Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/2/19908� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Don C. Scurlock-, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey R. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 AM 1. = 2. 3. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION - Dr. G. Julius Rice Pastor of Community Church PAGE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Change Order#6 for Main Library - Sidewalks. 2. Amendment to Settlement Agreement with DCA to get some grant money. 3. Firefighters �Cont�•act �' Tentative Meeting with Sebastia7 5. Removal of Item 7K. 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS Adoption and Presentation of Fourth Quarter Safety Award (Memorandum dated 9/25/90) 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of 8/28/90 B. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of 9/4/90 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Final Pay Request from Signal Construction for Miscellaneous Intersections Phase IIIA (Memorandum dated 9/20•/90) B. Acceptance of Annual Cooperative Forestry Assistance Report (Report dated 9/24/90) C. Final Plat Approval.for Meadowlark Woods Subdivision, and Approval of Contract for Right-of-way Acquisition for 41st St. (So. Gifford Rd.) (Memorandum dated 9/18/90) LA0OK ROOK 7. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED D. Adoption of Proclamation Designating October 7-13, 1990 as Fire Prevention Week E. Sandridge Golf C1ub.Phase II Conceptual Contractual Approval (Memorandum dated 9/25/90) F. IRC Bid 91-3, Road Striping Paint (Memorandum dated 9/21/90) G. IRC Bid 91-11, Alkyd Thermo Plastic Material (Memorandum dated 9/21/90) H. IRC Bid 91-16, Caustic Soda & Anti- Scalant (Memorandum dated 9/21/90) I. IRC Bid 91-17, Traffic Signal Equipment (Memorandum dated 9/21/90) J. Golf Course Purchases (Memorandum dated 9/25/90) rt cxuiu ua ecu .� r-c�--.-e L. General Development Co - Bankruptcy (Memorandum dated 9/25/90) M. Adoption of Proclamation Designating October 11, 1990 as Roy Coats Day N. IRC Bid 91-12, Sign Faces, Roll Goods & Aluminum Blanks (Memorandum dated 9/21/90) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND - GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES A. Request for $35,000 to Fund Salaries for the "Right Stuff" Program (Memorandum dated 9/25/90) B. Request for Additional Funding for After School Program, Citrus School - (Memorandum dated 9/25/90). 9:05 AM 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None - B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Bill Cutler's Request for Special Exception Use Approval for a Furniture Warehouse and Showroom and Waiver Request for Paving Escrow Requirement for Quay Dock Road (Memorandum dated 9/7/90) 2) C. M. Maple (Trustee) and Dr. & Mrs. Donald Ames' Request for Special Exception Use Approval for an Accessory Non-commercial Greenhouse (Memorandum dated 9/6/90) PAGE 10. 11. 12. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 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 Recommendation to Incorporate qungle Trail into the County Park System (Memorandum dated 9/26/90) H. UTILITIES 1) :North County Subregional Sewer System (Contract #3) Proposed Change Order #4 (Memorandum dated 9/24/90) 2) Citrus Irrigation Reuse -Study Contract Extension (Memorandum dated 9/21/90) 3) Water Plant Monthly Inspection and Report Services for All Major Water Treatment Plants, and Emergency Operations and Maintenance Consulting Services (Memorandum dated -9/21/90) 4) Overall Utilities Update (Memorandum dated 9/26/90) COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS None E 00� Fq�Ebi Sid PAGE QCT 2. i9g0 13. 14. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS PAGE A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT Support of Port of St. Lucie Regional Port Improvements (Memorandum dated 9/25/90) B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER SPECIAL DISTRICTS None 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. Tuesday, October 2, 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, October 2, 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, County Attorney; OMB Director Joe Baird; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk The Chairman called the meeting to order. Dr. G. Julius Rice, Pastor of Community Church, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert requested the following additions since there isn't a meeting next week: 1) Change Order.#6 for Main Library - Sidewalks. 2) Amendment to Settlement Agreement with DCA to get some grant money. 3) Firefighters Contract 4) Discussion re future joint meeting with Sebastian City Council. Attorney Vitunac requested the removal of Item K - Purchase of Mita Copier. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and deleted the above items to today's Agenda. O C T 2 1990 PRESENTATION OF FOURTH QUARTER SAFETY AWARD noK � PAGE e�1 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: TO: James E. Chandler,'County Administrator THRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director wxle:�' FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manage_41� DATE: 25 September 1990 _a SUBJECT: Fourth Quarter Safety Award Please consider the following item for inclusion on the Board's October 2, 1990, meeting agenda. Recommended for the Fourth Quarter Safety Award is Esrom Dorsett, a truck driver with the Road and Bridge Division of the Public Works Department. Mr. Dorsett, who -began employment with Indian River County in March, 1977, has logged thousands of incident -free miles as a dump truck driver. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Dorsett's experience and alert driving skills combined to avoid a potentially serious accident. On that date, he was driving south on 43rd Avenue near 18th Street when a heavily loaded construction truck turned onto the roadway in front of him. A pipe rack, balanced on top of the load, fell onto the roadway in the path of Mr. Dorsett's truck. According to Richard Vaughn, his supervisor, Mr. Dorsett "was able to avoid what could have been a real tragedy and also kept his vehicle from sustaining major damage." Mr. Dorsett's care for his County -owned vehicle, his attention to pre-operation safety checks and; consistent use of his seat belt i serve as excellent examples for his co-workers. Perhaps his performance has best been summarized by Mr. Vaughn: "Esrom is a very fine employee and a real asset to our department. My job is made easier because of employees like him ...." Your consideration of this request is appreciated. 2 Chairman Eggert presented the Fourth Quarter Safety Award to Esrom Dorsett who thanked the Board for their consideration. •� ,a0i.�. .. t, ai.:' tN...y: :'.$e. fig:. �;;o• +• � .Mi "c" j�.•.4A . ::g`% ¢ ,A '.,.;.. • �'�".;•�• .. s: 4• qtr off.'. tj�•.'•�(,, j �" !s� e�S• a6iBi �n!`r� eds s� �als:!trsfs r7i cele !'+Sa!%a `1�e �aZl� ridlt ii.+�.L l a�iL�i�'.� . I INDIAN RIVER COUNTYy PERO BEACH, FLORIDA Whig Is to certify that ►:i i J W • •, J'} Esrom Dorsett > ''` " i,� herebg presented tfTia �� ..A s ••� far auwanding scruice and safe performance In <<w Fourth Quarter Safety Award ,. `!w Y an this tad bag of Odd- �$ 9U Fi• E ; . • 1 �y `:J Bxtrd �t.�l��^'i'�\✓w't!•� •t.1tL'�./`:-�tj•+.k•V ,I"V ti�\,fM4�jt�4'V i�'41�� ��'•'� - f'ti���y'Yr'yt . • •.C., -� jt.+ rr �� •+t,' k. ,>,. ) t, .?•`�.ne•^•y :a.�e, ta;:::,. �:: •�«..�,t2.7t'_. �.'•�i: �: �`.^. t� . APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 28, 1990. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved - the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 8/28/90, as written. OCT 2 1990 3 OGT 2 1990 7- 5. & .. The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of -the Regular Meeting of September 4, 1990. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/4/90, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Eggert requested that Items F, G, -H, I and Nbe removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. Final Pay Request from Signal Construction for Miscellaneous Intersections Phase III -A The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/20/90: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THIEMUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr. P.E., County Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Final Pay.Request from Signal Construction for Miscellaneous Intersections Phase IIIA DATE: September 20, 1990 FILE: A:SIGNAL.AGN The signalization of the Miscellaneous Intersections Phase IIIA has been completed by Signal Construction Co., Inc. The project , has been accepted by the County Traffic Engineer. The contractor is requesting payment in the amount of $76,388.-00 which is the total amount due including retainage and Change Order #1 which was approved by The Board of County Commissioners in April 1990 and Change Order #2 which is attached for approval. Staff recommends approval of the final payment in the amount of $76,388.00. No payments have been made on this project to date due to the fact that certain technical problems which arose have finally been settled. Funding is from acct. #109-141-541-033.19. 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #2 and final payment to Signal Construction, Inc. in the amount of $76,388, as set out in the above staff recommendation. e CHANGE ORDER #2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD B. Acceptance of Annual Cooperative Forestry Assistance Report ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the following report. R t. STATE OF FLORIDA 4 0 0.�` FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE E CONSUMER SERVICES _ �h DO R. COMMISSIONER �c 3125 CONNER BLVD. TALLAHASSEE 32399-1650 Oda c C71Annual Cooperative Forestry Assistance Report z c 0 ti� City of Vero Beach & Indian River County September 24, 1990 �s required under the provision of the county contract, sections 589.28-589.34 Florida Statutes, an annual report is submitted each fall to cover the work undertaken during the past fiscal year. As the Vero Beach/Indian River County Forester I submit this report of my activities during the period July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990. The 1989/90 -reporting year marks the 17th full year in which Vero Beach/Indian River County residents have received the assistance of a Forester from the Division of Forestry. The 89/90`year marks the beginning of my third year as Forester for this County. The past year has been an active one for this project, several projects have been completed and many new ones have been started. The following is a listing of some of the projects and.programs I became involved with this past year: Tree City U.S.A. ' "Urban Forester" feature articles, Press -Journal .Oslo landfill reclamation Glendale Elementary outdoor classroom Seedling sales for non -profit -groups County vegetation inventory'and mapping Victory Boulevard street tree inventory Forest Stewardship landowner assistance program Training assistance to County Fire Department (Incident Command System instructor) St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District Recreation Advisory Committee, alternate member Completion of McDonald Park nature trail Earth Day -90 Assist with review of County land developement code 5 R00 ,OCT 2 199 Ci+ �99Q BOOK F'gGE 571 Over the last year the Forester made 1,104 assists to City and County residents, civic groups, schools, etc. Total hours devoted to these assist were 1,728. Activities were as follows: A. Incidentals - 132 hours - 7.6% 1. Incidental assists (telephone calls, correspondence, visitors to my office or assistance not requiring a field visit): 526 assists 2. Forest Ranger assistance to Forester: 30 assists, 106 hours B. Division of Forestry Assists - 73 hours - 4.2% 1, Nursery seed collection: 1 assist, 4 hours 2. Assists to Division personnel: 23 assists, 69 hours C. Personnel Training and Developement - 110 hours - 6.4/0fo 1. Forest management training: 2 assists, 12 hours 2.• Fire control training: 7 assists, 28 hours 3. Training contracts: 3 assists, 9 hours 4, . Training received: 61 hours D. Meetings - 203 hours - 11.7% 1. Meetings attended (general): 30 meetings, 77 hours 2. Meetings, State and Federal: 7 meetings, 35 hours 3. Meetings, professionals 2 meetings, 2 hours 4. Meetings, staff: 14 meetings, 89 hours E. Fire Control - 236 hours - 13.7% 1. Fire control officer -in -charge, acting area supervisor, etc.: 40 assists F. Urban - 563 hours - 32.6% 1. Tree City U.S.A.: 4 assists, 13 hours, 1 recertification 2. Shade and ornamental tree: 134 assists, 177 hours 3. Beautification plans: 6 assists 15 hours 4. Beautification projects: 9 assists, 28 hours, 326 trees and shrubs planted 5. Tree removal assists: 24 assists, 38 hours 6. Tree and vegetation protection pians: 1 assist, 2 hours 7. Comprehensive planning: 10 assists, 18 hours 8. Environmental impact studies 29 assists, 36 hours 9. Parks and Recreation Department: 8 assists 28 hours 10.. Natural resource developement: 9 assists, 35 hours 11. Developer assists: 22 assists, 31 hours 12. Tree ordinance: 5 assists, 10 hours 13. Street tree survey: 2 surveys, 16 hours 14. Arbor Day and school plantings: 8 assists, 13 hours 15. Tree seedling sales: 24 assists, 1600 trees 16. Tree transplanting assists: 3 assists, 8 hours 17. Nursery establishment: 2 assists, 4 hours 18. Nurseries assisted: 5 assists, 6 hours 19. Recreation developement assistance: 1 assist, 2 hours G. Information and Education - 149 hours - 8.6% S. Newspaper, magazine interviews: 11 interviews 2., News articles written: 28 articles 3. Speeches givens 12 speeches 4. Environmental education classes: 1 class 5. Exhibits: 3 exhibits 6. Smokey Programs: 8 programs 7. TV, radio programs: 2 programs 8. Radio, TV interviews: 1 interview H. Rural - 156 hours --9% 1. Tree planting prescriptions: 2 assists 2. Diagnosis/reconnaisance: 4 assists, 640 acres 3. Private non -industrial forest landowner contacts: 4 assists 4.• PNIF/telephone, mail: 15 assist 5. Timber stand improvement: 1 assist 6. Site prep. for artificial receneration: 3 assist 6 7. Tree planting checks: 2 assists 8. Surface mine reclamation: 5 assists 9. Christmas tree orchards 2 assists 10;,. Forest road and trail locations 2 assist, 1 mile 11. Prescribed burning plans: 2 assists 12. Fire hazard reduction: 3 assists 13. Forest range improvements 2 assist, 500 acres 14. Forest products utilizations 4 assists 15. Tax Assesor/Property Appraisers 2 assists 16. Vegetative survey: 1 survey, 318,119 acres Also included in this report are my goals for fiscal year 199091 and some long term goals for the coming years. Should you have any programs or projects that I might assist you on please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tim Elder Vero Beach/Indian River County Forester Florida Division of Forestry 778-5084 Goals for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 1. Rewrite and update Urban Forestry plan for the City of Vero Beach. 2. Increase rural forestry assistance in county through Forest Stewardship and the Florida Reforestation Incentive Program. 3. Increase seedling sales: 4. Recertify Vero Beach as Tree City, certify additional city in county. 5. Identify, map, and target for reforestation blighted urban areas within City of Vero Beach and Indian River County. Long Range Goals 1. Increase canopy along U.S. 1 corridor through County. 2. Increase awareness of tree protection methods to builders and developers. 3. Exploit potential for rural forestry activities in Western portion of County. on -Going Activities i. Bi -Weekly newspaper articles. 2. Technical assistance to any and all cooperators and residents of the area. 6a 1; i N Rack M 81 FA t 0 GT 2 1990 Bou 81- F'AGE 5 r C. Final Plat Approval for Meadowlark Woods Subdivision_ and Approval of Contract for Right-of-way Acquisition for 41st Street (South Gifford Road) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/18/90: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Obert M. Keat , P Community Developmen Director THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director //��,,�� FROM: Christopher D. Rison 0Q9_ Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: September 18, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL O CONTRACT FOR MEADOWLARK IGHT OFWWAYS ACQUISITION SUBDIVISION FOR 41ST STREET (SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD) SD -86-10-100 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 2, 1990. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Meadowlark Woods is an 18 lot residential subdivision of a +/- 9.6 acre parcel of land located north of 41st Street and lying west of the Country Pines Subdivision. The subject property is zoned RS- -3, Single -Family Residential (up to 3 units per acre) and has an L-1, Low -Density Residential (up to 3 units per acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is 1.88 units per acre. The subdivision street will be dedicated to the public and there are no subdivision water or wastewater systems or facilities. At its regular meeting of April 14, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. Subsequently, a land- development permit was issued, and required - improvements were constructed. The owner, Ecrip Investments, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following: 1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat; 2. a certified cost estimate from the project engineer that sets the cost for construction of the subdivision to establish the amount for the required posted security; 3. a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and Bill .of Sale for the completed publicly dedicated required improvements; and 7 4. a Contract for Sale and Purchase with an Addendum for additional 41st Street right-of-way to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement, approved by the County Attorney's Office and the Public Works Department. Item #4 is the contract for the County's purchase of 41st Street right-of-way from the subdivision developer. ANALYSIS: All required improvements have been constructed by the developer and have been inspected and deemed acceptable by the Public Works Department. A Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and security instrument, acceptable to the County Attorney's Office and'the Public Works Department, has been submitted. The Public Works Department wishes to purchase the additional 40' of right-of-way required for 41st Street to meet the 100' specified by the County Thoroughfare Plan for an urban minor arterial. The source of funding for the purchase will be the District 8 Traffic Impact Fee Fund. The developer has agreed to a purchase price equal to that of the required posted security amount required to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement. A Contract for Sale and Purchase for the additional right-of-way has been submitted for this purpose. An Addendum to the Contract arranges for the actual date of purchase to be one (1) year from the date on final plat approval (when the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement will- expire), and that the cost for repairs to any of the required improvements, if necessary, shall be deducted from the purchase price. This will allow the funds for purchase of the right-of-way to serve as the security for the required Warranty/Maintenance Agreement. Both the Public Works Department and the County Attorney's Office have reviewed and approved the Contract for Purchase and the Addendum security arrangement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. grant final plat approval for the Meadowlark Woods Subdivision; 2. authorize the chairman to accept the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement; 3. authorize the chairman to execute the Contract for Sale and Purchase with Addendum for the 41st Street right-of-way to serve as posted security. 0 CT 2 1990 8 OCT.2 199 5 15 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for the Meadowlark Woods Subdivision; authorized the Chairman to accept the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement; and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Sale and Purchase with Addendum for the 41st Street right-of-way to serve as posted, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD D. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week P ROCLAMAT ION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 7-13, 1990 AS FIRE PREVENTION WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, during the past year, fire claimed the lives of many of our fellow citizens. Many more were severely injured by fire and thousands of dollars of property was destroyed. The greatest percentage of deaths caused by fire last year occurred in residential properties. Fire is especially devastating to the most vulnerable members of our society - children and the elderly; and WHEREAS, many programs are designed to make the public more aware of the dangers of fire in their homes; and WHEREAS,. the efforts of public officials, firefighters, business leaders, community and volunteer organizations who are working together to bring about a safer America are to be commended, especially the men and women of the fire service - volunteer and career - who risk injury and death to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens; and WHEREAS, the great risks and sacrifices involved in their work are clearly evidenced each year during the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Services at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. In October of this year, the families of firefighters killed in the line of duty and 3tepresentatives of the Nation's fire service will gather from all over America to honor and pray for the heroic individuals who perished in 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE .BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF Indian River County, Florida that. the week of October 7-13, 1990 be recognized as 9 FIRE PREVENTION WEEK in Indian River County. The Board calls upon the people of Indian River County to plan and actively participate in fire prevention 'activities not only this week, but throughout the year. The Board further asks the citizens of Indian River County to pay tribute to those firefighters who have made'the ultimate sacrifice for our safety. Adopted this.2nd day of October, 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Caroly K. Egge Chairman E. Sandridge Golf Club Phase II - Conceptual Contractual Approval The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 25, 1990 FILE: 7m: Mr. James E. Chandler SUBJECT: County Administrator Sandridge Golf Club Phase II Conceptual Contractual Approval FROM: Bob KomarinetzREFERENCES: Director of Gol' 10 lkt, 10 100OR On July ani the Board approved staffs recommendation to have Links. Design do the architectural planning and cost estimate of Phase II, 9- hole expansion of Sandridge Golf Club. The County Attorneys Office has prepared the addition to the original contract and Ron Garl, President of Links Design has signed the agreement. 4060 ipll� Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and execute the enclosed agreement. 10 {, KID F'Cv� 51 1990 _I wu� -o d, ROOK 81 Ft96E 5 it ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Conceptual Contract with Links Design, Inc., and authorized the Chairman's signature. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD F. IRC Bid #91-3 - Road Striping Paint The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DATE: September 21, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY CONAIISSIONERS THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Dire Department of General ice FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-3/Road Striping Paint n7kf1Vf1-0nreMm. YES On request from the Traffic Engineering Division, the subject bid was proper- ly advertised and Five (5) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On September 12, 1990 bids were received with Two (2) vendors submitting proposals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. Roadway Supply was the low bidder and met all requirements. FUNDING: Monies for this project will came from Traffic Engineering Department. Accounts for Pavement Markings. Available funds $75,000.00. RECONAEZIDATIONS: Staff recommends the Award of a Open End Contract to Roadway Supply with an estimated value of $ 4,000.00 per year. Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract subject to satisfactory perfor- mance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination that re- newal is in the best interest of the County. The initial, contract period shall begin on the date of award. Chairman Eggert explained that she removed all of these bid items (Items F, G, H, I and N,)because staff is asking for authorization to renew the contracts subject to satisfactory performance and dealer cost increase, and she wasn't sure that the renewals were to come back before the County Commission. She felt the Board should at least see these before they are finalized or put into the budget because there are times when items decrease in cost. She just wanted to double check the procedure on these bids. Administrator Chandler explained the procedures involved and advised that staff would recommend renewal if there is no change in the unit price and the bidder agrees to keep that same price, but if there is a change in the marketplace, we would go out to bid again. We do evaluate the prices and believe that if the prices do not change, it would be to the County's benefit to keep those prices. Commissioner Scurlock felt that Chairman Eggert does raise a point that if prices have decreased, we should have some mechanism in place to look at the market conditions, and understood that staff is assuring us that is the case with these bids. General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that the department or division of the County ordering the item also looks at the prices along with the performance, etc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded IRC Bid #91-3 to Roadway Supply, as set out in the above staff recommendation. I a�rK Fgi' � � ! OCT 2 10 12 OCT .21990 EOGK' F'AE c� t G. IRC Bid 91-11 - Alkyd Thermo Plastic Material The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: (See Item F for discussion) DATE: September 21, 1990 7O: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS THRU: Janes E Chandler, County Adminis ator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Se c FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-11/Alkyd Thermo Plastic Material On request from the Traffic Engineering Division, the subject bid was proper- ly advertised and Five (5) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On September 12, 1990 bids were received with Two (2) vendors submitting proposals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. Pavemark Corporation was the low bidder and net all requirements. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Traffic Engineering Department Accounts for Pavement Markings. Available funds $75,000.00. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Award of an Open End Contract to Pavemark Corporation with an estimated value of $ 9,600 per year. Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract subject to satisfactory perfor- mance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination that re- newal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin on the date of award. 13 - _ •...r+c �ss� an+mo Re. -a m ended Award BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I8402UhSftgt VemBMh FAwida=9W Ri�zR ;fs•: a'Z �•"`•• T•,••••: �•m,� . ✓� F�ORiV. Dare j 9/12/90 PURDHASING DEPT. , BID TABULATION Submitted By Dominick L Mascola PURCHASING MANAGER . Bid No.91-3 Date Of Opening 9/12/90 Bid Trite Road Striping Paint 1.Roadway Supply, Inc S3,713.75 P.O. Box 712 - Augusta, Ga 30001 I - 2. Sherwin Winims $4,502.00 724 219t Street Ven Beach, a 32960 G. IRC Bid 91-11 - Alkyd Thermo Plastic Material The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: (See Item F for discussion) DATE: September 21, 1990 7O: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS THRU: Janes E Chandler, County Adminis ator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Se c FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-11/Alkyd Thermo Plastic Material On request from the Traffic Engineering Division, the subject bid was proper- ly advertised and Five (5) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On September 12, 1990 bids were received with Two (2) vendors submitting proposals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. Pavemark Corporation was the low bidder and net all requirements. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Traffic Engineering Department Accounts for Pavement Markings. Available funds $75,000.00. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Award of an Open End Contract to Pavemark Corporation with an estimated value of $ 9,600 per year. Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract subject to satisfactory perfor- mance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination that re- newal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin on the date of award. 13 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded IRC Bid #91-11 to Pavemark Corporation, as set out in the above staff recommendation. (See Item F) H. IRC Bid 91-16 - Caustic Soda & Anti-Scalant The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DAM: September 21, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY CXZZUSSIONER.S THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Serv' FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-16/Caustic Soda & Anti-Scalant BACKGROUND:. On request from the Utility Division, the subject- bid was properly advertised and Eight (8) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On Septem- ber 12, 1990 bids were received with Three (3) vendors submitting pro- posals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. H.F. Scientific was the low bidder and met all requirements for Anti-Scalant, and P.B. &.S Chemicals was the low bidder and met all requirements for Caustic Soda. 14 0 CT BOARD OF COUNTY C0X&=0A—x S Does 9/12/90 'I PURCHASING DEPT. ` V BID TABULATION -. Sulm+ntted c BY DMT*k L Idascola PURC.4ASING MANAGER Bid Na 91-11 Doe Of Openin99/12/90 Reeaanmended Awad FLOR14° Bid Title Alkyd 2—aa Plastic bate=W L Pavemark Nhite Alkvd� 5.364 cer lb. 1855 Plymouth Rd N.V. X010/ Yntiw Alkyd 5.345 per lb. Atlanta. Ga 30318 Shite Alkyd $.369 per lb. alloc Alkiyd $.352 per lb. � 2. Cataohote Inc S$d.te Allied S.428 . P.O. Boz 2369 (hioeks) Ye11w'Alkyd 5.408 per lb. � Jaeksan, Ms. 39225-2369 Mdte Alkyd 5.398 oe: lb. 8r Yellow Alkvd . S.378 mer lb. H. IRC Bid 91-16 - Caustic Soda & Anti-Scalant The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DAM: September 21, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY CXZZUSSIONER.S THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Serv' FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-16/Caustic Soda & Anti-Scalant BACKGROUND:. On request from the Utility Division, the subject- bid was properly advertised and Eight (8) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On Septem- ber 12, 1990 bids were received with Three (3) vendors submitting pro- posals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. H.F. Scientific was the low bidder and met all requirements for Anti-Scalant, and P.B. &.S Chemicals was the low bidder and met all requirements for Caustic Soda. 14 0 CT OCT 2`�9® - �OfiK _1AGE:31 FEDMING: Monies for this project will come frau utilities Water. Budget Accounts for Chemicals. Funds available $140,245.00. . FaXX N vZNDATIONS : _ Staff recd nnends the Award of an Open End Contract to H.F. Scientific and P.B.&S Chemicals with an estimated value of $15,000 per year. Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination that renewal is in the best interest of the County. 'The contract period shall begin on the date of award. Administrator Chandler explained that once we received the bids, we found that the chemical composition on the anti-scalant bid potential could damage our old membranes, and, therefore, we feel we need to rebid that part of the bid. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded the caustic soda part of IRC Bid 91-16 to P.B. & S Chemicals and rejected the bid for the anti-scalant part of the bid, as recommended by Administrator Chandler. - , , .......t ,xn sc+awo1S bermanded Aemd BOAED OF COUNTY C0X=W0JVZZS roe za SV.CL Vag 3 cLTiff da3=aao l - �'�Z, a•'�•• ��•••: �••t01� 17✓�* F�0014° Date 9/13/90 PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION - Surdtted By Dominick L Mes6ob PURCHASINu MANAGER Bid Na 91-16 Date Of Opening 9/12/90 Bid Tick Anti -Sealant A Caustic Soda 1. H F. Scientific Grouo I Anti -Sealant - 3170 Retro Tim 9.26 per gallon n Mevera, n 33916 Group n caustit soda b 2. n & S Che�¢icau Group I Anti -Sealant 250 Central no pkwy N/B 0dando, F1 32824 Group n Caustic Soda 1.27 per gallon 3. Groua I Anti-scalant 101 N.B. Thirteenth Ave N/B Group n caustic soda ftmq= beach, F1 33069 1.31 ne on 15 II I. IRC Bid 91-17 - Traffic Signal Equipment The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DATE: September 21, 1990 THRU: James E Chandler, County Adminis for B.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Se FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-17/Traffic Signal EgUiPM?nt n7V VVe-T V1T7KW%. On request from the Traffic Control Division, the subject bid was proper- ly advertised and Seven (7) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On September 12, 1990 bids were received with Two (2) vendors submitting proposals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. pecifications. Transyt Corporation was the low bidder and met all requirements. FUNDING: Monies for this project will cane frau Traffic Signal Budget Accounts for Maintenance -Traffic Signals. Available funds $25,500.00. RECON 49NDATICNS: s Staff recamiends the Award of an Open End Contract to Transyt Corporation with an estimated value of $11,000 per year. Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract subject to satisfactory perfor- mance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and detAxmination that re- newal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin on the date of award. (See Item F for discussion) ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded IRC Bid 91-17 to Transyt Corporation, as set out in the above staff recommendation. OCT 219 0 16 OU a Co , P I Q F�,�� BOARD OF CO UN"C0jWSSlONEBS _ Qate�9/12/ IUD 2thStre4VCM Beach-Fkrid =W PURCHASING* DEPT. BID TABULATION Submitted By Dominic L Mascola ` •r...., ,�, inaaao GZ. PUR'„�.•IASQdG d1ANAGc"ii J• R"✓/ Bid Na 91-17 p Of Opening 9/12190 *tI - Recommended Award �4JR10a Bid Title Traffic Signal Equipment 1. Transv: Corporation ....--�- - �------ (MOM 11-- tems .,..0, 4920 Woodlane Circle 2. $350.00 J. Golf Course Purchases The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRII: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PURCHASES BACKGROUND: Sandridge Golf Club is unique in some areas of purchasing in that certain commodities used have to be considered sole source, sole brand, single source or single brand. This is due to franchised area of sales, customer demands, convenience of delivery and etc. The following is a list of vendors that fall into at least one of these categories: 1. P & F Distributors - Supplies meats for the snack bar. They have dependable weekly deliveries and are located approximately one mile from the Course, which allows quick response should we run out of an item. Estimated annual expenditure is $5,500.00. 2. Southern Eagle Distributing, Inc. - Supplies Budweiser beer. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $13,000.00. 3. Huber Distributing Company - Supplies Miller Lite beer. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $5,500.00. 4. Pepsi-Cola Company of Melbourne - Supplies, cola supplies for snack bar. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $4,000.00. 17 � � s .1• 511 Tallahassee, Fl 32303 GROUP III 8. S 3. N/B 4. S 00 80. o. 53 5.00 2. Indicator Controls Corporation GROUP . h8 3000 E Las Her tunas St 2. N/B ' Rancho Dominguez, Calif 90221 3. 5235.00 8. N/B GROUP In 3. NIB .00 6. N/B . J. Golf Course Purchases The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRII: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PURCHASES BACKGROUND: Sandridge Golf Club is unique in some areas of purchasing in that certain commodities used have to be considered sole source, sole brand, single source or single brand. This is due to franchised area of sales, customer demands, convenience of delivery and etc. The following is a list of vendors that fall into at least one of these categories: 1. P & F Distributors - Supplies meats for the snack bar. They have dependable weekly deliveries and are located approximately one mile from the Course, which allows quick response should we run out of an item. Estimated annual expenditure is $5,500.00. 2. Southern Eagle Distributing, Inc. - Supplies Budweiser beer. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $13,000.00. 3. Huber Distributing Company - Supplies Miller Lite beer. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $5,500.00. 4. Pepsi-Cola Company of Melbourne - Supplies, cola supplies for snack bar. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $4,000.00. 17 � � s 5. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Fort Pierce - Supplies cola supplies for vending machines. They are single source due to franchised area of distribution. Estimated annual expenditure is $15,600.00. ANALYSIS• The present method of a blanket purchase order or a purchase order issued after the authorization to buy is not in accordance with the present policies and procedures for purchasing in Indian River County. ECOMMENDATIONS Based on the facts indicated above, staff requests Board approval to issue an individual purchase order to the above vendors in an amount equal to the estimated annual expenditures. This purchase order will be for the fiscal year 1990-1991. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo. OCT 2 1990 18 OCT 2 1990 K. Purchase of Mita Copier (deleted from today's Agenda) L. General Development Company - Bankruptcy ROCK 81 F'AUL -The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney DATE: September 25, 1990 RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - BANKRUPTCY request permission for the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign the attached bankruptcy claim on behalf of Indian River County against the assets of General Development Company. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the bankruptcy claim on behalf of Indian River County against the assets of General Development Company. COPY OF CLAIM IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD M. Proclamation - Roy Coats Day -P R O C L A M A T I O N DESIGNATING OCTOBER 11, 1990 AS ROY COATS DAY in Indian River County, Florida WHEREAS, the Vero Beach High School Band has again been recognized for its superior accomplishments by receiving an invitation to the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, California on January 1, 1991; and 19 WHEREAS, the Band's performance at this prestigious event will not only reflect the accomplishments of the Band, but also reflects the support of all individuals and organizations of our community; and WHEREAS, in order to participate in this prominent parade, the Band Booster organization must raise funds, and we encourage everyone to support the Band, both in spirit and financially, at all Vero Beach High School Band fundraisers; and WHEREAS, we are honored by the presence of Roy Coats, President of the Tournament of Roses Parade, in Indian River County, October 10-12, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the day of October 11, 1990 be designated as ROY COATS DAY in Indian River County. The Board further urges the citizens of Indian River County to extend a warm welcome to -Roy Coats, and to congratulate the members of the Vero Beach High School Band on their outstanding performance. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAPi RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Caroly K. EgZetj, Chairman N. IRC Bid #91/12 - Sign Faces, Roll Goods, & Aluminum Blanks The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DATE: September 21, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIISSIONERS THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General ices V� FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-12/Sign Faces, Roll Goods, & Aluminum Blanks On request from the Traffic Control Department, the subject bid was proper- ly advertised and Twelve (12) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On September 12, 1990 bids were received with Three (3) vendors submitting proposals for the ommodity. 20 PUCK tq r ®CT 2 1990 19U ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifi- cations. Universal Signs & Accessories was the low bidder and met all re- quirements. e- qu rements. FUNDING: Monies for this project will come from Budget Traffic Engineering Accounts for Traffic Signs/Signals. Amds-available $39,600.00. }2 OOMMENDATIONS: Staff recamiends the Award of an Open End Contract to Universal Signs & Accessories, with an estimated value of $38,000 per year. Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract subject to satisfactory per- fonnance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination that re- newal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin on the date of award. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #91-12 - Sign Faces, Roll Goods & Aluminum Blanks, as set out in the above staff recommendation. (see Item F) ,.�..� ME w,nm Recommended AwardLpR19'' BOARD OF COUNTY COM MS10NERSDme- 1840mmSe■u.vooBeeck Fiarids32M Ven ^''" �, ..�,.,.,...., ��m„ * 9/12/90 PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION •• la Submitted By PURCHASING MANAGER Bid No. 91-12 We Of Opening 9/12/90 Bid Title BlanksFace Designs, Roll Goods, S Atimmimm 1. universal Sims & Accessories SRI Q!? -A -7s 2912 Orange Avenue Ft Pierce, F1 34947 2. Vulcan Signs $83,476.72 P.O. Boz 850 Foley, Aleb= 3. municipal &_si. W9,468.95 P.O. Baas 1765 Naples, F1 33939-1765 21 � � r REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO FUND SALARIES FOR THE "RIGHT STUFF" PROGRAM The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: TO: Jim Chandler DATE: Sept. 25, 1990 FELE: County Administrator SUBJECT: "Right Stuff" -Grant Proposal on file in County Commission Office Commission Agenda Request 10/2/90 FROM: Patricia Callahan REFERENCES: Recreation Director Project "Right Stuff" is a joint effort of the County Commission and the School District to address a local problem that is a microcosm of a -national problem that affects more and more families each year. For two - career and single parent households the hours the schools cover are only a part of the working day and thus creates self- care for the high risk target population. Eleven and twelve year olds are especially vulnerable - they are caught in between being a child and being a teenager. Among the effects of self-care on this target population are: 1. Lack of judgement that leads to placing oneself in a precarious situation and failure to deal with crises. 2. Increased delinquency, including early substance abuse, theft, vandalism. 3. Truancy. 4. Sexual exploitation. 5. Lack of beneficial leisure, recreational and physical skills. "Right Stuff" was initially funded by.the Governor's Drug Free Communities Grants Program - the grant was not renewed for this year (October 1, 1990 - May 30,1991). The School District provides the facilities, building maintenance, utilities, Janitorial supplies, program -paper supplies, and use of all equipment - i.e., computers, sewing machines, sports equipments, musical instruments, etc.. The County Commission provides all administrative functions i.e., program implementation, staff support, clerical responsibilities of program (time sheets, payroll, supplies reimbursement). The grant funded.the salaries. This memo is a request for the salary funding_ _to now come from the County Commission. The amount is $35,000.00. The program is scheduled to begin now 10/1/90 and continue through 5/24/91. To date 115 children have pre -registered, 52 of those are on the free or reduced lunch program, leaving 63 that are average or above income. I propose to make the program free to all students on the free or reduced lunch program and charge $5.00 a week for the others. This would produce some revenue to offset the program cost (approximately $250 to $300 a week or $7,500 to $9,000 for the 30 week. program). The department is presently exploring other funding sources i.e. a local foundation and other potential grants that if obtained would offset_ the cost considerably. Thank you for your attention to this project, your placing the matter on the County Commission Agenda of 10/2/90. T 21990 22 OCT '2 1990 F00K FA'UE 5 " Commissioner Scurlock questioned the inconsistencies in teachers' salaries, and asked why the grant program pays $22 an hour for teachers' salaries when our current schedule calls for $10.21 an hour and the School Board is only paying $6.34 for after-school hours. Recreation Director Patricia Callahan explained that through the State grant program last year, the teachers were paid their normal hourly rate because the grant was in conjunction with the Dept. of Education and they were the ones reviewing it. Now that we have taken it on, the union -agreed rate per hour for teachers' salaries is $10.32, which is also the rate we pay for the summer program. Mrs. Callahan understood that the $6.34 hourly rate paid by the School Board is for aides. Commissioner Scurlock felt he could move approval of this item contingent upon the County paying the same consistent salaries that the School Board does, and if it is $6.34, then maybe we could offer two of these programs rather than one. Mrs. Callahan assured the Board that she would be more than willing to pay what the School Board is paying. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner -Bird, the Board unanimously approved salary funding in the amount of $35,000 for the "Right Stuff" Program at the Gifford Middle Six and Seven Schools, contingent on paying the teachers the same hourly rate as the School Board pays for these services. 23 � � s REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM, CITRUS SCHOOL The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: TO: .rim Chandler DATE: Sept. 25, 1990 FILE: County Administrator } FROM: Patricia Callahan Recreation Director SUBJECT: After School Program - Citrus Commission Agenda Request 10/2/90 REFERENCES: In the 89-90 Budget Year the County Commission funded four after school programs and have made a commitment in the 90-91 Budget to fund six after school programs. The program works like this: The school supplies the teachers and aides from their school and the county pays the teacher ($10.21 per hour) and the aide their school salary (average $6.50 per hour). There is one teacher and one aide for each 50 students. The students are charged $5.00 per week up to $10.00 per family a week. The school provides the facility, the building maintenance, utilities, janitorial supplies, and sports equipment i.e. basketball, football, etc.. y` The Indian River County Recreation Secretary co-ordinates all paperwork, bookkeeping, and works with the co-ordinators at each school. Each child is registered with parental signature and a release is signed. The program is each school day 3:30-5:30 p.m.. The program is designed for the child who goes home after school hours to an empty house. In 89-90 the program cost (001 & 004) $45,000 and provided revenue of $17,432.00 (almost 50%). I do not approach any school and never did - the principals at the functioning after school programs approached me. The school must want the program for it to work. Attached, please find a letter from Fran Adams, Citrus School Principal. Ms. Adams was assigned to Citrus -on August 2nd, therefore she had no way of requesting _ the program for 90-91 budgeting. Once she asset that Citrus is in much need of this program she phoned which led to attached letter. Citrus will have a large after school enrollment. I am requesting $9,500 for salaries and $500 for first aid, minor supplies with an offsetting revenue of $5,000-$6,000. The program would begin stew and ,.,...~:. ue thr-q &-- 5/24/91. Thank you for your attention to this project and your placing the matter on the County Commission Agenda 10/2/90. ®R, AIMMMA 0 0T 2 1990 Commissioner Scurlock asked how many schools are in this program at the present time, and Recreation Director Patricia Callahan explained that there are 8,, counting the "Right Stuff" programs. There are 7 more schools that could ask for this same program, but to be eligible, they would have to demonstrate the number of latch key children who walk home to empty houses. Commissioner Bird felt the object was to try and scatter these programs throughout the most populated areas of the county as best we could, and have them in the areas where a lot of the younger students are latch key children. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that although the County Commission is funding the Children's Services programs, it seems that the School Board gets the credit. Commissioner Wheeler didn't see what difference it makes, because the taxpayers are paying for it one way or another, but Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that it makes a difference when it comes to the County's millage cap. Administrator Chandler advised that the funds for this program would have to come out of contingencies since this wasn't included in the 1990-91 budget. Bill Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, felt that in addition to using the schools for after hours programs, we should use the schools year around. He advised that School Superintendent Norris is receptive to looking into both of these possibilities. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve additional funding for the after school program at Citrus Elementary School; and requested staff to readdress with the School System the funding mechanism for the anticipated expansion of this program to 6 or 7 other schools to make sure the County Commission will have the resources under our millage rate to fund it at the same level or whether it may take the School Board to help to get it expanded into the other facilities. 25 Under.discussion, Administrator Chandler advised that staff will follow up on this and the funding, and Mrs. Callahan stated she would get back to Commissioner Scurlock on how much teachers get paid per hour for after school work. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - BILL CUTLER'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR A FURNITURE WAREHOUSE AND SHOWROOM The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. 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 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of OA")0 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has'heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.. Sworn to and subscribed before me this �0� day,.,d 9 (Susi TO Wartager) . .A (Clerk of the Circuit Court,'Indian River County, Fjgrida) (SEAL) ���of magma � go a O 60th ST. tam Ifs, =,- ,�., e SUBJECT RM -2 66th 9TH -' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the granting of: . .=. exception approval for a fumiture ware.. hour and showroom. The sublew property is Presently owned by Bill Cutter, and Is located at the southeast comer of U.S. Highway 1 and Ouay Dock Road north of 67th Street The sub- ject property is lying In the NW of the NE 1A of Section 10, TownehlP 32-S, Range 39 E; ' and belr�g in Indian River County, Florida i . A public hearing at which Parties in interest and c ftmw shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com. mkysloners in the County Commission Chambers Of the� Coounty Administration Building, located at Street, Vero Beach: Florida on Tues. day. October Z IM, at 9:06 a.m..; whichAnyone who may wish to e at this appeal any decision' ensure ththat a mveardbatim record .of the proceceed& Ings Is made, which Includes testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is based.. ..: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s -Carolyn Eggert, Chairman September 12. 1M. 721081 j n C-11 P•UOK FA�i. 4�b OCT 2 1990 26 BOOK The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/7/90: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keati}�g, Abp Community Deve?Opmen ( DDi22rector THROUGH: Stan Bolingf,AICP Planning Director FROM: Christopher D. Rison M(L Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: September 7', 1990 SUBJECT: BILL CUTLER'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR A FURNITURE WAREHOUSE AND SHOWROOM AND WAIVER REQUEST FOR PAVING ESCROW REQUIREMENT FOR QUAY DOCK ROAD SP -MA -90-08=49 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 2, 1990. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION: Mosby and Associates, Inc. has submitted a special exception site plan on behalf of Bill Cutler to construct an 11,200 square foot furniture warehouse and showroom, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. Highway #1 and Quay Dock Road, north of 67th Street. Special exception uses are those types of uses that would not generally be appropriate throughout a particular zoning district. However, when special exception uses are carefully controlled as to number, area, location, and/or relationship to the vicinity, such uses would not adversely impact the public health, safety,comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, morals and general welfare and as such would be compatible with permitted uses within the particular zoning district. In granting any special exception, the Board may prescribe appropriate special conditions and safeguards to ensure that the use is compatible with surrounding uses in the district. The Planning and Zoning Commission at its August 23rd meeting voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission also granted site plan approval for the furniture warehouse and showroom, subject to the Board granting special exception approval. A complete application was submitted and reviewed prior to the September adoption of the new land development regulations (LDR's). Thus, this application has been reviewed and should be considered under what is now the "old" zoning code regulations. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Property: Size of Development Area: 27 2.20 acres or 96,030 sq. ft. 1.23 acres or 53,704 sq. ft. 2. Zoning Classification: CL, Light Commercial 3. Land Use Designation: U.S. #1 Commercial Corridor 4. Building Area: showroom 2,000 sq. ft. warehouse 9,200 sq. ft. Total 11,200 sq. ft. or 20.9% of the development area 5. New Impervious Area: 27,766 sq. ft. or 46.1% of the development area 6. Open Space Required: 10,740 sq. ft. or 20% of the development area Provided: 28,935 sq. ft. or 53.9% of the development area 7. Traffic Circulation: The site will access 67th Street via one paved driveway-, and Public Works has approved this design. The project is responsible for paving that portion of 67th Street from U.S. Highway #1 to the project's entrance, pursuant to Section 23.3(d)(3)a. As this project application was submitted prior to adoption of the new LDRs on September il, 1990, the project is required to escrow its "fair share" of funds for the cost of paving the remainder of its 67th Street frontage and for paving all of its Quay Dock Road frontage pursuant.to Section 23.3(d)(3)e. Quay Dock Road is classified a historic roadway by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant requested that the escrow requirement for Quay Dock Road be waived by the Board under the provisions of Section 23.3(d)(3)c, as permitted. The Board adopted a revised version of this provision (Section 952.09) which reversed the application of the escrow requirements for paving a historically designated roadway. A historic roadway is now automatically exempted from the escrow or paving requirement unless the Board specifically requires paving. Although this project is being reviewed and approved under the old ordinances, staff would recommend that the Board grant the requested waiver from the escrow requirement for the.project's Quay Dock Road frontage, based upon the Board's new regulation and since the County has no future road paving plans for Quay Dock Road. 8. Off -Street Parking Required: 25 spaces Provided: 1 handicapped 5 compact 19 standard 25 Total 9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A" Stormwater Permit has been issued. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Ordinance #84-47. The project is providing a 30' setback and buffer, landscaped with native vegetation, along Quay Dock Road as required by Chapter 18, Article II, Sections 18-21 to 18-27.' 11. Utilities: The project will be served by private on-site water and wastewater facilities, approved by the Environmental Health Department, and specified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The applicant has agreed to connect the project to public water and wastewater facilities, once those facilities become available, as required by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and this shall be a condition of site plan approval. At this time, the planning department has not received written verification from all non -County utility providers that 2 28 �' I f'.ku� OCT W90 mor 81 F,1uL YJ5 CT - 1990 service is available for the project. This verification must be received by the planning division prior to any approved site plan release. 12. Special Exception Criteria, Section 25.1(j)(2)c: a. The total gross floor area of such establishments shall not exceed forty thousand (40,000) square feet. The project has satisfied all criteria specified, as its gross floor area is 11,200 square feet. 13. Thoroughfare Plan and Dedications: Quay Dock Road and 67th Street are both classified as local roadways, requiring a minimum 60' right-of-way. Each of these roadways is deficient in right-of-way, and pursuant to Section 23.3(d)(1)a3, dedication of additional right-of-way to obtain the 60' minimum right-of-way is required without compensation, and prior to any approved site plan release._ U.S. Highway #1 is designated a major urban principal arterial, requiring 160' of right-of-way. The existing right- of-way is 1201; therefore, an additional 20' could be required from this site. Pursuant to Section 23.3(d)(1)a2, dedication of this right-of-way cannot be required since a method of compensation is not available. The applicant has agreed to setback an additional distance from U.S. Highway #1 to assist in avoiding the creation of any non -conformities should the additional right-of-way be obtained. The applicant has noted a 5' strip of property along U.S. Highway #1 as future right- of-way. Revised plans, with this reference deleted from the site plan, must be submitted prior to any approved site plan release. 14. Required Improvements: For the CL Zoning District, pursuant to Section 19(1), bikeways, sidewalks, and streetlights may be required improvements. For this project: a. Bikeways: A bikeway is not required as no bikeway is listed in the County Bikeway/Sidewalk-.Plan. b. Sidewalks: A sidewalk is required for the project's U.S. Highway #1 frontage. The developer has agreed to provide a 5' sidewalk on-site, adjacent to the U.S. #1 right- of-way. This will then permit any future right-of-way acquisition to involve the then existing sidewalk. As the sidewalk is located on the project site, a pedestrian access easement must be established to co -exist with the sidewalk in order for it to be utilized by the general public. This easement must be established prior to any approved site plan release. c. Streetlights: The project is required to provide streetlights. The developer has agreed to provide a streetlight at the intersection of U.S. Highway #1 and 67th Street, which will also illuminate the project's entrance to 67th Street. 15. Property Configuration: The subject site is made up of three separate parcels. The specified development area is located on two of the three parcels. Development for single projects across property lines is not permitted under Indian River County regulations. The owner must therefore file a Unity of Title for those parcels affected as part of the development area. This Unity of Title must be recorded in the* public records prior to any site plan release. 3 L 29 M 16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Quay Dock Road/CH, Heavy Commercial and RM -3, Residential Multiple -Family up to 3 units per acre. South: 67th Street/RM-3, Residential Multiple -Family up to 3 units per acre. East: Undeveloped portion of the same property/RM- 3, Residential Multiple -Family up to 3 units per acre. West: U.S. Highway #1 17. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On August 23, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the site plan, and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to any..approved site plan release: a. The required additional right-of-way dedications for 67th Street and Quay Dock Road must be recorded in the public records. b. The funds for the "fair share" cost of paving the remaining unpaved portion of 67th Street and Quay Dock Road (unless waived by the Board of County Commissioners) for the project's frontage must be escrowed with the County. C. A pedestrian access easement for the required sidewalk along U.S. Highway #1 must be established and recorded in the public records. d. A Unity of Title for that portion of the property being developed must be filed in the public records. e. Written verification from all non -County utility providers that service will be available for the project must be received by the planning division. 2. The project shall connect to public water and wastewater systems when service becomes available. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners grant special - exception approval for the proposed project, and grant the applicant's requested waiver from the escrowing and paving requirements for Quay Dock Road. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we still hold title to the actual bridgehead property on the west side of the river, and _ Planning Director Stan Boling believed we do, but he would get that information to him later. O C T 2 1990 30 3u ,OCT 2 t99C Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard.in this matter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted special exception approval for the proposed project, and granted the applicant's requested waiver from the escrowing and paving requirements for Quay Dock Road, as recommended by staff. PUBIC HEARING - AMES' REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR AN ACCESSORY NON-COMMERCIAL GREENHOUSE The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River Cotinty, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally eppeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,'Florida; that,the attached copy of advertisement, being _a in the matter in the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _� day o . 19 rte= (Clerk of the Ci-rcuit Court,—indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) -R------- � Lq NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING Notice of hearing to consider the granting of special exception approval for a noncanurm. dal greenhouse. The subject properly Is pprree-. I sentry owned by C.M. Mapel. Tnsteegl _7he ot+bf ect property Is described as: , _ Lot 2 Llitle Harbour Subdivislon•as'w ,ems coded In Plat Book 12, Page 40, of the Public Records of Indian Rhrer Cowtytr, ' A public hearing at whicli parties in irrterest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of County Com- misslonera of Indian River County Florida.In theIsslon Adml�n{stratbbers at n Building, ocated at 1840 25tfn Street'vero Beach, Florida Oft Tuesday, October 2,1890, at 8:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal an d= which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By -s -Carolyn Eggert, Chairman September 12, 1890 721088 M.. PADUUY wmlic, of:r f. : � go flririC-�C ��v4m ui:Wiiia 31 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/6/90: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. KeatIng, A7CP Community Developmeift Director THROUGH: Stan BolinAJAICP Planning Director /Q� FROM: Christopher D. Rison v C` Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: September 6, 1990 SUBJECT: C.M. MAPLE (TRUSTEE) AND DR. AND MRS. DONALD AMES' REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION- USE APPROVAL FOR AN ACCESSORY NON-COMMERCIAL GREENHOUSE SP -MA -90-08-53 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 2, 1990. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION: Steven Chilberg has submitted a special exception site plan on behalf of C.M. Maple and Dr. and Mrs. Donald Ames to construct a 2,400 square foot non-commercial greenhouse and pergola, located on Lot 2 of the Little Harbour Subdivision. Special exception uses are those types of uses that would not' generally be appropriate throughout a particular zoning district. However, when special exception uses are carefully controlled as to number, area, location, and/or relationship to the vicinity, such uses would not adversely impact the public health, safety,comfort, good* order, appearance, convenience, morals and general welfare and as such would be compatible with permitted uses within the particular zoning district. In .granting any special exception, the Board may prescribe appropriate special conditions and safeguards to ensure that the use is compatible with, surrounding uses in the district. The- Planning and Zoning Commission, at its August 23rd meeting, voted (3-2) (2 members abstaining) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission also granted site plan approval for the greenhouse, subject to the Board granting special exception approval for the use. A complete application was submitted and reviewed prior to the September adoption of the new land development regulations (LDR's). Thus, this application has been reviewed and should be considered under what is now the "old" zoning code regulations. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Development Area: .83 acres or 36,154.8 sq. ft. 32 U 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Land Use Designation: BOOR 81 PAI(JE 549 RS -3, Residential Single -Family up to 3 unfits per acre L-1, Low -Density Residential up to 3 units per acre 4. Greenhouse and Pergola Building Area: Greenhouse: 1,191 sq. ft. S ,4- Enclosed Storage/Tool Shed:. -801--��• Pergola:• Total 2,208 sq. ft. 5. New Impervious Area: 20,250 sq. ft. or 56% of the development area 6. Open Space Required: 14,462. sq. ft. or 40% of the development area Provided:- 15,900 sq. ft. or 44% of the development area 7. Traffic.Circulation: The site will access Little Harbor Lane via the principal residential -use driveway. B. Off -Street Parking Required: 2 spaces (for the principal residential use) Provided: 3+ spaces 9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "B" Stormwater Permit has been issued. However, the finished floor elevations proposed for the greenhouse are below the base flood elevation established for the site. Indian River County regulations require that the finished floor elevations for non-residential structures in flood zones be at or above the respective base flood elevation, or the structure must be watertight below the base flood elevation. The plan must be revised to indicate that the finished floor elevation of the greenhouse is at or above the site's base flood elevation, or construction of the greenhouse must be watertight below the site's base flood elevation. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Ordinance #84-47. 11. Utilities: The project will be served by public water and wastewater service 'from the City of Vero Beach Utilities. As an accessory structure its service will be connected with that of the principal residential use. 12. Special Exception Criteria, Section 25.1(a)(7)c: a. Such uses shall be deemed accessory to the principal use on site. b. All storage areas be screened by a fence or fully enclosed within a structure. C. Such uses shall comply with all provisions of Section 25(g), accessory buildings. d. Such uses shall satisfy all of the maximum lot coverage and minimum space provisions of the applicable zoning district. e. No retail or wholesaling sale and/or leasing activities shall be permitted. The project has satisfied all of the above listed criteria which can be satisfied prior to construction of the 2 33 - M M greenhouse. Enclosed storage area is being provided and the property owner has submitted a signed and notarized statement that the greenhouse will not be used for commercial or wholesale purposes. Conditions should then be imposed upon the site plan approval relating to use of the greenhouse subsequent to construction. A condition that recording of a restrictive covenant that commercial or wholesale use of the greenhouse is prohibited will serve to notify future owners if the property is ever sold. A second condition that use of the greenhouse prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the principal residential use is prohibited will meet the remaining concerns of Section 25(g)(3). 14. Required Improvements: For the ��_ oning District, pursuant to Section fo A), bikeways, sidewalks, and streetlights may be requir6d improvements. For this project, these improvements will not be required as they were required with the previous approval of the Little Harbour Subdivision. 16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Lot 1 of the Little Harbour Subdivision/RS-31 Residential Single -Family up to 3 units per acre. South: Lot 3 of the Little Harbour Subdivision/RS-3, Residential Single -Family up to 3 units per acre. East: Little Harbour Lane. West: The Indian River (site is waterfront) 17. Buffering and Compatibility - Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On August 23, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the site plan, and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to any approved site plan release: a. Five ( 5 ) copies of revised plans indicating a raised finished .floor elevation for the greenhouse or evidence that the greenhouse will be watertight below the site's base flood elevation must be submitted to the planning division. b. The greenhouse shall not be used for commercial or wholesale purposes, and a restrictive covenant for the property, stating such, shall be recorded in order to notify future property owners if the property is ever sold. C. Adequate. opaque screening of. the greenhouse from view of the adjacent residential lots must be provided on the subject site. 2. Use of the greenhouse shall not be permitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the principal residence to which the greenhouse is an accessory structure. NOTE: Condition l.c. was added by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the stipulation that the adequacy of the screening would be determined by staff. Staff required that the revised plans listed in condition l.a. and l.c. be submitted prior to consideration of the special exception by the Board; and that the revised plans include profiles of the screening required by the Planning and Zoning Commission for OCT 21990 34 Poop Fr ­ O O T 21990 BOOK �� Fa,E 601 review by the Board. In staff's opinion, after reviewing the revised plans and profiles, the proposed screening will be adequate to provide screening of the greenhouse from the adjacent properties and street. (Please see attachments 6a - c.) The screening was a part of the approved greenhouse site plan; maintenance of the screening while the greenhouse structure exists is'required as a part of the greenhouse approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the non-commercial greenhouse, subject to the conditions of the Planning -and Zoning Commission site plan approval and under the design of the latest revised plans submitted and reviewed by staff. Planning Director Stan Boling noted that there are two corrections in staff's recommendation. Under Item 4 on Page 2, there is a reversal of the square feet for the Enclosed Storage/ - Tool Shed and Pergola. The Enclosed Storage/Tool Shed is 216 sq. ft. and the Pergola is 801 sq. ft. Under Item 14 on Page 3, there is reference to the CL Zoning District and that should be changed to "the RS -3 Zoning District, pursuant to Section 6".... It doesn't change the substance of the item, but he would like to make those changes for the record. He advised that staff's recommendation is that the Board grant special exception approval for the non-commercial greenhouse, subject to the conditions of the P s Z Commission site plan approval and under the design of the latest revised plans submitted and reviewed by staff. One of the conditions of the P & Z was to screen and buffer this structure better than what was originally proposed. 35 M Chairman Eggert said that when she first looked at the site plan, the aerials and the initial landscaping plan, she felt it should be approved, based on the criteria as we saw it. However, after visiting the site, she has a real problem with it, especially the addition of the pergola. When she saw where they are wanting to put their buffering, she is doubtful that they can adequately screen the greenhouse and pergola within the constrained area provided for in the plans. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the proposed 2208 sq. ft. greenhouse is 10 times the size of the 200 sq. ft. allowed for greenhouses in the special exception use, and Director Boling explained that new LDRs allow 5% of total site. In this case the greenhouse itself would fall under that 50. If you add everything else into it, it comes out to approximately 2200 sq. ft. and exceeds the new land use regulations by approximately 400 square feet. Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Robin Lloyd, attorney representing Dr. 8 Mrs. Donald Ames, presented the following arguments in favor of special exception use approval: 1) Under the new LDRs the average house is 2000 square feet,.but this house is substantially larger than the average house and therefore.the greenhouse is substantially larger. 2) The pergola did not go under the restrictions of the property because it is a draining type building. It is not something that is a finished building with a roof that is going to take up a point of saturation. As he understands it, the rain water goes right down through a pergola. They are withing the working area for the greenhouse requirements. - 3) A greenhouse is a quiet type of special use, not like a kennel or something like that. OGT 21990 BOOK 61 F'aUE� 4) Mrs. Ames needs a greenhouse that is sized to accommodate her hobby, just like her neighbor who has an oversized pool to - accommodate his hobby. 5) The greenhouse will buffered with trees of heights from 10 -feet to 16 feet, and they are trying to screen it from two-story homes as well. Commissioner Scurlock felt the real question is whether the size of the greenhouse approaches the size of the house, but Attorney Lloyd stated that the size of the greenhouse doesn't even approach the size of the house which is 8,000-9,000 sq. ft. If the greenhouse was to be smaller, it would not fit in with the architectural style._ He admitted that it is difficult to picture this without it being built, but when it is built, it will be landscaped and buffered in an attractive manner. The greenhouse is 11 feet high and the pergola is a little bit lower than that, approximately 10 ft. on the -same 6 ft. elevation. Commissioner Scurlock understood that there are no covenants or deed restrictions opposing these structures, and Attorney Lloyd explained that the Little Harbour covenants and deed restrictions state that "greenhouses used for other purposes than as a planting area are -discouraged and the Community Design Committee of Little Harbour will exercise careful review of such structures and require exacting detail". That committee has reviewed this and given approval in writing: 37 T VERO ©EACH May 9, 1989 Dr. & Mrs. Donald filmes 777 37th Street, Suite A-101 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mary -and Don: FLORIDA The Community Design Committee reviewed your house plans and has given them preliminary approval. Preliminary approval is not final approval as all aspect of your plans will be reviewed when final plans are submitted. Preliminary approval is an indication from the Committee and not a blanket approval. Some areas of concern: 1. The swimming pool is in the set back area and therefore must comform to county standards. Also, the Committee needs to see how it will be screened from Lot 3. 2. The greenhouse. You have indicated there would not be a wall, but rather a berm. The Committee needs to see a corrected elevation at time of final submission. In addition, there appears to be glass showing through the trees on the elevation submitted. There is some concern about this and we would' need to see more detail. 3. Third stories are not permitted so the "bell tower" concept should not be enlarged. It appears to be an integral part'of the overall design as presented. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, J. Dale Sorensen Chairman JDS:rns 2801 Ocean Drive • ' Post Office Box 3983 S V= Beach, Flori le 32964 Telephone (305) 23i-3718 • Telex 293933 SHER UR MOF G 1UNT 2 1990 38 For - O U 2 199® c VERO BEACH August 1, 1989 ARBOUR FLORIDA BOOK 81t 69 Dr. & Mrs. Donald Ames 777 37th Street - Suite A-101 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Dr. & Mrs. Ames: The Community Design Committee of Little Harbour has granted final approval to your house plans as submitted subject to the following: 1. Submission and approval of final landscape plans. 2. Submission and approval of final dock plans. 3. Submission and approval of all exterior colors including color of the roof. 4. Confirmation that driveways are to be constructed of concrete. The Committee had a question about the elevation of your house pad. The requirements of Little Harbour are: Ground elevation 71 House pad 91 Please let me know if you have any questions. ncere y yours, Dale -Sorensen JDS:rns 2801 Ocean Drive • Post Office Box 3983 • Vero ftacti, Florida 32984 Telephone (407) 231-371a • Telex 79393:3 RHFn ion 39 M Attorney Lloyd advised that after some of the other neighbors questioned the screening of the pergola, the Community Design Committee did make some modifications to the pergola, changing it from screening to louvers. Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac what latitude the Board has on this special exception, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board can approve it with conditions designed to ameliorate the major negative effects of it, if any. It is the applicant's burden to show that he has met all the specific criteria of the ordinance and at least cover the general criteria; then the burden of proof is on the County Commission to say why they would deny it. Attorney Lloyd objected to calling this all one thing. The greenhouse is 1191 square feet, and the ancillary structures can be constructed without any special approval. The point is that they are here today on the greenhouse and the ancillary structure, as far as the workshop or whatever that is on the house is concerned, can be built without any special approval. The greenhouse was attached to that because of the requirements of the ordinance. Chairman Eggert emphasized.that this is special exception and we can attach certain conditions. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board has the right to reduce the'size of this structure under certain findings, and Director Boling explained that a pergola is not defined in our ordinance. Staff is looking at all of it together as related to the greenhouse structure itself, and we are talking about 2200 square feet because the tool shed is actually attached to the greenhouse structure and the pergola comes right off of that. As you can see in the diagram, they are connected. Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the stormwater - run-off going into the river, and Attorney Lloyd explained that there will be a 5" pipe running under the wall to carry the water OCT 2199® 40 �� ��� FA I U..JL 0 G' T . 2 1990 BOOK 81 Fa'E 60,7 back to the road to the storm sewers towards AIA, away from the river. He advised that both the architect and the landscaping architect are here today to answer any questions the Board may have. Cliff Shoals, architect of The Mac Ewen Group of Tampa, pointed out that what is being called the tool shed is connected by a walkway area to the house. The architecture is the same as the main house. Their interpretation was that the greenhouse section would be the conservatory portion that is attached to it. The intent was that the architectural style would be.carried all the way through to the drive-through area, including the tool shed area. The primary concept was for privacy so that Mrs. Ames could carry on her work with orchids. She didn't want to see the neighbors and she didn't want the neighbors to see her while she was doing this work. This particular lot in Little Harbour lent itself perfectly to what they had in mind. In that area the high point is 10 feet by the river, but at the street it is 5 or 6 feet lower and the main house was placed by the river side of the property. Commissioner Bird felt is is hard to visualize this even with the architect's rendering, and he believed that if we approve this and it doesn't work out, we would be doing an unfair thing to the neighbors. Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would be possible to flip flop the conservatory with the pergola, and Mr. Shoals explained that you need to get into the conservatory, whereas the pergola is mainly a storage area to hang the orchids. Edward Hack of Melbourne stated he was a registered landscape architect in the State of Florida. To answer Chairman Eggert's question about the constrained space for the growth of the trees between the wall and the driveway, he felt they could reach their full potential growth in that area. He noted that most of the plants being used in the screening are very cold hardy and aren't normally killed in a freeze, just damaged. 41 In conclusion of his arguments, Attorney Lloyd emphasized that all of these issues came up at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and they recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in staff's recommendation. Attorney Michael O'Haire advised that he is representing the neighbors in Little Harbour, specifically, Dr. and Mrs. Edward Branigan, who live to the north of the Ames' property, and Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Coor, who are building a home to the south. He distributed brochures containing photographs of the site, site plans, a letter from a consulting landscape architect, and a petition against the special exception approval for a non- commercial greenhouse. Attorney O'Haire stressed that the two main objections to the greenhouse/conservatory are size and compatibility with the neighborhood, and proceeded to present the following arguments: 1) The proposed size of the greenhouse is too large for a residential site, and the elevation of the greenhouse is still unknown. 2) The proposed buffering will not be sufficient to screen the greenhouse from the second story of the Branigan residence. 3) The Community Design Committee of Little Harbour has not approved this greenhouse. They have deferred any action on this to see what action the Board is taking. 4) Adverse impact from stormwater run-off containing traces of chemicals used in the spraying of orchids. Edward Branigan, 1250 Little Harbour Lane, felt that a 2200 sq. ft. structure is a commercial -size structure and has no place in a residential neighborhood. He poi.nted out that a hobbyist does not need this much space. If such a large structure is desired, he felt it should be built out in an agricultural area. He added that 2200 sq. ft. is larger than the average home in the county and the size of the structure puts it in the commercial/ OCT 21990 ; 42F'AUW O C T 2. 1990 BOOK FAIJE 6[ o industrial category. He and his neighbors believe it will forever invite comme.rcial usage by the present or subsequent owners. Dr. Branigan urged the Board to help protect their investment and to maintain the residential character of their neighborhood and to deny this request. John M. Brenner, architect on the Coor's home, emphasized that the neighbors of the subject property should not be in a position to lose their view of the river because of the building of this greenhouse.- County ordinances al.low a greenhouse of 200 square feet, which would be 10' x 20" and the application that has been submitted is for 12 times the allowable size. In addition, he didn't see how the buffering that is required could be contained in the -area offered for planting. Mr. Brenner noted that t -here is a lack of graphics on the elevations of the greenhouse and the P&Z didn't see anything on elevations either. He also noted that the Ames' plan calls for a facade between their house and the greenhouse so that they don't have to look at it. Mr. Brenner urged the Board to deny special exception approval for this greenhouse as he believed it would lower the value of his clients' home now under construction. Kathy Edwards, 530 Point Lane, stated that she is a property owner in Little Harbour and is opposed to the construction of this structure. Thomas Coor, 1265 Little Harbour Lane, strongly opposed the size and location of this proposed structure and felt that the Ames' should have discussed this matter with the neighbors before going ahead with something so large. Christine Branigan, 1250 Little Harbour Lane, added that she had done some research on the growing of orchids as a hobby, and found that the average hobbyist has an 8' x 10' greenhouse. She felt that no one in the neighborhood would have objected to a greenhouse of that size if the Ames' had contacted each of the neighbors about it initially. In addition, she didn't feel that 43 IN �� the facili.ty could be screened properly because orchids need a lot of light. Lucia Bailey, 1285 Little Harbour Drive, was concerned that this structure might become a kennel or a garage if the property should change hands. Attorney Lloyd wished to point out they had reduced the house elevation and complied with the requirements of the Community Design Committee of Little Harbour. Attorney Lloyd also wished to point out that they have relied on their landscaping architect's recommendations for planting within the buffering area and he believed they have proven that this special exception use should be allowed. There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter, Chairman Eggert closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board deny the request for special exception approval for the non-commercial greenhouse due to the size and nature of the structure not being compatible with the surrounding land uses, because it does not promote orderly development; because the precedent would be great for allowing uses for other hobbyists to expand structures used in their particular hobby; and because they have not met the requirements to demonstrate satisfactorily the need to, build something of this size. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird stated that he had changed his mind on this issue after visiting the site last weekend. He felt that the structure is basically the same size and type of structure that you would put in a commercial nursery operation, and is just too big for a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Scurlock felt it would be up to the Ames' to resubmit plans for a structure that would be more acceptable in OCT 21990 44 2 1990 BOOK 81 Fa;E terms of size and screening, and Commissioner Bowman added that at this point, it is totally incompatible. Commissioner Wheeler concurred with the others that it is too large a structure to be compatible with the neighborhood, and was afraid it could set a precedent for other hobbyists who might want to expand outside of what the norm would be for that particular hobby. Chairman Eggert stated that she also changed her opinion after visiting the site, and would be voting to deny. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and passed unanimously. ADDENDUM TO STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DCA Attorney Will Collins explained that the DCA has money available to help make the remedial amendments to the Comp Plan. We didn't process it along with the other part of the agreement because we were not anticipating that there would be that much involved. However, in looking at some of the internal consistency requirements where you have to check the amendments against your other elements, Director Keating feels it would be worthwhile to take advantage of this grant. We need the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute an addendum to the agreement which would make us eligible for $8,000 in grant money. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Addendum to Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs, and authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff. COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED ADDENDUM IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 45 CHANGE ORDER #6 - MAIN LIBRARY SIDEWALKS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/28/90: TO: JAMES CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI ..FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS, SUPT. �. BUILDING AND GR IIS DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #6 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MAIN LIBRARY EMERGENCY ITEM DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Staff is requesting emergency action by the Board due to the fact no meeting is scheduled for October 9, 1990. The project is 3 to 4 weeks ahead of scheduled contract completion date, with landscape and irrigation scheduled to begin within the next week. The attached Change Order #6 for the Main Library Project was initiated by staff to replace existing sidewalks which do not meet City of Vero Beach standards and curbing are the perimeter of the site. A portion of this work was included as an allowance item within the original construction contract Replacement of these added areas will reduce the County's liability exposure and enhance the new site work by allowing continuity of the curb lines. The project is well within the budget allocation, with a minimal increase to date -by change order. There has been no use of construction contingency and there are no major changes foreseen through the remainder of the project. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING: Total amount of the change will be $16,700.00. The adjusted contract amount will be $2,861,668.00. Account #322-109-571-066.51 Main Library construction account. Staff recommends approval of Change Order #6 for the Main Library and requests authorization for the Chairman to sign after execution by the contractor. 46 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, -the Board unanimously approved Change Order #6 for the Main Library sidewalks, as set out in the above staff recommendation. CHANGE ORDER #6 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE :01 APPROVAL OF SOUTH COUNTY FIREFIGHTER'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING er.QP9=RA9=K1 r The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/1/90: TO: Board of County Commissioners Q,V-" I v FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: October 1, 1990 RE: UNION CONTRACT The bargaining team for Indian River County, composed of Deputy Fire Administrator Doug Wright, Fire Chief Otis Humanes, Personnel Director Jack Price, and me, are pleased to present to the Board the proposed three-year contract with the InternatIona I,AssociatIon of Firefighters. The contract is within the parameters established by the Board of County Commissioners and the bargaining team recommends its approval. In the main the contract provides for raises of 4.5% the first year, 6% the second year, and 5% the third year along with the creation of a longevity step for 15 years service beginning October 1st of the third year -of the contract and for one additional holiday to be recognized so that the firefighters are on the same holiday schedule as the Board of County Commissioners. The contract increases incentive pay for emergency medical technicians from $38.50 per pay period to $42.00 per pay period and provides additional uniform equipment provided by the. County as a safety measure. This uniform requirement will be phased In over a three-year period and will result in a new color to the uniform as blue. There were many other minor amendments to the contract about which the Board of County Commissioners has been informed during the long negotiating process. We are pleased to recommend acceptance of the contract. 47 Attorney Vitunac advised that the contract was just typed in formal format this morning. There are some minor typos that need to be corrected and a few minor changes made in the wording under grievances and some other issues, and it will have to be retyped. The negotiating team is all here and we are recommending the execution of this contract. It entails all the issues talked about during the caucuses, but mainly, the pact will give firefighters 4.5, 6 and 5 percent salary raises over the next three years; a longevity step in the third year; an increase in the incentive pay for EMTs from $38.50 to $42.00; and an increase in holidays from 9 to 10, the same number as County employees. Commissioner Scurlock commended both the County's negotiating team as well as the union and their representatives because he believed everyone negotiated in great faith to accomplish all of this before the new budget year. With this in place, it gives us the stability of a 3 -year contract so that we can move ahead and direct our efforts in a positive way to bring county -wide professional paid service uniformly to every resident in the county. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved with the corrections as noted by Attorney Vitunac, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Vero Beach Firefighters Association, Local 2201, I.A.F.F. and the South Indian River County Fire District for October 1, 1990 to.September 30, 1993, and authorized the Chairman's signature. Bill Tripp, President of Local 2201, commented that it's been fun and they will be back in 3 years. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OCT 2 199 48 U 2 INN boor•; 1 F'AuE 615 RECOMMENDATION TO INCORPORATE JUNGLE TRAIL INTO COUNTY PARK SYSTEM The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/90: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Recommendation to Incorporate Jungle Trail into.the County Park System DATE: September 26, 1990 FILE: JUNGLE.AGN DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the July 17;* 1990 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, staff was directed to investigate the feasibility of designating Jungle Trail as a "County Park" and develop a recommendation for subsequent Board review. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff has considered the following criteria in analyzing this designation: 1. Geographic Description and Function -. Jungle Trail is a 40'-50' wide, approx. 6 mile long maintenance map right-of-way traversing in a general north -south alignment along the north portion of Orchid Island. The actual roadway within this right-of-way varies from 12'-24' in width. Beyond the physical roadway is a vegetative buffer area of inconsistent density, and neither an adequate roadside shoulder nor definitive drainage system exist. Along the west of the roadway, the Indian River is in close proximity. Jungle Trail has historically functioned as a main transportation corridor serving north barrier, island land uses along the east of the road. In recent years, it has assumed a sub -ordinate function for transportation due to recent large developments having frontage and major access along SR A1A and a minor connection to. Jungle Trail. The Trail does, however, serve as the only road for some properties with no other road frontage. For many years, the Trail has also provided local residents limited access to the Indian River for fishing, scenic drives, and other forms of passive recreation. Occasional boat mooring, boat launching, and ski -boat activity has adversely affected the - roadway by disturbing native mangroves along the east shoreline of the River (and west edge of Jungle Trail) which has destabilized the roadway embankment and shoreline. Recent increased demand for Indian River access has resulted in a substantial demand for parking along the Trail and stabilization of the shoreline. On weekends, as many as fifty automobiles can be seen parked along the Trail such that, two-way travel along the road. is restricted. 49 Page two Jungle Trail The Jungle Trail area was an undeveloped pristine area of the North Barrier Island ten years ago, but is now sixty percent developed with condominium and single family dwellings. This. habitation has infringed upon the scenic quality of the Trail, and has resulted in increased traffic within the area. The above description leads staff to the opinion that Jungle Trail presently functions as both a transpor- tation corridor and a passive/active recreation corridor. This dual function is important to many residents of the county, and to designate the Trail 'solely as a "Roadway" or uniquely as a "Park" could have adverse effects on certain residents who either depend on the. Trail as their only source of property access or enjoy the passive/active recreation that the corridor provides. 2. Owner of Buffer Area - Florida Statute Chapter 95.361 states that the county can file a maintenance map to claim dedication of a roadway if the county has constructed and maintained the roadway continuously and uninterruptedly for four years. "The road shall be deemed to be dedicated to the public to the extent in width that has been actually maintained for the :prescribed period." This language indicates that the natural.buffer areas along Jungle Trail are not county owned, and would restrict the county to widen the roadway for parking or drainage improvements. If the Trail were designated as a "Park", the limits of the Park would only be the roadway itself and not the buffer area nor (in most cases) the Indian River shoreline. For this reason, the sole designation as a "Park" does not seem appropriate, as the General Public has been attracted to the Indian River shoreline as a means of Active Recreation (fishing, boating, etc.) and not to the roadway itself. 3. Private Property Owner Usage/Public Usage - Since the buffer area east of Jungle Trail and the Indian River shoreline west of the Trail is the subject of private property rights (for example Sea Oaks Boat Docks, etc.), designation of the Trail as a "Park" may result in certain parcels no longer having "road" frontage, but legal access would be through a park. An alternative is to leave Jungle Trail as a "Scenic Road" under Chapter 18 Article II Section 18-21 through 18-27 of the county's Code. Section 18-26 of this Chapter states that "The Public -Works Division of Indian River County, the Parks Department and the Community Development Division shall implement guidelines for maintenance of the scenic and historic roads....". Recognition of Jungle Trail as a joint road/park function has already been recognized in the County Code, as well as an environmental resource. under the guidance of the Community Development Division Environmental Planner. 50 BOOK P,,rE 6_L7 Page three _ Jungle Trail 4. Parking/ Sanitary Facilities/Drainage - At the present time, parking spaces, drainage, and restrooms are not provided by the county along Jungle Trail. This lack of facilities severely limits the use of the corridor as a "park". Proper planning and implementation of these items are necessary. 5. Utility Accommodations - Jungle Trail also serves as a utility corridor for electric, telephone, water, sewer, cablevision, etc. The regulation of .utility placement is best controlled by right-of-way permits issued by the Public Works Department. . 6. Maintenance Activities - At the present time, both the Road and Bridge Division and the Parks Division provides maintenance along the corridor. Regardless of the -designation of the Trail, both Divisions will be required to provide maintenance. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING. In summary, staff. is of the opinion that the present designation of Jungle Trail as a "Scenic Road" under Chapter 18 of the Indian River County Code of Laws and ordinances should be preserved. Staff does recommend the following action: 1. Pursue the purchase of land along Jungle Trail for parking and construction of restroom facilities, an information exhibit, and picnic facilities; 2. restrict boat launching from Jungle Trail; 3. construct drainage improvements; 4. propose agreements with abutting property owners on drainage, river access, parking, etc.; 5. stabilize the Indian River shoreline; L 6. pursue the hiring of a Park Ranger to patrol the Trail to enforce regulations and monitor conditions; 7.. increase maintenance and trash removal; 8. increase signage, particularly at the CR510, AlA, and Winter Beach Road intersections. Chairman Eggert questioned Item #6 in staff's recommendation "to pursue the hiring of a Park Ranger to patrol the Trail to enforce regulations and monitor conditions", and wondered why volunteers couldn't do this instead of us hiring a park ranger. Administrator Chandler advised that the Park Ranger position was not budgeted for this fiscal year and that it was a judgment call on his part. 51 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approved staff recommendation's to retain the present designation of Jungle Trail as a "Scenic Road" under Chapter 18 of the IRC Code of Laws and Ordinances; approved the actions listed under staff's recommendation with the exception of Item #6, the hiring of a park ranger. Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock explained that instead of hiring a park ranger this year, he would like to see staff pursue working with the Sheriff's Department in the volunteer program that he is trying to implement, and then look at the funding of a Park Ranger position in the next fiscal year or perhaps even later this fiscal year. Director Davis noted that we have a real need for a park ranger on the barrier island to lock up the parks at nights, etc., but Commissioner Scurlock was very reluctant to approve anything extra this year until we see the impact of the gasoline price increases on the County's 1990-91 budget. Commissioner Bird felt that we need someone to protect our parks along there especially after the money we have put into those parks, but. Commissioner Scurlock stated he would prefer to see us work something out through a volunteer -basis and perhaps look to approving this later in the fiscal year. Commissioner Bird realized how hard Mil -lie Bunnell and her group has worked on this and felt that approving 7 out of the 8 points recommended is the best we can do at this point. Millie Bunnell, president of the Indian River County Historical Society, advised that they .agree with staff's recommendation for a designation which sets out that it will be both a scenic road and a park. With respect to acquisition of land for public parking, she asked that it be done in such a way that it does not destroy the stabilization of the road, and that it be a place for people to walk, fish and enjoy. Parking is the OT 2 1990 52UaK POCK 0 C 2199® biggest problems facing Jungle Trail right now, and security would be the next. One of the historical signs has been ripped down and is gone. The Historical Society would like to thank the Commission for the cooperation they have given over the past years and express their thanks also to staff for all their help over the years. She wished to announce that the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation has awarded Jungle Trail the 1990 Florida Preservation Award for outstanding achievement for the preservation of an historic landscape. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.- The Motion was voted on and passed unanimously. Commissioner Bird understood that the Moon River development is in receivership and asked that Director Davis and staff go back and review the commitments we had from them with respect to Jungle Trail. NORTH COUNTY SUBREGIONAL SEWER SYSTEM - CHANGE ORDER #4 The Board reviewed the following memo dated.9/24/90: DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: 00 TERRANCE G. PI tfl0 DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES STAFFED AND WILLIAM F. IN PREPARED BY: CAPITAL PRO CTS ENGINEER _ DEPARTMENT F ILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: NORTH CO REGI SEWER SYSTEM (CONTRACT NO. 3); PROPOSED C ORDER NO. 4 BACKGROUND: Due to changes in design of the collection system (i.e., Breezy Village, Sand Lake addition, and modifications to the force main system from River Run), pump sizes and control panels had to be 53 modified. The engineering for this work was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and we' have now successfully negotiated prices for this work with the contractor. Due to the progress of the job (approximately 95% complete), and a delivery time on the pumps of 8-10 weeks, we are also recommending a 50% reduction in retainage on the contract at the time of the next pay request. We are also requesting a contract extension of 40 days to allow this extra work to be completed without penalty. ANALYSIS: Three items are included in this change order; they are as follows: River Run Pump Station (pumps and control change) $30,264.00 Pelican Pointe Pump Station (floats) 300.00 Park Place Pump Station (pumps and control change) _20.094.00 Total: $50,658.00 The revised contract price would be $3,43.1,283.30; this would equate to a total retainage of $343,128.33 at the completion of the job. We are requesting a reduction to 5% of contract price, or $171,564.17 at job end. RECOMMENDATION: The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following: 1. Change Order No. 4, in the amount of $50,658.00. 2. Reduction of retainage to 5% of total job, at the submittal of next months pay request. 3. Grant a time extension of 40 days. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #4, as set out in the above staff recommendation. CHANGE ORDER #4 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE OCT 2 1990 54 RooK MSFR. ' BOOK 81 pg E 6� CITRUS IRRIGATION REUSE STUDY CONTRACT EXTENSION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 - TO: JAMES -E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT' DIRECTOR OF UTIrV.IT�Y SERVICES STAFFED AND PREPARED BY: JOHN F. LANG ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: CITRUS IRRIGATION REUSE STUDY CONTRACT EXTENSION BACKGROUND: The Board of County- Commissioners, on September 26, 1989, approved an agreement between St. John's River Water Management District, the University of Florida and Indian River County to study effluent reuse at the County grove. The District and the University desire to extend the three-year timetable an additional year. ANALYSIS: The project started September 1, 1990" upon completion of construction of -the irrigation system. The project study period was set back due to bidding constraints and a freeze recovery time lag for the trees. There are no additional costs involved to the County by extending the agreement. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners execute the extension of -the reuse study agreement between St. John's River Water Management District, the University of Florida and Indian River County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the extension of the reuse study agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District and the Univ. of Florida, and authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 55 WATER PLANT MONTHLY INSPECTION AND REPORT SERVICES The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/21/90: DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY•ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES STAFFED AND PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F. N CAPITAL PROD NEER DEPARTMENT ILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WATER PLANT MONTHLY INSPECTION AND REPORT SERVICES FOR ALL MAJOR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS, AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONSULTING SERVICES BACKGROUND: Our work authorization with the firm of Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM) for the above -listed continuing services is about to expire. We now wish to continue these services for another year. The primary purpose for having these monthly reports prepared by CDM is to afford Indian River County the analysis and review of an experienced reverse osmosis engineer, in order to avoid malfunction of the reverse osmosis system and possible violation of drinking water standards. ANALYSIS: Under the new continuing service contract with the firm of CDM, we have reduced the scope of services in the monthly reports. This was accomplished through greater operator participation in • the preparation of these reports. We have also added a new section to the contract to cover emergency engineering services (as needed) related to the water plants. The cost of the previous contract was $30,754.00 for the year. The new proposed agreement sets report costs at $24,571.00, and emergency services at $7,000.00 (as needed), for a total of $31,571.00 for the year.* The monies for these services will come from Account No. 471-219-536-033.13. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Utility County Commissioners approve with Camp Dresser and McKee, Services recommends that the Board of the attached Work Authorization No. 11 Inc. P•UQK 1 F'gE ��e1 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization No. 11 with Camp Dresser McKee, Inc., as recommended by staff. WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 11 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OVERALL UTILITIES UPDATE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/90: DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITYERVICES FROM: HARRY E. ASH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: OVERALL UTILITIES UPDATE The Department of Utility Services requests time before the Board of County Commissioners to present an overall utilities update to the Commission concerning the following items: 1. Current Plant Capacities 2. Future Plant Capacity Requirements 3. Effluent Reuse/Disposal Requirements 4. Sludge/Septage Facility ' 5. General Development Utility Status 6. Rate Study Update The Department would request time be scheduled for the October 2, 1990, Board of County Commissioners meeting. f� 57 Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that he would move through the report very quickly, and then if the Board wishes to take some time to digest it, staff could come back and address any questions. OVERVIEW OF UTILITIES To allow continued, orderly growth in Indian River County, the County is faced with several major decisions within the next few months concerning providing utilities. Utilities water, wastewater, and solid waste - are the most complex of all types of infrastructures that are required. Each element is very dependent on the other. When a decision is made to expand or provide wastewater facilities, it also means the expansion of sludge treatment, effluent disposal and, many times, the water treatment facilities. The same decision also requires the construction of sewer lines, force mains, effluent lines, lift stations, and water mains. After all the facilities are built, the utility has to be operated and maintained. The operation of a utility is very complex and highly regulated, requiring expertise in a multitude of disciplines, ranging from financing to treatment plant operation. When the treatment facilities are in operation, they have a direct impact on the solid waste operation, as the disposed sludge will be a major ingredient of any composting operation. The solid waste must be separated.and all yard waste treated independently with the sludge. The County, through the Health Department, has the responsibility to regulate the disposal of septage and grease from septic systems and grease traps. An order was issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation to discontinue the dumping of septage at the landfill. OCT 2 'WW 58 OCT 2 1990 BCGK 81 FACE 62 Again, providing Por proper treatment and disposal directly affects the expansion needs of the wastewater facility; i.e., sludge treatment and treatment of water that is removed from the septage and grease. It can be seen, as stated, that all the utility elements are closely related, and all have a degree of dependence on each other. The County has a master plan for water, wastewater, solid waste, sludge, and effluent disposal. We will show, by combining all the master plans, what our current needs are, and what we have to do to provide service for the County,s future population to insure orderly growth. We have created charts, graphs, and maps, which show cost and time schedules and service areas. The utility needs of the County are at a critical stage. I believe it is important that the County Administrator and Board of County Commissioners establish clear direction to assure a clear understanding, and to establish a clear critical path to follow. Rates and charges are being addressed by a study now in progress. The charges will reflect the cost to provide all the services and required expansions. The total estimated cost for water, wastewater, and solid waste to provide for the anticipated growth until 2005 is $345.47 M.• UTILITY SERVICES TOTAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES M.G.D. 6 5 ....................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ...................... 3 2 1 0 CURRENT STATISTICS O CURRENT CAPACITY ® RES. & CONNECTED D PERMITTED FLOW (DER) ® PEAK MO. ADF 0 CURRENT EFFLUENT CAP STATUS SEPTEMBER, 1990 59 DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES TOTAL WATER & WASTEWATER EXPANSION FUNDINWREQUIREMENTS FACILITY PROJECTED PROJECTED PLANT EXPANSION DECEMBER, 1991 BID DATE COST (M) WASTEWATER $7.75 WEST REGIONAL WWTP $12.75 $12.75 PLANT EXPANSION MARCH, 1991 $2.36 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL $1.02 $5.80 TOTAL $3.32 $8.16 $8.16 GIFFORD WWTP $6,20 PLANT EXPANSION APRIL. 1991 $2.36 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ,.......... _ ........,y..., $5.52 $7.88 $7.88 NORTH COUNTY WWTP PLANT EXPANSION APRIL. 1991 $2.69 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL $0.82 $3.51 $3.51 SOUTH COUNTY WWYP PLANT EXPANSION DECEMBER, 1991 $5.00 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL $7.75 SEA OAKS WWTP . $12.75 $12.75 PLANT EXPANSION APRIL. 1991 $2.30 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL $1.02 SLUDGE FACILITY $3.32 .$3.32 PLANT DECEMBER, 1990 $6,20 $6.20 $6.20 TOTAL WA_STEWATER.FUNDING.REQUIREMENTS . - ... ,.......... _ ........,y..., .$41.82 M ,.. WATER f SOUTH COUNTY RO PLANT MARCH, 1991 (COMPLETION) $3.80 i NORTH BEACH RO PLANT DECEMBER, 1990 $1,50 NORTH COUNTY RO PLANT DECEMBER, 1992 $5.00 TOTAL•WATER FUNDING REQUIREMENTS : $0.30 $10.30 TOTAL WATER & WASTEWATER FUNDING REQUIREMENTS $52,12 M i • I Administrator Chandler explained that they wanted to bring this.to the Board today in order to make it easier to understand the overall scope and how that is interrelated when they bring these individual issues to the Board in the -future. Commissioner Scurlock explained that the point we want to make today is that we have to act in a timely fashion because everything interrelates -- water, sewer, effluent, solid waste disposal and landfill -- and, you can't do one without the.other. Chairman Eggert noted that we also have requirements in our new Comp Plan on affordable 'housing that fit into these requirements, and Director Pinto didn't anticipate the DCA easing up on any of the concurrency requirements for utilities; in fact, he expects them to tighten the requirements. CT 2199® s o �tic,r F�,E 6.206 QCT 21-990 BOOK 81 FACE 6ti 7 Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we have said that new growth must pay for itself and the consultants are looking at that. He anticipated a big increase in wastewater impact fees since that cost is related to the cost of getting rid of effluent. He stressed that there is absolutely no cheaper time to do it than right now. Discussion ensued regarding the timeframes for building the regional wastewater plants, and Director Pinto emphasized that we are ready to build them right now if we had the money. We do have some time in the south county, but the west county is a time bomb because of the moratorium factor included -in the concurrency requirements established for March, 1991. Chairman Eggert felt the Board members might take this report and absorb it and then come back, but Commissioner Scurlock suggested holding specific workshops. Chairman Eggert preferred that the workshops be held as the various concurrency requirements come up. She felt this presentation has been extremely helpful and thanked staff for putting it together. REQUEST FROM ST. LUCIE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR SUPPORT OF PORT DEEPENING PROJECT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/90: St. Lucie County Economic Development Council Advancing Business Opportunities MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Bruce Redus, Director of Economic Development, Indian River County Committee of 100, and Mr. Jim Mcruffey, Executive Director Economic Council of Martin County FROM: Al Rivett, Director of Economic Development DATE: September 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Port of Ft. Pierce As you may be aware, Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie County have been working on the deepening of the Port of Ft. Pierce for several years. Because St. Lucie County has received difficulty gaining 61 approval form Congress for this deepening project and because the expansion of this facility is of regional benefit the St. Lucie County Economic Development Council Board of Directors have asked me to seek the cooperation in this matter of our sister organizations in Indian River and Martin _ Counties. This memorandum will outline the current status of the project, the benefits of project, the current problem and a request for your support. In 1986 as one of his last acts as the Governor of the State of Florida, Bob Graham gave the official Florida approval of the port deepening project. In 1988 Congress authorized the port project thereby making it eligible for federal monies. In 1989 Congress failed to appropriate monies for the budget. Currently, the House of Representatives passed the port project in its public works/water resources appropriations bill. However, the U.S. Senate failed to do the same. Because of this, funding for the project is in question. It is hoped that the conference committee between the Houses will come up with a bill which will include this project. Unfortunately, Florida has no representation on the conference committee. The problem remains with the need for active support from Florida's Senators Graham and Mack. Congressman Tom Lewis.has been very active in his efforts and remains on top of this project from the House of Representatives side. The benefits of this project include lower transportation costs for Treasure Coast manufacturers, the creation of 550 jobs in the Port of Ft. Pierce (including 490 for the movement of cargo and. 60 for the service of a cruise line), the creation of 100+ manufacturing jobs in the Port of Ft. Pierce, and the addition of recreational opportunities such as a cruise line. 1 Again, on behalf of the EDC, we respectfully request of your organization its active support for the port deepening project. We ask that this support be in the form of letters and personal contact of Senators Graham and Mack asking for active support of this project. Again, we appreciate your efforts to help us with making these improvement. We honestly believe ' these improvements will benefit the entire Treasure Coast. i' 2200 YrgiNa Avenue, Fort Pierce, %7orida 34982 (407) 461.2713 Commissioner Bowman didn't feel we should take a position on this, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed we need to know more about it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously delayed taking action on this matter until more information is available. TENTATIVE JOINT MEETING WITH SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL Chairman Eggert advised that the Sebastian City Council has expressed a desire to hold a joint meeting with the County Commission. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed to hold a 62 '`� OCT 21990 BOOK 81 Pt1GE 629 meeting sometime in early November if there is an agenda prepared and submitted previous to the meeting date. Chairman Eggert pointed -out that it is their turn to come here as the last meeting was in Sebastian. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:35 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: �I Clerk airman 61111 63