to apply to Indian River County
for vacation of plat pursuant to Florida Statute
177.101. This application is to vacate the entire .
plat of Whistlewood Subdivision, which plat is:
recorded In Plat Book 10, Page 48, Public'
Records of Indian River County, Florida. A pub-.
lie hearing on the proposed vacation will be hold,
on Tuesday, June 12, 1990 at 9:08 a.m. by the'
Board of County Commissioners In the County
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
trative Complex at 1840 28th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. -
Anyone who may wish to appeal an yy decision
which may be made at this meeting wltl need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding
Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal Is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -Carolyn K Eggert, Chairman
May 29. June 5, 1990 , , • 888835
Planning Director Boling made the staff presentation
recommending approval, as follows:
JUN 121990
23
JUN 121990
BOOK 80 FACE
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea i ", AI
Community Develo men irector
THROUGH: Stan Boling,- AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Christopher D. Rison
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 5, 1990
SUBJECT: PLAT VACATION REQUEST FOR WHISTLEWOOD SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 12, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Ty Tarby, Trustee, is requesting that the Board of County Commis-
sioners vacate the Whistlewood Subdivision as recorded in Plat
Book 10, Page 45, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
All lots and associated easements and rights-of-way are owned
privately by Ty Tarby, Trustee. The subject property is located
north of State Road 60 (20th Street), west of 58th Avenue (Kings
Highway).
Currently, a roadway, a fence along S.R. 60 and a residence on Lot
1 exist in the Whistlewood Subdivision. Lot 1 is considered to be
under the ownership by the applicant, Ty Tarby, Trustee.
The owner, Ty Tarby, Trustee, has requested to vacate the plat in
order to include the property as a portion of the proposed Indian
River Mall development site.
ANALYSIS:
According to Chapter 177.101 of the Florida Statutes, the Board of
County Commissioners has the authority to vacate plats in whole or
in part, returning all or portions of the property into acreage.
The vacation is accomplished by resolution of the Board. Before
the resolution can be approved by the Board:
1. It must be shown that the persons making application for the
vacation own fee simple title to that part of the tract
covered by the plat sought to be vacated.
2. It must be shown that the vacation will not affect the
ownership or right of convenient access of persons owning
other parts of the subdivision.
3. Notice of the intention to apply to the County Commission for
vacation of the plat must be published in a newspaper of
general circulation.
4. Proof of publication of the petition for vacation must be
attached to the petition.
5. Certificates showing that all State and County taxes have
been paid must be provided.
24
JUN
The applicant has submitted information satisfying all of the
above criteria. This information has been reviewed and approved
by the County Attorney's Office.
The following reviewing agencies and utility providers have
reviewed the request and have no objection to the plat vacation:
Indian River County Utilities and Public Works, City of Vero Beach
Utilities, Southern Bell, Florida Cablevision, and Florida Power
and Light. The plat to be vacated does not affect any public or
private facilities or access rights other than those related to
the plat being vacated.
Thus all requirements concerning plat vacation have been met, and
staff has no objections to the requested vacation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution vacating the Whistlewood Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 45 Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.;
Chairman Eggert believed the mall DRI is still pending and
asked if this plat is vacated and the mall doesn't come in, would
they have to go back and replat.
Planning Director Boling confirmed that if they wanted to
develop it as single family, they would have to replat; however,
it is zoned RM -6 at this time, and it could be redeveloped as
something else. He noted that this vacation is not dependent on
the mall being approved.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Charles McKinnon came before the Board and advised
that his firm represents the applicant, Ty Tarby, Trustee. They,
of course, agree with staff's recommendation and would ask that
the Board vacate the plat.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board adopted Resolution 90-77
approving the vacating of the Plat of Whistlewood
Subdivision as requested by Ty Tarby, Trustee.
25 BOOK F°Jca 1U
Fr'_ -7
JUN 12'1390
BOOK 80 PAGE.'
RESOLUTION 90- 77
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, VACATING THE PLAT OF
WHISTLEWOOD SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Whistlewood Subdivision has been platted
pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 177, as laid out and as
recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 45, Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, Ty Tarby, Trustee, the fee simple owner
of Whistlewood Subdivision, has petitioned for vacation of
said plat, returning that plat to acreage; and
WHEREAS, the entire plat of Whistlewood
Subdivision is included in the Petition to Vacate; and
WHEREAS, no other persons own any other part of
the platted subdivision; and
WHEREAS, notice of the intention to apply to the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River for vacation
of said plat has been published as a legal notice in a
newspaper of general circulation in Indian River County in
not less than two weekly issues of said paper; and
WHEREAS, proof of said publication of the notice
of intent to apply for vacation is attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, certificates from the Tax Collector
showing that all state and county taxes have been paid on
the property are attached hereto,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
1. All the above recitals are true and affirmed.
2. The entire plat of Whistlewood Subdivision,
Including Lots 1 - 6 and Whistlewood Lane as shown recorded
In Plat Book 10, Page 45, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida is hereby returned to acreage.
26
a � �
3. This vacation shall become effective upon
filing of a certified copy of this resolution in the Offices
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and recording in the
Public Records of Indian River County.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Scurlock and seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert &Y-L—
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird AYE
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman AYE
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. AYE
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler AYE
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 12 day of June , 1990.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
�arolygger afrm nana
REVIEW DRAFT - I.R.LAGOON SPOIL ISLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Board reviewed memo from Roland DeBlois, Chief of
Environmental Planning, as follows:
JUN 12 1990-' 27 800F. U "Eli .
JUN 12 IJJU BOOK F,1GE
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPA TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ftentobert KeatinCommunity Develoector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 22, 1990
RE: Review of Draft: Indian River Lagoon
Spoil Island Management Plan
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of
June 5, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) recently
completed a 500 page draft entitled "Indian River Lagoon Spoil
Island Management Plan." FDNR also produced an abridged edition of
the draft for public workshop circulation. An excerpt from the
abridged version pertaining to Indian River County is attached, for
your information.
Ms. Gwen Burzycki, an environmental specialist with FDNR, has
written and requested that Indian River County review the draft
plan and submit a letter to the Governor and Cabinet supporting the
plan. Her request is that the letter be sent in time for a June
20th Cabinet aides meeting. Staff have reviewed the plan and offer
the following comments.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The draft plan identifies fifty five (55) spoil islands in Indian
River County. All of the islands are owned by the State of Florida
except for six owned by Lost Tree Village Corporation, two owned
by private individuals, three owned by the U.S. government, and one
owned by the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND). The plan
also contains an inventory of the flora and fauna associated with
each of the islands. Under "management recommendations", the plan
identifies the following categories of use/management:
Management Classification No. of Islands Proposed
for the Classification
Active Recreation 5
Passive Recreation 15
Conservation 31
Conservation/Education 2
Education/Passive Recreation 1
Active Recreation/Education 1
The management classifications range from "conservation", whereby
such islands would be off limits to recreational uses, to "active
recreation," which would accommodate such uses as boating access,
picnicking, trail walking, and short-term camping.
28
The plan does not necessitate local government participation in
Spoil island management and related expenditures, but encourages
local governments with an interest and the available finances to
actively participate in spoil island management through and "Adopt
an Island" program. The "Adopt an Island" program entails a
management agreement with the State, whereby proposed projects
would be subject to consistency with State management goals for a
particular island.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to draft and authorize the chairman to sign a letter to the
Governor and Cabinet supporting the FDNR Indian River Lagoon Spoil
Island Management Plan.
Figure 2-1. Indian River County spoil islands.
SEBASTIAN
iRl
IN
�' • O W
�• Ila
65
1IRS
SE. IAN % I W
KAO j IRS
qaj IRS
jIRS
• I.9A
•'IH98 R60
l0
IR12 1070
: IRL7
'IRIS �
PELICAN
C»
�; •.IRIS •
`•:pELiG m
•.•IKIt •A76 _
NATIONAL:
• WILDUFE:•
..REFUGE
WABASSO ; : S7 •
• lR2I
aIW.•.
• �'IR22 •
L
Z.
IR13U . O 1u9::
'•IR23A
I923C
JUN• 12199a
L --
0
29
• II2s
• IR26A .� 120
IRUA 114
WINTER BEACH':::.-....
AR268 6 �:•
IN2J8
•.:I1125A
:*1•
:a all
:A.
' IN2SU
�•
JUN• 12199a
L --
0
29
• II2s
• IR26A .� 120
AR268 6 �:•
• ' IIt2s � 122
C
:1258)
PIR27
IR27A
2r • IR288''
.1300 IRZSC
. IR2S'
'IR29
VERO BEACH '
NIa �IR32
1•ISA
11W
IR/1.'
�a
>
IR3.4A 14"
,IRIS
�
a
C
•1
f
1330
IR37A
l
a IS•i
�IRIe
• � 156. 'i :�.
OSLO 1W9� alss
0160
IR40
• � IRI
163
• 1 R•12 � ,
AM
a ROUND
IUA ISLAN
BOOK 80 F;, r ,
JUN 121990
BOOK 80
Ms. Gwen Burzycki, environmental specialist with FDNR, came
before the Board to review the proposed plan.
Commissioner Bird noted that the public basically has had
access to these islands for many years, and his concern is that
31 of these islands now would be designated conservation and
preclude public access. He believed some of the islands shown
for active recreation are privately owned; so, he did not know
how that would work.
Ms. Burzycki informed the Board that there there were a few
minor changes made after the draft was sent to the Board, for
which she apologizes. One is under the Management category,
Definition & Usage Section, and she feels it will answer a lot of
the questions about privately owned property. It now reads:
"For all islands surveyed that are not state owned, these
assignments are staff's recommendation to the owners for best use
of the island according to physical and biological information
from the survey. Final decisions on island use are the
prerogative of the fee title owner." She stressed that they are
just telling the property owners that they have a beautiful
island and this is what we hope you will do with it, but they
realize that DNR has no right to impose decisions on private
property owners.
Commissioner Bird was just concerned that if DNR imposes
their restrictions on so many islands, and the private property
owners choose not to develop their islands for active recreation,
he was concerned how many islands that would leave us and where
they are located along the waterway.
Ms. Burzycki stated that of the 44 state-owned islands
surveyed, 3 are designated for active recreation and 14 for
passive recreation, for a total of 17 exclusively for recreation,
and 26 are for conservation. Four islands received a dual
designation for education plus one of the other categories - 2
for a combination education/conservation and 2 for a combination
30
education/recreation - and that brings the total of islands
available for recreation up to 19.
Commissioner Bird noted that it is very easy for the state,
federal, or even county government, to take away the public's
ability to use things, and he wished to know if the DNR's
research indicates that all these islands would be off limits to
the public year round rather than just at nesting times.
Ms. Burzycki advised they would be off limits for recreation
use, and Commissioner Bird asked about someone just pulling his
boat up on an island and going exploring.
Ms. Burzycki stated that heavy use of these islands is
destructive, and the conservation islands have been set aside
because they are biologically unique and special. If you have a
special purpose for being there, such as a class of Boy Scouts
doing a nature study, bird watching, etc., the DNR would give
them permission, but they do not want a single person to be able
to just pull their boat up on one of these islands.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know what provisions they
have to police this, and Ms. Burzycki advised that the islands
will be posted, and they have state enforcement and the -Marine
Patrol.
Chairman Eggert wished to go over the numbers again to make
sure how many islands actually will be unavailable to boaters,
and Ms. Burzycki reviewed that the state owns 44 islands in
Indian River County, of which 3 are solely for active recreation,
14 for passive recreation, 26 designated for conservation, and 4
for education - actually, 26 islands are totally unavailable.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that, by her calculations, Ms.
Burzycki's numbers add up to 47, and Ms. Burzycki agreed she
would have to review her numbers.
Commissioner Bowman commented that as far as seasonal use of
the islands is concerned, pelicans nest every month of the year
in Florida but one.
U 1
a1gg 1990 31 BOOK 80 [Aut = �
JUN 121990 .�
BOOK 80 PAGE �. 6
Commissioner Bird asked if the DNR's study indicated that
past history would show that these islands have been damaged to
the point that would justify saying to the public you can't set
foot on them.
Ms. Burzycki pointed out that in Indian River County most of
these conservation islands aren't used by the public at all.
They are mainly surrounded by a fringe of mangroves and shallow
water. She informed the Board that down in Martin County there
are only 4 islands in state ownership. Of those, 3 are very
heavily used for recreation, and the damage is immense - the
people even chop down the trees for firewood. This is the kind
of destruction they would like to prevent on the islands up here,
especially because Indian River County is a transition zone
between vegetation types out on the islands; Indian River County
has more nesting islands than any other county in the river; and
it also has more islands with maritime hammock remnants.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there is any chance of birds
overnesting and destroying their own site.
Commissioner Bowman confirmed that the trees do die back,
but it is a natural cycle, a 60 year cycle, and after the trees
die back there is regrowth and revegetation.
Ms. Burzycki believed that most people don't want to use
those islands anyway because of the heavy odor.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the northernmost island
falls into a slow speed zone that the DNR has requested for that
area, and he did not know that it is realistic to say that it is
designated for active recreation.
Ms. Burzycki explained that designation does not necessarily
mean you will permit skiers off the island. It simply means that
structures such as covered picnic tables, observation platforms,
and possibly a dock if the waters are appropriate, could be
permitted. They chose that island because of its present heavy
use pattern, and she did not see that designation as being
incompatible with a slow speed zone. In Brevard County where
32
s � �
they do already have such a facility with docks, the major
activities on that island are community barbecues, picnics, and
things of that nature.
Commissioner Bird was concerned that in choosing the islands
for recreation, there will be some suitable for ski areas. He
knew that the DNR has a timing problem in getting this plan to
the Governor and Cabinet, but he was not sure the boaters have
had an opportunity to give their input regarding the designation
of these islands, and he would like to have that input before he
feels comfortable endorsing the plan.
Ms. Burzycki informed the Board that she did advertise this
as well as wrote letters to every fishing, boating, and conserva-
tion group, and only had a grand total of 20 people show up for
two days' meetings; one held in Fort Pierce and one in Melbourne.
She advised that the Fort Pierce Sport Fishing Club did send a
representative, and they were all in favor of the plan.
Commissioner Bird wished that one of the meetings could have
been held in Indian River County since we do have so many islands
involved in this.
Ms. Burzycki pointed out that she had 140 miles of river to
deal with; she had to make all the arrangements herself; and
holding one meeting for each county was just too much, especially
when she was the only staff member in charge of the project. It,
therefore, was decided to go for two central locations and adver-
tise as widely as possible. She informed the Board that members
of the Vero Beach Boat Club did show up in support of the plan.
Commissioner Scurlock felt what she has presented is logi-
cal, and stated that he personally supported the plan.
Ms. Burzycki stressed that they did keep flexibility. They
let the physical characteristics of the islands guide them in
their designation, but if they find there is something about an
island that draws people, there are provisions for redesignating
these islands. She again reviewed the number of islands avail-
able for recreation, pointing out that this is in line with what
JUIN 1 1990 33 BOOK 8 Four fl
JUf1121990 BOOK 80 PA."L.- 2/
they did for the other counties, and she further stressed that
with passive recreation, you can pull your boat up on shore and
picnic at any time whatever, and even spend the weekend if you
wish, but there will be no docks or hard structures on the island
to support this activity.
Commissioner Bird believed in time with the number of miles
we have on the river, we are going to need more docking facili-
ties and possibly restroom facilities.
Ms. Burzycki stated that they want to keep docks to a
minimum. They already have had a great deal of opposition from
some groups who say docks have no place on a state-owned island.
In any event, they try to use water depth and the size of the
island as a guide as to whether or not a dock could be permitted
there.
Commissioner Bird noted that elderly people need a dock in
order to be able to get out on an island, but Ms. Burzycki
advised that she had some quite elderly volunteers assist her
with this project, and with a shallow draft boat, such as a John
boat, you can step out from a dry boat to dry land.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he agrees with both
sides, but unfortunately there are a handful of boaters who use
the river and abuse the environment; so, as a result, we have to
have rules and regulations.
Commissioner Bird hoped there is a way of posting these
islands without creating visual pollution, and Ms. Burzycki
advised they post mainly in the most accessible spots on the
island. She expected there will be people who will tear down the
signs, and she continued to emphasize that there are islands
which are designated for education that can be added to the
recreation list.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to draft and
the Chairman to sign a letter to the Governor and
34
Cabinet supporting the FDNR Indian River Lagoon Spoil
Island Management Plan.
Jeannette Lier, 1 Michael Creek Drive, Orchid Island, wished
to know why Michael Island, which is a natural island and a
private island that they own and put the spoil on themselves, was
mentioned at all, and she emphasized that they do not want even
passive recreation on it.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that it is only recommended
for conservation and only the property owner can make that
decision or use it.
Mrs. Lier still wanted their island, which is listed as #20,
deleted. She explained in detail how they got permission from
the Corps of Engineers to put spoil on their own private island,
and Commissioner Bowman continued to stress that the designation
of conservation is simply a recommendation to the Liers as a
private owner.
The Chairman recommended that Mrs. Lier discuss this with
Ms. Burzycki.
Claude "Bud" Kleckner, Holly Road, requested that considera-
tion be given to stripping one of the conservation islands in the
R15/16 strip near Pelican Island to be used by the sand terns,
oyster catchers, etc., that nest on sand.
Ms. Burzycki advised that every one of those islands is
currently heavily used by birds, and she is reluctant to deprive
some birds of their nesting habitats to provide it for the
others. She stated that there is plenty of nesting area in this
county for terns, but it is mostly occupied by sunbathers.
Mr. Kleckner contended that this is another example of the
fact that we need a comprehensive plan for the use of the river.
Bob Burnett came before the Board representing Lost Tree
Village. He claimed that IR29 is improperly shown on the map of
the Spoil Islands. They believe it is one island south. Part of
it is Joe Earman Park, but the rest is owned by Lost Tree Village
35
BOOK?,
UN 11990
JUN 121990
and has residential zoning in place. They want to have proper
designation of IR 28 and 29, and they believe that 24B also is
owned by Lost Tree.
Ms. Burzycki advised that the DNR did a title search on all
of these islands, and it was shown that 24B was state owned. If
Mr. Burnett has documentation showing otherwise, she would like
to see it because the DNR has a revegetation plot on that island.
She further noted that her understanding was that 29 was the
island to the north of Fritz Island, but Mr. Burnett noted that
the FIND Map shows Island 29 as being on Fritz Island. He
advised that Lost Tree made comments about this last September,
and they thought the corrections would have been made by now.
Discussion continued as to exactly which islands were owned
by Lost Tree Village Corporation, and Ms. Burzycki stated that
she would be happy to meet with Mr. Burnett and make a correction
as necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
June 12, 1990
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
The Honorable Bob Martinez
Governor, State of Florida
The Capitol Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
RE: FDNR Proposed Indian River Lagoon
Spoil Island Management Plan
Dear Governor Martinez:
Suncom Telephone: 224-1011
I'm writing with reference to the Florida Department of Natural
Resources' (FDNR) proposed Indian River Lagoon Spoil Island
Management Plan, At a regular public meeting on June 12, 1990, the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners reviewed and
discussed the proposed plan, with FDNR Environmental Specialist
Gwen Burzycki on hand to answer questions. The Board voted
unanimously to support the plan as proposed.
36
The Board promotes and encourages recreational opportunities for
the general public and the citizens of Indian River County. It is
recognized, however, that the spoil islands in Indian River County
and elsewhere in the Indian River Lagoon are valuable, fragile
ecosystems and protection through appropriate management is
important and necessary.
Ms. Burzycki Satisfied the County Commission's concern regarding
use class if ications,'assuring that recreational opportunities have
been afforded where appropriate on spoil islands based on site
conditions.
In summary, the Indian River County Board of County -Commissioners
supports FDNR's Indian River Lagoon Spoil Island Management Plan
and encourages its adoption by the Cabinet on June 26, 1990.
Sincerely,
f. X
Caro n K. Egge , Chairman
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
NORTH COUNTY LEASED SPACE
General Services Director Dean made the following presenta-
tion, reviewing the 3 proposals:
DATE: JUNE 5, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY LEASED SPACE
BACKGROUND:
As instructed by the Board, Staff has looked for office space in the
Sebastian area to lease for the Supervisor of Elections, Clerk of the
Court and Veterans Services. This was to be on a temporary basis
until the decision was made to buy property and construct our own
building. Two property owners have expressed a desire and made
proposals for such a lease arrangement. One owner from the original
Request For Proposal has a proposal to be considered that qualifies
for our short term needs.
Mr. David Fisher of Sebastian Development Project, Inc. has made the
following proposal:
SHORT TERM
1. Twenty-four hundred (2,400) square feet on the ground floor
at $8.75. ($21,000 annual)
2. Thirty-six hundred (3,600 square feet on the second floor at
'$7.50. ($27,000 annual)
37
1990
BOOK So [All
t? U C � v
JUN 1
3. Lease renewable annually for up to five years.
4. Annual escalation clause based on actual market and cost
factors.
5. Occupancy July 1990
6. Located in the Sebastian Center at 1627 North U.S. 1.
7. County would be responsible for renovations.
INTERMEDIATE-TERM
As part of his proposal, Mr.. Fisher requested that we move into his
new building when it is constructed. Lease would be $9.15 per square
foot for first floor space and $8.65 per square foot for second floor
space. He would like to combine all County leased space for north
county in his new facility. Exceptions for some offices allowed by
mutual agreement.
LONG TERM
1. Donate 1.5 acres of land for County to construct their own
facility.
A. Five year reverter clause
b. Set aside additional 1.5 acres for purchase to
construct emergency services facility. This is a five
year option.
c. Use restrictions:
(1) No jail/prison facilities
(2) No onsite medical care
(3) No construction/equipment storage yard
d. County facilities design and usage consistent with
North County Office Park guidelines.
e. Legal and transaction costs by County.
f. Sebastian Development allowed to bid on or
competitively negotiate construction of County's
building(s) and/or to provide project management
services for same.
The Westin Reid Group (WR), management firm for the Sebastian Square
has made a proposal to lease 2,880 square feet of space that would
suit our needs at a cost of $7.00 per square foot ($20,160 annual).
This space is where Gene Morris has leased office area, next to
Walmart. The proposed space -is open area which will require some
renovations. Mrs. Robinson has a counter that can be used for both
she and the clerk. The WR Group has offered to share in the
renovations with the County to pay a proportion not to exceed
$9,000.00 or WR Group will pay all cost and charge $8.50 per square
foot.
The proposed lease price is good for two (2) years with an escalation
clause same as the Consumer Price Index.
Sebastian Center, LTD. offered space in the original RFP. They have
2,400 square feet that is available on the ground floor of their
facility which can be leased for $8.75 per square foot with a
bi-annual adjustment equal to the CPI not to exceed 8%. Cost
calculations were based on an average of 4% CPI.
38
ESTIMATED COST
Sebastian Development Project
First Year:
2,400 square feet @ $8.75 = $21,000
Second Year:
2,400 square feet @ $9.15
= $21,960
$42,960
Westin Reid Group
First year:
2,880 square feet @ $7.00
= $20,160
Second year:
2,880 square feet @ $7.00
- $20,160
$40,320
Sebastian Center, LTD
First Six Months:
2,400 square feet @ $8.75 = $10,500
Second Six Months: -
2,400 square feet @ $9.10 = $10,920
Third Six Months:
2,400 square feet @ $9.46 = $11,352
Fourth Six Months:
2,400 square feet @ $9.84 = 11 808
Total for Two Years $44,580
Renovations for all the proposals would have to be paid. by the
County. Since all the areas are open space, it is anticipated that
cost for the renovations would be approximately the same.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In looking at the short term prospective, conditions of the proposals
and cost involved, staff recommends that we accept the proposal from
Westin Reid Group. It is also requested that the Board authorize
$1,800 for utilities during the remainder of this fiscal year and
funds not to exceed $9,000 for renovations.
Director Dean noted that David Fisher of Sebastian Develop-
ment Project, Inc., presented a plan which included a short term,
intermediate, and long range plan, but it would necessitate us
moving 3 times. On his long term plan, he would include donation
of 1.5 acres on which we could construct our own facilities, but
he has some deed restrictions on the land. Renovations have to
be done in all cases; so, staff did not consider that as part of
the 2 year's cost as it would be the same for all of them. Staff
is recommending the Westin -Reid short term proposal.
39
'JUN 1990
FF,_ -1
_JUN 12 1990
Commissioner Scurlock noted that taking the short term
approach would give us time to analyze at least these 3
proposals. He further noted that we also have to consider the
acreage he solicited from Mr. McQueen's client, and Mr. Henry
Fischer now has offered 1.5 acres at Chesser Gap.
Commissioner Bowman asked if we don't have to build a road
if we go up into Chesser Gap, and Director Dean stated that we do
not. Mr. Fischer would do all that.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendationE,to accept the proposal from
the Westin Reid Group and also authorized $1,800 for
utilities during the remainder of this fiscal year
and funds not to exceed $9,000 for renovations.
BID #90-70 - CONFLICT MONITOR TESTER (TRAFFIC CONTROL)
The Board reviewed memo from Traffic Engineer Dudeck:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
e
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.E.
County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Award of Low Bid -
Conflict Monitor Tester (Bid #90-70)
Use of Excess Budgeted Funds
DATE: June 5, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
When preparing the budget for a Conflict Monitor Tester to
dramatically reduce staff time in checking all County
maintained Traffic Control Signals last year, staff budgeted
only $4,000.00 in acct. #111-245-541-066.49.
When I first saw the estimate that was in the budget I knew
that the cost would be between $5,000.00 and $5,500.00 due
to the fact that I had been involved in purchasing this
equipment recently and that there were only two
manufacturers of the equipment in the United States.
Other line items in the capital account #111-245-541-66.49
included a self propelled Concrete Saw and a Tar Pot system
for sealing the placement of loop detectors. As indicated
in the attached memo of May 18, 1990 the bids received due
to cooperation between the Traffic Engineering Division and
40
the Purchasing Division resulted in a total savings of
$3,527.00 for these two items in the account
#111-245-541-66.49 under discussion.
Since the low bid of $5,285.00 is in excess of 10% of what
was budgeted, additional funds must be identified and
authorized to purchase this critically needed piece of
equipment. A total of $1,285.00 is needed.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The only alternative to utilizing $1,285.00 in excess funds
from account #111-245-541-66.49 would be not to purchase the
Conflict Monitor Tester, at all. In essence this would be a
"Do Nothing Alternative".
Given the critical need for this "State of the Art" Conflict
Monitor, with our ever increasing number of Traffic Control
Signals which need constant testing to protect the County's
liability, the only feasible alternative would be to utilize
the excess funds already in the Traffic Engineering
Divisions budget to purchase this piece of equipment.
Upon receipt of the bids, I noticed that _the first and
second low bidders were within $63.00 of one another which
indicated the County received fair competitive bids for this
product.
Even though the low bid was within the range I expected, I
initiated inquires to my fellow Traffic Engineers in the
state and verified that we indeed received fair competitive
bids.
Since all of the equipment which was not cut from this years
budget is deemed to be absolutely necessary to protect
County liability and motorists safety, the fact that we are
well below overall spending in -our Capital Budget would
indicate that the prudent action would be to allocate the
additional $1,285.00 and purchase the Conflict Monitor
Tester.
RECOMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Based upon my research which is spelled out in my May 18,
1990 memo, it is recommended that $1,285.00 be added to the
budgeted $4,000.00 and the Conflict Monitor Tester be
purchased as soon as possible.
The Concrete Saw, Tar Pot, and the Conflict Monitor Tester
are all budgeted in account #111-245-541-66.49 and therefore
no budget line item transfer is actually needed to make this
purchase.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #90-70 for a Conflict Monitor Tester to the
low bidder, Southern Aluminum, in the amount of
$5,285, per the following Bid Tabulation, and also
approved the addition of $1,285 of Excess Budgeted
Funds to the budgeted $4,000 as recommended by staff.
JUN- 12 1990 41 boor
JUIN 121990
BOOK
-
Dote' 4/26/90
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Z840259hSaeer 9eoBeacLFlorfdo32960
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
To9309 "Tam
Z i;.,;
submitted By Dominick L Mascola
PURCHASING MANAGER
+�
Bid No. 90-70 Dote Of Opening4/25/90
Recmnmended Award
�IO1110P'
Bid TaM
Title conflict onitor Testing unit
$
Southern Aluminum
5,285.00
1. Southern Aluminum b Steel
Com $5,285.00
P.O. Box 530247
Birmingham, Alabama 35253
2. -Traffic Products, Inc
P.O. Box 31101
Palm Beach Gardens, Fl 33420-11.01
s
3. Solid State Devices, Inc
$6,100.00
.
1257 West Geneva Dr
Tempe, Arizona 85282
h
APPLICATION UNDER BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: James E. Chandler, , �; ��''`
County Administrator
p-!
FROM: - gi`81James W. Davis, P.E.,
��� Public Works Director DATE: June 6, 1990
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Submittal of an
Application Under the State of Florida Beach
Erosion Control Assistance Program
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the April 10, 1990 Board of County Commission
meeting, the Board approved a work order for Coastal
Technology to apply for grant funding for
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.
Projects # 2 and # 3 are maintenance projects needed to
place fill along the existing dune escarpment at Wabasso
Beach Park and Golden Sands Park.
RECOMMEIMATIONS AND FUNDING
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached resolution,
authorizing the submittal of an application under the Beach
Erosion Control Assistance Program for the purpose of
requesting State financial assistance; designating Coastal
Technology to prepare and process an application on behalf
of the County and whereby the County agrees to implement the
program.
Funding
budget.
is proposed in Fiscal Year 1990/91 Parks Department
7-7 L-
_I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-78 approving submittal of an application
under the Florida Beach Erosion Control Assistance
Program.
RESOLUTION NO. QQn_7AA
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION
CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Indian River County has had damage to structures
and/or coastal lands by storms and erosion in areas of public
lands, and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida has established a Beach
Erosion Control Assistance Program providing for financial
assistance for erosion control and preservation of the sandy
beaches within the State.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, as follows:
1. The County, as local sponsor, hereby approves the submittal
of an application under the Beach Erosion Control Assistance
Program• for the purpose of requesting State financial
assistance with implementation of erosion control
Improvements within Indian River County at Wabasso Beach
Park, Golden Sands Park, and Treasure Shores Park.
2. The County hereby designates Michael Walther, P.E. of
Coastal Technology Corporation, as the Project Engineer and
Agent for the purpose of preparing and processing this
application on behalf of the County.
3. The County agrees to implement the beach improvement program
under the procedures set forth in the Florida Administrative
Code.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Wheeler
and seconded by Commissioner Scurlock and, being put to a
vote, was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 12th day of June , 1990.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY
Carolyn C. Eggertlfhairman
43
JUN 12 1990
JUN 12
BOOK .0 FACE F
RESOLUTIONS TO FILE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING - I.R.BLVD. PHASE 3
R/W & MITIGATION (HOFFMAN)
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo,
noting that the 120 Administrative Hearing is a week from today.
TO: James E. Chandler, i • 3%a�f��ff
County Administrator
FROM:` 1' -''James W. Davis, P. E. ,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorizing Resolutions
Proceeding - I.R. Blvd.
Mitigation Area, Parcel
W. Hoffman and Camille
to File Eminent Domain
Phase 3 Right -of -Way and
#108 - Property Owner Paul
O. Hoffman
RE: Letter from Donald G. Finney, IRC to
Paul W. and Camille O. Hoffman dated Jan. 16, 1990
DATE: June 6, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has offered to purchase
approximately 42.614 acres from Paul W. and Camille O.
Hoffman for the Indian River Blvd. Phase III right-of-way
(14.984 acres) and wetlands mitigation area (27.63 acres).
The property owner has refused the County's offer of
$242,000.00, which was based on the average value
established in two current appraisals obtained by the
County. The property owner has not indicated his desired
compensation for the property.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternative are presented:
Alternative #1
Attached are two Resolutions authorizing the
acquisition of the property by Eminent Domain
proceedings. The first Resolution is for the area
needed for road right-of-way and uneconomic remainder,
and the second is for the mitigation area. The first
alternative is to approve the Resolutions and authorize
staff and legal consultants to proceed with Eminent
Domain action. The recommended action will require the
deposit of approximately $242,000.00 with the court at
the time of the judicial hearing on an Order of Taking
at a subsequent date. A jury trial will be held to
determine fair market value. The Board previously
authorized the retention of outside legal services with
Blackwell, Walker, Fascell, and Hoehl, attorneys in
Miami, F1. to represent the County. Legal fees for
this alternative are included in staff's request.
Also, for purposes of necessity, staff is recommending
approval of the right-of-way alignment map for the
project and approval of the mitigation plan which
requires purchasing approximately 100 acres of Golf
Course Impoundment No. 22.
Alternative #2
Deny approval of the attached resolutions and abandon
the project.
44
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended including:
1) Approve both Resolutions for the road right-of-way
and mitigation area.
2) Authorize staff and outside legal consultants to
proceed with Eminent Domain action to acquire the
Paul W. Hoffman and Camille O. Hoffman property.
3) At this time, authorize funding of $242,000.00 to
be the good faith estimate of compensation placed
with the court.
4) Authorize expending funds for consultant legal
fees, appraisal updates, and miscellaneous
expenses involved with the Eminent Domain action.
5) -Approve the right-of-way map and mitigation plan
for the project.
Funding in the amount of $242,000.00 plus legal and
miscellaneous fees to be from Fund 309, Indian River Blvd.
North. -
OPOSED RICHT—OF—NAY ACQUISITION
OFQSED ACQUISITION OF UNECONOMIC REMAINDER
a
45
NOT TO SCALE
800K
80 tl . 4 e'
Fc o -JE a�'s-Jy�,'
-JUN 12 WO
Bm 8 FA.,E
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve Alternative #1,
adopting Resolutions 90-79 and 90-80 declaring
acquisition of the R/W and mitigation area a public
necessity, and to approve the other 4 conditions
set out under
Alternative No. 1 in
the
above memo
dated June 6,
1990, as recommended
by
staff.
Public -Works Director Davis wished to enter the following
into the record. He noted that on March 20, 1990, staff did
present a fairly lengthy history of the Indian River Boulevard
project and went into much of the history that has brought us to
this point in recommending to the Board some R/W acquisitions.
Particul.arly, staff recommended approval of an environmental
mitigation plan that the Board did approve on March the 20th.
The Board did unanimously approve the final mitigation plan
prepared by the staff and Boyle Engineering Corporation as he
recommended. His recommendation at that time was that the County
take by purchasing or eminent domain action a certain area for
mitigation known as a portion of Impoundment #22, and that was
made on behalf of the people of Indian River County and was made
independent from any requirements of the various permitting
agencies.
Director Davis recommended that the County resolve to take
specific properties for mitigation for the reasons discussed at
that March 20, 1990, meeting and also because it is in the best
interests of the people of the county. The County's determina-
tion that the taking is in the best interests of the people of
the county should be properly based upon the County's under-
standing of the various studies and discussion concerning the
creation and placement of the mitigation site. He noted that
this morning before the Board are some parcels - Director Davis
then referred to the aerial displayed before the Board and
informed the Board that Parcel #108 is owned by Paul & Camille
46
Hoffman. We have two Resolutions - one that involves the R/W
needed for the Indian River Boulevard extension and also an
uneconomic remainder to the west of the R/W. That land is needed
for the actual roadway construction of the 200' R/W for the
roadway. In addition is a Resolution for a portion of the middle
cell of Impoundment #22, which is being recommended as needed for
a mitigation area to mitigate the impacts of the filling of
wetlands within the R/W for the roadbed and associated drainage
system to serve the roadway. So, what is before the Board this
morning in terms of Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman's property is a R/W, an
uneconomic remainder to the west, a Resolution for that property,
and also for a portion of the middle cell in Impoundment #22.
Director Davis informed the Board that, in addition, a
separate agenda item has been prepared for the property that we
refer to as the Martin Gregory property. It is Parcel #110.
Staff is recommending that a portion of that be obtained for
mitigation also as part of the middle cell of Impoundment #22.
There is a remainder outside of the impoundment area that is
being recommended if the property owner wishes that we also
consider taking that. FDOT has indicated that they would be
interested in using the remainder for possible mitigation of the
new Merrill Barber Bridge project once they get into implementa-
tion of that project, and we do have correspondence from the DOT
indicating that they would join in with the County to purchase
that portion of the Gregory property outside of Impoundment #22.
Director Davis continued that the alignment map for the
Boulevard was approved on March 20, 1990, and that is before the
Board again this morning, just as an administerial task, to refer
to that R/W map for the purpose of the two Resolutions. Director
Davis stated that, not reiterating all the history of the
project, which is a part of the March 20, 1990 Minutes, the staff
recommends to the Board this morning regarding Parcel #108 that
the Resolutions for the Hoffman property be approved and that. we
�� soo
JUN 12 X990 t; �� �„�;� J4-, _
� J
K
JUN 12 1990
. �prK. 80 PAGE342
proceed with either the purchase of the property or eminent
domain action as recommended in staff's memo dated June 6, 1990.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and approved unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE EXTENSION OF INDIAN
RIVER BOULEVARD FROM BARBER AVENUE TO
ROYAL PALM BOULEVARD, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE A PUBLIC
NECESSITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Di -rector, after
reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian
River County acquire certain parcels of real property in fee
simple absolute title for providing a road right-of-way
essential for construction of Indian River Boulevard from
Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition I's in the best
Interest of the people of Indian River County and is for a
county and public purpose, to wit: for providing a
right-of-way essential for the construction of Indian River
Boulevard from Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, for the aforesaid reasons and purposes,
Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in certain parcels of real property is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property
that Indian River County needs to acquire for providing the
needed right-of-way are described in Exhibit One (1)
attached hereto and by reference Incorporated herein.
NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,,FLORIDA, that:
1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies those
matters set forth In the foregoing recitals.
2. Indian River County's acquisition of the fee
simple absolute title in the parcels of real property
48
described in Exhibit One (1) is hereby found and determined
to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and
purposes. I
3, The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in
Its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain
Proceedings, the fee simple absolute title in the parcels of
real property described in Exhibit One (1). In acquiring
the parcels described in Exhibit One (1), the County
Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized and
directed. to prepare, in the name of Indian River County, a
declaration of taking, any and all papers or pleadings, or
any other instrument or instruments. In .acquiring these
parcels the County Attorney, his assistant, or designee Is
further authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or
lawsuits to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, If
necessary, any appeal, either interlocutory or final.
4. The County attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to taKe sucn
further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to
fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove
authorized and directed.
Commissioner ScurrLg_LL_ offered the foregoing
resolution, and moved for its adoption. Commissioner
Bowman seconded the motion, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
• Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert 6ye��
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Ave-
Commissioner
ve
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman gam_
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler A-ve
The Chairman then"eupon declared the resolution
duly..passed and adopted at public meeting this _42thday of
June 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By GC L,
�aroTy gge�rGFiaTrman
49 mar" R
A j4
_I
JUN 121990
BOOK
EXHIBIT ONE
LegaT-Description
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SEj OF THE NE4 OF 36-32-39
Commence at the SE corner of the NEj of Section 36,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East and run S8905612411W 922.75
feet to a point of POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
Continue S8905612411W 191.77 feet to a point. Then run
N0000214711E 218.00 feet to a point. Then run
S8905612311W 29.25 feet to a point. Then run
NO300614311W 746.83 feet to a point of curve concave to
the West with a radius of 891.4.71 feet and a chord bearing
N04026 15911W. Then. run Northwesterly along the curve,
through a central angle of 0200715611, an arc distance of
331.76 feet to a point. Then run
S8404512111W 20.00 feet to a point. Then run
Along a tangent curve concave to the West, with a
radius of 8894.71 feet and a chord bearing N0512214011W,
through a central angle of 0011610311, an arc distance of
41.53 feet to a point In the North line of the SEj of the
NEj of Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39 East. Then
run
N89053 '44"E,
along the
said line,
220.85 feet
to a
point. Then run
Southeasterly on a
non -tangent
curve
concave to the West with a
radius of 9114.71
feet
and a
chord bearing of
SO401414711E,
through a
central angle of
0201610811, an arc
distance of
360.94 feet
to a point.
Then
run
S0300614311E 799.12 feet to a point of curve concave to
the East with a radius of 1809.86 feet and a chord bearing
S0505511311E. Then run
Southeasterly, along the curve through a central angle
of 0503710111, an arc distance of 177,43 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING. Containing 6.049 acres.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
Page 1 of 3
50
M s M
RICHT -OF -WAY IN THE NEI OF THE NEI OF 36-32-39
Commence at the SW corner of the NEI of the NEI of
Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39• East, and run along
the West I ine of the said NEI of the NEI N0002 14711E 600.59
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run, still along the
said West line of the NEI of the NEI, N000214711E 565.59 feet.
to a point. Then run
Along a 1537.39 -foot radius curve concave to the
Southwest, with a chord bearing of S21°11'46"E, through a
central angle of 2403614511, an arc distance of 660.42 feet
to a point of compound curve. Then run
Along 9119.71 -foot radius curve concave to the
Southwest, with a chord bearing of S8029.15011E, through a
central angle of 004710811, an arc distance of 125.05 feet to
a point. Then run
S8105314411W 5 feet to a point in a 9114.71 -foot radius
curve concave to the Southwest, with a chord bearing of
S604413411E. Then run
Along the curve, through a central angle of 204312511,
an arc distance of 433.24 feet to a point in the South line
of the said NEI of the NEI. Then run
Along the said South line S8905314411W 220.96 feet to a
point. Then run
Along an 8894.71 -foot radius curve concave to the
Southwest, with a chord bearing of N711210311W, through a
central angle of 302814211, an arc distance of 524.46 feet to
a point of compound curve. Then run
Along a 1312.39 -foot radius curve concave to the
Southwest, with a chord bearing of N10040'18"W, through a
central angle of 303314811, an arc distance of 81.62 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 211,490.78 square feet or 4.855 acres.
Page 2 of 3
51
BOOK
JUN 121990
- BOOK �� FAGE •J��
UNECONOMIC REMAINDER
Part of the East I of the NEI of Section 36, Township
32 South, Range 39 East, described as follows:
Commence at the SE corner of the aforesaid NEI and run
S8905612411W along the South line of the said NEI a distance
of 1114.52 feet to a point. Then run
N000214711E 218 feet to a point. Then.run
S8905612311W a distance of 29.25 feet. to the POINT OF
BEGINNING. Then run
S8905612311W a distance of 170.75 feet to a point in the
West line of the said NEI. Then run
Along"theWest line N000214711E a distance of 1716.72
feet to a point. Then run
Southeasterly, on a 1312.39 -foot radius curve concave
to the West whose chord bearing is S10040118"E, through a
central angle of 303314811, an arc distance of 81.62 feet to
a point. Then run
Still Southeasterly, on an 8894.71 -foot radius curve
concave to the West whose chord bearing Is S700410111E
through a central angle of 303814511, an arc distance of
565.98 feet to a point. Then run
N8404512111E a distance of 20 feet to a point. Then run
Southeasterly along an 8914.71 -foot radius curve
concave to the West whose chord bearing is S402615911E,
through.a central angle of 103512011, an arc distance of
247.23 feet, to a point. Then run
Still along the same curve, with a chord bearing of
S302310111E, through a central angle of 003213611, an arc
distance of 84.53 feet to a point. Then run
S300614311E a distance of 746.83 feet .to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 177,716.93 square feet or 4.08 acres, and
lying in Indian River County, Florida.
Page 3 of 3
52
RESOLUTION NO. 90-_ 80_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
MITIGATION AREA, SO AS TO MITIGATE
DAMAGE TO WETLANDS CAUSED BY INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY'S EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD FROM BARBER AVENUE TO ROYAL
PALM BOULEVARD, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY; AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A
MITIGATION AREA.
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 90_72 this Board
resolved to acquire the fee simple absolute title in certain
parcels of real property for providing a right-of-way
essential for. the extension of Indian River Boulevard from
Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, in order to extend Indian River Boulevard
as resolved, Indian River County must fill certain wetlands;
and
WHEREAS, the filling of wetlands *has a negative
Impact upon the ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, it is In the best interest of the people
of Indian River County to mitigate damages to wetlands; and
WHEREAS, this Board finds.. it necessary and for a
county and public purpose that Indian River County mitigate
damage It may cause the wetlands by creating a mitigation
area; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and various other agencies recommend that Indian
River County mitigate damage it causes to wetlands by
creating a mitigation area; and
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Director, after
reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian
River County acquire fee simple absolute title in certain
parcels of real property for creating a mitigation area so
as to mitigate damage to wetlands caused by Indian River
County's resolved improvement of Indian River Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition is in .the best
interest of the people of Indian River County and Is for a
53 BUOY} F'.1GE p
J0lilt, 2 "990
JUN 12 1990
BOOK �J PE4%,'
county and public purpose, to wit: for creating a
mitigation area so as to mitigate damage to wetlands caused
by Indian River County's resolved extension of Indian River
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, for the aforesaid reasons and purposes,
Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in certain parcels of real property is.necessary; and
WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property
that Indian River County needs In fee simple absolute title
for creating the above-described mitigation area are
described in Exhibit One (1) attached 'hereto and' by
reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies those
matters set forth in the foregoing recitals.
2. Indian River County's acquisition of the fee
simple absolute title in the parcels of real property
described in Exhibit One (1) is hereby found and determined
to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and
purposes.
3. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee Is -hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in
Its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain
Proceedings, the fee simple absolute title in the parcels of
real property described in Exhibit=One (1). In acquiring
the parctis described In Exhibit One (1), the County
Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized and
directed to prepare, in the name of Indian River County, a
declaration of taking, any and all papers or any other
instrument or instruments. In acquiring these parcels the
County Attorney, his assistant, or designee. Is further
authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or lawsuits
to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, if necessary,
any appeal, either interlocutory or final.
54
4. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take such
further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to
fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove
authorized and directed.
Commissioner
Scurlock
offered
the foregoing
resolution, and moved
for its
adoption.
Commissioner
Bowman seconded the motion, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave_
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted at public meeting this 12th day of
June , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ey
UaroTyt� gger alTrman
..IMPOUNDMENT AREA IN THE SEI OF THE NEI OF 36-32-39
Begin at the Southeast corner of the' said SE} of the
NEIfof Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, and run
S89°59'28"W 922.75 feet to a point. Then run
On the arc of a non -tangent 1809.86 -foot radius curve
concave to the Northeast with a chord bearing N05055113"W,
through a central angle of 05037'01", an arc distance of
177.43 feet to a point. Then run NO3006143"W 799.12 feet to
a point. Then run
Along a 9114.71 -foot radius curve concave to the
Southwest with a chord bearing N04002126"W, through a
central angle of 01°51'17", an arc distance of 295.04 feet
to a point. •Then run
N89043040"E 888.89 feet to a point. Then run
S20020104"E 153.29 feet to a point. Then run
S05042143"E 114.95 feet to a point. Then run
S2904710811E 93.86 feet to a point In the East Iine of
the said SE{ of the NEI. Then run along the said East line
S00018125"E 933.17 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 27.63 acres, tying in Indian River County,
Florida.
55
BOQr J4
JUN
12 WO
c
RESOLUTION TO FILE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING -
I.R.BLVD.
PHASE 3
MITIGATION AREA & REMAINING PARCEL #110 (GREGORY & WIGGINS)
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: 4-- IJames
61 Public
W. Davis, P.E.,
Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorizing Resolution,{ to File Eminent
Domain Proceedings - I.R. Blvd. Phase III
Mitigation Area and Remaining Parcel #100 -
Prop. Owner Martin A. Gregory and
Richard B. Wiggins, Trustees
REF. LETTER: Donald G. Finney, IRC to Martin A. Gregory
and Richard B. Wiggins dated Jan. 25, 1990
DATE: June 6, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has offered to purchase
approximately 43.77 acres from Martin A. Gregory and Richard
B. Wiggins, Trustees for the Indian River Boulevard Phase
III wetlands mitigation area. The property owner has
refused the county's offer of $425,326, which was based on
the average value established in two current appraisals
obtained by the County. The property owner through his
agent, attorney Michael O'Haire, verbally indicated his
desired compensation for the property to be $1,300,000.
In addition, Mr. O'Haire verbally indicated that the
property owners may be willing to make available to the
County an alternate mitigation area site for the project if
the County will revised its mitigation plan. Staff
requested these two counter offers in writing, however, no
written communication has been received.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative # 1
Attached is one Resolution authorizing the acquisition
of the Martin A. Gregory and Richard B. Wiggins,
Trustees, property by Eminent Domain proceedings. The
first alternative is to approve the Resolution and
authorize staff and legal consultants to proceed with
Eminent Domain action. The recommended action will
require the deposit of $425,326 with the court at the
time of the judicial hearing on an Order of Taking at a
subsequent date. A jury trial will be held to
determine fair market value. The Board previously
authorized the retention of outside legal services with
Blackwell, Walker, Fascell, and Hoehl, attorneys in
Miami, FL to represent the County. Legal fees for this
alternative are included in staff's request.
Also for purposes of necessity, staff is recommending
approval of the mitigation plan which requires
purchasing approximately 100 acres of Golf Course
Impoundment No. 22.
56
Alternative No. 2
Deny approval of the attached resolution and abandon
the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended including:
1) Approve the Resolution for the mitigation area needed.
2) Authorize staff and outside legal consultants to proceed
with Eminent Domain action to acquire the Martin A.
Gregory and Richard B. Wiggins, Trustees.
3) At this time, authorize funding of $425,326 to be the
good faith estimated of compensation placed with the
Court.
4) Authorize expending funds for consultant legal fees,
appraisal updates, and miscellaneous expenses involved
with the Eminent Domain action.
5) Approve the mitigation plan for the project.
Funding in the amount of $425,326 plus legal and miscel-
laneous fees to be from Fund 309, Indian River Boulevard
North.
Director Davis believed that he covered all this in his
statement on the previous Agenda item referring to the exhibits
displayed before the Board. He noted that this is a portion of
the impoundment area that staff is recommending the county
acquire as a part of the mitigation plan to mitigate the filling
of the roadway R/W. Director Davis informed the Board that we
did extend an offer to Mr. Gregory in writing, as we did Mr.
Hoffman in the prior item. There has been communication with his
representatives, and Mr. O'Haire is in the audience here this
morning. There was a counter offer verbally made to the staff;
he believed the compensation was 1.3 million dollars, and there
was some discussipn regarding an alternate mitigation site that
perhaps Mr. Gregory and his associates had indicated they may
consider offering to the County. However, we have not received
anything in writing, and based on that, we are not sure whether
there is a firm counter offer on the table or not. In regard to
that, staff does present the Resolution to the Board this morning
considering this property because this property is needed for the
mitigation of the project.
The Chairman determined that Mr. O'Haire did not wish to
make any comments.
57 BOOK du f'.1GE�
JUN 121990
BOOK fA .. = c3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative #1, adopting Resolution 90-81 declaring
acquisition of a mitigation area a public necessity,
and approving the other 4 conditions set out under
Alternative No. 1 in the above memo dated June 6,
1990, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION OF A
MITIGATION AREA, SO AS TO MITIGATE
DAMAGE TO WETLANDS CAUSED BY INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY'S EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD FROM BARBER AVENUE TO ROYAL
PALM BOULEVARD, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY;
FLORIDA, TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY; AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A
MITIGATION AREA.
WHEREAS, in Resolution Nos. 90-36, 90-37 and 90-79
this Board resolved to acquire the fee simple absolute title
In certain parcels of real property for providing a
right-of-way essential for the extension of Indian River
Boulevard from Barber Avenue to Royal Palm Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, in order to extend Indian River Boulevard
as resolved, Indian River County must fill certain wetlands;
and
WHEREAS, the filling of wetlands has a negative
Impact upon the ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the people
of Indian River County to mitigate damages to wetlands; and
WHEREAS, this Board finds it necessary and for a
county and public purpose that Indian River County mitigate
damage it may cause the wetlands by creating a mitigation
area; an.d
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and various other agencies recommend that Indian
58
River County mitigate damage it causes to wetlands by
creating•a mitigation area; and
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Director, after
reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian
River County acquire fee simple absolute 'title in certain
parcels of real property for creating a mitigation area so
as to mitigate damage to wetlands caused by Indian River
County's resolved improvement of Indian River Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition is In the best
interest of the people of Indian River County and is for a
county and public purpose, to wit: for creating a
mitigation area so as to mitigate damage to wetlands caused
by Indian River County's resolved extension of Indian River
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, for the aforesaid reasons and purposes,
Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute
title in certain parcels of real property is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property
that Indian River County needs In fee simple absolute title
for creating the above-described mitigation area are
described in Exhibit One (1) attached hereto and by
reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies those
matters set forth In the foregoing recitals.
2. Indian River County's acquisition of the fee
simple absolute title in the parcels of real property
described in Exhibit One (1) is hereby found and determined
to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and
purposes..
3. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in
Its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain
J U N 12 1990 59 BOCI!( r�,,c
r- -7
JUN 12 1990
Proceedings, the fee simple absolute title In the parcels of
real property described In Exhibit One (1). In acquiring
the parcels described in Exhibit One (1), the County
Attorney, his assistant, or designee Is authorized and
directed to prepare, in the name of Indian River County, a
declaration of taking, any and all papers or any other
Instrument or instruments. In acquiring these parcels the
County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is further
authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or lawsuits
to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, if necessary,
any appeal, either Interlocutory or final.
4. The County Attorney, his assistant, or
designee "Is hereby authorized and directed to take such
further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to
fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove
authorized and directed.
'Commissioner Scurlock offered the foregoing
resolution, and moved for its adoption. Commissioner
Wheeler seconded the motion,' and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert gy-e
—
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird AC.e.__
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. AYe
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler AYe
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted at public meeting this —J-Uhday of
June , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Caro I yngg",—aTrman
EXHIBIT ONE
Lega T—Ne—sc it p t I on
All of Government Lot 4, Section 31, Township 32 South,
Range 40 East, lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
Containing 43.77 acres.
60
CONTRACT FOR HERON_CAY WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION (90TH AVE.)
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Director:
DATE: JUNE 6, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO ,i
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIREC R OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR HERON CAY (90TH AVENUE) WATER
LINE CONSTRUCTION
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -90 -04 -DS
IRC BID NO. 90-82
BACKGROUND:
The project to construct water facilities to service Heron Cay
Development was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
March 27, 1990; on May 22, the Board approved the award of the fixed
price contract to Derrico Construction for $66,320.00.
ANALYSIS:
The Performance Bond has been obtained by Derrico Construction and
is attached. In order for a Notice to Proceed to be issued, a
contract must be signed between Indian River County and Derrico
Construction.
RECOMMENDATION•
The staff 'of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners sign the contract with Derrico
Construction for construction of the water main.
Back-up information will follow.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the contract with Derrico Construc-
tion for construction of the water main for Heron Cay.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
JUN 121990 61 800K 80 F,,;t e
�UN12
1990
BOOK -80
T
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION -
SEA OAKS WW PLANT EXPANSION
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities staff, as follows:
DATE:
JUNE 4, 1990
T
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER`
r
, ft
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
RVICES
DIRECTOR OF UTILWROF
PREPARED
HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED
ASSISTANT DIRECTUTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
SEA OAKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS-90-02-DC/ED
BACKGROUND
On March .30, 1990, the Department of Utility Services"received ten
(10) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to provide
engineering services for the Sea Oaks Wastewater Plant Expansion
project. The selection committee reviewed the ten (10) responses
and selected four (4) firms to be interviewed.
ANALYSIS
On May 11, 1990, the selection committee interviewed the four (4)
firms, and as a result of the interview, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
2. Masteller and Moler
3. Professional Engineering Consultants
4. Carter Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to
conduct negotiations as to scope of work and cost, and to. -.proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm, based upon the outcome
of the negotiations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
Utilities staff to conduct negotiations and proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm as set
out above.
62
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WW PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities staff, as follows:
DATE: JUNE 4, 1990 /]r,
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER 'r '
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
V � 1
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO VVVVj
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIREd AOO UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WASTEWATER PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IRC 90-69
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services, on April 11, 1990, received
twelve (12) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to
provide engineering services for the Blue Cypress Lake Wastewater
Project (IRC Project No. 90-69). The selection committee reviewed
the twelve (12) responses and selected three firms to be
interviewed.
ANALYSIS
On May 21, 1990, the selection committee interviewed three firms,
and as a result of the interview, ranked the firms as follows:
1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
2. Professional Engineering Consultants
3. Dyer, Riddle
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services.recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department to conduct
negotiations as to scope of work and cost, and to proceed with an
agreement with the first choice firm, based upon outcome of the
negotiations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
Utilities staff to conduct negotiations and proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm as set
out above.
J 12 l 90 6 3 BOOK �J Frt�t
JUN 12 1990
BOOK 80 EA'E.3�7 ,
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - NORTH -COUNTY WATER PROJECT - PHASE I
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities staff, as follows:
DATE: JUNE 4, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
NORTH COUNTY WATER PROJECT - PHASE I
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -05 -DS
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 1990, the Department of Utility Services received
sixteen (16) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to
provide engineering services for the North County Water Project -
Phase I.* The selection committee reviewed the sixteen (16)
responses and selected four (4) firms to be interviewed for the
project.
ANALYSIS
On May 7, 1990, the selection committee interviewed the four (4)
firms, and as a result of the interviews, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
2. Masteller and Moler
3. Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
4. Carter Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to
conduct negotiations as to scope of work and cost, and to proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm, based upon the outcome
of the negotiations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
Utilities staff to conduct negotiations and proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm as set
out above.
64
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - NORTH COUNTY WATER SERVICE AREA
I
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities staff, as follows:
DATE: JUNE 4, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER r C
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT -DIRE OR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
NORTH COUNTY WATER SERVICE AREA
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 90-64
BACKGROUND
On March 30, 1990, the Department of Utility Services received
thirteen (13) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to
provide engineering services for the study, design, and inspection
services for the North County Water Service Area. The selection
committee reviewed the thirteen (13) responses and selected four (4)
firms to be interviewed.
ANALYSIS
On June 4, 1990, the selection committee interviewed the four (4)
firms, and as a result of the interview, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
2.- Kimball/Lloyd and Associates,. Inc.
3. Glace & Radcliffe, Inc.
4. Smith & Gillespie Engineers, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to
conduct negotiations as to scope of work and cost, and to proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm, based upon the outcome
of the negotiations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
Utilities staff to conduct negotiations and proceed
with an agreement with the first choice firm as set
out above.
� 'JUN 12 Wo
65 BOOK
fAut ® �
I
I
BOOK 80 A�
SEWER FORCE MAIN PROJ./I.R.BLVD. - CHANGE ORDER #2 (OWL 6 ASSOC.)
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer McCain:
DATE:
MAY 31, 1990
!1,
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
V�
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
PREPARED
WILLIMCCAIN
AND STAFFED
CAPITA OJECTS ENGINEER
BY:
DEPAR F UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
SEWER FORCE MAIN PROJECT ON INDIAN
RIVER
BOULEVARD
WITH OWL AND ASSOCIATES
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PROJECT NO.
US -89 -01 -CCS
BACKGROUND
We are currently constructing a sewer force main on 10th Street and
Indian River Boulevard. The project is being constructed by Owl and
Associates. We now have a second Change Order to bring before the
Board of County Commissioners for approval.
ANALYSIS
The increase in contract price comes from rock, which was
encountered in approximately 2,200 feet of the project. The
increase for rock is $9,937.50; this is a combination of rock
removal and fill cost. This amount equates to approximately $4.50
per foot. There is also a deduct of $5,968.00 for a change to a
canal crossing, making the cost increase from this Change Order
$3,969.50 (see attached change order).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 2 with Owl
and Associates.
ON MOTION By Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 with Owl & Associates as recommended
by staff.
66
CHANGE ORDER
(Instructions on reverse side)
�1
r
,.._ 2
PROJECT: 12" Force Main on Indian River DATE OF ISSUANCE:
Indian River Boulevard
OWNER: Indian River County
(Name, 1840 25th St.
Address) Vero Beach, FL 32960
Indian River Co.
Approved ate
Admin.
�eael
G—�
Buc:get.
utititit-s
'?tStc Mgr.
'
CONTRACTOR: Owl & Associates, Inc. OWNER's Project No. US8901CCS
115 Springline Dr.
Vero Mach, FL 32963 ENGINEER: Kimball/Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
P.O. 9
CONTRACT FOR: Furnish & Install Vero Beach,FL
Materials to Construct a 1211 Force Main
from U.S. 1 North to City Sewer Plant ENGINEER'sProject No— - 89-059
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Increase contract price by $6,360.00 for eauipment to remove rock.
Description: Increase contract price by $3,577.50 for offsite fill to displace rock removed.
Item 3A, "Ductile Iron Force Main - 12 -inch" reduce quantity from 130 LF to 80 LF and
decrease unit price from $80.00/LF to $55.40/LF for.a net decrease of $5,968.00 for
Purpose of Change Order. installing pipe over culverts instead of under culverts.
These three items result in net increase of $3,969.50.
Attachments: (List documents supporting change)
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price
5 227,162.50
Previous Change Orders No. 0 to No. I
S_ 30...0.0.0...0.0_ _
Contract Price prior to this Change Order
$ 257 { 162.50.
Net Increase (4.ee ease) of this Change Order
5 3, 96.9 ..50-.
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders
5 261f132.,0.0.
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
days or date
RECOMMENDED: APPROVED: APPROVED:
by /lZ,y, by c/ by
ngtneer bvnr. tractor �' 23 79EJCDC No. 1910-9-B (1983 Edition) /&��— �U
Prepared by the Engineers' Joint Contract Documems Committee and endorsed b) The Assoctated General Contractors of America.
67 Bou E°ut= �
'JUN 1 1990
'Juji 12 49U
BOOK F.4�E=�►�
PROPERTY PURCHASE PROPOSED NORTH COUNTY R.O.PLANT
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain:
DATE: JUNE 6, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPERTY PURCHASE FOR THE PROPOSED
NORTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -90 -12 -WC
PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJE T GINE
BY: DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
agenda item allowing the Utilities Department to. investigate
suitable locations for a North County Water Treatment Plant. We are
now ready to proceed with a purchase.
ANALYSIS
The staff, at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners,
looked at two final properties on which to locate the proposed
plant. (See attached memo to Terrance Pinto dated May 31, 1990 for
analysis.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached purchase
agreement for the +10 acre tract of land on the northwest corner of
Kings Highway and Hobart Road. (Property No. 1, in attached memo.) -
Commissioner Bird filed the following Conflict of Interest
and abstained from voting.
68
� � r
0 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
0r
//2�� ,hereby disclose that on � / 19
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
/J
inured to the special gain of ►��C &-7 Z L , by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
�T /1�C :Fs7� iZ ; .� l+s A cit 4!l etz -
T
JZ4 Sr
-�
(CIAfe:
7rt � .
Date Filed Signature
`I'
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.
Attorney Vitunac advised there will be a slight modifica-
tion. We have to survey the land to make sure of the exact
acreage, and we will pay the price per acre according to the
survey; also, they reduced their price a little to make the deal.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird abstaining, the
Board unanimously (4-0) approved purchase agreement
for the approximately 10 acre tract on the northwest
corner of Kings Highway and Hobart Road as recommended
by staff.
"
9
199 6goo b F�t
� J
�JUN 12 Wo
BOOK FAu
OPTION CONTRACT
SETWF. EN
BAGALEY, LUCAS, HOGAN E HESSEN
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
RE: POSSIBLE PROPERTY PURCHASE
THIS AGREEMENT, made this '111 day of
_1990, by and between ROBERT G. BAGALEY, PAUL L. LUCAS, ROY
A. HOGAN, and JAMES J. HESSEN, whose address Is
(SELLER)
and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, whose address Is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach; FL 32960 (BUYER),
W I T N E S S E T H
For and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS
to It In hand paid by BUYER, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, and other good and valuable consideration,
SELLER grants to BUYER an Irrevocable offer to.purchase the
property shown on Exhibit "A" under the terms and conditions
on the contract attached as Exhibit "A."
This OPTION shall extend to and through June 4.
1990, and during this time only the BUYER shall have the
right to purchase this property from SELLER.
This..OPTION may be exercised by placing a fully
executed copy of the contract, as shown on Exhibit "A," In
the U. S. Mall.
A submittal of a counteroffer by the BUYER shall
not vold.the OPTION, and a rejection of any counteroffer by
the SELLER shall not affect the validity of the OPTION or
contract., as shown on Exhibit "A," through June 4, 1990.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have- set their
hands and seals on the date first above written.
WTtnes
G�
WTfn`ess
WTiness
WTtness M
WTtness
kobe.rt G. BagaTey�
I
+T�tt
oL
a�' 11 `C. '
o'�:
.._
rnlog
t
lames-7.—T�essen ��
W.BOARD OF
y -r-% 0� • ' Q.�( QfL.� INDIAN R I VERNTY COMM COUNTY,, ( SS I FLOR I DAS
WTtness A ,,/
� BY � f. � [ .0
z/ . 6at_ii (e.( C Oar5VT n R.
—Ey t
Ttness 7 0 Cha man
M
AMENDMENT
TO
OPTION CONTRACT
BETWEEN
BAGALEY, LUCAS, HOGAN E HESSEN
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
f
r
t
THIS AGREEMENT, made this :3/ day //of May, 1990,
by ROBERT G. BAGALEY, PAUL L. LUCAS, ROY A. HOGAN, and JAMES
J. HESSEN, hereafter called SELLER, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
hereafter called BUYER,
W I T N E S S E T H
THAT for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises between the parties hereto, it Is
hereby agreed:
That certain Option Contract, dated the 24th day
of April, 1990, between SELLER and BUYER, a copy of which is
attached, and Exhibit "A," Contract for Sale and Purchase, a
copy of which Is attached, are amended as follows:
The expiration date shown on the third and fifth
paragraphs of the Option and in Section III of Exhibit "A"
Is extended from June 4, 1990, to June 12, 1990.
SELLER acknowledges that this amendment does not
change.any other provisions of the executed Option.
Date
SELLER
J/
By
In
YF'au l L. Lucas
Attachment: Option Contract with Exhibit "A"
UUM_. 71 � BOOK1 2'99
';. 1 t7
Jt
r �
JiJiV 12 '��J0
BOOK 80 F,i-,E 66
CONTRACT POR SALE AND PURCHASE
PARTIEst ROBERT—G-. BAGALEY, PAUL L. LUCAS, ROY A. IiOGAN,, and JAMES J. HESSEN
of r li F10Ri h7PStY
of 184n 2 e t Vero Beach -epr "r 1.
hereby agree that the Seger shall sen and nryer shad by IM InAhwing real prnnerty FTteal Prop V) and persnnal rWnmIy (' c k tiodSP Vfib %o6t the Ionowin
leans and Cal 11" which WCLUDE the Standards b Real Estate Transactions printed on ere reverse or allaehed ("Slendard s ") `�! jr T%lNs(i nL
L DESCRIPTTONt(alLegal desedptindFlow .preperylocated in Indian River Caltnty.Flo,ida ZNEICpRtG,NAL 1� ww {�L�ERK
(b) Street address, coy. ZIP, or the Property Is
(c) Pamormity: NONE
XPURCHASE PRICE ..................9.1.77 Acres 4 $2 2, �/ 6011...::..........................................s
PAYMENTi
(a) Deposil(s► to be held In escrow by in the amount of 3
.(b) Subject to AND assumption of mortgage In good standing In favor of
having an approximate present principal balance of 3
Purchase money morltFm9e and mortgage note bearing annual Interest at % an fie, set forth herein. In amounl ef ..........3 to
(d) ' Other: s
(a) Balance to elm (U.S cash. LOCALLY Orta fN VN cerlitted or cashier's elhpck . 1 to r4esimards amid prorriltors
IPL TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE= EFFECTIVE DATE: M pia after is not execufW by and delivemd to SO parties OR FACT OF EXECUTION eonemunicated In writing Worm the txutk•
on or before 6 /4/90 Me deposil(s) will, at Buyer's option, be returned to Buyer and Iho offer withdrawn
The dale of this Contract ('Effecllva Date') will be the dale when the last one of the Buyer and the Seller has signed this offer.
IV. FINANCiNOt (a) A Bre purchase price or any pet of I b to be financed M a third party bre+. Ids Contract for Sale and Purchase !"Contmerl to conditioned on the Brryer
obtaining a written cOmadlmenl for the ban within days from Effective Onto. N an initial Internal rate not to exceed %: term o/ years•.
and In Me prhmetpaI aneunl of $ . Buyer will make a,, lion wshht days from Effective Data, and use mosomble diligence to obtain the loan eom-
mOerd and, thereafter, to meet the terms and conditions of the tenrmmifiment and to close the ban. Buyer shnn pay an ban expenses. If Buyer falls to obtain the ban commitment aro.
prompty ratites Setter In writing, or after diligent effort falls to meet the terns mvl corrldbrs of the commnmmd or to waive Buyer's rights order Bib subparagraph within the Bre
elated for obtaining the commitment. gen either party may cancel the Contract and Buyer shin he refunded IM depoell(s). '
(b) Time exising.mortgage described In Paragraph nib) above hits (CHECK 1 II OR (211:11► ❑ a varinhin interest rate OR 121 ❑ a fixed interest rate of % per ammmn
At time of title transfer some fixed Interest rales are subject to increase. t Increased, the rale shag not exceed % per annum. Seller shall• within
days from Elfediva Date, furnish a slalenxnt from as mOr!",VS slaliog principal bnWrres, rnetivxl of payment. Interest rate and status (71 m5ftggas. t Boyer has agreed to asanno
a .Km!W, a which requires approval of Buyer by the mortgagee for assumption. Munn t%row shaft pnx fly obtain an pmmdmd appik atlams and win dnlgamtly complate and return therm
to the mortgagee. Any mortgagee chatgefs) not to exeeed E shun he paid try (1t not filled In, equally divided). If the Buyer Is not accepted
by mortgagee or the requhenxnts for assumption are nal In accordance with the terms of the Conlrad or morhyMen makes a charge In excess of the stated am unt Seller or
Buyer may msclrxl this Contract by pronpl wrnlen odic@ to Pte other party tnloss either elects to pay the incrense Inintem9l rate or excess morlgagne c arg is.
K TiTLE EVIDENCEt At least days before closing dale. Sever shat, at Seller's expense, deliver to Buyer or Buyer's attorney. In accordance with Standard A. (Check (1)
or (2)t (1) 11 abstract of into OR (211 fine hmatrance eormmnmint
111. CLOSING DATE- This transaction shag be dosed and Its deed and other closing papers dethrnred on _8111 n , unless extended by other provisions of Contract.
VIL RESTRICTIONS; EASEMENTS; LIMITATIONS: Buyer shall take into drble t to rem". restricnom. proh1191krrs and other mradrements Imposed by gnvernmanlef authority,, mshbNont
and matters appearing on Pte plat or otherwise common to the snhdivivkxr, public utnily easern enls of record (easavents are to be located contigmaus to Real Rnparty Ones and
nal more tun 10 feel In width as b to rear or front Ores and 714 feel in wk lh as to the side lines, unless otherwise speetkrd herein). taxes for year of dosing and Subsequent
.yeah r assumed nartgeges and pirdme Morey mortgages. 9 smother:
NORE—
provided, that there exists at c isfnng no violation ofthe to @gobre mid none of them prevmU use of Roat Property for puri»srye)•
Vlll. OCCUPANCYt Satter warrents Pmt Bare are no paroles In ooeoxonney agwA than Saner. Ixd If nolxrty Is tntended to be tented or occu led beyond Closing. IM fad and Mss
tend ""be stated herein, and the lensnns) cr'oeeu+ants disclosed paauant to Standard F. Seiler agrees to deliver occupancy of Property at Ilse of cbatno unless of arwtse
@feted herein. t occupa+cy Is to be delivered bnfone eloNng. Buys esanmes as rkk of loss to properly from date of occupancy, shall he responsible and Gable for maintenance from
that dale, end Shen be deemed to have sccapkd Pmparly In their existing condili n as of time of taking occupancy unless otherwise stated herein or In a somata writhe.
IX. TYPEWRITTEN OR HANDWRITTEN PROvistoNs. Typewritten or hadwritten provisions strait control all printed provlsbns of Contract In conflict with them.
X INSULATION RIDER: B Contract Is utlOred for the sale of a new residence. the Invitation War or equivalent may be attached.
XI. COASTAL CONSTRUCTIOWCONTROL LINE (•CCCLe) RIDER- t Contract b udnlzed for the safe of Property effected by the CCCL. Chapter IS% F.S., (1989), as amended
shag apply and the CCCL Ritter or equivalent may be an -Ta to this Contract.
XB, FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN REAL PROPERTY TAX ACT (61`111PWI RIDER- The packs shag comply with the provlakms of FiRPTA and applicable regulations which Could
require Setter to provide additional cash at closing to meet withholding naW ni4wris, and the FMPTA Rider or equivalent may be attached to this Contract
XM. ASSIONABILITYt (CHECK 11) or (2)1: Buyer 11) ❑ may assign OR (2)IX may not assign Contract.
XIV. SPECIAL CLAUSESt (CHECK (1) or 12)1: Addendum 111 [1 Is attached OR 421M not applicable.
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.
IF NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING.
THIS FORM PIAS BEEN APPROVED BY WE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND TI lE FLORIDA BAR.
Approval does oaf eonstift an muton txd "of the (ears and ca+dticre in iMt Contowl should be accepted by fhe panties fn a particular sarrsaction Terre
and conditions should be negotiated based upon the respective interests. of*-r-tves and lwyakting pavll ns of af) Wrested persons
THE FLORIDA BAR AND HIE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, IhIC
Ratified by, INDIAN RMTME� — — — — — — — —
BOARD COriNISSIONF to - `'�W 1/ ' Data
Carolyn. Egl►), Tairman,
St Tax • _ L
Ely • Date
J.. E; E. C}MPIler, County Administrator
Social Security or Tax I.D.
;_Data
w
Deposals)ked: under Paragraph II eeeeIF OTHER THAN CASH, THEN SUBJECT TO CLEARANCE. (Escrow Agent)
BROKER'S FEE: IC14ECK It COMPLETE THE ONE APPLICABLE) By:
❑ IF A LISTING AGREEMENT 19 CURRENTLY IN EFFECTt
Seller agrees To P—ire Broombe oTw.i fc uilmg cooperating sub -agents named, according to the terms at an exW ft separate Ostre agreement
OR
❑ IF NO LISTING AGREEMENT 19 CURRENTLY IN EFFECTi
Seller psTila pay -1Fe" er nor _ - w, a o�T eTosng. from the dhhiMPmerds o the proceed, of tie Safe. cranpeng,it In the Amami d (COMf1ETE oNLY ONE)
% of groan purchase price OR s , for Broker's services In effecting the snte by lindlnq the Buyer randy. wlahq and able to purchnse pursuant to the foregnhg
Contract. B Buyer fans to perform and deposn(s) Is retained. 80% thereof. dot not ercedi q the Broker's fee shove provided. shorn two paid Broker, as fun Consklaatinn for "pr's
services Including costs expended by Broker, and the balance Shan he paid to Saner. t the Irmmncikm shorn not close because of refusal or failure of SeW to perform, Seger Sins
pay Pte full fee to Broker on demand. In any litigation artyrg our of the Contract concerning the Brokers fee. the prevailing pally Shan recover reasonable altoney fees and coals.
nTrk RTRP RFAT.T `.— T r
(firm name of Broker) (name of eooperatmg sub-agenl) (Setter)
By:
(authorized sgmnlay) (Saner)
Richard N. Bird '
RIDERS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF RFAI TflRQ run nYa er nulla new
72
AMENDMENT/ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT (KIMBALL/LLOYD ASSOC_ -
43RD AVE. WATER MAIN EXTENSION)
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer William McCain:
DATE: JUNE 1, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F
TS ENGINEER
UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AM D ENT TO ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
KI /LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR EXTRA
SERVICES ON THE 43RD AVENUE WATER MAIN EXTENSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -16 -DS
BACKGROUND:
The firm of Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc., is currently under
contract- with the Department of Utility Services for the design of
611, 8" and 12" diameter water mains on 43rd and 44th Avenues and
19th Street. In addition to the original design, the following
items had to be added:
1. The design of an additional 1,930 linear feet of 4" to 12"
diameter pipe and associated valves, fittings and hydrant
assemblies
2. The design of 28'additional water services
3. Additional pavement/sidewalk/driveway restoration and
grassing
ANALYSIS
The original design fee was based on 11.4% (9.3% design/construction
administration plus 2.1% surveying) of the estimated construction
cost of $201,000.00. As a result of these design changes, the
construction cost has increased $33,056.00. This increases the job
cost to approximately $234,000.00 at 11.1%; the engineering fee
increases $3,070.00 (see attached Kimball/Lloyd letter and cost
estimate).
RECOMMENDATION
The 'staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached work
authorization amendment with Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Chairman Eggert asked why these items had to be added.
Engineer McCain explained that the initial proposed line
connection shot over off of 43rd Avenue to 44th Avenue, which is
a dirt road for construction, and ince had to go back and look at
73
GOOK
JUN 12 1990
JUN 12
BOOK 80
putting a small spur up 43rd from 16th Street on. There were
also two sections of piping internal to the area that the County
is taking over, and after many discussions with the City , we
have decided to remove some of those old pipes which were
continual maintenance hazards.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
amendment to Work Authorization No. 3 with Kimball/
Lloyd & Associates as recommended by staff.
FIRST AMENEMENT TO
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 3 TO
ZRE PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASTER AGREEMENT
DATED OCIOBER 4, 1988,
BETWEEN KIMBALWIWYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FIIJRIDA
MISCELLANEOUS WATER MAIN WORK (43RD AVENUE AREA)
rms FIRST ANENumEaT is entered into this � day of ,
1990, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida,
hereinafter
referred
to as
"the COUNTY,"
and
KINNMALS+/LLOYD & ASSOCIATES,
INC.,
of Vero
Beach,
Florida,
hereinafter
referred to as "the ENGINEER."
WITNESSETH
The (AUNTY . and the ENGINEER have previously entered into the
Professional Civil Engineering Master Agreement dated October 4, 1988, and
previously executed Work Authorization No. 3 thereto for the design of
miscellaneous water main work in the area of 43rd Avenue, hereinafter
referred to as "the Work Authorization." The COUNTY and the ENGINEER have
agreed to make certain modifications to the Work Authorization.
I. Section III - Scope of Work is modified by replacing the previous
Attachment A with a new Attachment A (Revised) attached hereto which
attachment reflects changes in the prior work items and adds new work
items.
74
II. Section V, Compensation, Paragraph A.,1., is modified by changing
the fee for Basic Services from $22,900.00 to $25,970.00 in consideration
of the aforesaid changes and additions.
VII. Otherwise, the Work Authorization shall control the agreement
between the parties as to the Miscellaneous Water Main Work (43rd Avenue
Area) Project.
IN WITNESS WHEROOF the parties hereto have executed these presents
this �[,� day of �_ , 1990.
KIMBALLVILOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
By: 1
G. William Myers, J
Senior Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
BOARD OF COUNTY COVMSSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mrs. Car yn Eggert
Chairwct6an 61
Attest: _ cL' Attest.
Eli abeth M. Ago ini ey o
Assistant Secretary Clerk
ATTAC HMENr A
TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 3 (REVISED)
Item I. Install 12 -inch pipe in 43rd Avenue from 12th Street to 16th
Street and connect to existing 12" x 8" cross in 16th Street.
Item 2. Install 8 -inch pipe and two fire hydrants on 44th Avenue from 16th
Street to Route 60 and connect to 6 -inch line in 19th Street.
Replace all single services along 44th Avenue between 16th Street
and 19th Street and abandon 2 -inch line in 44th Avenue between
16th Street and 19th Street.
Item 3. Install 8 -inch line on 19th Street from 44th Avenue to 46th Avenue
and connect to existing 6 -inch line in 46th Avenue.
Item 4. Install 6 -inch line in 43rd Avenue from 19th Street to Route 60
and replace all services along the 6 -inch line.
Item 5. Install 4 -inch line from the proposed 12 -inch line on 43rd Avenue
to the cul-de-sacs on 14th Place, 14th Lane, and 15th Place and
replace all services in the cul-de-sacs.
Item 6. Disconnect existing 6 -inch line at 43rd Avenue and 13th Place.
Disconnect existing 6 -inch line at 43rd Avenue and 19th Street.
Disconnect existing 2 -inch lines at 43rd Avenue and 14th Place,
14th Lane, and 15th Place. Disconnect existing 6 -inch line on
Route 60 in front of Winn Dixie.
75
,JUN 2199® BOOKrr
JUN 12 Wo
500K 80 FAJE a
COUNTY -OWNED LOTS ON CENTER BEACH
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac and
Assistant County Attorney O'Brien:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vituna'c - County Attorney
DATE: May 29, 1990
RE: COUNTY -OWNED LOTS ON CENTER BEACH
For the last approximately nine years, the City and County
have been working out their respective interests in a number
of lots which were acquired by the City and County from old
tax deeds many years ago. Some time ago the County quit-
claimed its interest in a number of the lots to the City,
and the City likewise quitclaimed its interest in five lots
to 'the County. The County now owns these lots in fee
simple.
Although there are easement problems on three of the lots,
at least two of them are available for sale unencumbered,
and, pursuant to Mr. O'Brien's memo, the other three lots
could be sold with a sma I l easement concerning access to a
neighbor's garage.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The County Attorney's Office respectfully
requests direction from the Board
concerning what action the County wishes
to take with these five County -owned
lots.
TO: James E. Chandler - County Administrator
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 16; 1990
SUBJECT: COUNTY OWNED LOTS ON THE BEACH IN THE CITY
The City and County held interest in a number of lots on the
beach. These lots resulted from unopened streets, Eagle and
Flamingo Drive from the south side of Dahlia Lane to the
north side of Cypress Road. After several years of
intermittent negotiation between the City and County an
equitable distribution was reached. As a result, the County
now owns, in fee simple, the following lots all of which are
50' X 1401.
1. Lot 11, Block 7, (Eagle) south side of Banyan
2. Lot 28, Block 7, (Eagle) north side of Acacia
3. Lot 11, Block 8, (Eagle) south side of Cypress
4. Lot 11, Block 9, (Eagle) north side of Cypress
5. Lot 13, Block 18, (Flamingo) south side of Dahlia
The lots listed opposite numbers 2 and 3 above are
unencumbered.
76
ON
JUN
1 2 199 _ 800K 8 0 PAGE i�
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he would like to dispose of
these lots but earmark those monies back for acquisition of other
properties.
Commissioner Bird believed we have a fund set up for that,
and we could put the money in there. He felt that possibly we
should set a minimum bid, and noted we need a comparable safe.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the City of Vero Beach
got around $50,000 per lot; however, three of these lots have an
easement sharing a driveway that will reduce their value a bit.
He noted that we can have R/W Agent Don Finney make an estimated
appraisal and then put a minimum on the bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, -the Board unanimously authorized staff
to go ahead with the process of disposing of the above
described lots, setting a minimum bid figure, and bring
that back to the Board for final approval.
TCRPC UPLAND POLICY
Chairman Eggert advised that she and Commissioner Bowman
feel they need some direction from the Board on this matter. She
informed the Board that she has proceeded with both the DCA and
TCRPC under the theory that since we approved a Comprehensive
Plan, unless otherwise directed by the Board, she would be
governing her feelings about anything that was going on in terms
of that Comprehensive Plan. She noted that one of our problems
was not being in conformance with the TCRPC plan on the 250
upland situation, and they now have summarized what they are
going to bring forward to the Council on Friday.
Discussion then ensued about, the TCRPC Policy 10.1.2.2. as
compared to the County's Policy 6.12, which policies are as
follows:
78
L l
M
The lots listed opposite number 1, 4, and 5 above are
currently being used by the adjacent owner for Ingress and
egress to the owner's lot. These houses are built facing
the unopened roads.' 813 Cypress has a 15' set back from
Eagle. 806 Banyan has a 10' set back from Eagle. 606
Dahlia has a 10' set back from Eagle. These houses all have
a garage at the front of the house side -loaded facing the
unopened street. It would not be possible to access the
garages by automobile without encroaching on a portion of
the County lots. There appears to me to be at least two
solutions, as follows:
1. The houses could be altered to front load on the opened
street. This could be expensive and would raise a -
question as to who should pay for the alterations.
2. The County could provide an easement on the lots for a
driveway. It would probably require a 5' to 10'
easement from the opened street to the garage. The
County Engineer could determine the minimum easement
necessary to access the garages.
In review of the foregoing, I recommend that the County
Commissioners take the following action, as follows:
1. The unencumbered lots 2 and 3 above be noticed for sale
by sealed bids. To this end, I have drafted a public
notice for your consideration. Sec. 125.35, Florida
Statutes requires publication once a week for at least
two weeks, and
2. The County Engineer prepare the minimum easements
necessary for automobile access to the garages adjacent
to lots 1, 4, and 5. These easements should be deeded,
at no costs, to the present owners of the houses
adjacent to lots 1, 4', and 5. When this is
accomplished these lots should also be offered for
sale subject to these easement.
COUNTY PROPERTY FOR SALE
TWO RESIDENTIAL UNIMPROVED LOTS
1. Lot 11, Block 8, Vero Beach Estates
a, Location: Eagle Drive (Trail) south side of
ypress Road
b. Description: Lot 11, Block 8, Vero Beach Estates
ac'co raTng to the plat filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, in
Plat Book 5, at Page 8; said land lying in the
City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
C. Easement: The easement over the south 5 feet of
this --lot shall be retained.
d. Approximate size: 50' X 140'
e.Conveyance: Florida Statutory Deed for Counties
(Sec. 125.411.F.S.), subject to all valid and
existing easements of record.
2. Lot 28, Block 7, Vero Beach Estates
a. Location: Eagle Drive (Trail) north side of Acacia
b.est5- ption: Lot 28, Block 7, Vero Beach Estates
according o the plat filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, in
Plat Book 5, at Page 8; said land lying in the
City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
c. Easement: The easement over the north 5 feet of
this of shall be retained.
d. Approximate size: 50! X 140'
e, conveyance: orida Statutory Deed for Counties
(Sec. 125.411.F.S.), subject to all valid and
existing easements..of record.
'JUN 1 1990 77 &-j_
-b� �'a�
;�
c
LI
Policy'. 10.1.2.2.1 All development exeept-- erv�tr#
egrien1-tara3:-tlrc3.cpme" shall set aside through selective
clearing and micro -siting of buildings and other
construction activity, as a minimum, 25 percent of each
native plant community which occurs on-site (e.g., pine
flatwoods, sand pine scrub, xerie' oak forest, hardwood
hammock,, etc.). Increased conservation of native plant
community types which are determined to be regionally rare
or endangered may be provided in exchange for decreased
conservation of native plant community. types which are
common. To encourage such exchanges an additional unit of
regionally rare or endangered upland may be set aside in
exchange for use of two units of common habitat. Such set
aside habitat. shall be preserved in viable condition with
intact canopy, understory, and ground cover. Determination
as to whether habitats are to be classified as regionally
rare or'endangered shall be made by the. Regional Planning
Council. '
Where: 1) good planning practices preclude or do not
warrant preservation of ' upland habitat on-sitel
2) preservation of such habitat on-site is not otherwise
required by .policy, rule, or ordinances and •3) upland
habitat of ecnjivalent type and area is available for
purchase within the County the development occurs in,
development shall have the alternative of 'providing for
preservation of such habitat off-site. Mechanisms shall be
established which provide for cash payments off-an-impaet-fee
"�-prage $on to be accumulated from development
for the purchase of upland habitat preservation off-site
rather than on-site.
Where payment of c s an_4%paet-fee in lieu of preservation
IMUM inn allowable option, the cas fee paid should be in an
te-pnt at least equivalent -to (the average assessed value of
oacre of the particular habitat type under consideration
r s % in - the County the development occurs in) X (the number
-tea —"L--lacres of that habitat type the development was required
Caset aside but elected to contribute toward preservation
or to
Such cash fees shall be payable to the county
Aurnalor to commencement of development on-site. (Local
ernments, DCA, TCRPC, Private Sector.)
r Policy6.12: The county shall adopt regulations whereby
development projects 5 acres or larger, excluding
agricultural operations, shall set aside, through selective
C6V dlclearing and micro -siting of buildings, and construction
activities, a minimum of 15 percent of the total cumulative
�)C acreage of native plant communities which occur on-site
(e.g., flatwoods, xeric scrub, coastal/tropical hammock,
etc.). 'In no case, however, shall the required set aside
areas exceed 10 percent of the total project site property
acreage. Such set aside areas shall be preserved in viable
condition with intact canopy, understory, and ground cover,
and shall be protected by the filing of conservation easements.
The preserved set aside area(s) shall be allowed as credit
toward other county land development regulations such as
landscape, buffers, open space requirements, and minimum yard
setback requirements.
Where preservation of 158 of the native upland plant
communities on-site is not feasible given site specific
characteristics, the county shall permit off-site
preservation and/or habitat creation (type -for -type) as an
.alternative to on-site 158 preservation. Moreover, as an
incentive to preserve contiguous tracts which provide more
habitat value than linear buffer set aside areas, the county
shall allow a percentage reduction to a minimum of 10% of the
cumulative native plant community acreage, for those
preserve areas that are set aside as a contiguous tract.
Development projects proposed for lands currently consisting
of native upland plant communities may, as an alternative to
15 percent preservation of the on-site community, pay•a fee
equivalent to (the average assessed value of one acre of the
particular habitat type under consideration) X (the number of
acres of habitat type that would otherwise have been set
aside). This fee shall be payable to the county and shall be
used by the county for acquisition of comparable native
habitat preserve areas and for management of such lands.
79
,JUN 121
JUM
12
1990
Boos .80
F,�n'31
Chairman Eggert
stated that she has a concern, not so
much
on the big things as in regard to the fact that we are finding a
lot of 10 acre subdivisions, etc., where we are not able to get
the 25% into the setbacks along with the stormwater management.
Commissioner Bowman believed the TCRPC have exempted AG, but
Chairman Eggert noted their policy says "...all development shall
set aside.." and she felt it depends on how you define develop-
ment.
Community Development Director Keating believed it appears
that the TCRPC has become even more stringent than they were
before in regard to AG. By exempting AG, what they are doing is
just postponing the native upland vegetation preservation set-
aside requirement. In essence, they are saying when any piece of
property comes in, whether it is a citrus grove, pasture land,
whatever, they have to reproduce or create some native upland
vegetative area now as opposed to their policy before which was
just to preserve 250 of what is on that site. The way they have
placated AG is by saying we won't say anything about AG, but when
AG lands come in for development, if they ever do, then this is
what we will do.
Commissioner Bird asked if he was saying that if it is in
AG, and it comes back for some other use, then they have to go in
and create the habitat, and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he would rather see them
exempt, and Chairman Eggert pointed out that they have the
alternative of giving money to a mitigation bank.
Commissioner Scurlock thought we took a position on this
before, and he did not see what has changed since that position.
Chairman Eggert explained that she just wanted to tell the
Board about the TCRPC's policy. She agreed that our position has
not changed, and her inclination, and she feels her responsibil-
ity as well, is to take what's in our Comprehensive Plan and
pursue it.
80
M
M M
Commissioner Wheeler commented that in Palm Beach County,
conservation is trying to play catch up, and it is almost like
they want Indian River County to become their green area.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that it was his under-
standing that Indian River Trails would not meet the understory
requirement as it is presently proposed. So, if it doesn't, his
question is what would that particular project look like if it
had to come under these new requirements. In other words, he
would like to try to get a picture of what these words say, and
he asked if he was mistaken that what they are proposing for
Indian River Trails would not meet those standards.
Director Keating was not sure. He believed they have saved
a lot of trees and a lot of the understory and ground cover, but
that is one of the problems in dealing with the Region - they do
not deal at the level of specificity that we do and they do not
deal with the small projects.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that is the real concern. When
you say 250, has anybody really gone out to see what this does in
a real life situation, and is that what we really want or not.
He was concerned that there are some really nice developments in
our county that wouldn't be allowed under this.
Commissioner Bird believed that our Plan and percentages are
a reasonable step and that the Regional Plan is unreasonable and
taking too much, and he hoped that our representatives on the
Council would vote that way.
Chairman Eggert confirmed that is how she personally feels,
and she felt that she is obligated to vote that way. Commis-
sioner Bowman agreed.
Chairman Eggert continued that as it stands now, what is in
the Regional Plan is 250 of each native plant community that
occurs on site, and she did not think they realize what this can
entail since they are functioning with large things like DRIs.
She further noted that we have an additional problem here with
wetlands that take away a certain amount. The Chairman advised
JUN 121990 81 FfcE'3 7vll�
►SUN
12 1990
that she
has asked staff to come to the meeting on Friday
and
reinforce our statement.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have an answer as to what
Martin County has done, and Director Keating believed they are
going with the Council's recommendation.
Douglas Bournique of the Citrus League informed the Board
that this all started in Palm Beach County. They panicked when
they got down to their last 15,000 acres of native upland
habitat, and as a result, they are saying you can't touch any of
that; so, that's where this policy originated. Mr. Bournique
advised that no other RPC in the state has a policy as severe as
this, and he has Minutes of testimony from two meetings of the
RPC with the DCA where they state that the 25% preservation was
denied as a DCA position, and also state that it was being pushed
by Dan Carey of the TCRPC "who is running the whole show by
himself."
Mr. Bournique felt that TCRPC policy 10.1.2.6 is not too
bad. That policy requires each county to provide an inventory
of native plant communities and also offers tax relief for land
maintained in healthy native upland plant communities. He
personally did not think that any hodge-podge of 2, 5 or 10 acres
here and there will save the deer or turkey population, etc.
Chairman Eggert referred to their policy 10.1.2.1.5, but
Mr. Bournique stated that if he were a large land owner in any of
the Treasure Coast counties, he would be apprehensive about this
endangered list because these lists change and grow constantly.
He felt it is better to go with the policy he just read and stay
with that. He felt that is where Indian River County is, and he
believed Agriculture would support that.
Chairman Eggert had a problem with the requirement that when
development comes in with cleared land, they have to reestablish
this 25%, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that he has read an
article which states that only 50% of these re-creation projects
have been successful in any event.
82
� r i
Commissioner Bowman expressed her feeling that you cannot
actua,41y,recrgateoanything.
Mr. Bournique advised that Bud Adams has a huge tract of
land, 20,000 acres, with herds of deer, etc., and all that is
recreated lands.
Chairman Eggert did not feel that with our 10 acre type
subdivisions, 25% will give you a lot of habitat.
Asst. County Attorney Collins questioned the requirement to
plant at least 25% of cleared land in upland native vegetation.
There have been cases where wetland protection has been upheld as
maintaining the status quo and preventing a harm to the public
from the destruction of wetlands, but he felt it is another thing
to say, not that we are going to prevent a harm to the public,
but that we are going to provide a public benefit by having you
go in and plant something that isn't there now. He was not sure
that creating a public benefit through regulations is legally
defensible.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed to
stand firm with our original position and also to
have our staff continue to look at any way through
our rules and regulations that we can protect our
environment.
Commissioner Bowman asked for an explanation of the
following statement: "Moreover, as an incentive to preserve
contiguous tracts,..... the County shall allow a percentage
reduction to a minimum of 100 of the cumulative native plant
community acreage"
Director Keating explained that, for example, in the
properties near the Entomological Lab you have several types of
plant communities - wetlands, uplands hammock and linear scrub
83
��
BOOK i 0 f!,;E d f
JUN 12 1990
BOOK 80 JS
area - and if a piece of property like that were developed, it
may not make sense to preserve a certain percentage of each of
several small communities; so, we are just saying you would
preserve a percentage of the total communities. There are
several incentives in that one policy, and the other incentive is
clustering. He further clarified that if you had to save 100 of
each community, if there were only 2 acres of scrub, you would
only save 1/5 of an acre of the scrub.
Mr. Bournique informed the Board that when he talked to the
DCA about this particular county and its problems, they said you
need to give justification as to why you don't need to comply
with the upland policy, and his thought on that is that 1 out of
every 5 acres in this county is already preserved. St. John's
River Water Management -'District owns 200 of the 340,000 acres of
this county, of which a large part is uplands, and combining that
with the County's policy to purchase more uplands property in the
future, he felt Indian River County has already amassed more than
their fair share because 1 out of 5 acres is already preserved
forever.
Commissioner Bird noted that we can also include the St.
John's reservoir, which is 1800 acres, and Mr. Bournique felt
when you add all that, you have 25% of this county already
preserved.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Chairm n