HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/10/1990r
r �
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
bon C. Scurlock, Jr. .
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1.
2.
3.
4.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION - None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
NONE
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of 6/5/90
B. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of 6/12/90
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate
No. 73, in Amount of $199.89,
in Name of Dallas T. Yates
B. Release County Utility Liens
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
C. IRC Bid 90-79, So. US Hwy. #1 Force
Main System
(Memorandum dated 6/27/90)
D. IRC Bid 9;0-88, Furnish & Install
Computer System
(Memorandum dated 6/28/90)
E. IRC Bid 90-90, Wabasso Beach Park
Restroom Re -roofing
(Memorandum dated 6/29/90)
F. IRC Bid 90-93, Surplus Property #4
(Memorandum dated 6/29/90)
'aooK
JUL 101990 c,�F,
JUL 101990
BOOK
6.
CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
G.
Heating, Ventilating, & Air
Conditioning, Vero Beach Main
Library
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
H.
Scheduling Public Hearing for
Proposed Indian River :Mall
(DeBartolo) DRI
(Memorandum dated 6/29/90)
7.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
None
9:05 AM 8.
A.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) Blackburn & Mobley Request to
Rezone Approx. 2.05 Acres from
RM -6 to CL
(Memorandum dated 6/28/90)
2) Continuation of Courthouse/Judicial
Complex Master Plan Discussion
9.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
10.
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
None
C.
GENERAL SERVICES
None
D.
LEISURE SERVICES
None
E.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F.
PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Ind. Rvr. Blvd. Phase IV, Right
of Way Purchase, Crazy Woman
Properties
(Memorandum dated 7/3/90)
60 t�,uc cs
� w �
� r i
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
H. UTILITIES
1) Engineering Firm Selection,
1000 Scale Base Sewer Maps
(Memorandum dated 6/28/90)
2) Engineering Firm Selection,
12th Street Water Line
(Memorandum dated 6/28/90)
3) Revisions to Indian River County
Water and Wastewater Utility
Standards
(Memorandum dated 6/26/90)
4) C.O.#2 with Utility Systems of
America, North County Sewer
Project
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Request by Robert Jackson for County
to Quit -Claim Property to Dell V.
Spiva, Jr.
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
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
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
A. PUBLIC HEARING
Solid Waste Assessments Fee for
Plant Nurseries
B. Mandatory Solid Waste Collection
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
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
UIX1SED.10.1990. '
1 __
Tuesday, July 10, 1990
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
July 10, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia
Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Wheeler 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 June 5, 1990.
Commissioner Scurlock referred to Page 30 of the Minutes of
June 5th, in which it was reported that Sheriff's Attorney
Russell Petersen "wished..to note that the Sheriff has received a
letter from the Taxpayer's Association saying that they realize
that an aviation section is a necessary arm for the Sheriff's
Department and that they feel the aviation section Fs managed in
an efficient and effective manner."
JUL 10 1990 F,>>f 551
J U L 101990 BOOK UE 5
- Commissioner Scurlock felt it is important to note that the
letter referred to was not from the Taxpayer's Association but
from a taxpayer. Board Secretary Allice White has called asking
for that letter, and it has not been produced. If the said
letter reads as stated by Attorney Petersen but it is not from
the Taxpayer's Association, then, Commissioner Scurlock believed
the Minutes need to be corrected because there is a significant
difference.
Chairman Eggert directed that Mrs. White write Attorney
Petersen formally requesting the above letter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 5, 1990,
contingent on receiving the letter described above.
Letter from Sheriff Dobeck and copy of letter from Roy
Tucker and V. J. Montuoro of Flight Safety International are
hereby made a part of the record, as follows, and notation will
be made in the Minutes of June 5th regarding the location of said
letter:
r i• W/r'
d- afGC�ty
afff
P. O. BOX 609
PHONE 369-6700
July 10, 1990
R.T.-TIM' DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VEBO HEACB,FLORIDA 32901-0608
Honorable Carolyn Eggert, Chairperson
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Eggert:
It is my understanding that In an open meeting today Commissioner Scurlock was
requesting a letter from the members of the Tax Payers Association committee we
were to provide you earlier. I had thought this had been provided and apologize
for the delay. Mr. Roy Tucker and Vince Moiltuoro visited our office In February
1990 saying that they were members of a committee with the Tax Payers
Association reviewing the SherIff's aviation budget. As you can see the letter
from Mr. Tucker and Montuoro was forwarded to Mr. Guy Wells, committee
chairman for the Tax Payers Association on the Sheriff's budg6t. Please find
enclosed a copy of that letter.
Since ly,
R. T. -Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River. County
FlightSafety
International ,
Vero Beach Municipal Airport P.O. Box 2708 Vero Beach. Fl. 32961.2708 (407) 587.5178 Fax: (407) 587.5228
1 March 1990
Mr. Guy Wells
4800 N AlA --
Apt. 111
__-Vero Beach. FL '32963 `
Dear Mr. Wells: '•:'
�; „•; i
Ret._ Sheriffs Budget !
Aviation -Committee Report
_Roy Tucker and Vince Montuoro met with Sheriff Tim Dobeck and three of his
senior staff to review the sheriffs aviation budget on Friday 2/23/90.
The sheriff was very co-operative and answered all of our questions.
We inquired as to budget, use. personnel and equipment involved with the
aviation section.
The sheriff has a Cessna 210, 1979 model and a Piper Navajo PA31. 1973 model.
Both aircraft were confiscated drug aircraft.
The Piper accumulated 180 bra last year and was primarily used for personnel
transportation within the state of Florida. The sheriff. county and city
officials and St. Lucie county, all used the aircraft for community business.
The sherrif made at least 40 trips to Tallahassee. The aircraft are also used
for search and rescue. community medical transport and law enforcement patrol
and apprehension.
The committee realizes that an aviation section is a necessary arm for a
sheriff's department and feels that the section is managed in an efficient and
effective manner. A budget summary. for.law enforcement only. is attached.
Note: The hangar is also used for boat and equipment storage and personnel.
The pilot has additional duties with the marine section.
It was a worthwhile meeting and we want to thank the sheriff for his
co-operation.
FlightSafety
SHERIFF'S AVIATION BUDGET SUMMARY
23 FEBRUARY 1990
Pg. Acct. No.
--2I- — 521-500
10 521 -
Narrative
11 521 -
Narrative
12 521 -
Narrative
24 521 -
Description
215019 Pilot
OPERATING EXPENSE SUMMARY
Committee Members.
Roy Tucker
V.J. Montuoro
Amount
$ 45.546.00
Item 44 (4443) Hangar Rent $ 19.800.00
Item 49 (4946) Aviation -Search
6 Rescue Fuel 20.000.00
Item 52 (5247) Aviation Supplies
Parte-Maint. 17.000.00
Item 99 - Replacement Cost of
Engine 24.000.00
Summary Totals
Personnel $ 45.546.00
Operational Expense 80.800.00
Total 126.346.00
Insurance 14,234.00
$ 140.580.00
otal Law Enforcement $9.206.673.00 100% 3
1,01 L
�qqq Aviation 126.346.00 1.37%
L
- --•- ROOK 1 .•,. �^_i
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 12,
1990. THere were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 12, 1990, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bowman asked that Item E be withdrawn from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Duplicate Tax Sale Certification No. 73 in the
amount of $199.89 in the name of Dallas T. Yates.
B. Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Mrs. Bartolucci of the County
Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sandy Bartolucci - County Attorney's Officjoke
DATE: July 2, 1990
SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 7/10/90
RELEASE COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following routine lien -related documents
and request the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
them:
1. ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00003-0011-00007.0
In the name of CHARLES 8 GRACE ENNIS
2. Lot 18, SEMINOLE SHORES SUBDIVISION
in the name of ALAN & VICTORIA SCHOMMER
3. Lot 18 8 19, RIVER SHORES ESTATES, UNIT #3
In the name of FLORENCE H. SCHMIDT
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 Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the lien -related documents
listed above.
COPIES OF SAID LIEN -RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
C. Bid #90-79 - South U.S.Hwy #1 Force Main System
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola:
JUL 101990 5 ., 555
JUL 10 '2SU
DATE: June 27, 1990
.o
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CONMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adminis ator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director11
Department of GeneraalServi
FROM: Dominick L. Mascol�r—,CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#90-79/SOUTH US HWY #1 FORCE MUN SYSTEM
BACKGROUND:
On request fret the Utility Department the bid for South US
Hwy #1 Force Main System was properly advertised and Twelve .
(12) Invitations to bid were sent out. On May 16,1990 bids
were received. Three (3) vendors submitted proposals.for the
ccamudity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Utility Systems of America was the first
low bidder and met all requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Budget Utility Impact
Fees, Work in Progress. Amount in Account $66,564.00.
•. I I� �� • •
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $66,564.50
to the low bidder, Utility Svstems of America for the subject
project, and request to review the attached proposed Contract
and authorize the Chairperson to execute the document.
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#90-79 for South U.S.Hwy #1 Force Main System to the
low bidder, Utility Systems of America, in the amount
of $66,5.64.50, per the following Bid Tabulation, and
authorized the Chairman to execute said contract.
6
•
BOARD OF CO LINTY COMMISSIONERS
184025th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960
V c
t �(j
rip^�° 68'aOOO Z i •'' x, ""°.. T.uew— 22`10"
�•%'*
Recommended Award UTILITY SYSTEMS�LORIOP' $ 66,564,50
/ Date, 5/16/90
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION \
Submitted By Dominick L Mascola
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No 90-79 Date Of Opening 5/16/90
Bid Title SOUTH IIS BWY #1 FORCE MAIN SYST
17.9 R
SO,r
PO BOX 229
WINTER BEACH FL 32960
a
3. GBS EXCAVATING INC
$78,640.00
7270 SW RARRLESAXE RUN
PALM CITY, FL'34990
i
-(CONTRACT NOW FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
D. Bid #90-88 - Furnish & Install Computer System (Engineering)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola:
DATE: June 28, 1990
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County A mini trator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Srvi s
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IEC BID#90-88/FURUM S RWnU . CWPUIER SYSMK
u21f1Wr-unr7t1n.
On request from the Engineering Department the Bid for
Furnish & Install Computer System was properly advertised
and Twenty (20) Invitations to bid were sent out. On
June 6, 1990 bids were received. Five (5) vendors sub—
mitted proposals for the ccwIodity.
7J
JUl 10 1990 �� °� ���y�' /
R \ 1 Mdl;ljt. LiI 6'
F'"_ -7
JUL 101990
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Vero Technologies was the lowest bidder
and met all res u i rements .
FUNDING: 4
Monies for this project -will cone from Budget Engineering
Funds, Office Furniture & Equipment. Funds Available
$50,000.00
11k4 i,v10 101ue �
Staff recanends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $23,550.00
to the lowest bidder, Vero Technologies for the subject
project, for Six (6) Model DTK @ $3,925.00 each.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#90-88 (Furnish E Install Computer System for the
Engineering Department) to the low bidder, Vero
Technologies, per the following Bid Tabulation and
approved award of a fixed contract in the amount
of $23,550:
--- Twonen.: 17041 447.4600
•
Recommended Award
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 esu, Street, Vero Beach. Florida M960
� V
/^�
'�,
Z ��i�� a .'
#
��OR10°'
Date=6/6/90
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Mascola
7."LlOtl _
PURCHASING MANAGER
90-88 6/6/90
Bid No. Date Of Opening
Bid TitieFURNISH a INSTALL COMPUTER SYS52M
DEL- VPS 25Mhz
4 ELECTRONIC SOFTWA8E SYSTEM $5283.10
3903 LEILA- MODEL: ELITE 386
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
TAMPA, FL 33616
2. VERO TECHNOLOGIES
$4815.00 MODEL: 25386DT
5. LOGIX INTERNATIONAL INC 1x9084.00
PO BOX 4316
TOWNHEAD SUPER—SMT--
$3995.00 MODEL: 600-25
2801 OCEAN DR SUITE 301 MODEL: WYSE 3225
VERO BEACH, FL 32964
$3925.00 MODEL: MTX 2503
VERO BEACH, FL 32963
3. COMPUTER DESIGN ASSOC
$4795.00
3975 20th STREET
MODEL GRAND TECH 38625 Mhz
VERO BEACH, FL 32964
8
E. Bid #90-90 - Wabasso Beach Park Restroom Re -Roofing
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memo from
General Services Director Dean:
DATE: JUNE 29, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: WABASSO BEACH PARK RESTROOM RE -ROOFING
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NUMBER 90-90
BACKGROUND:
On request of the Department of
Public
Works the subject project was
advertised for competitive bid.
There
were six (6) invitations sent
out and all responded with a "No
Bid".
Each respondent was called to
ascertain their reluctance to bid the
project.
1. Technical Systems
Does
not install Cedar Shingles.
2. E. & C. Roofing
Will
not bid using specified nails.
3. Roofing Systems, Inc.
Does
not agree with specifications.
4. Roof Suppliers of Florida
Does
not bid shingle roofs.
5. Trans Coastal
Will
not bid using specified nails.
6. R. Zorc & Sons Would not give specified warranty.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
In view of the fact that we have made an effort to competitively bid
the project with negative results, staff requests authority to
negotiate a contract with a roofing company that can and will meet
all the specifications and provide a proper bond and insurance.
Administrator Chandler advised that on this item, staff will
redo the specs and rebid it.
Commissioner Bowman asked why cedar shakes were required and
also questioned why we do not use copper nails on structures by
the ocean.
Public Works Director Davis explained that we were replacing
the existing roof which was cedar shakes and wanted it to have
continuity of appearance with with the other structures.at the
JUL 101990 9 BOOK i s rKULE _l
Jud o 1990 {-
BOOK 80
park. He further noted that some vendors recommended stainless
steel nails, and that is what they ended up specifying.
Board members indicated their ,feeling that we should stick
with using copper nails near the ocean; and Commissioner Bowman
pointed out that there is now a shingle that resembles cedar
shakes but has a longer life.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously directed that
staff draw up new specifications and rebid said
project.
F. Bid #90-93 - Surplus Property #4
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola:
DATE: June 29, 1990
To$ HONORABLE BOARD OF COLWY CCS USSIONERS
THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General SSeervi
FRONT: Dominick L. Mascola ,CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID #90-93 SURPLUS PROPERTY #4
1. BACKGROUND:
The Property attached herewith; from Various Departments, has been
declared Surplus to the needs of Indian River County.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends the authority be granted by the Board of County
Commissioners to declare surplus and authorize a sale of the at-
tached list..
3. FUNDING:
Monies from the sale will be distributed by Budget to the proper
Accounts. .
4. RECOMMENDATIONS:
A Surplus Property Sale open to the Public will be held as per
State Statutes. The Sealed Bid method, advertised in the local
newspaper will be offered indicating sale to the highest bidder.
A review of Surplus Equipment will be scheduled for all Departments
to reclaim any Surplus Items, prior to advertisement for sale to
the Public. Items not sold at the sale will be offered on an in-
dividual basis to interested parties.
5. S. ATTAC3RUM: SURPLUS LIST x&R1L1Vee,6:- "rCle
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously declared
surplus and authorized sale of the items listed
by the Purchasing Department as recommended
by staff.
(Refer to Purchasing Department for surplus list.)
G. Heating, Ventilating and A/C System - Main Library
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
DATE: JULY 2, 1990
TO: HONORABLE -BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
'SUBJECT: HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING'SYSTEM
VERO BEACH MAIN LIBRARY
BACKGROUND:
It has been the policy on large building projects for Indian River
County that we remove the testing and balancing of HVAC systems from
the general contract and hire a professional testing company to
perform this service. The reasoning behind this policy is the
installer would use the performance specifications to ascertain
compliance. An independent firm will test and balance the equipment
to insure efficient performance and requirements of the building are
met.
ANALYSIS:
In the past, we have used Environmental System Services, Inc. (ESSI)
to perform these services for the county with excellent results.
ESSI has submitted a cost of $6,760.00 to perform test and balancing
for the new Vero Beach Main Library. They will perform and provide
the following:
1. Punch list detailing any deficiencies that prevent
balancing work from being completed, as testing and
balancing work is performed.
2. Cooperation with the control contractor and mechanical
contractor to make sure all equipment has been put through
it's paces to verify operation and conformance to
specifications.
3. Test and balance work performed in accordance with the
latest "NEBB" publication Testing Adjusting and Balancing
40s
A"L 101990
-- of Environmental
specifications.
BOOK �' f 1�c
Systems, according to the plans and
4. Provide six (6) copies of the certified test and balance
reports. t
RECOMMENDATIONS•
Staff recommends and requests approval from the Board to contract
with Environmental System Services, Inc. to perform the above
services at a cost not to exceed $6,760.00. Monies for this service
will come from the construction budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to contract with Environmental System Services,
Inc., to perform the services listed above at a cost
not to exceed $6,760.
H. Schedule Public Hearing for Proposed Indian River Mall
(DeBartolo DRDRII
The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Boling:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea in , AI
Community Develo ment irector
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP•XX
Planning Director
DATE: June 29, 1990
SUBJECT: Scheduling Public Hearing for Proposed Indian River Mall
(DeBartolo) DRI
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 10, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Since June 1989, the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation has been
actively involved in the DRI review and approval process for a
proposed regional mall and other commercial facilities• on a +/- 156
acre site bounded by 26th Street on the north, 66th Avenue on the
west, and S.R. 60 on the south. The mall developer has also filed
with the County a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning
application, which is exempt from normal submittal timeframes when
applied for in conjunction with a DRI. The DRI application for
development (ADA) has undergone review for informational and
12
analysis content by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
staff with input from County staff and other local agencies, as
well as state agencies.
Four rounds (initial submission plus three re -submittals) of ADA
"sufficiency review" have been completed. Regional Planning
Council staff has now informed county planning staff that the
initial ADA sufficiency review is over, having been ended by the
applicant pursuant to provisions in the state statutes (see
attachment #2). Now that notice has been received by the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, the Board of County Commissioners
is required to schedule a public hearing date at which it will
consider the DRI, pursuant to Florida Statutes 3.80.06(11).
ANALYSIS:
The Board is required to schedule the DRI hearing so that the
hearing date can be advertised at least 60 days in advance of the
hearing. Along with the 60 day advertising requirement, the
hearing date will also need to accommodate Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council review and recommendations, county staff review,
and review by the County Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff's research indicates that a September 25-, 1990 hearing date
would meet the requirements of the Florida Statutes, and would
allow enough time for Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
county staff, and Planning and Zoning Commission review. The
resulting review timeframe would be as follows:
1. July 20, 1990: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
considers the DRI request, and issues a report and
recommendation to the County.
2. August 23, 1990: Planning and Zoning Commission considers the
DRI request and makes a recommendations) to the Board of
County Commissioners.
3. September 25, 1990: Board of County Commissioners considers
the DRI request. NOTE: the Board will also need to take
final action on the comprehensive plan/rezoning request at the
September 25, 1990 meeting or thereafter. Final action on the
comprehensive plan rezoning request should not be taken prior
to consideration of the DRI.
Please refer to attachment #3 which further outlines the review
process -for a DRI/comp plan/rezoning request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners set a
public hearing September 25, 1990 to take action on the development
order for the proposed Indian River Mall development of regional
impact.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously set a public
hearing September 25,17990, to take action on the
Development Order for the proposed Indian River Mall
DRI.
JUL 10199® 3
JUL 10 1990 BooKk.
REZONING 2.05 ACRES TO CL (12TH ST. EAST OF 12TH AVE. - BLACKBURN
& MOBLEY)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. Oaving passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach,. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
• Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. 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 ofAv,4� _-
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously pl;blished 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, fora 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 I purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this=•�_�J day of A.D. 19
r c a
.�•: ' %'./rte
4 a (Business Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk -of-lf e-CiireUlt'Goun, Indian RiverCounty, Florida)"
!Ci ry
�t U:::. 7:.io . • .:�.ltd
eg"ih:O JLQO lY, 1993
NOTICE - pusuC HEARING
Notice of hearing to Consider theadoptkxr d
a County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -8, I
MuItICploem.Family Residential District to Cl. Urn-
�by District & Mrs.The bJoseph Mobley
presently owned
and Mr. b Mia. Joseph 8180kbum. The subleet
property is located north of 12th Street and ap-
proximately 424' east of 12th Avenue. The proal
erty contains approximately 2.05 acres and Is lo -
section of Section I Z Town-
shlp 33S, In RangeNW �39 g and being in Indian
River County. Florida.
A public hearing at which parties In Interest
and citizens Shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
miselonere of Indian River County, Florida. in the
County Commission Chambers of the Cwnty
th
SSVgft veeo Beach .Florida on located at
1990. at
9:05 am.
The Board of County Commissioners may 1
pant a less Intense zoning district than the dls- :
filet requested provided It Is within the sans i
general use category.
Anyone whomay wish to appeal any decision
mad
which may be s at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings b made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dsnes upon which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -a -Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
June 19. 1990
Senior Planner Loeper made the following presentation, noting
that this request was largely due to changes in the recently
adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
14
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
JP 47i
ItobEirt—K Kea in , AI
Community Developmen irector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani <5.f--
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Robert M. Loeper 4JOL
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 28, 1990
SUBJECT: BLACKBURN & MOBLEY REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2.05
ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CL
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 10, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
This is a request to rezone approximately 2.05 acres from RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District (6 units/acre) to CL, Limited
Commercial'District. The property is located on the north side of
12th Street approximately 424 feet east of 12th Avenue. The
property is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Blackburn and Mr. & Mrs.
Joseph Mobley. The rezoning request is the result of changes on the
newly adopted future land use map which "squared off" the
boundaries of the U.S. #1 Commercial Corridor. The applicant has
no plans for development of the site at this time.
On May 24, 1990, the Planning and Zoning"Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
rezoning request.
Existinq Land Use Pattern
The subject property is part of a larger 8 acre parcel which
extends west to 12th Avenue. The 2 acre portion that is part of
this request is presently undeveloped. The remainder of the 8 acre
parcel is presently zoned RM -6 and contains approximately 12 single
family residences and a small chapel. Several of these residences
front 12th Avenue; the rest have access on an unplatted, unimproved
road which feeds into 12th Street. Immediately north is the
Crestlawn Cemetery, in the corporate limits of Vero Beach.
Property to the east is zoned CL, Limited Commercial, and contains
a convenience store, a quick lube service center and a small
commercial center. Property on the south side of 12th Street is
zoned CL immediately south and east of the subject property and RM -
6 west of the subject property. The portion zoned CL contains
several commercial buildings, while the portion zoned RM -6 is
vacant.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated as part of the U.S. #1
Commercial Corridor on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map.
This designation permits commercial and industrial zoning
designations, compatible with surrounding land uses. .The
residentially zoned property to the west is designated as Low
Density Residential, L-2, permitting up to six units per acres. The
city cemetery is designated as a public land. use in the Vero Beach
comprehensive plan.
15 Mor. f`F y � `
U U L 10 1990
J U L 10 1990 MOK 60 A'U1566
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally important
or environmentally sensitive by the,pomprehensive plan, nor is it
within a flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps.
Utilities & Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county. Potable
water and sewer are available to the subject property. Lines are
presently in place along 12th Street. Public drainage facilities
do not serve the site which is located in the Indian River Farms
Drainage District.
Transportation System
Twelfth Street is designated as a minor arterial road on the
county's thoroughfare plan. The segment from the subject property
east to Old Dixie Highway has four lanes to facilitate traffic at
the intersection; west of the subject property, this road has 2
lanes. The existing level of service on 12th Street is "C" or
better. Old Dixie Highway is also designated as a minor arterial
roadway, and it to has an existing level of service "C" or better.
The comprehensive plan identifies improvements for Old Dixie
Highway but not for 12th Street.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on surrounding areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This
section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site. ._
Compatibility with Existing Services and Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA),
an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The
comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation,
Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation.
The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the
continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The
comprehensive plan also requires that new development be reviewed
to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained..
- Transportation
No traffic impact analysis has been done for this site. Since no
development has been proposed, staff can only speculate on the
specific future use of the site. Staff may, however, examine the
traffic impact of the uses likely to be located on the site. The
two acre site is likely to support approximately 20,000 gross
square feet of commercial space. Uses ranging from general office
to specialty retail would generate between 500 and 1000 trips per
day. This range of trips would not negatively impact existing
service levels.
- Potable Water
The county water plant on Oslo Road provides water for the south
county area. This plant is presently undergoing a planned
extension to meet increased demand. County water services would
not be constrained by this rezoning.
16
- Sanitary Sewer
The county provides wastewater treatment at the county owned Vista
Royale Treatment Plant. In addition, an agreement between the
county and City of.Vero Beach provides for the county to use some
capacity of the Vero Beach plant. At this time, capacity would be
available; however, a more exact determination of need and
available capacity would be made when a more specific development
plan for the site is reviewed. This rezoning would not lower
existing levels of service.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operator and
disposal at the county landfill. The landfill has a capacity beyond
2010 with expansion capabilities to accommodate future demand.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain water storage and finished floor elevations. Together these
regulations limit the potential of on-site and off-site flooding
and damage. The lack of public drainage facilities will require
private facilities to meet stormwater needs. These facilities are
not likely to reduce drainage standards in this area. ,
- Recreation
A commercial rezoning would not
recreation standards.
Analysis
negatively impact existing
The proposed rezoning represents a change in use.from residential
to commercial. In assessing this request, three major issues must
be addressed, compatibility with surrounding development,
consistency with the -comprehensive plan and concurrency of public
facilities.
Any development within the CL District is required to be buffered
from multi -family districts. The buffer requirements set forth in
the code provide at least a minimum of visual screening. Since
uses permitted in the CL district are restricted to low intensity
commercial uses such as business services, offices, personal
services and limited retail, compatibility is generally achieved.
A review of this rezoning with the future land use map and
policies, as well as the policies of the other plan elements, does
not reveal any inconsistency. The rezoning would provide
opportunities for small businesses and services to complement the
existing commercial land use pattern to the east and residential
pattern to the west.
The change in use from residential to commercial would also not
negatively impact existing services and facilities. Compared to
development. of the site for residential uses, establishment of
commercial uses on the site would likely reduce the site demands
for water and sewer but increase the traffic generated. At this
time, the concurrency issue fqr the site is not a major concern;
however, concurrency will be more extensively reviewed when a
development proposal is submitted for the subject property.
Conclusion
The requested rezoning is the result of an adjustment to the land
use map and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The small site
area and irregular shape will place limits on the development of
17
JUL 101990
r JUL 101990
P'OOI< 80 F?ur. 5 �,S
the property and further ensure that its development will be
compatible with the ssrrounding area. In addition, the CL District
is restricted to uses which would be generally compatible with the
surrounding residential development. Finally, the change in use
would not reduce current adopted levels of service for public
services and facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends the Board of
County Commissioners approve the rezoning of this property to the
CL, Limited Commercial District.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and she thereupon declared the public hearing
closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-11, rezoning 2.05 acres, more or less,
located north of 12th Street and approximately 424'
east of 12th Avenue from RM -6 to CL as requested by
the owners, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Blackburn and Mr. &
Mrs. Joseph Mobley.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-11
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6,
MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO CL, LIMITED COMMER-
CIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON 12TH
STREET APPROXIMATELY 580 FEET WEST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
18
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N00 0511911E, ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET;
THENCE S88 27' 29"E, ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 12TH
STREET, A DISTANCE OF 450.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUE S88 27'29"E, ALONG THE SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228.66 FEET; THENCE N15 06' 4511W, A
DISTANCE OF 654.27 FEET; THENCE N89 51' 11"W, A DISTANCE OF
57.03 FEET; THENCE; S00 05' 1911W, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID WEST
LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 625.64 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING. .
CONTAINING 2.05 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to
CL, Limited Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 10th day of July , 1990.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 19th day of June , 1990 for a public hearing to be
held on the day of July 10 , 1990 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
CarolynEggert airman
ATTEST BY:
f on, RC1 r
19
nkC"
JUL 10 1990
I.R.BOULEVARD PHASE IV R/W PURCHASE (CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES)
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director`s
0
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
Right of Way Purchase - Crazy Woman Properties
DATE: July 3, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 5, 1990, the Board authorized the purchase of
right-of-way from Crazy Woman Properties, Inc for Indian
River Boulevard Phase IV.
Drainage plan revisions have increased the width of the,
right-of-way on the east' end of 41st Street. The revised
cost breakdown listed below, includes the cost of the
additional right-of-way needed on 41st Street.
Purchase price authorized by the Board on June 5, 1990:
6.275 acres for IRB $393,314.00
2.13 acres for 41st Street 133,508.00
Temporary Construction Easements IRB 3,700.00
Temporary Construction Easements -41st St. 3,400.00
Recording Expenses 2,976.00
Attorney Fee 15,193.00
Title Insurance 2,709.50
Contingency/Severance Damages 10,000.00
Total $564,800.50
Revised cost including one-half percent per month adjustment
to purchase price and attorney's fees:
6.275 acres for IRB
$395,776.10
2.29 acres for 41st Street
144,434.62
Temporary Construction Easements IRB
3,250.00
Temporary Construction Easements -41st
St. 3,300.00
Recording Expenses
79.80
Attorney Fee
16,281.36
Title Insurance
2,776.50
Contingency/Severance Damages
10,000.00
Total
$575,898.38
A contingency item has been included because closing
documents have not been finalized as of this date. Staff
requests that the Board's authorization include this
contingency to cover any unforeseen costs to the County that
may arise.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute
the Contract to purchase right-of-way parcels from Crazy
Woman Properties, Inc. The total cost includes the purchase
of citrus trees in temporary construction easements and the
purchase of uneconomical remainders.
Funding to be from account #309-214-541--66.12 Indian River
Boulevard North Right-of-way.
20
Director Davis noted that this is an item he is bringing
back before the Board. We have had to redefine some easements,
etc., to accommodate some drainage for the project, and after
further talks with the property owners, staff is now recommend-
ing the acquisition of the Crazy Woman properties.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the contract to purchase r/w
parcels from Crazy Woman Properties, Inc., as recom-
mended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
CONTINUATION OF COURTHOUSE/JUDICIAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN
DISCUSSION
Administrator Chandler reported that since the last meeting
on this subject, we have had the consultants look at the prop-
erties contained in Mr. Flick's concept; we have met with Mr.
Flick and his realtor, Tom Schlitt, and have obtained their
values; we have considered whether this property can accommodate
the 103,000 sq. ft. complex and parking garage; we have incorpor-
ated their land values into the plan presented by Halback for
comparison; and today we are trying to make a final determination
of where we are heading for a site.
Commissioner Scurlock believed our decision today then is
aimed towards siting, and then the next phase, once we have
selected a site, will be to authorize acquiring that site and
then develop a recommendation of how we are to go from there -
whether design/build, construction manager, etc.
21
JUL 101990
o off- 571
JUL 110 N 57"
It was determined that Mr. Flick and his representatives
were present in the audience, and the Chairman asked that Mr.
Halback proceed with his presentati.Qn.
Fred Halback of Herbert Halback, Inc., informed the Board
that Mr. Flick did provide figures showing the different costs
associated with all the lots in the various blocks involved as
prepared by Mr. Schlitt. Mr. Schlitt has advised that those are
based on current sales and current asking prices, as well as some
of the properties they own. In the information submitted, they
identify the properties they currently own and also try to
identify where they have a verbal option with someone or they had
one and it is now expired. Mr. Halback noted that Mr. Schlitt
does have an actual sale from a recent time, which is probably a
fair indication of what some of the properties are. He continued
that what the Board asked them to do at the last meeting was,
first of all, obtain these numbers from Mr. Flick as an indica-
tion of what he may consider selling the property for, and then
take those numbers and plug them into the scenarios we originally
presented for the judicial complex, and also to take Mr. Flick's
properties and develop a scenario and the cost ramifications of
that scenario.
Mr. Halback first presented their original Base Master Plan,
explaining that the only difference is that they have taken the
numbers provided by Mr. Schlitt regarding land costs and used
them in their cost estimate. The cost for that Base Master Plan
based on the increased land costs they are suggesting is 17.8
million.
Said original Base Master Plan with estimated costs is as
follows:
22
JUDICIAL BUILDING
Site Utility Development (estimate)
Testing, Soils, Materials, Installations (estimate)
Furnishings and Equipment: 74,857 sq. ft. at $9.20/sq. ft.
Telephone/Communications Systems (allowance)
Landscape Improvements at $1.25/sq. ft.
Construction Costs; 74,857 sq. ft. at $96.00/sq. ft.
Construction Costs of "Shell': 28,544 sq. ft. at $60.18/sq.ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COSTS
DEMOLITION OF EX.ANNEX, COURTHOUSE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY'S BUILDING
(LEAVING THE FACADE)
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FOR COURTHOUSE FACADE
LAND ACQUISITION�rovided by H. Flic_
Block 30, Lots 10 & i9
Block 36 (Lots 1-5 and 10-14)
Block 44
Total
SURFACE PARKING at $1,750.00/space
453 spaces (350 sq. ft./space)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency .
Total
SATELLITE PARKING
78 spaces @ $1,750.00/space
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq.ft
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
GREEN SPACE
33,750 sq. ft. at $1.2S sq. ft.
IMPACT FEES 0.
Traffic: 103,401 sq. ft. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. ft.
Credit for Building Space Removed from Service
Water: 1 1/2' Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn. Fee
Sewer: A0 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures
Total
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/First $500,000.00
$1.00/Each Additional $1,000.00
Total
PIAN EXAMINER'S FEE AT 1/2 BUILDING PERMIT FEE
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE)
J U L 101990 23
e-
tSit113iA4i
$100,000.00
30,000.00
688,684.00
200,000.00
129,251.00
7,186,272.00
10,051,985.00
502.599.00
$10,554,584.00
$1,0561458.00
$148,000.00
$50,000.00
$ 150,000.00
2,225,000.00
3.099.300.00
$4,474,300.00
$ 792,750.00
--59.456.00
852,206.00
42.610.00
$894,616.00
$ 136,500.00
10.239_49
146,738.00
7.337.00
$154,175.00
$42,187.00
$599,622.00
-266,081.00
5,386.00
$341,047.00
$837.00
10.055.00
$10,892.00
$5,446.00
$100,0
6 , �F
vPA;, irC
Mr: Halback next presented Concept G, Option A, as follows:
cow -Err C,
Omni A
rAWAW &*Wwf .
&*" H gpmry
t 4W to"*
TAi. so
ID•QWAME 1r i0
of
TtlD�. sts
JUDICIAL BUILDING:
74,857 sq. ft. with 28,544 sq. it shell
$10,051,985.00
5% Contingency
502.599.00
Total
$10,554,584.00
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COSTS:
$1,055,458.00
LAND ACOUISITION:.(Drovided by H. Fads)
12 Block 46 Lots 15-2
$826,280.00
12 Block 45 Lots 1-7 and 11
1,475,450.00
Block 44 Lots 1-3 and 12-14
856,750.00
Block 36 Lots 4 & 5
412.500.00
Total
$3,570,980.00
DEMOLITION OF EX ANNEX, COURTHOUSE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY'S BUILDING
(LEAVING THE FACADE)
$36,000.00
SURFACE PARKING at $1,750/SPACE:
128 spaces (450 sq. ft./space)
$224,000.00
Landscaping: 150/6 of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
21.600.00
Subtotal
$24,560.00
5% Contingency
12.280.00
Total
$257,880.00
STRUCTURAL PARKING at $6,000.00/space:
450 spaces (350 sq. ft./space) $2,700,000.00
Landscaping: 150% of area at $2.50/sq. ft. 59.062.00
Subtotal 2,759,062.00
5% Contingency 13.953.00
Total $2,773,015.00
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. ft. bldg. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. fL $599,622.00
Credit for Building Space Removed (States Attorney's Bidg.) -35,084.00
Water. 1 12' Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn. Fee 5,386.00
Sewer. 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures 2.120.00
Total $572,044.00
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/First $500,000.00 of building costs $836.50
$1.00/Each Additional $1,000.00 of building costs 10.055.00
Total $10,891.50
PLAN EXAMINER'S FEE -12 BUILDING PERMIT FEE $5,445.75
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE) $100,000.00
24
� � r
Mr. Halback explained that in this Concept, they have taken
the lands Mr. Flick controls that he has suggested may be
available.
Chairman Eggert believed this involves half of Block 46,
half of Block 45, and the back half of Block 44, and Mr. Halback
agreed.
Mr. Halback continued that, to compare apples to apples,
they have taken the building configuration shown on the Base
Plan, which is a building that provides you with 103,000 sq. ft.,
plus the ability to expand to 130,000 sq, ft. The other thing
they looked at was the parking that was lost, which is part of
the parking that is back of the bank that Mr. Flick has his
office in and a small portion that is City owned. They removed
that and closed 15th Avenue and located the building directly on
that access. Mr. Halback still felt that we have met the same
City parking requirements of 515 spaces and noted that they have
replaced the parking that is disrupted by putting the building on
those particular properties where there are approximately 60
parking spaces. In looking at the configuration of the property
Mr. Flick had shown for a parking garage, Mr. Halback felt
comfortable that you can get a 5 level parking garage within the
50' height restriction and 450 spaces within that garage. He
advised that they have replaced the deficit caused by losing 60
spaces of surface parking by going across the street and putting
in a surface parking lot of approximately 44 spaces: This
scenario eliminates the State Attorney's office and the 2 houses
to the back. The final cost estimate for this concept based on
Mr. Flick's land cost figures is 18.9 million.
Mr. Halback next presented Concept G, Option B, as follows:
25
JUL 101990
� i
r J U L 101990
JUDICIAL BUILDING:
74,857 sq. ft. with 28,544 sq. ft. shell
5% Contingency
Total
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COSTS:
LAND ACQUISITION: (orovided by H. Flick)
12 Block 46 Lots 15-2
12 block 45 Lots 1-7 and 11
Block 44 Lots 1-4 and 11-14
Total
BOOK 80 FA's"E.57
4CKXt?PT
ar1I e
Mawaft 4Rv -*Am,,
Pft
ftftA4► b
� r�MRb�lb
DEMOLITION OF EX ANNEX, COURTHOUSE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY'S BUILDING
(LEAVING THE FACADE)
SURFACE PARKING at $1,750/SPACE:
82 spaces (450 sq. ftJspace)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. fL
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
STRUCTURAL PARKING at $6,000.00/SPACE:
610 spaces (350 sq. ftdspace)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. ft. bldg. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. ft.
Credit for Building Space Removed (State's Attorney's Bldg.)
Water: 1 12' Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn. Fee
Sewer: 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures
Total
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/First $500,000.00 of building costs
$1.00/Each Additional $1,000.00 of building costs
Total
PLAN EXAMINERS FEE -12 BUILDING PERMIT FEE
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE)
26
$10,051,985.00
502.599.00
$10,554,584.00
$1,055,458.00
$826.280.00
1,475,450.00
1.064.980.00
$3,365,980.00
$36,000.00
$143,500.00
13.837.00
$157,337.00
7.867.00
$165,204.00
$3,660.000.00
80.062.00
3,740,062.00
187.003.00
$3,927,065.00
$599,622.00
-35,084.00
5,386.00
2.120.00
$572,044.00
$836.50
10.055.00
$10,891.50
$5,445.75
$100,000.00
KSi16SiH
Mr. Halback explained that in this concept they.wanted to
look -at whether we can make it all fit without having to buy the
lot above the State Attorney's Office and without utilizing the
State Attorney's Office for surface parking. In this concept,
they actually expanded the parking garage past the suggested
parcel Mr. Flick was proposing so you could get' in 60 more spaces
and thus not need the additional 44 in the surface parking. In
this concept, you are buying less land, but going up with more
garage and eliminating the surface parking lot. This concept has
an estimated cost of 19.8 million, and it does save the State
Attorney's building.
Mr. Halback next presented Concept I, their last scenario,
as follows:
27 .<
conk 00 PAee
JUL 10 %990
F"-
-IJ U L 10 1996
CONCEPT I: $17 785 5 2nn
JUDICIAL BUILDING:
74,857 sq. ft. with 28,544 sq. ft. shell
5% Contingency
Total
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COSTS:
LAND ACQUISITION:_fprovided by H. Flick)
Block 36 Lots 1-5 and TOT—�
Block 44 Lots 1-3 and 12-14
Total
DEMOLITION OF EX. ANNEX, COURTHOUSE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY'S BUILDING
SURFACE PARKING at $1,750/SPACE:
187 spaces (450 sq. ft./space)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
STRUCTURAL PARKING at $6,000.00/space:
328 spaces (350 sq. ft./space)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. ft. bldg. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. ft.
Credit for Building Space removed from service
Water: 1 1/2' Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn. Fee
Sewer: 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures
Total
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/First $500,000.00 of building costs
$1.00/Each Additional $1,000.00 of building costs
Total
PLAN EXAMINER'S FEE -12 BUILDING PERMIT FEE
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE)
28
cowcerr T-
rAMI'.& "M Vwr
Av4 ww 2zw res+
VrAt. aw
MMerl
Sal�ac&
$10,051,985.00
502.599.00
$10,554,584.00
$1,055,458.00
$2,225,000.00
8 6 7 00
$3,081,750.00
$148,000.00
$327,250.00
31.556.00
$358,806.00
17.940.00
$376,746.00
$1,968,000.00
43.050.00
2,011,050.00
—=M=
$2,111,602.00
$599,622.00
-266,081.00
5.386.00
2.120.00
$341,047.00
$836.50
10.0 .00
$10,891.50
$5,445.75
$100,000.00
-7
1
p
; _
II0jz
�
CONCEPT I: $17 785 5 2nn
JUDICIAL BUILDING:
74,857 sq. ft. with 28,544 sq. ft. shell
5% Contingency
Total
DESIGN FEES AT 10% OF BUILDING COSTS:
LAND ACQUISITION:_fprovided by H. Flick)
Block 36 Lots 1-5 and TOT—�
Block 44 Lots 1-3 and 12-14
Total
DEMOLITION OF EX. ANNEX, COURTHOUSE AND STATE'S ATTORNEY'S BUILDING
SURFACE PARKING at $1,750/SPACE:
187 spaces (450 sq. ft./space)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
STRUCTURAL PARKING at $6,000.00/space:
328 spaces (350 sq. ft./space)
Landscaping: 15% of area at $2.50/sq. ft.
Subtotal
5% Contingency
Total
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. ft. bldg. at $5,799.00/1,000 sq. ft.
Credit for Building Space removed from service
Water: 1 1/2' Meter at $5,082.00 plus $304.00 Conn. Fee
Sewer: 60 Fixtures at $212.00/6 Fixtures
Total
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
$836.50/First $500,000.00 of building costs
$1.00/Each Additional $1,000.00 of building costs
Total
PLAN EXAMINER'S FEE -12 BUILDING PERMIT FEE
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE)
28
cowcerr T-
rAMI'.& "M Vwr
Av4 ww 2zw res+
VrAt. aw
MMerl
Sal�ac&
$10,051,985.00
502.599.00
$10,554,584.00
$1,055,458.00
$2,225,000.00
8 6 7 00
$3,081,750.00
$148,000.00
$327,250.00
31.556.00
$358,806.00
17.940.00
$376,746.00
$1,968,000.00
43.050.00
2,011,050.00
—=M=
$2,111,602.00
$599,622.00
-266,081.00
5.386.00
2.120.00
$341,047.00
$836.50
10.0 .00
$10,891.50
$5,445.75
$100,000.00
-7
1
Mr. Halback advised that this goes back to the footprint of
the judicial complex originally proposed on the land behind,
utilizing county -owned property for surface parking. However, it
comes over to Block 45; buys approximately 2/5 of the block and
puts back a parking garage of 4 levels. The reason they only
went up 4 levels is that they were trying to find the optimum
break where the parking garage and the land costs for the project
begin to balance out. By going to a parking garage, you don't
have to buy several parcels that were required in the original
proposal; so, you are buying less land and disrupting fewer
people. The cost for this concept, again using Mr. Flick's land
costs, is estimated at 17.785 million. For this you get a whole
new Courthouse with furnishings, landscaping, etc., the surface
lots on property you already own, and the 4 level parking garage.
Commissioner Bird asked if this plan eliminates the present
Courthouse entirely and the Annex, and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how many people this would
dislocate, and Mr. Halback believed 9/10 buildings.
In review, Mr. Halback noted that for the Base Plan which
calls for the building on Block 36, land banking other properties
and using that land bank property as surface lots and meeting the
City parking requirements, the cost was 17.8 million. To go to
Block 44 where you are locating the building and vacating 15th
Avenue but going up with more parking garage; although the land
costs are slightly less, the cost of the project goes up because
of the garage to either 18.9 in Option A or 19.8 million in
Option B. The 4th scenario is where they tried to find what was
the optimum level of where the garage begins to make sense.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if that option takes out the
block behind the present'Courthouse where Attorney Jackson's and
Attorney Clems' offices are located and was informed that it
takes out their buildings and several others.
Commissioner Bird assumed Mr. Halback has broken down the
difference between land acquisitions costs and actual hard
�JUL 101990
JULJSQ Bo E j ptiu. 580
building costs, and Mr. Halback stated that on the Base Plan 4.47
million is for land, and everything else is building -related
costs, impact fees, landscaping, etp. On Concept G, Option A,
the land cost is 3.57 million. On Concept G, Option B, the land
cost is 3.36 million, and on Option I, the land costs are 3.08
million.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that if you take the Base
Plan where you move about 20 people and also do away with the
Annex, the old Courthouse and the State Attorney's Office, he
felt it would be fair to compare that estimated 17.8 million with
Concept G, Option A, which is 18.9 M, because you have to give
some credit to Option A in that it entails the usage of the State
Attorney's building at least, and there is a value to it. He,
therefore, felt the difference between those plans would be
something less than one million.
Administrator Chandler believed Concept G, Option A, takes
the State Attorney's building, but it saves the Annex and the
Courthouse and those have a value.
Mr. Halback agreed obviously there is some value, but he
thought you have to look at what are you going to use those
properties for and you also need to look at whether that use fits
the building you want to put it in and the cost to renovate.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the simplest approach would
be the land value underneath the building, and Administrator
Chandler felt that any way you cut it, there is some value to
that property and those structures.
Commissioner Bird noted that he keeps hearing the term
renovate, and he is not sure how much major renovation needs to
be done on the State Attorney's Office, the Annex, or even the
Courthouse. He personally felt those 3 buildings are all very
usable as office space for either government purposes or private
purposes with mainly minor renovations.
Chairman Eggert did not agree and commented that she
personally can vouch for the fact that if you spend any time in
30
the Courthouse, it affects your eyes, your throat, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know who is removed under
Concept G, Option A, and Mr. Halback clarified that concept
proposes to use all the property Mr. Flick already owns or has
options on, except for one small piece of property owned by the
Bracketts and it is mostly vacant.
Chairman Eggert believed Concept G/A does not affect the
Jackson and Clem buildings nor the Vero Beach Printing Company
building.
Further discussion ensued as to the Base Plan being 17.8
million versus 18.9 for Concept G, Option A, without taking into
account the value of existing structures. Commissioner Scurlock
estimated that the Annex, which has about 14,000 sq. ft., figured
at $50 per sq. ft., would represent a value of about $700,000,
and the old Courthouse, with about 20,000 sq ft. at possibly $30
per sq. ft., would represent a value of about $600,000, which
adds up to more than a million dollars. He personally liked
Concept G/A.
Commissioner Bird commented that he likes that concept, too,
and would like to see if Mr. Flick or Mr. Schlitt have any ideas
about how it can be done for even less than that going with this
option. He stressed that although he realizes this is not a
popular view, he still is not 100% convinced we should put all
our eggs in one basket, and if we go with Concept G/A and save
the existing Courthouse and Annex, he felt there are some
government functions, Clerk or whatever, that can take place in
those buildings. He is not convinced the Public Defender or
State's Attorney and various other functions all need their
offices within the judicial complex itself.
Discussion continued re various options for use of that
space, with Commissioner Bird contending that unless things
really turn around in the downtown marketplace, we really should
be thinking about using the Courthouse for government purposes.
31
JUL 101990
JUL 10 S80
Roos 60 �.Aa Mr,
Commissioner Scurfock asked about the rental space we
presently have in the 2001 Building, and Administrator Chandler
advised that we will move those people to the existing Health
Department facilities when they are vacated, and the Veterans
Services will go in the new Health Building.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Fire Division also
expressed a need for space, and Administrator Chandler confirmed
that we are looking at a long term overall study of all of our
space needs, including this building, the Fire Division, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that Concept G/A not only
eliminates the necessity for the rental space in the 2001
Building, but it also has the potential for less adverse reaction
in terms of condemnation and the dollars associated with that.
Mr. Halback agreed that concept's greatest plus is that it
appears you have a willing seller. He pointed out, however,
under that option, you are vacating 15th Avenue, and there are
some gymnastics you have to go through to make sure that property
goes to the County rather than the adjacent owners.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there also is the question of
what utility lines, etc., may be located underneath 15th Avenue
over which you would be placing a building, and Mr. Halback
advised that the City also has indicated some concern about the
ingress and egress to the surface parking lots.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed his feeling that, if we can
agree on a concept, then what -would come out of this meeting
would be authorization to get contracts where we can and
authorize staff to work with the City to identify any unknown
problems with closing 15th Avenue. If we run into something that
throws that out, then we can move back to a different approach,
and after all this is determined, the Administrator then would
come back with a recommendation to whether we should go
design/build, construction management, etc.
Some discussion ensued regarding possible utility problems,
and Mr. Halback advised that while they did determine that you do
32
� r
have adequate utilities in this particular area, it is entirely
possibly there may be some problems with lines underneath the
structure itself, the same as were encountered with the Library.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that if we are going to adopt
Concept G/A, then along with the various factors just discussed
(utilities, ingress, egress, etc.) he also would like to weigh in
the prices associated with the possibility of acquiring proper-
ties immediately to the west and moving the whole building over
onto that block, and thereby eliminate some of these problems.
Mr. Halback felt that might be a very reasonable way to go,
but they were not provided cost figures for those properties, and
he did understand that you don't have willing sellers there. He
would suggest, based on some of the numbers that were provided,
that you are probably talking about one million plus for those
pieces of property which you would need to move the building so
you don't have to put it over 15th Avenue. He further noted that
he has never felt comfortable with having a a parking garage half
a block away from the building it is to service.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that we must identify what is
underneath 15th Avenue, and Administrator Chandler informed the
Board that we did receive a letter from the City saying that if
we were looking at a parking structure on the north half of Block
44, we might need need to look at other potential off-site
traffic improvements that might be required.
Commissioner Scurlock believed moving the parking garage and
Courthouse to the south would have some beneficial effect on the
critical 23rd Street intersection with 14th Avenue and U.S.I, and
he would hope that we could get the City to look at this with us
in detail, as well as the angled crossing of the railroad tracks.
Mr. Halback agreed that putting the garage there might cause
considerable off-site improJements, but noted they have not yet
had a chance to study that.
Mr. Schlitt came before the Board and first addressed the
Chairman's earlier question in regard to the property owners that
33
JUL 101990 ValJ F�,3E
advised the number of a million dollars comes up, and it is
probably a little more than that. Mr. Schlitt believed if you
move the building further back, you are going to be doing just
what you said you didn't want to do on 15th Avenue; i.e., build-
ing a building over top of utilities. He stated that there are
no sewer lines and highly expensive utility lines at their 15th
Avenue location, and they see no major costs in relocating a few
water lines which are there.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Schlitt was saying that if
you move to the west and straddle the alley, there are potenti-
ally more sewer lines, and Mr. Schlitt advised that all the sewer
lines come out of the 10' easements in the City.
Mr. Halback believed potentially Mr. Schlitt is correct that
you have as many lines running down the alley as you do down the
street.
Chairman Eggert commented that it cost $35,000 to encase the
pipe that runs just under the Library building. She asked Mr.
Schlitt to address further the costs involved with property
owners that are not included.
Mr. Schlitt informed the Board that the contracts they did
not have at the prior meeting have been obtained except for Lot
3, Block 45. That has two owners. Mr. Proctor, is willing to
work with the County directly, and the other owner, Dr. Moore, is
out of town at present. The other 2 properties in that block
have been contracted with as well as the entire garage area. Mr.
Schlitt advised that they (Vero Development Company) are prepared
today to discuss a figure that would purchase all that property
except the one lot in Block 45 and the Hatch property, which is
2,000 sq. ft, right on SR 60 in Block 46, and he believed those
owners also are ready to sign a contract and very willing to work
with the County.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that if you give Concept G/A a
credit of 1.3 million for the value of that land and the
34
are not
included in their property, yet between the two,
and he
advised the number of a million dollars comes up, and it is
probably a little more than that. Mr. Schlitt believed if you
move the building further back, you are going to be doing just
what you said you didn't want to do on 15th Avenue; i.e., build-
ing a building over top of utilities. He stated that there are
no sewer lines and highly expensive utility lines at their 15th
Avenue location, and they see no major costs in relocating a few
water lines which are there.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Schlitt was saying that if
you move to the west and straddle the alley, there are potenti-
ally more sewer lines, and Mr. Schlitt advised that all the sewer
lines come out of the 10' easements in the City.
Mr. Halback believed potentially Mr. Schlitt is correct that
you have as many lines running down the alley as you do down the
street.
Chairman Eggert commented that it cost $35,000 to encase the
pipe that runs just under the Library building. She asked Mr.
Schlitt to address further the costs involved with property
owners that are not included.
Mr. Schlitt informed the Board that the contracts they did
not have at the prior meeting have been obtained except for Lot
3, Block 45. That has two owners. Mr. Proctor, is willing to
work with the County directly, and the other owner, Dr. Moore, is
out of town at present. The other 2 properties in that block
have been contracted with as well as the entire garage area. Mr.
Schlitt advised that they (Vero Development Company) are prepared
today to discuss a figure that would purchase all that property
except the one lot in Block 45 and the Hatch property, which is
2,000 sq. ft, right on SR 60 in Block 46, and he believed those
owners also are ready to sign a contract and very willing to work
with the County.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that if you give Concept G/A a
credit of 1.3 million for the value of that land and the
34
building, it ends up coming in $194,600 less than the Base Master
Plan. For the record, he just wants to say that it puts it at
less than the Base Master Plan.
Clerk Barton wished to clarify the difference between
Options A and B of Concept G. He believed Option A was to tear
down the State Attorney's building and use it for a parking lot,
but keep the Annex and keep the Courthouse and build a smaller
parking garage. The demolition costs under that scenario dropped
from the $148,000 estimated under -the original plan to $36,000.
Option B saves the State Attorney's Building but builds a larger
parking garage; however, now you are not tearing any building
down. Clerk Barton pointed out that there is an error in Option
A where it shows a 5% Contingency of $13,950 for the parking
garage, Actually, that figure should be $139,000 - the addition
is incorrect, and so is the total - so that is an $160,000
difference. He continued that.if you go to Option B, you have
left all the buildings and all the square footages contained in
them, and what is the value of all that square footage -
particularly the State Attorney's Building - because a service
that could go in there, which doesn't have to go in the
Courthouse itself is Probation. Clerk Barton could not see
tearing down an 8,000 sq. ft. building that has a very good
potential use and that is convenient to the court building.
Commissioner Bird asked Clerk Barton to respond to his
earlier comment about using one of the 3 remaining buildings for
some of his functions, and Mr. Barton stated that the only part
of his operation that could go into the Annex are the departments
in the Administration Building. All the court related activities
need to be under one roof.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that one of the things he finds
attractive with Concept G/A'is that it gives you more open space;
it is not all buildings.
Clerk Barton asked if Option B, which is the. large -r parking
JUL 10 19090 35 -
war
garage, would pick up the Brackett properties, and it was
explained they are in Option A, not Option B.
The Clerk wished to know the value of those 4 lots, and Mr.
Halback believed that Mr. Schlitt's numbers put them at approxi-
mately $750,000, but that depends on how many of them you buy.
Mr. Schlitt advised that he since giving out those numbers,
he has met with Mr. Chandler and explained that was a typo on
their part. Those 4 lots actually are a total of $275,000; so
where their figures show $412,000 for the acquisition of Lots 4
and 5, BLock 36, that should be half of $275,000, or about
$137,000
Chairman Eggert noted that then the Brackett lots, which are
Lots 4, 5, 10 and 11, Block 36, have a total value of $275,000.
Mr. Halback felt there definitely is a need for surface
parking, and he believed you need some surface parking next to
the building.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed and noted that this would
service the Annex and the Library also.
Mr. Schlitt advised that if you look at the access behind
the Courthouse to 16th, there is a house just below that he
thinks the County should look at for parking. He has been given
a figure on that which he feels is a little high.
Commissioner Scurlock felt if we can get a consensus that
Concept G/A is the way we should go, he would like to leave staff
flexibility to put that package together so that if there is a
piece that makes sense, they can add it to the package.
Clerk Barton pointed out that if the County bought all 4
Brackett lots, you wouldn't have to tear down the State Attor-
ney's Office, and he believed that is the best building of all 3.
Commissioner Scurlock had a problem with packing too much in
the parking garage, and Mr. Halback again stressed that you will
always have some need for surface parking, especially some
parking directly adjacent to the Courthouse building.
36
Discussion continued, and Commissioner Scurlock believed the
mood of the Commission at this time is leaning towards Concept
G/A with a potential modification to include acquisition of
additional lots to save the State Attorney's building and not
have to expand the parking garage.
Attorney Vitunac noted that Commissioner Wheeler asked to
look at the possibility of acquiring property to the west, and
Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a part of analyzing utilities
and the footprint.
Chairman Eggert believed we should look at all of Block 45,
plus Lots 4,5,10 and 11, of Block 36, with the idea of keeping
the State Attorney's Office on Lots 6 and 7.
It was noted that if you are talking about acquiring all of
Block 45, that includes the printing company, and Mr. Graves,
owner of the Vero Beach Printing Company advised that he would
have a large problem with that.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that is why he personally favors
Concept G/A, with keeping the State Attorney's building and
buying the additional lots. If it turns out there is a problem
with utilities relocation, you may want to move to the next
block, but he believed you will find that there are also people
there who don't want to sell.
Administrator Chandler agreed that with the north half or
west half of Block 45 you don't have a willing seller, and you
will have the same situation as with the northeast corner of
Block 36.
Mr. Henry Flick came before the Board and handed out the
following notes re Vero Development Company's Judicial Master
Plan:
JUL 101990
37
agof '
J
J UL 10 1990 BOOK
W -VO e0.11aAA111 -
�"��✓A,c MASrEiL ,c�,cA.�/
JUDICIAL BUILDING
V
Silo U181y Development (eslimalo)
Testing, Solis, Materials, Inslalintions
/Or , •.o -a . \�)
(estimate)
Furnishings and Equipment: 74,857 sq. N. at $9.20/64 IL
jo, "v .
G ft i, 6GV•.
Tohone/Communications Systems (allowance)
Landscape Improvements at $t.25/s ft.
(—<0U7/1 tdE3r
.
Construction Costs: 74,857 sq. ft. at $96.00/sq. R.
/.► 5. .Y 5/.,_ \.�
i7 (iG,.1, h, •
Constnuclion Costs of *Shop": 28,544 sq. It. of $60.18/sq.d...
Subtotal
/, 7/7 ,..7ZF�
5% Contingency
VFS-..'
Sot., Syy.
Total
,, �7Sed•
G , S of 13u,4<ii/t11-QOSTS S7F %G3 °
E.No,[ /Tio/) Lr oSTS. So, ooa . r
/-A�/� AG'QuiS/Trot!
`
— CIJE.ST AlAA.- c
.✓A7�aH /1,Q)
1
1p
r .TQ
O .L le 411. (61(C�'LUh/AA
e,71L Oeeh.9 /?Ab�L--
y,
(—<0U7/1 tdE3r
eo,Q.r/EYL
�
Y Sr, /yS
- /s'i� AVE //�A/�r/A.� rAeArio.J�
-
r >�SoO•
- .E/JST 1,1,44X- O� R/! 5/S �E.tG+cul��c%
<or g)
,, �7Sed•
- QAOC K 4S, 40 7- i/
s% Cc.t /T,,t./GE.c1c y
- BX00-y 14/, LOTS /,r, 3, >Y, i3, i✓l
7 -o7 -Ax
'� GYSo
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. R. bldg, at $5,799.00/1,000 eq. IL
57jrj 6 Y Y
-3Jsoo• •;
• TOTA•c -40 ' FoorAG
Sewer 60 bAuresMotoratt$212800/8 ess04.00C0nn
Total
675.
%T/JL a o. 7-
3,Yoo, 000 - °
eOST .14X Sq FOOT.
IILDING PERMIT FEE
36.50/First $500,000.00 of building costs
00/Each Additional $1,000.00 of building costs
i
$838.50
IUMQ4
-let
/O &y 1✓ $19;891.50
Y3.1%
/7So -0,146:
o04.
L. A A./rj .S. Q/J'N. i /S� e V. S�q r
7,3Sp.
' . 'Su8 7bi.tlL
%S, 350.
.TTRu eTUR/JA- A14A / ;X14 e &.olSRcE
• 7 5rJ S� � (3 $o Jq �S�Ac.E�
'y, 7S� 000
Je,,� /A /6 C /S� OF�v/�EIJ CO Y.Se
_ GO, "'So -
zr,,��/3Ta�-iJc..�-so
s% Cc.t /T,,t./GE.c1c y
/,',/0, 7,v . -
7 -o7 -Ax
IMPACT FEES
Traffic: 103,401 sq. R. bldg, at $5,799.00/1,000 eq. IL
57jrj 6 Y Y
Credit for Building Space Removed •Water 11/2" Fee
Fixttur2.00 plus
— O, 7 yS,
Sewer 60 bAuresMotoratt$212800/8 ess04.00C0nn
Total
S, 3 fe, .
IILDING PERMIT FEE
36.50/First $500,000.00 of building costs
00/Each Additional $1,000.00 of building costs
i
$838.50
IUMQ4
-let
/O &y 1✓ $19;891.50
AN EXAMINER'S FEE -112 BUILDING PERMIT FEE
SG • $ 9-,4,15.73
=F-S)TE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (ALLOWANCE)
$100,000.00
38
�✓ '�: �'k- .ice
Mr. Flick advised these notes will be reduced to typing and
a master contract prepared for the real estate associated. As
Mr. Schlitt mentioned, the real estate not under their direct
control is the Hatch property (Lot 3, Block 45) and the City -
owned property of about 13,000 sq. ft. on the southwest corner of
Block 46. Mr. Flick noted that this cannot be purchased
privately by him from the City, but if the County can't work out
some arrangement for an exchange or whatever, he believed it is
possible to work around that property. He continued that the
total square footage under the control of Vero Development is
133,875 sq. ft. with an approximate cost of 3.2 million. That
price takes care of the real estate associated with their
proposal and the tenancy associated with it.
Mr. Flick agreed there should be some surface parking around
the building, and his particular presentation has 56 surface
parking spaces in front of the judicial complex. He pointed out
that his proposal includes selling all the parking support for
the Florida Federal Building, and he proposes to negotiate and
replace that with the 4 lots owned by Mr. Brackett. His tenta-
tive budget is 18 million.
Mr. Flick then reviewed the following figures showing what
the net effect of the Vero Development Company's proposal means
to the taxpayers:
JUL 10100 0
le. S AG Ems.
72on,44 j-4 P 14
/0-3, dv- A -46(j --.7-o /3 /0'- I;q
A -r- 7-0
A y
owo
CT /VS67- -A.17-40T• • o
�/, �016v� to I .. .
63('AAIS /a.Z) C0?
Ivo
2L -/o
r ATI y A
16. 0 .511 C-.,5 �
OJI 01"
-S-76, 3-33
0,17
I%IAI- RA
3
A ov'W
BA d
/0 S A /,0 6-
40
f
%o
�7y ocvtil�� �'
2oU/�C�E %bTi(i,C •:
AAX-ICY,47/10A )
-AS3 �FAC� /S�, SSo.
7f 4rA7:
't
4:1r IJ 77Y /v Soo
A%7 jO �Y.SDO (1YOTS)
�s
YS
,C Ej�! � CST /✓SE
Mr.
Mr. Flick pointed out that besides 515 new parking spaces,
there are 128 existing parking spaces that are not being touched,
which gives you a total of 643 spaces. He further stressed that
the Vero Development proposal accommodates not only the present
time but to the year 2010.
Chairman Eggert believed that the 128 existing spaces are
those now serving the Courthouse and Annex, etc., and she felt we
really couldn't count them towards the new Courthouse.
Mr. Flick stated that I'eaving those structures intact and
leaving that parking support intact (either by not tearing down
your existing property or through enclosure of the upper floor of
the garage structure), this proposal addresses the 515 spaces
410'1 Fk
�JUL 101990
J L10W
needed for the new complex. There is a definite value associated
with that real estate and the structures contained thereon today.
When the new complex is built on hi.p location, Mr. FLick firmly
believed that there will be an inherent increase in value on that
real estate. He stressed that it is a "win, win" situation for
everyone - the taxpayers, the County, and the property owners.
Chairman Eggert was concerned about the spaces Mr. Flick
needs for the Florida Federal Building, and Mr. Flick advised he
is not including the 4 Brackett lots in the real estate he has
talked about. He believed, however, that the real estate cited
in his notes is sufficient for all the parking needs of the
judicial complex, etc.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that Concept G/A requires those
4 lots, and Mr. Flick commented that he has placed a conservative
value of 40 per sq. ft. on the Annex and State's Attorney Office,
and, if there is any problem, he would be more than happy to
entertain making that part of the negotiations associated with
this particular proposal. Regarding satellite parking, Mr. Flick
believed a joint use agreement could be worked out with the
Methodist Church for parking in the block directly west of the
parking garage. He reiterated that he will have this all reduced
to a master contract for the property involved in very short
order.
Commissioner Bird asked if, regardless of what scenario we
agree to, we are going to seek appraisal of the properties
involved, and Administrator Chandler stated without question. By
law we must do that.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there is little known law that
gives the Board the option to go right to contract without
appraisal if they wished.
Commissioner Bird commented that it is easy for anyone to
say we have all these contracts under option and a willing
seller, but a willing seller at their.price. He felt we are
going to be paying an absolute premium, and he would want an
42
appraisal to give him some comfort that these figures are
reasonable because he feels they are high.
Administrator Chandler emphasized that he would not
recommend any acquisition of this magnitude without an appraisal.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there is a value to having
the center in the downtown area in the way it will function.
Commissioner Bird continued to express concern about the
price of land in the downtown area. He certainly hoped that this
all works for the desired revitalization, but he believed we have
gone a long way in that direction and hoped that the message gets
through to the City that we are making a major commitment in the
downtown area and that we would look for their fullest coopera-
tion when it comes to roads, traffic flows, utilities, etc.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that his understanding is that
the master contract would allow us time to do appraisals, and
Administrator Chandler further.noted that we also need to make a
determination on utilities and parking configurations. He needed
one clarification from Mr. Flick. He understood that on Concept
GIA, rather than eliminating the State Attorney's Office, we
would look at the 4 Brackett properties, but it seems Mr. Flick
is looking at those same properties to pick up his displaced
parking for the bank; so, that may or may not be an alternative
for us to look at.
Mr. Flick confirmed that he has to replace his parking
support for Florida Federal through purchasing those properties
or possibly through negotiating a long term lease with the County
for space in the parking garage.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there is a value associated
with Mr. Flick replacing his own parking.
Mr. Flick wished to�-'point out that 700 of the real estate
associated with this proposa'I is packed, paved, landscaped and
ready to be built on, and that is definitely a value.
Chairman Eggert asked about looking,at the corner on Block
43
'JUL 101990 'ROOF 81-1 rmub,91'eD,
JUL 10 1990
800 P• vf: �•� a
36.- She understood the church is going to build a new social
hall to its east.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would prefer to stay
away from the church, but he does want•.to stay flexible and let
Mr. Chandler look into all of this and bring it back to us.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak. There
were none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to
adopt a modified Concept G, Option A, which would
allow for retention of the State Attorney's Office;
and would leave staff the flexibility of looking at
this any way they want to provide the parking required.
The Board recessed at 10:45 A.M. and reconvened ten minutes
later with all members present.
44
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - 1000 SCALE BASE SEWER MAPS
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Director:
DATE: JUNE 28, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT��
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
1000 SCALE BASE SEWER MAPS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. RLI90-68
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1990, the Department of Utility Services received eight
(8) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to provide 1000
Scale Base Sewer Collection Systems Mapping service. The selection
committee reviewed the eight (8) responses end selected three (3)
firms to be interviewed.
ANALYSIS
On June 8, 1990, the selection committee interviewed the three (3)
firms, and as a result of the interview, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
2. Carter Associates, Inc. -
3. Coastal Tech
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 Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff
recommendation asset out above.
45
AUL 101990 Boor F�1lu tJ '�
L
I
HOF
JUI 10
ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - 12TH STREET WATER LINE
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Director:
DATE: JUNE 28, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI Y' RVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTO UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION
12TH STREET WATER LINE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. RLI90-74
BACKGROUND
On April 25, 1990, the Department of Utility Services received
twenty-two (22) responses to its Request for Letters of Interest to
provide engineering services for the design, construction, and
inspection of the 12th Street Water Line. The selection committee
reviewed the twenty-two (22) responses and selected three (3) firms
to be interviewed.
ANALYSIS
On June 15, 1990, the selection committee interviewed the three (3)
firms, and as a result of the interview, ranked the firms as
follows:
1. Masteller and Moler Associates; Inc.
2. Carter Associates, Inc.
3. Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
RECOFDMMATION
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 Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation as set out above.
46
REVISIONS TO COUNTY WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS
The Board reviewed memo from John Lang of the Utility staff:
DATE: JUNE 26, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN��
DIRECTOR OF UT LI ITY SERVICES
PREPARED JOHN F. LANG
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTA SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS
BACKGROUND
The Indian River County Department of Utility* Services Water and
Wastewater Utility Standards have been revised as per the initially
adopted November 1987 agenda item. Periodic revision of the
standards is necessary to keep pace with indu4try standards, County
needs, and advances in engineering design.
ANALYSIS
The following significant changes were made to the specifications:
1. Provision for a lift station calculation checklist.
2. Inclusion of an Indian River County approved radio control and
monitoring unit for lift stations.
3. Inclusion of spare panel boards for Item 2.
The other changes were to correct typographical errors in the text
and details.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the changes to the Utility Standards.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
changes to the Utility standards as recommended by staff.
COPIES OF PAGES W/CHANGES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
JUL x101990
THE BOARD.
P V L 10 1990
CHANGE ORD. #2 -NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT (UTILITY SYS. OF AMER.)
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
`9
DATE: JULY 2, 1990
TO: JAMES E'CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _;,
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO% /
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT SERVICES
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH UTILITY SYSTEMS OF
AMERICA, NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
IRC PROJECT NO. US -87 -27 -CCS
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAI
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO NEER
BY: DEPARTMENT I SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Due to the inability of the County to acquire certain easements,
changes to the original effluent disposal system, various changes in
restoration, and modifications to several lift stations the above
listed change order is being brought to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
On June 26, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved Work
Authorization No. 4 with the Project Engineer (Masteller and Moler,
Associates, Inc.); portions of the redesign covered by this work
authorization are included in this change order with the contractor.
ANALYSIS
The proposed changes -involve modifications to several lift stations;
i.e., (Rt. 512 Lift Station, River Run, Reflections). Also included
are force main modifications; i.e., (River Run, Pelican Pointe,
Effluent Reuse Force Main.) A reduction also occurred due to a
change in the proposed road restoration- method proposed 'by the
contractor: The economic effect of these changes is as follows:
1. Original contract price $3,388,617.55
plus Change Order No. 1
2. Net reduction by $ 25,926.25
Change Order No. 2
Net contract Total 3,362,691.30
(See attached Change Order No. 2)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of.the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve Change
Order No. 2 in the amount of a decrease ($25,926.25) with -Utility
Systems of America.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 (a decrease of $25,926.25) with
Utility Systems of America.
48
M ® M
110
1 9 3. Chance Order
JUN U 7 199
Page 1 or 2
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICEi 388 1 .617.55
DATE June 1, 1990 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $3,362,691.30
JOB NAME Indian River County Project #LB87-27-CM
North Cotmty Sut-gioml Sewr System/Ccntract H3
OWNER ILaud of Ccwrty Camdssioners Indian River County
The Contract total including this Change Order will bas
Ttuee Million ltuee Hundred Sixty 7W M"mand Six Hundred Ninty One and 30/10D
(written amount)
Dollars (S 3,362,691.30 ) .
The Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be
D)(UNCHANGED)S
(MeREAGED
Days.
This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all
provisions will apply hereto.
♦awwwwawwawwwwwwwwwa1aaawwawwawaaaawwwwwaaaawawawwawwaaawwaawwawawwaaaa•
CONTRACTORS* / �� DATES
ENGINEERS
7 3- 9v.
Indian River County Util Dept.; Terrance G. Pinto Director
OWNER: Boar -d of Count Comlissioners
cJ c.c.s
Carolyn/ . Eggert, hairman
DATE APPROVED BY BOARD:
49
Indian mta Co Appro,td We
Admin
3'Y6
Legal c
ORIG.
Budc_
—
REVISED
.3 fit'
Rich Mgr.
UNIT
ORIG.
TOTAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
UNITS
PRICE
CHANGE
CHANGE
PRICE
19
I Pulp Station y4 I
1 I
LS
1 1
i
1 43,000.00
I
I N/A
I
I+4,355.00 1
I I
47,355.0('
21
1 11r Station Reflectional
IS
I 1
1 1,500.00
1 -1
1-1,500.00 1
.00
24
14" Dltma--ter Senzige FM
1 1
1
I
I
I I
1'or River Iltnt 1'Uiping
I Station I
6.50
I 1,600
110,400.00
I +755
I+4,907.50 '1
I
15,307.50
25
1 1
16" Diameter Sewage FM 1
7.50
I
1 9.375
1
1 70,312.50
I
1 -690
I
1-5,175.OD 1
65,137.50
31
14" DiMieter Plug Valve I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I+ I
Ifor River Rwi I
350.OQ
1 7
2,450.00
I
+2
I
700.00
1 1
3,150.00
•I
38
I
18" Dirneter Effluent FTI 1
9.00
1
1 7,000
163,000.00
1-1,265
1-11,385.00 I
rj1,615.00
42
1 Smid Ridge Co11• 1
1
I
1
I 1
�Inprovemetts
LS
1
30.000.00
N/A
-8,655.00
21,345.00
50
1Road Restoration 1
25.00
1 7,150
1178.750.00
1-7,150
1-178,750.00 1
0.00
51
1Ncn-paved Road 1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I I
1 1
Restoration
(
3.75
680
2,550.00
I +331
+1 241.25
1 ' I
3,791.25
52
1 FDOr Pavemmt Restoratiai
25.00
1 250
1 6,250.00
1 +20
1 +500.00 1
6.750.00
65 (New) Iblicrm Pointe FM
I
1
N/A
I
1 I
6,960.00
Relocation/IS Spec 1
N/A
I N/A
1
1 +1
1 +6,960.00 1
68 (New)lRoad Ii!�storation i
I
I
1
I I
I(Revised� 1
'
27.50
1 0.00
I
1 0.00
1
1 +7,150
I
1+160,875.00 1160,875.00
1 I
I
wawwawawaawwwwwa+aawwawwawaawaawwawaawwaaawawwawawwwaawwaawaawaaaaaiaw
•
The amount of the Contract will be (DECREASED) (INGR
'Ra my Five Thousand Nine Hundred 7%-nty Six and 25/100
EASE•Io)49FIE::•"•1'.^C=I
by
the sum
oft
(written
amount)
Dollars ($
25,926.25
)
The Contract total including this Change Order will bas
Ttuee Million ltuee Hundred Sixty 7W M"mand Six Hundred Ninty One and 30/10D
(written amount)
Dollars (S 3,362,691.30 ) .
The Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be
D)(UNCHANGED)S
(MeREAGED
Days.
This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all
provisions will apply hereto.
♦awwwwawwawwwwwwwwwa1aaawwawwawaaaawwwwwaaaawawawwawwaaawwaawwawawwaaaa•
CONTRACTORS* / �� DATES
ENGINEERS
7 3- 9v.
Indian River County Util Dept.; Terrance G. Pinto Director
OWNER: Boar -d of Count Comlissioners
cJ c.c.s
Carolyn/ . Eggert, hairman
DATE APPROVED BY BOARD:
49
Indian mta Co Appro,td We
Admin
3'Y6
Legal c
;7 -
Budc_
—
u►ulai�e
.3 fit'
Rich Mgr.
JAU L
MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION (SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING)
The Board reviewed memo from Ron Brooks, Manager of the
Solid Waste Disposal District, as f?llows:
DATE:
JULY 2, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRIC
SUBJECT: MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
BACKGROUND
With the mandate of the 1988 Solid Waste Act to recycle 30% of
Indian River County's solid waste stream by 1994, the District
had a recycling study performed by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
With that study, combined with the experience of other counties
and the experience of communities in other states, it was recom-
mended that the District adopt mandatory solid waste collection
with the eventual implementation of a commingled doorstep recy-
cling program. It was determined that this type of program was,
to date, the most successful recycling program that would meet
the mandated 30% recycling of the solid waste stream by 1994.
In addition to meeting the recycling mandates, it is essential
that the District provide an equitable and environmentally sound
means of solid waste collection to reduce illegal dumping and
accommodate the waste service needs of the County.
ANALYSIS
District staff has prepared a proposed solid waste ordinance
that incorporates mandatory waste collection as well as solid
waste management and permitting requirements needed to control
the waste management operations within the District. The ordi-
nance also provides for a varied' means of supporting the
District's operations and allows the District Board to adopt
several procedures for the operation and financial support of
the District.-
This
istrict:
This proposed ordinance basically adopts mandatory waste collec-
tion and several permitting requirements that gives the Solid
Waste Disposal District, through approval by the District Board,
the authority and responsibility to implement the mandatory col-
lection and fund the operations as deemed appropriate and neces-
sary. The actual implementation of the mandatory waste collec-
tion and accompanying funding procedures will all be implemented
through resolution and contractual agreements, all of which are
subject to the approval and execution by the S.W.D.D. Board.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested
the subject draft
the public in an
that the Board of County Commissioners review
ordinance. The ordinance was presented before
advertised workshop on July 5, 1990. It is in -
50
tended that the ordinance be reviewed with the Board of County
Commissioners as a workshop item on the scheduled Board meeting
of July 10, 1990.
At the conclusion of the workshop before the Board, it is
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners identify any
requested changes and establish a date for a public hearing and
final adoption of the subject ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he attended the public
workshop held last 'Friday on this particular topic, and it amazed
him that we had only one person in the audience -other than the
haulers themselves. He emphasized that he would like to try to
create more interest so that we don't get to the public hearing
on the actual ordinance and then get tremendous sentiment we
hadn't anticipated. Commissioner Scurlock believed it was
explained that although this is not mandated, our consultant
pointed out that we will not be able to accomplish the 30%
recycling required by the state without going to mandatory
collection. There are tremendous changes occurring in this area,
and he did not know how to get the community more interested. He
noted that he has visited the collection centers and was
impressed with the number of people streaming through who are
recycling.
Chairman Eggert had a question about the areawide variance
and individual exemption proposed in the ordinance. She believed
there is a difference. The areawide variance seems to be based
more or less on "can I talk staff into it" as there is no
criteria listed, and she felt we can get ourselves into potential
problems with this approach.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this couldn't be modeled
after something like the cablevision approach where service has
to be rendered if there are so many customers per mile.
Utilities Director Pinto believed that is part of the
criteria used in analyzing this, but he felt what is more
important is that they have to provide specifics on what methods
they are using to get rid of their garbage.
JUL 101990 51
` 4 r
BOOK L 6i/�/
JUL 10
BOOK
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the possibility of a
single family home owner coming in and claiming he composts,
etc., and Director Pinto stated that while theoretically that
could be approved, he doubted it would.be.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he certainly wants to
see the new franchise agreement done concurrent with any
mandatory collection. We are going to be adding about 9,000 new
customers; we must set out service areas; and he wants to see
that settled with the agreements negotiated and in hand.
Chairman Eggert wondered how it would be policed when
someone came in for a variance and said what they are doing with
their waste.
Director Pinto agreed that you really have to be careful
when you grant a variance. You have to have the ability for the
variance in the ordinance, and when it comes to the point where
one is granted, you have to look at the feasibility and financial
cost of tracking. It can become a very expensive process. If it
were up to the Department, he would say we don't want any
variances, but we must be realistic.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Director Pinto is looking at
having a variance board or having this just a departmental
decision that can be appealed to the Commission, and Director
Pinto indicated it would be the latter.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the specifics for someone
with a house out in the country, for instance. Do they now have
to separate all these different materials, paper, metals,
different colored glass, etc.?
Director Pinto explained that staff in trying to set this up
has taken every ordinance they could find in the state, plus some
others, and found they are too cumbersome; so, they tried to
whittle them down. He looked at this as the enabling legisla-
tion we need to make this happen and that requires policy to be
set by Resolution.
52
_ M M
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this also will be addressed
in the new franchise agreements.
Director Pinto pointed out that all these various things are
related to the cost; so, we must decide on a policy which is
approved by the Board and then negotiate with the vendor. Then
you must look at cost versus service and see whether that
balances out.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there has been some
discussion on the Board about regulating the commercial side
also.
Chairman Eggert stated that she personally had a real
problem with the one week notice. Normally we have a 15 day
notice, and she is not sure one week is sufficient time. She
felt possibly there should be a longer notice set up and also
some display ads since we don't send out individual notices.
Director Pinto suggested that you don't advertise too far in
advance - not much further than 10 days - but felt you might want
to say it should be advertised for 3 consecutive days.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the requirement for notice is
very broad; so, the Board can decide what it wants to do.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he would recommend we keep
the actual ordinance as flexible as possible, but as a policy
matter, he thought the Commission can be much more definite in
things we direct staff to do in terms of advertising and he would
encourage having a display ad prior to that particular meeting.
He further noted that once you actually set up your billing
cycle, the most appropriate way to contact people is through the
billing process.
Director Pinto advised that we want to take this to public
hearing the first week of August, and if the Board feels it is
adequate, he will place a 4 'x 4 ad as just discussed.
Chairman Eggert requested that the definitions be put in the
front of the ordinance, and Commissioner Bowman commented that
she sees a big loophole in Section 6 which gives an exemption to
5 3
J U l 101990
J U L
101990
8(j
6',[Rit
people who
live 300' or more back off a public roadway;
this
would cover the entire subdivision in which she lives.
Director Pinto explained that Follection would be mandatory
unless they actually came in and asked.%for a variance, but he
felt this point was worth checking into further.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to advertise a date of August 7th for the public hearing
on the Mandatory Solid Waste Collection Ordinance and
further authorized staff to publish an additional display
ad as discussed.
REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO QUIT -CLAIM PROPERTY TO DELL SPIVA, JR.
Asst. County Attorney Collins reviewed his memo, as follows:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: t>4,,,, William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: July 2, 1990
SUBJECT: Request by Robert Jackson for County to Quit -Claim
Property to Dell V. Spiva, Jr.
The County has received a request from Robert Jackson, Esq.
to quit -claim an approximately 11l -foot by 1,290 -foot f
strip of,land to Mr. Spiva. (See attached letter to Mr.
Donald Finney, Indian River County Land Acquisition
Department.)
County Fixed Asset file #5079 shows that this property was
first acquired by the County for delinquent taxes on June 1,
1953. Mr. Jackson has also provided a title search which
shows a final judgment foreclosing the title to the property
in Indian River County dated November 25, 1969. Thus, it
appears that the County has held title to this land for at
least 20 years, and possibly as much as'37 years, for back
taxes. Mr. Spiva has been required by a lending institution
to obtain title to this property in order to obtain some
refinancing on his citrus grove, according to the letter
from Mr. Jackson.
The Property Appraiser's assessment of the property value is
$850.00.
54
Florida Statute 125.35 allows the Board of County
Commissioners to effect a private sale of the parcel after
sending notice of the intended action to owners of adjacent
property by certified mail when the value of the property is
$5,000.00 or less, as determined by the County Property
Appraiser, and when, due to the size, shape, location and
value of the parcel, it is determined by the Board that the
parcel is of use to only one or more adjacent property
owners. Mr. Spiva is the predominant adjacent owner,
surrounding the strip of land on either side to the east and
west. It also appears from the Property Appraiser's
Informational tax maps that two property owners to the
Immediate south of the Spiva may be adjacent to this strip
of land.
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Board should make a determination that the parcel
Is of use to only one or more adjacent property owners
due to the size,. shape, location and value of the
property, and that the parcel is worth $5,000.00 or
less as determined by the County Property Appraiser.
2. Send notice to adjoining property owners by certified
mail of the intent to effect a private sale and
conveyance of the parcel to Mr. Spiva for $1,000.00,
unless they notify the County within 10 days of their
interest in purchasing the strip of land.
3. Offer to sell the property for $1,000.00, the sum
representing the assessed value of $850.00 plus $150.00
for administrative costs involved in the transaction.
4. Authorize the Chairman to execute a deed for the
property to any adjoining property owner who is the
high bidder, meeting the minimum bid requirement, or to
reject all bids.
Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of making a
swap for future additional R/W requirements, but Attorney Collins
advised the,prob„lem with that is that the canal is on Mr. Spiva's
side of the road.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation and authorized the 4 actions
set out in said recommendation.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene sitting as the District -Board -of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
J U L 101990
r JUL
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:25 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
56
Chairma