Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9: 00 A . M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - Rev. Charles Weaver Pastor, 1st United Methodist Church 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS a. 7M - Sheriff's Blanket Bond 10 - Request from I.R.Arts Council to use Courthouse Parking 13A(1) - Establishment of Affordable Housing Committee 13A(2) - Appt.to TCRPC of Alternate for Town of Orchid 13B(1) - Blanket Out -of -county Travel for Comm. Wheeler (cont'd - see below) 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of 11/13/90 Regular Meeting of 11/20/90 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Occupational license taxes collected during month of November, 1990 ( memorandum dated December 5, 1990 ) B. Release of County Utility Liens ( memorandum dated December 10, 1990 ) C. Golf Cart Lease ( memorandum dated December 10, 1990 ) D. Peterson & Votapka, Inc. Request for Site Plan Extension on Behalf of the Barna Foundation ( memorandum dated December 7, 1990 ) 199® E. IRC Health Clinic Project Change Order #3 DEC 18 (memorandum dated December 10, 1990) (cont'd from above) 13B(2) - Req. from MANWAC re Grant for Environmental Learnin§0� nte,8 F P -0i e: q WITHDRAWN: 9B(2) Windsor Polo Rezoning & Reschedule r 9:05 a.m. 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd 8©OK F. Change Order #7 & #8 - Main Library ( memorandum dated December 10, 1990 ) G. Request to Dispose of Surplus County Real Property ( memorandum dated December 11, 1990 ) H. IRC Bid #91-31 / Cash Register & Management Information System ( memorandum dated December 11, 1990 ) I. IRC Bid #90-109 / Westside U.S. #1 Force Main ( memorandum dated December 11, 1990 ) J. Library Project - Budget Amendment 011 ( memorandum dated December 12, 1990 ) K. So. County Fire Federal I.D. Number (memorandum dated December 12, 1990) L. Misc. Funds - Budget Amendment 012 ( memorandum dated December 12, 1990 ) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Request for Special Beach Erosion Benefit Taxing District - Ralph Sexton (letter dated December 10, 1990) 2. (a) Courthouse Site Appraisals ( memorandum dated Dec. 11, 1990 ) (b) New Courthouse Construction Delivery Concepts ( memorandum dated Dec. 7, 1990 ) ':;)F, t�1 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Bellsouth Mobility Request to Rezone Approxi- mately 19.77 Acres from RS -6 and RM -6 to A-1 ( memorandum dated December 10, 1990 ) 2. Windsor Polo Request to Rezone Approximately + 101 Acres from A-1 and RS -6 to RM -6 (to be re -scheduled) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd ) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Industrial Revenue Bond - Escambia Single Family Housing Program w/William R. Hough 8 Co. (memorandum dated December 12, 1990) F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Resolution to Provide for the Paving and Drainage Improvements to: 1) Frangipani Dr. from CR510 to Magnolia Dr. 2) 39th Ave. from 6th St. to 8th St. 3) 1st PI. from 27th Ave. to 24th Ave. ( memorandum dated December 6, 1990 ) 2. Approval of Kings Hwy. (58th Ave.) Study between SR 60 and Oslo Road ( memorandum dated December 10, 1990 ) 3. Treasure Shores Park - Phase I Preliminary Site Plan ( memorandum dated December 6, 1990) 4. Amendment No. 3 - Professional Engineering Services - SR AIA at CR510 Intersection Improvements ( memorandum dated December 7, 1990 ) 5. Resolutions for Construction of the South Beach Recreation Path: =- 1) Providing Resolution Declaring Special Assessment Project 2) Setting Resolution to Fix Time and Place of Public Hearing ( memorandum dated December 7, 1990 ) H. UTILITIES 1. Interdepartmental Vehicle Transfer (memorandum dated December 10, 1990) 2. Revisions to the IRC Water & Wastewater Utility Standards ( memorandum dated December 6, 1990 ) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT L- r �.d e110 F.9 uC r DEC IS 1990 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ) B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 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. 1 Tuesday, December 18, 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, December 18, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Rev. Charles Weaver, Pastor, 1st United Methodist Church, gave the invocation, and Chairman Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert requested that the Deputy Sheriffs Blanket Bond be added to the Consent Agenda as Item 7M; that a request from the Indian River Arts Council be added under the Adminis- trator's matters as Item 10; and that under her matters as Items 13 A (1) and (2) the following be added: Establishment of an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and Appointment of an Alternate to TCRPC for the Town of Orchid. Commissioner Wheeler requested the addition under his matters of approval of out -of -County travel for him to look at several courthouses and jails, and also wished to add a report on a request from MANWAC. Administrator Chandler requested that Item 9B(2) Windsor Polo Rezoning Request be withdrawn from this Agenda and rescheduled to a time certain of February 26th. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the additions to the Agenda of the items described above and approved the rescheduling of Item 913(2). DEC 18 1990 N�IIK 0 �ac� " r BOOK 82 F", a APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 20, 1990. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 20, 1990, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock requested the removal of Items E and J from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Bowman requested the removal of Item G. A. Occupational_ License_ Taxes___ Month_ of November, 1990 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the following report from Tax Collector Gene Morris: 0-1:4767197,711,711 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: December 5, 1990 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $8,408.92 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of November 1990, representing the issuance of 321 licenses. ./ _ 2 B. Release_ of County_ Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA: TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners �e�_ R - kk � Q U-0 FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: December 10, 1990 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 12/18/90 RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS I have prepared -the following routine lien releases and request that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute them: Release of Water Assessment Lien RIVER SHORES in the name of VERO BEACH SHORES, INC. and LOCHREN Release of.Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE In the name of RITTER Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of MORRISSEY Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE In the name of BARRESSI Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of STAMILE Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of O'SHEA Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the names of GARY E MINNIS Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of STRENKERT Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of KRAMER Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of GREEN Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of ROSENBLATT Release of 2 Water Assessment Liens SUMMERPLACE in the names of MURPHY Release of Water Assessment Lien SUMMERPLACE in the name of FULFORD Satisfaction of Impact Fee Lien Extension In the name of BEATTY Information for the above documents is on file in the County Attorney's Office. 3 UC � ,mss I r�iv k.0 I C BOOK 8,9 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens and Satis- faction of Lien Extensions as listed above. COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. C. Golf Cart Lease The Board reviewed memo from Director Bob Komarinetz: TO: Members of the Board of DATE: December 10, 1990 FILE: County Crnmissioners FROM: Bob Komarinetz Director of Golf 16) WIN lt4 r . is as, is 1W t1l" SUBJECT: Golf cart Lease REFERENCES: Sandridge Golf Club again this year is requesting permission to lease (6) six additional golf carts frau January thru April. Staff experiences a shortage of golf cart during this period especially during the AARP Golf League. Enclosed is a lease agreement for (6) six additional golf carts from Islander Golf Car Leasing, Inc. of Vero Beach. 44D' *4W11DQ10 Staff recommends the lease of six (6) additional golf carts fran Islander Golf Car Leasing, Inc.. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the lease of six additional golf carts from Islander Golf Car Leasing, Inc., as recommended by staff. SAID LEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 4 l 0 G._Reguest_for_ Site Plan Extension(for_ Barna_ Foundation) The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner John McCoy: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keatirig, A Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling "AICP Planning Direct r FROM: John W. McCoy Staff Planner; Current Development DATE: December 7, 1990 SUBJECT: Peterson and Votapka, Inc. Request for Site Plan Extension On Behalf of the Barna Foundation SP -MA -89-02-09 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 18, 1990. Descriptions and Conditions On December 14, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a major site plan application submitted by Peterson and Votapka, Inc. on behalf of the Barna Foundation. Conditional approval was given to construct an, 11,488 sq. ft. warehouse, located at 548 lst Street. Peterson and Votapka, Inc. on behalf of the Barna Foundation has requested that a site plan extension be granted. Due to financial constraints, the Barna Foundation has been unable to commence construction. This project was originally reviewed under the County's old land development regulations (LDR's) and pursuant to Section 23.2(g)(2) of the old LDR's, a request for site plan extension was submitted prior to the expiration date of the approved site plan. As provided for, the Board of County Commissioners may act upon this request. ANALYSIS: Although County regulations have changed with the adoption.of the new LDR's, the members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that the changes are not significant enough to require any site plan revisions or redesign. Pursuant to the provisions of the applicable site plan ordinance, the Barna Foundation is requesting a full one (1) year extension of the approved site plan. Pursuant to the site plan ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners may grant or grant with additional conditions, such site plan extensions. In staff's opinion, the current project site plan application, subject to the original conditions specified by the Planning and Zoning Commission, would substantially conform to current requirements. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Peterson and Votapka, Inc.'s request for a one (1) year extension of the conditionally approved site plan. The new site plan expiration date will be December 14, 1991. 5 POOK f'A;c -7 BOOK, Civ PA � ��j' D E C 18 1990 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved request by Peterson and Votapka, Inc., on behalf of the Barna Foundation, for a one year extension of the condition- ally approved site plan; the new expiration date to be December 14, 1991. E__ County ^Health _Clinic _ ProjectChang e_ Order #3 The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean: DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM:. H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH CLINIC PROJECT CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3 BACKGROUND: The following Change Order is hereby submitted on the subject project which will necessitate a change in the contract with Miorelli Engineering and Indian River County. P.R. 11 - Change in the way beams are designed to support second floor concrete jousts. Cost of $661.00 and no additional time. P.R. 13 - City of Vero Beach changed requirements for tee in water service to building. Also, upgrade service line from 2" to 311. Cost of $2,892.00 and no additional time. P.R. 15 - Change plumbing fixtures in laboratory to meet requirements of Health Department. Cost of $1,031.00 and no additional time. P.R. 18 - Upgrade certain doors and frames to meet fire code. Cost of $254.00 and no additional time. P.R. 25 - Delete grouting in certain hollow door frames where not required.. Credit of $2,020.00 and no change in time. Net effect on the original contract would be an increase of $2,818.00 or a total contract price of $2,435,151.00 and no additional time. Completion date remains at May 10, 1991. - RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Board approval of the Change Order as submitted and requests authorization for their Chairman to execute the order. 6 � � a Commissioner Scurlock explained that he asked for this item to be removed from the Consent Agenda because he wants to make it clear that we are not approving limiting our future negotiation. In his opinion, the way beams are designed is a design problem and has to be negotiated and discussed. He would like to approve the item but indicate that we are not waiving any of our rights by doing so. Administrator Chandler informed the Board that on each of the 4 projects we have had ongoing this past year where there have been such changes, we have put the architects or engineers on notice both verbally and in writing that we would be looking to them to pick up some of that expense. Commissioner Wheeler commented that he had the same ques- tion, and also in regard to upgrading doors to meet fire code. As to changing the plumbing fixtures in the laboratory to meet the requirements of the Health Department, would that not be part of the design or have the rules changed. Director Dean explained that some of the fixtures were designed for a photo lab, and the chemicals used in this lab will be a lot stronger. Commissioner Scurlock felt the question relates to whether that is or is not a design problem. Chairman Eggert did not know that it was just design - it had to go to Tallahassee to be run through their construction inspection. Commissioner Scurlock felt that when you hire an architect specifically to design a Health Department, he would assume it is their professional responsibility to check out the various code requirements with the proper officials. Administrator Chandler confirmed that the position we have taken with the architects on each of the projects is that they are supposed to know the codes that are applicable and be able to interpret them. He continued that with all 4 on-going projects, the changes have been few, but we do not absolve the architects or engineers from these situations and we have all this docu- mented. Commissioner Wheeler agreed that with our Construction Manager on board, we have had minimal problems. 7,Ir R8OOK 0 Fk0ir_ f 7 Fr, DEC 18 1990 CHANGE ORDER NOOK 82 PAGE 'S ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Change Order 3 with Miorelli Engineering and reserved our rights to negotiate with the architects/engineers. AIA DOCUMENT G701 t OWNER RC1 ARCHITECT? 1 CONTRACTOR) FIELD OTHER �1 PROJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (name, address) PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT VERO BEACH, FLA. TO CONTRACTOR: MIORELLI ENGINEERING INC. (name, address) 7607 CORAL DR. WEST MELBORNE, FLA. 32854-0577 The Contract is changed as follows: P.R.# 11 — ANGLE BRACKETS AND BEAM / $661.00 AND NO TIME P.R.# 13 — 0'X3" TEE AND 3" WATER SERVICE (2ND REV.)$2,892.00 AND NO TIME P.R.# 15 — UPGRADE PLUBMING FIXTURES (CCD1) s1,031.00 AND NO TIME P.R.# 18 — B LABEL DOORS AND FRAMES $254.00 AND NO TIME P.R.# 25 — DELETE GROUTING OF NON—RATED DOORS —$2,020.00 (CREDIT) AND NO TIME CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: THREE DATE: 12/17/90 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 86-289 . CONTRACT DATE: MARCH, 1990 CONTRACT FOR: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT Not valid until signed by the Owner, Architect and Contractor. q� 1999 RECEIVED ®rylCes to/ Ind!an Rive! CO- ped pate D _ Admin. 1 Legal Budget Dept. Risk Mgr. The original (Contract Sum) was ........................ S 2,422,000.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ............................... $ 10,333.00 The (Contract Sum) ((3(4MXXptX%X0r!(MXy0M) prior to this Change Order was ........... S 2,432,333.00 The (Contract Sum) (01XX ?tXOCEC04jC4d00 X00tW will be (increased) (jtocx )(qq by this Change Order in the amount of ............................ S 2,818.00 The new (Contract Sum) (Glsl.liSWKbQDIDGDCbC) including this Change Order will be .. S 2,435,151-00 The Contract Time will be (iwwwd) �onand) (unchanged) by ( 0 )days. The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MAY 10, 1991 NOTE: This summary does not'reflect changes in the Contma Sum, Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by Construction Change Directive. LEMUEL RAMOS 6 ASSOC. M I ORELL I ENG I NEER I NG OWNER N`DN ABN R I VER COUNTY CO. ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ,.7 rnPAI nR 7 f�Lr1 9 TH ST 7[�7R S W OATH ST �" Address Address Address MIAMI , F 331 5 W . MELBORNE , FLA . �• 5 7 9�IER0 BEACH , FLA A. 32960 X. BY ,C G BY BY' DATE D DATE ��' '� DATE / 8 8 � s � F._Ma i n_Li brary___Change_ Orders_ #7_& #8 The Board reviewed memo from the Superintendent of Buildings & Grounds, Lynn Williams: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THRU: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General gqServices FROM: Lynn Williams i,U✓ Supt. of ildings and Grounds DATE: December 10, 1990 SUBJECT: Change Order #7 and #8 Main Library CONSENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION AND_CONDITIONS: The attached Change Orders #7 and #8 for the Main Library have been forwarded for approval by the Board of Commission. Change Order #7 includes Proposal Requests #17 and #18R and is in the amount of $1,936.00. Proposal Request #17 is required by the City of Vero Beach to remove an existing/abandoned concrete apron along 17th Avenue. Proposal Request #18R was requested by the First Baptist Church to allow a curb cut and sidewalk for egress from the north parking area to the sidewalk. Change Order #8 includes Construction Change Direcf-ive #3 and Proposal Request #21 and is in the amount of $3,393.00. Construction Change Directive #3 was staff initiated to allow for installation of the book detection system. Original plans were drawn to install the existing system. However, a new system was purchased requiring the additional work. Proposal Request #21 includes an amount of $2.893.00 for pruning the remainder of oaks on the site. This work was requested by the Landscape Architect and Contractor. Permission was granted by the County,Administrator to proceed with this work. The project is within budget and has had minimal increase due to change orders. RECOMMENDATIONS_AND.FUNDING:. Total amount of change to the contract for Change Order #7 and #8 will be $5,329.00. The adiusted contract amount will be $2,866,997.00 - Account #322-109-571-066.51 Main Library Construction Account. Staff recommends approval of Chancre Order #7 and #8 for the Main Library and requests authorization for the Chairman to sign. 01 POCK' f'�� i, DEC J8 1994 aoClk ,, r,a ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Change Orders #7 and #8 w/Milne 8 Nicholls on the Main Library.. CHANGE _ Distribution to: ORDER OWNER Williams ARCHITECT ® DHGA AIA DOCUMENT G701 f ONDTRACTOR ® MiCopeland Nichol -Is OTHER ® Proctor PROJECT: Indian River County Main Library CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 7 Revised (name, address) 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 INITIATION DATE: November 9, 1990 TO (Contractor): ARCHITECT'S PROTECT NO: $$012900 F_ Milne & Nicholls, Inc. CONTRACT FOR: General Construction 701 S.E. 6th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 CONTRACT DATE: 12/1189 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: P.R. #17 - Apron Deletion .................... Add 843.00 P.R. #18R - Crosswalk Revision ................ Add 1093.00 Total Add 1936.00 h ztc Genova\ S�rJic�s a� y Inman Riva Ca Approved Dale Admin. Z. 114 J Legal G Budnet I Dept. Rich Mgr. �• Not valid until signed by both the owner and architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith. including anv adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. .., g 2,816,400.00 The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) was ........................ • • . $ 45,268.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ... - • • • • -• • ........ The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order was .......... S 2,861,668.00 - The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) will be (increased) (Mase"") Nmaib d) ........................ 3 1,936.00 by this Change Order .. """' g' g 2,863,604.00 The new (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) inhange this Change Order will be • . • S ( 0 ) Days. The Contract Time will be.. (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Authorized: Amodec Foci a s lMsS 1 np & Ni rho s _* —T_—n� . T . 1s CONTRACTOR OWNER RCh1TKT + r. 1?i tTPT 1f1 L� Address 410 S Australian -Avenue Address;Olf SE Avenue Address 1840 25th Street 'CcL>'_ BY BY BY �^- DAT / / > DATE `2 ` G / Q DATE LI. W AIA DOCUMENT G781 CHANGE ORDER APIt. 1978 EDITION AIAO 01978 G701 _197B THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE.. N.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 10 CHANGE uistribution to: ORDER OWNER la Williams ARCHITECT IN M.GA AIA DOCUMENT C701 CONTRACTOR ® Milne & Nicholls FIELD F9 Yank MoJo OTHER ® Proctor Const. PROJECT: Indian River Coasnty Main Library ('HANCE ORDER NUMBER: 8 Iname, address( 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 INITIATION DATE: November 13, 1990 TO (Contractor): ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO. 88012900 Milne & Nicholls, Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Ceneral Constrsction 701 S.E. 6th Avneue Delray Beach, FL 33483 J CONTRACT DATE: December 111 1989 • You are directed to make the follc)wing changes in this Contract: ' 1 C.C.D. #3 P.R. #21 Surveilence System Modifications ...... Add $ 500.00 Tree Prining.......................... Add. $28G3.00 Gere • TOTAL ADD $3393.00 Moroved Dalt InE1sn ittwr ct r L � Admin. ti i_e931 Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. signalure ui the Cuntraetur indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum Ire Contracl Time. The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) was ........................... E 2,816 9 400. 00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ................................... S 47,204-00 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order was .......... S 2,863,6174.00 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) will be (increased) Mae aw!edI (ewei.e++gedi bythis Change Order ... :............ s 33 3 .................................... , 9 .OC The new (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) including this Change Order will be ... S 2,866,9970 )Days. The Contract Time will be 9wGT�d1 tdra.r l (unchanged) by The Date_ of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Authorized: . W HC LL GILMORE_ASSOCIATES MILNE & NICHOLLS, INC._ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY .ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER Address 4 S. A�3stralian AVE. A'(dress nBeF rl /lciclre» 181+0 25th Street West; Pal Beach FL .33401 De a Vero Beach FL 32960 j ` ItY NY._.._�RYOf DAl E {�� �VAT b DATE �a AtA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • At' It 1418 EDITION • AIA" ' h.' 19178 6701 — 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE or ARCHITECTS. 17)5 NEW YORK AVE.. N.W.. WACHIN(:T()N. 0-C, M1111, 11 4,3 moK. G._Request_to_Dispose � of_Surplus County _Real _ Property _ The Board reviewed memo from the Interim Purchasing Manager: DATE: December 11, 1990 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Servi FROM: George Wolf, Interim Purchasing Manag Division of Purchasing SUBJ: Request To Dispose of Surplus County Real Property The Department of Utility Services requests the following properties be declared surplus and scheduled for imminent sale. County water and gravity sewer are available to these properties: 1. 20.22 acre tract of land immediately west of King's Hwy (58th Ave) and north of 47th Street, and includes owner- ship up to the centerline of King's Hwy. 2. NW1/4 of NE1/4 Section 27, Township 32S Range 39E, 00000 1000 00058.0-.67 acres, including a 200,000 gallon steel storage tank. - 3. SW1/4 Section 22, Township 32S, Range 39E, 00000 5000 00009.0-3.3 acres, vacant land. 4. SW1/4 Section 22, Township 32S, Range 39E, 00000 5000 00032.0-35' x 100', including a 10' x 20' CBS building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the above four parcels of County property, be de- clared surplus real property and advertised for sale to the highest and best bidder(s). Commissioner Bowman could not imagine why the County would want to dispose of 20 acres of undisturbed, pristine pine flatwoods. Commissioner Scurlock explained that this is a Utilities item, and our utilities system is set up as an enterprise fund. There is no function that land provides for a utility operation. If the General Fund would like to purchase that parcel and keep it in our inventory of land, he was sure Utilities would be happy to dispose of it internally. The only reason this is on the surplus list is that it is surplus for the purpose of Utilities. Chairman Eggert asked if Commissioner Scurlock, as chairman of the Land Acquisition Committee, would like to look into this. 12 comm. Scurlock advised that he has looked at it for the purpose of Utilities, and Utilities does not need it. This property was acquired prior to 1980. It was the original site for the Gifford wastewater plant, but there were objections filed against it, and in the interests of the community, another site was purchased. Commissioner Bowman felt strongly that we need to acquire this and put it into a conservation easement. She believed it will be worth millions in possibly 20 years, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed. Commissioner Scurlock felt if that is so, then it might be a great investment for the General Fund, but Utilities has no justification for keeping it in its inventory. Commissioner Bird believed our Comp Plan includes a require- ment for us to buy uplands such as these pine flatwoods, and Director Keating confirmed that we have committed to acquiring about 300/400 acres of upland property to compensate for the fact that we have less than a 25% upland setaside requirement. He believed the reason the Land Acquisition Committee didn't look at this particular property is that right now properties have not been prioritized. Also, there is no funding mechanism to purchase it, and we realize that Utilities needs to get a fair market value for it. Commissioner Bowman requested that this 20 acres be removed from the surplus list. Discussion followed about this being unfair to the Utilities Department, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that it also would be blatantly unfair for the Utilities customer to have to carry that burden. He emphasized that all that is wanted is permission for the Utilities Department to dispose of it, not necessarily actually sell it. Administrator Chandler explained that the intent on all four of these parcels was to declare them surplus, put them out on the open market and bring back a price, but he thought that on this particular piece, we could declare it surplus in terms of Utilities' needs and rather than sell it, evaluate it in terms of our overall land acquisition program. Director Dean noted that the process requires that the property first be declared surplus; then it is brought to the 13 DEC 18 1990Mer 821 L_ .0E018 1990 ,, f,,8 various governmental entities to see if they have a need for it; and the last thing on the list is taking it out to the public. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously declared the 4 properties listed above surplus, but directed that the 20.22 acre tract be retained in our inventory and we look at potential acquisition modes for some other fund. H._Bid _#91_31`__ _ CashRegister_ &_Management- Information System The Board reviewed memo from Interim Purchasing Manager, George VJo I f : DATE: December 11, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: Janes E Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Servi FROM: George Wolf, Interim Purchasing Manag J4 Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #91-31/Cash Register & Management Information System BACKGROUND: On request from the Sandridge Golf Course, the subject bid was properly advertised and Eleven (11) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On November. 21, 1990, bids were received with Four (4) vendors submitting proposals for this ccanmdity. ANALYSIS: The low bids received from Wasserman cannot be considered responsive, as they did not include hardware for either computer system bid. This was discovered during analysis of their systems between Wasserman and Golf Club Personnel. The next low bidder, Cash Control Systems, of Vero Beach, complies fully with specifications, terms, and conditions as stated in Request for Bid. FUNDING: ~ Monies for this project will come from Golf Course Club House Other Ma- chinery and EquiPnent• Funds available $12,000.00. • •• iia+ i� • • It is therefore, recommendation of staff to award to Cash Control Systems for the complete cash register and management information system in the amount of $10,000.00, less $1',000.00 trade-ins as specified in bid docu- ments for a net total of $9,000.00 . 14 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #91-31 to low responsive bidder, Cash Control Systems, for the complete cash register and management informa- tion system in the amount of $10,000, less $1,000 trade-ins as specified in bid documents, for a net of $9,000, as recommended by staff and per the follow- ing Bid Tabulation: I. Bid #90-109 - Westside U.S.#1 Force Main The Board reviewed memo from the Division of Purchasing: DATE: December 11, 1990 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Services FROM: George H Wolf, Interim Purchasing Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #90-109/Westside U.S. #1 Force Main BACKGROUND: On request from the Utilities Division, the subject bid was properly advertised and Twenty-two (22) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On October 31, 1990, bids were received with Four (4) vendors sub- mitting proposals for the commodity. 15 Baal F,A `, 'Jf DEC 181990 Date, 11/26/90 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS• 184025fhS&ec4VemS=L Flor&=90 PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION - ..�...� t3M W7.80W ;ave t s...., T.�sww.: =`;i" Submitted 'By George Wolf, C.P.M. Interim PURCHASING MANAGER i� ✓ �' Bid No. 91-31 Dote Of Opening 11/21/90 Recommended Awad S �ORIV ( Bid T•rtie Cash Registers S Mgmt Info System 1. Wasseaflaa's Retail Systems 2700 System Without Trade $9,645.00 4. Compose, Inc Without Trade In $21,789.00 101 S U.S. O1 With Trade $9,350.00 348 Southport Circle With Trade In $21,489.00 With Trade 56,450:00 Ste 100 Ft Pierce, Fl 34950 Virginia Beach, Va 23452 2. Cash Control Systems without Trade In $10,000.00 1528 20th Street With Trade In $ 9,000.00 Vero Beach, F1 32960 3. Computer Golf Software Witho-ut-Traae In $17,600.00 1700 Southwest 12th Ave With Trade In $16,600.00 Alternate Bid Boca Raton, F1 33486 I. Bid #90-109 - Westside U.S.#1 Force Main The Board reviewed memo from the Division of Purchasing: DATE: December 11, 1990 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Services FROM: George H Wolf, Interim Purchasing Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID #90-109/Westside U.S. #1 Force Main BACKGROUND: On request from the Utilities Division, the subject bid was properly advertised and Twenty-two (22) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On October 31, 1990, bids were received with Four (4) vendors sub- mitting proposals for the commodity. 15 Baal F,A `, 'Jf DEC 181990 r- -7 DEC 18 1990 POOK ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to speci- fications. Ted Myers Contracting was the low bidder and met all requirements. VTMnTATr . Monies for this project will come from Budget Impact Fees Funds. Funds available $74,225.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $47,056.34 to the low bidder, Ted Myers Contracting for the subject project, and author- ize the Chairperson to execute the attached contract upon receipt of proper insurance and bonds. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #90-109 for construction of the Westside U.S.#1 Force Main to the low bidder, Ted Myers Contracting, in the amount of $47,056.34, as recommended by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation, and authorized the Chairman to execute a Fixed Contract with same in that amount upon receipt of proper insurance and bonds. 16 11 pie, 10/31/90 BOARD OF COUNTY CommzssIONm& 184025th Stree4Vem&&ch_Florida32980 �' PURCHASING DEPT. i aVF l ' BID TABULATION I Submitted By Dominick L Mascola T.uswr: 110.71 S67d000 ti ���s Z I' Suw¢M Ttl.eMnu ".x/011 PURCHASING MANAGER a -s * `_ "=✓ Ii Bid No. 90-109 Date Of Openingl0/31/90 Recommended Award ��ORI i; : $ Bid Title Westside U.S. 01 Force Main 1. Ted Myers Contracting $47,056.34 i I 4. JoBear, Inc- $103,597.75 6290 Old Dixie Hay 1950 Dear Dr N.E. Winter Beach, Fl. 32971 (: Palm Bay, F1 32905 i 2. Derrico Construction Co $77,080.00 I' P.O. Bos 361177 Melbourne, F1 32936-1177 3. Utility Systems of America • $77,382.50 i 1725 S Nova Rd B-4 _ S. Daytona, F1 32119 16 J._Library Project___Budget Amendment #011 The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joseph Baird: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 12, 1990 SUBJECT: LIBRARY PROJECT - BUDGET AMENDMENT 011 FROM: Joseph A. Baird, Direct Management & Budget DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the initial planning stage of the Libraries, the Commission expressed concern because there was no money included in the Library Construction budget for library materials (i.e. books, subscriptions, microfilm, microform, audio/visual aids, software). The library project is substantially finished with the Main Library 95% complete and the North County Library now open for business. Both libraries will be under budget and we have not utilized any of the Main Library project contingency of $270,000 or North County library project contingency of $85,000. Staff would like authorization to use $235,000 of this contingency to purchase library materials of which $150,000 would be for the Main Library and $85,000 for the North County Library. In addition, we would like permission to move funds as needed to complete the project. At the end of the project the remaining cash in the project fund will be segregated and used only for future library materials and equipment. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Authorize staff to utilize funds in the Library Construction fund as mentioned above and _ approve the attached budget amendment. Commissioner Scurlock advised that at the risk of sounding anti -library, which he is not, he has a number of concerns as he tracks this project. The actual dollars that are going to be surplus seem to him to be more in the range of $590,000. and in terms of bonds, that would represent 100 of a 5 million dollar bond issue, which is generally what a contingency is. He has discussed the possibility of defeasing the bonds and has asked the ONIB Director to look into this. Commissioner Scurlock felt it is typical of government, and he hoped we have taken a positive approach and aren't actually typical government, where when there is a significant savings, it is felt the best approach is to spend that money. He is not sure the best approach is always to spend the money. There may be good reasons for it, and he has talked to the Administrator who has indicated staff is in favor of this, but he personally felts this needs more dialogue than just being on the Consent Agenda. � 17 BOOK 0 E G 18 1990 mu 82 FACE 2S S" OMB Director Baird clarified that the total budget for the Library construction was $7,341,336. Of that amount, 5.9 million was from the bond issue; $41,300 was interest; $1,000,000 was a contribution from the General Fund; and $400,000 was grant money. Commissioner Scurlock continued to question just what it was we took to the voters. He agreed the County did spend other funds, but stressed that his point was that the bond issue itself was 5.9 million and the bond issue has in it a specific provision which talks about any surplus. OMB Director Baird concurred, but pointed out that it talks about any surplus affiliated with the bonds. He advised that he has gone over this with our Bond Counsel, who says that since we have spent the 5.9 million, we have fulfilled that obligation; so, we could pay off the bonds if we wanted to or can use that surplus for other library purposes. He wished to clarify that we have a $580,000 surplus, and we are requesting that $235,000 of that be used now, leaving approximately $350,000. Director Baird wished to point out that throughout this whole thing the Board has been concerned about the fact that there wasn't any money in the project for books. Staff has worked very hard to bring this project in under budget, which they have, and now they are requesting these funds. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he was not being critical of staff, but noted that he brought up the question about there not being any money in the budget for books when we went into buying computer equipment, at which time he was told the Friends of the Library, etc., would take care of that. Chairman Eggert believed when she presented the budget that had been redone, one of the things said at that time was that we hoped the contingency money would be able to be used for books and software, and that is exactly what is happening. Director Baird commented that the citizens voted to expand the Library. Commissioner Scurlock Was very aware of that, but pointed out that the Taxpayers Association said that 8.2 million was too much to spend on a library, and we accordingly cut that back to 5.9 million to get their support. He wished to have more dialogue on this particular topic because his concern is to 18 M protect the taxpayers' dollars, and he would like to look at the total picture of what will happen to the remaining $350,000. Administrator Chandler agreed that at the time we brought in the automation, a question was raised about books, but at that time we were too early into our projects and weren't comfortable enough to recommend allocating for books, etc. Now that both libraries have come in on time and are under budget, we feel comfortable that using $235,000 of those contingency funds is a logical expense. By the same token, however, Administrator Chandler advised that we don't anticipate any significant increase in the operational expenses in those two libraries in the next fiscal year. Chairman Eggert commented that while we perhaps have ade- quate staff in the North County Library, we have barely adequate staff in the Main Library. She stressed that one of the functions of the Main Library was to be a major reference library. It takes a lot of money to get major reference books. This is something that has been talked about from the beginning of the project, and she feels that it is stupid to build a beautiful new library and then not have available in it the things that will make it the good service it should be. Commissioner Scurlock continued to express his concern that we have the economy going down; we may be facing some drastic cuts that are being made in the state budget; and while he understands there may be an absolute need to spend these dollars, he wants to be exceedingly sure that when we get to next year's budget, if we are going to spend these dollars, that we don't again have this huge capital request submitted for books. Chairman Eggert asked that he think of this money as not being part of the bond issue but as part of the $1,000,000, and Commissioner Scurlock felt that is fine, but he wants it on the record that we have met our bond covenants. Commissioner Bird recapped the various monies included in the pool of funds out of which we built two libraries. Now those libraries are about completed and out of that pool of funds it appears we are going to have a surplus of $580/590,000. The request is to use a portion of that surplus to buy books for the two libraries, and he did not have any problem with that. He felt we are still in good stead with the voters who approved the 5.9 million bond issue. EC 1 X99® 1 9 NOUK CJ F -g POCK ., F'4,uE MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler to authorize staff to utilize funds in the Library Construction fund as described in staff memo and to approve Budget Amendment #011. Former Commissioner Patrick Lyons wished to express his thanks to the Corrmission as well as to the taxpayers. He felt the Board is really to be complimented and appreciates the action being contemplated. He assured the Board that the Friends of the Library are going to get more contributions to come into the Library, but these books are really needed. He again thanked the Board and wished them Merry Christmas. Commissioner Wheeler expressed his thanks to Mr. Lyons for his work in being a catalyst to start the Library projects. William Koolage, interested citizen, remembered when this first started and stressed that it was his understanding and the understanding of the general public that the 5.9 million dollar bond would be sufficient for everything, including books. He sees this thing snowballing and wished the Board would look ahead and advise just what this is going to cost us overall because it has far exceeded the 5.9 million. Commissioner Scurlock agreed the bond issue was 5.9 million and the General Fund contributed 1 million; so, it is around seven million plus. Chairman Eggert pointed out that when the original recom- mendation of 8.2 was cut back to 5.9, no one said how much does it cost to build a library and do a budget. They just said under six million would be good, and when we sat down and did the budget, we found it couldn't be done for 5.9 million. Administrator Chandler felt that the point that needs to be made is that this project has been completed within the budgeted expense. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 20 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director qk�-- GENERAL FUND LIBRARY 0610..= SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: O11 DATE: December 12, 1990 (LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION 11 11 i !Main LibraryJFurn. & Equipment 1322-109-571-066.411$ 250.0001$ 0 ILibraryfTransfer Out ;322-109-581-099.211$ 235.0001$ 0 1 ;Main LibraryfConst. 1 1 in Progress;322-109-571-066.51!$ 265.0001$ 1 0 1 11 11 It IuT ni... T-0/o.tr*. L 'Pr".1.1 1'277-117-R71-ngg A1Q 7mn nnnid A ;GENERAL FUND - Main Library !New Library Material 150.000!$ 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I ;GENERAL FUND - N. Cty. Library ;New Library Material X001-112-571-039.47;$ 85.000;$ 0 K. South CountY_Fire_Federal_I_D_ Number The Board reviewed memo from CMB Director Baird: 21 ' NOOK .0 I'Aut aW" ,J.L TO: Members of the South County Fire District DATE: December 12, 1990 SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY FIRE FEDERAL LD. NUMBER - CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS BOCK.: f',1ka 40 -7 Although it is a dependent district of the Board of County Commissioners, South County Fire District has been using a separate Federal I.D. Number (both the Solid Waste District and the North County Fire District operate under the Board's number). This situation has caused severe problems for Finance, particularly in payroll accounting. The Clerk of the Circuit Court would like to write the Internal Revenue Service in order to have this number eliminated, and requests the Board's permission to do so. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board allow Finance to contact the Internal Revenue Service about eliminating the South County Fire District's Federal I.D. Number. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized Finance to contact the Internal Revenue Service about eliminating the South County Fire District's Federal I.D. number. L. Budget Amendment #012 - NlisceIlaneous Funds The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director, as follows: 22 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 12, 1990 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS - BUDGET AMENDMENT 012 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird, Director, Office of Management and Budget DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for the following: 1. The Board of County Commissioners approved constructing a parking lot to the north of the County Administration building. The attached entry appropriates the funding in the amount of $255,000. 2. The dredging of the 14th Street Canal was appropriated in the 1989/90 fiscal year, and final payment was not made until November 1990. 3. The South County Park had $400,000 budgeted for capital improvements in the 1989/90 fiscal year, but due to delays in the site plan approval the work was not done. Since this project is a = multi-year project we would like to move the $400,000 into the 1990/91 fiscal year and combine it with the $200,000 already appropriated. 4. The following projects were in progress in the 1989/90 fiscal year but were not completed: Fellsmere Concession Stand $30,000 Roseland Picnic Shelter $ 7,000 Fellsmere Racquet Court $451000 Funding needs to be moved to the 1990/91 fiscal year. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget amendment 012. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #012 as recommended by staff. 23 E�UGK. C7� F'A�t � 0 DEC 18 1990 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director Entry , SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT, NUMBER: 012 DATE: December 12. 1990 'GENERAL FUND !Cash Forward 1001-000-389-040.001S 255,0001S 0 1 i 11 11 11 !EXPENSE ;GENERAL FUND - Building & Grds.1 !Land ;001-220-519-066.111$ 901000!$ 0 i _ !Other Imurovements !nn1_,2in_91Q_nAA iaie las Annie A 'M.S.T.U. I I !Cash Forward ;004-000-389-040.001$ 18.6501$ 0 1 1 11 11 11i 1M.S.T.U. - Parks !Other Contracts i nnA_" n_R*7-�_ni2 A A i d 10 e=^16 'GENERAL FUND !Cash Forward 1001-000-389-040.001S 400,0001S 0 !EXPENSE ,GENERAL FUND - Parks !Other Imnrovemerits '10I& A A A ^^^16 w M.S.T.U. Cash Forward 1004 -000 -389 - EXPENSE 4 M.S.T.U. - Parks I Other Imnrovements 2-,000! M._Deputy_Sheriffs'_Blanket _Bond The Board reviewed letter from Sheriff Dobeck, as follows: 24 P.O. BOX 608 PHONE 5696700 November 28, 1990 R.T. "TIM" DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32961-0608 Board of County Commissioners 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 To Whom It May Concern: The Hunt Insurance Group, Inc., Tallahassee, has asked us to forward the original Deputy Sheriff's Blanket Bond to the Board of, County Commissioners for signature and safekeeping. Please send me a copy of the signed bond so we can have reference within our office. Sincerely, R. T."Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff �2223Z49Z6�j��� -_ Alma C. Fred opo r°V �n Personnel/Insurance ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the Deputy Sheriffs' Blanket Bond, the same to be put on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board. DUEG 18 1990 25 na C is 1990 mcg ?0 F"AGE 2,0)16 Bond No. 18258239 DEPUTY SHERIFFS' BLANKET SURETY BOND State of Florida County of Indian River KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the Deputy Sheriffs of Indian River County, Florida, presently or hereafter appointe during -the term of this bond as described below, as Principals, and WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, a company duly authorized to transact surety business in the State of Florida, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Robert Martinez Governor of the State of Florida,.and his/her successors in office, in the sum of One Thousand -Dollars ($1,000) for each such Deputy Sheriff, lawful money of the United States of America, for the pay- ment whereof well and truly to be made, we do bind our- selves, and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, whereas the above bounden Deputy Sheriffs have been presently or will be hereafter appointed to hold office from the day so appointed, until a successor is qualified, and according to the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, if the said Deputy Sheriffs presently or hereafter appointed shall faithfully perform the duties of said office as prescribed, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full and force and virtue. PROVIDED, $1,000 of automatic coverage is provided for any additional Deputy Sheriff occupying a newly created position through -the September 30th following such Deputy Sheriff's first day of service, with no additional premium charge for that period. On or before September 30 of each year, the Surety shall be provided with an updated count of Deputy Sheriffs to be covered by this bond and, if necessary, the next annual premium calculation shall be adjusted accordingly.. PROVIDED FURTHER, this bond may be cancelled by the Surety as to future liability for any specified Deputy Sheriff(s), or in its entirety, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. Provided, further, the aggregate liability of the Surety, regardless of the number of claims made against this bond or the number of years this bond remains in force, shall in no event exceed the sum of $1,000 for any one Deputy Sheriff. Any revision of the bond amount shall not be cumulative. Dated this 1st day of October 19 90 WESTERN SURETY COMPANY v, V Atttorne �+ n' Fact f�. lJK7`T..131J1.1 ..-.......r .. i� tnters d by: �� icense -Resident Agent The foregoing bond is approved. C airman/ o t e Board of County ommissioners 26 REQUEST _FOR _SPECIAL _ BEACH_ EROSION _BENEFIT �TAXING ^DIST. _ (SEXTON) Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing Save Our Shores to address the request set out in his letter, as follows: GEORGE G. COLLINS. JR.* CALVIN B. BROWN WILLIAM W. CALDWELL Collins, ]gown & Caldwell CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW 744 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963 407-231-4343 FAX * 407-234-5213 PLEASE REPLY TO: POST OFFICE BOX 3686 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32964 BRADLEY W. ROSSWAV DISTRIBUTION LIST BRUCE D. BARKETT December 10, 19 9 0 STEPHEN CONNELLY Commissioners 0-E DAVID A. ZALPH Administrator -BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE LAWYER Attorney HAND DELIVERY Personnel Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Public Works Board of County Commissioners Community Dev. Indian River County Utilities 1840 25th Street Finance Vero Beach, FL 32960 Other Re: Indian River County Beach and Shore Preservation Authority ' Dear Ms. Eggert: This letter is to request that the Board of County Commissioners schedule time at its December 18, 1990, meeting to receive a petition to establish the Indian River County Beach and Shore Preservation Authority as an erosion control taxing district. This request is made by Save Our Shores, which is in receipt of a number of petitions from ocean front property owners who desire to tax themselves through this proposed taxing district to facilitate a beach restoration project in Indian River County. I will telephone your office later in the week to ascertain the time scheduled by the Board at its December 18 meeting to receive these petitions. We anticipate that fifteen minutes will be required to make the presentation. Very truly yours, BRUCE BARKETT Attorney for Save Our Shores Attorney Barkett passed out to the Commission members folders containing 220 petitions to request that the Commission schedule a public hearing at a later date to determine whether or riot to establish the proposed district. (Folder with petitions is on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.) Commissioner Scurlock commented that he had met with Mr. Sexton, who is president of Save Our Shores, as he assumed all Corrlmissioners did, and indicated to Mr. Sexton that he felt the 27 ®E a99� I DEC 1199® first step would be for him and his group to go to the City of Vero Beach and determine their position in this regard. He asked if this has been done. Attorney Barkett advised that they do not have the City's position. Apparently Mir. Sexton approached some of the City Councilmen and was given the understanding that he should take it to the Beach Advisory Committee which meets tomorrow. He stressed that all they are asking today is that a date be set for a public hearing, not that a decision be made. Attorney Barkett stated that under Stat. 161.25 the County Commission is duly constituted as the Beach and Shore Preserva- tion Authority of Indian River County. He then proceeded to review in detail the history of the Corps study of the beach,'the study done by Cubit Engineering, the analysis of that study by both County and City, subsequent transfer of sponsorship to the City from the County, the City referendum defeating the project, establishment of the Beach Advisory Committee to study the study that studied the study, etc., and stressed that the upshot of it all was that they concluded that direct placement of sand on the beaches is the only feasible way to protect the beaches of Indian River County. Commissioner Scurlock believed they concluded that pumping sand was the only feasible method to protect the beach because of the federal money and the fact that those federal monies were not available for any other project. Attorney Barkett contended their reason was that they couldn't come up with any other method that has been proven. He continued that in March of 1990, the City voters again voted against the Corps design project as modified by the Coastal Planning 6 Engineering Report, and he accordingly is here today to present the Board with petitions from 220 people and businesses who want to tax themselves to put sand on the beach. Attorney Barkett then referred to the following map which shows the owners who want 100% participation as well as the parcels with more than one owner where at least some of the owners have signed the petition: 28 W M LOCATION PARCELS PETITIONS 1.. FIT 1 EXEMPT,_ 2. BALZEBRE 7 7 a t 3. OCEANGATE 40 13 4. SEAQUAY 78 2 5. VERO BEACH INN 1 1 6. CALEDON SHORES 53 4 7. OCEAN CLUB 1,2,3 86 10 B. BAY ISLAND CLUB 36 9. BLUE'SEAS MOTEL 1 10. OCEAN SHORES CONDO 16 11. SHOPS 1 12. OCEAN CHATEAU 34 13. RACQUET CLUB 48 14. MILLAR 1 15. HATFIELD 1 16. CLEMENS 1 17. HEILE I 18. RACH 1 19. SIEBERT 1 20. ELARBEE 1 21. SPIRES 104 22. ACQUARIUS 1 23. GUEST QUARTERS 1 24. REEF 60 25. KEMP STORES 1 26. HOLIDAY INN 1 27. SEXTON, INC: 8 28. DAYS INN 1 29. DRIFTWOOD 99 30. BREEZEWAY' I 31. COREY DRUG/ VILLAGE SQUARE 1 32. DOM PARKING 1 33. SPINDRIFT • 22 X34. OCEAN DR. OFFICES 1 35. 1015 GAY FEATHER 1 36. BRIGHTWATERS 6 37. GABLES 47- 38. RIO MAR SANDS 30 39. WIRTH _I TOTALS 796 8 1 99 - 1 22 3 6 10 EXEMPT 220 29 PUBLIC TAX EXEMPT TOTAL APPROVAL PARTIAL APPROVAL SIZE OF PROPERTY NOOr rd F9u r DEC: 18`�9q�' BOOK Fr1GEm17 7 _; Attorney Barkett advised that those in total approval represent 4,000 front feet of an approximately 8,000 foot project, or about 500, and of the balance a number have also requested the public hearing. These people, the affected property owners, want to tax themselves, and they are saying they will pay the local share; that no City funds or County funds will be involved, just state and federal monies. Commissioner Scurlock commented that this map includes some public sections, and he believed the charter amendment the City of Vero Beach passed prohibited the expenditure of funds for this type of project without voter approval. He, therefore, would assume if those public areas shown are not going to participate in that assessment, then the entire project cost would have to be borne by those who do want to participate, and he asked if that does not pose a legal problem. County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it is a legal problem because by law we cannot assess someone for more than the benefit they are receiving. If someone gets sand pumped for free, some one else has to pay for that, and then he is paying for more benefit than he is receiving. Attorney Barkett brought up the point that the benefit to a public beach probably is a benefit to the private property owner. Commissioner Scurlock felt all this should be resolved before you go to a public hearing. Attorney Barkett did not feel this has to be all resolved today - they just want a public hearing. He continued to stress that everyone who has studied this has concluded the placement of sand on the beach is the only answer and that what is proposed will affect only the people who own the property there and are willing to pay for the benefit. Commissioner Bowman agreed with Commissioner Scurlock that it makes more sense to determine the legalities involved first. Attorney Barkett stated that this is only the first step, and they would be glad to have the County staff it. Commissioner Scurlock did not feel that it is the right first step. 30 _ M Commissioner Wheeler likened this situation to dealing with the people in Sebastian about the proposed Twin Pairs for CR 512 wherein we told them to go to the City of Sebastian first, and he felt this matter should go to the City of Vero Beach first. Attorney Barkett continued to present his clients' case and argue at length that this is just the step needed to "get the ball rolling." Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he personally told one of Attorney Barkett's clients, Ralph Sexton, to go to the City first and either he did not do that, or the City told him to take a hike. Attorney Barkett stated that what happened was that they haven't given him an answer. Commissioner Bird felt this complex a subject would take many public hearings, and he did not see a problem with scheduling one to get more dialogue on this. Chairman Eggert also did not have a problem with having a public hearing on this proposal with the understanding that we are starting from ground zero. She did, however, have a problem with asking the County to staff it as it was her understanding that a lot more of this would be worked out before it came to public hearing. She does not have a problem with the concept, but there are a lot of ramifications, and she felt probably we would be better off letting the Beach Committee and the City talk about it first. Commissioner Wheeler stated that in order for him to move forward on this request, he would like the City of Vero Beach to advise him of their position first. Commissioner Scurlock commented that what he finds most objectionable about this is that the City has had two elections opposing it. You are talking about a project that is more than 90% within the City, and it seems those involved are trying an "end run" to find some way to accomplish what they want. Commissioner Bird pointed out that while the people most affected are residents of the City, they are also County residents. They are not getting the answer they want from the City, and they see us as another alternative. 31 Boor F -W.; - I ®EC 13 `OU Boor �r{�i •��� Commissioner Scurlock noted that he has not been able to identify the percentage of the owner petitioners who are in favor of this district, and he pointed out that we generally don't go ahead with petition paving unless we have over 67% requesting it. Attorney Barkett emphasized that there is no question about the need for this project, but Commissioner Scurlock believed that there are quite a few people who do not agree with that statement. Peter O'Bryan, 146 44th Court, county taxpayer and registered voter, believed that we can sit here all week and discuss the pros and cons of a beach erosion project, but the question is - is the county the proper sponsoring agency for a project that is practically totally with(n City limits. His opinion is that it is not. He pointed out that the City does have a working Beach Ad Hoc Committee, and they are very close to a pilot project that will be free. The voters of Vero Beach strongly voted down this project, and he did not think the County should be a part to an end run around that. He also felt that County staff is already up to their necks in work, and he did not see any reason to add any work to their load whatsoever for something that is in the City's jurisdiction. Mr. O'Bryan felt if the County does want to get involved in a beach project, the Sebastian Inlet project would have much more benefit. He stressed this is a City problem, and that is where the applicant should go first. Frank Zorc, 2044 DeLeon, noted that his name was mentioned by Attorney Barkett who commented that he believed Mr. Zorc would be in favor of this proposal because of the way it would be paid for, but Mr. Zorc wished to make it clear that he does not favor this proposal in any way. He does not in any way favor sand pumping, especially sand pumping that is intended to save buildings, not our shores. He contended that Mr. Sexton and his followers are trying to dupe the people into believing that they will pay for the project, and if they will pay 90% of the project cost, which would represent their need and benefits, he might favor it. This, however, is just what he calls a "foot in the door" tactic to try to extract more money from our federal government. Attorney Barkett has a few hundred petitions, but there are on file over 5,000 signed petitions saying we do not want federal funds spent for a very temporary solution to an immense problem that is not being faced realistically. Mr. Zorc continued his statement stressing that while the buildings may 32 � � r not always be there, there will always be a beach and sand pumping is not needed for the welfare of the general public but for a few private interests. He agrees with what the City has in process, which came about as a result of two referendums. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, commented that he hears so much about money coming from the state and the federal government and that the county taxpayer won't be paying anything. He wondered where these people think the state and federal govern- ment get this money. Mr. Koolage endorsed the statements made by Mr. O'6ryan and Mr. Zorc and commented that he has heard no one mention Professor Orrin Pinkney of Duke University, who says any of these things are just a waste of money. Audrey Sexton, 4990 11th Lane, county resident and beach business owner, stressed the main thing the petitioners' want to accomplish is to have something done with our beaches. They have employees; they create tax dollars for the City and the County; and they need to get something done. She personally did not feel the people of the City or the County have been truly educated as to what will happen to our town if nothing is done. Time is wasting, and the state of the economy in this town is certainly not the best. Ms. Sexton stressed that they do not want to save just the buildings; they want to save the town and the county and preserve the beaches for future generations to enjoy. keep the beaches here for future generations - not just the buildings. .Randy Denniston of Conserve Our Shores Group handed out a letter written by their director, Dennis Scarpinato. Mr. Denniston felt it would'be a different matter if the City were making no effort to solve this problem, but they are, and he would urge the County Commissioners not to pull the rug out from under them. Said letter is hereby made a part of the record: C1� 17�� 33 POOK FF - DEC -18 1990 ROOK Conserve Our Resources, Inc. c/o Denis D. Scarpinato, D.V.M., M.S. 1905 43rd Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 December, 17th, 1990 Indian River County Commisioners Indian River County Vero Beach, Florida Dear Commisioners: a 82 F,,,,UE 3011 During the past few years the sand pumping issue has created a divided Vero Beach. I, for one, would like to see both sides unite in - a common solution. As you are well aware the projects proposed by the Army Core of Engineers were overwhelmingly defeated, in not one, but TWO City wide elections. After years of discussion between the City, DNR, DER, SOS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Audubon, and Conserve Our Resources (C.O.R.E.), it finally appears that the State of Florida and the City are going to attempt to'solve the controversy. It is a beachface dewatering system known as" The Advancer." It is one of the more promising, more economical, more environmental and more permanent solutions. Dr. Jim Parks, president of Dyneqs (The Advancer) has offered, AT NO COST, to the City of Vero Beach a pilot project. This perhaps is what all of us have been waiting for. The State of Florida is beginning to see and feel the effects of the never ending loss of millions of dollars via sand pumping (beach restoration) and renourishment. They are encouraging the use and implementation of the more environmentally, economical and more permanent solutions. The begining is here for Vero Beach. All we have to do is say "YES" to Dr. Parks. Hopefully, the solution to our problem for all concerned will be here. This is not the time nor the place to be initiating another fast--.-end-around move on the public. The establishment of a seperate taxing district would be seen by the voters as nothing less than a betrayal, not only of their decision in the TWO previous referendums, but in the entire democratic process. A referendum should NEVER be side stepped by either the City or County, especially one so controversial as thi. A new era is at'hand for Vero Beach. It is time to put aside old methods and ideas. If the Beach Advancer works as well, if not better, than the present STA --Beach installation, I feel certain it would be supported, not only by all environmental groups, but by the taxpayers and other citizen groups. Lets get on with the present proposal lying before the City of Vero Beach. Yours truly, Denis D. Scarpinato, ,V.M.% M.S. Founder and Director of Conserve Our Resources 34 Jean Ratliff, general manager of the Driftwood Resort, which has over 4,000 owners, noted that the Board has signed petitions from the presidents of the three different associations at the Driftwood. She stressed that there are many people in the county who enjoy the beaches and come to the restaurants on the beach and the other businesses there, and if you lose all that, you will lose a lot of tax dollars. What is proposed is not just for the benefit of the beach owners. Attorney Barkett wished to respond to Mr. Zorc's statement that there will always be a beach. To prove that this is wrong, he suggested that you just look at Miami Beach, and he further noted that Professor Orrin Pinkney in talking about beaches talks in terms of geological epochs of thousands of years, and he has been criticized because he ignores present day values and economic considerations. Mr. Zorc interjected that there is no way you can compare Vero Beach to Miami which has wall to wall buildings which caused much more erosion. He contended that we will always have a beach here. Charles Vice, resident of 3554 Ocean Drive for 8 years, stated that he is just an ordinary citizen who is very concerned about what happens on the beach. He felt it is necessary to preserve some beach area in this county, and while he knew there are some business buildings involved, he pointed out that there are a lot of people who own property out there; we are talking about people's homes, and those people pay a lot of taxes. There are also a lot of people who work in the beach area. Mr. Vice did not think anyone here wants to see the ocean end up at Ocean Drive or Cardinal Drive, and he urged that there be a hearing to see what we can do now so we don't have to face this problem when there is a severe storm. Ralph Sexton, of 8005 37th Street and an oceanfront property owner, came before the Board. He emphasized how long this has been going on. It has been 6 years since the "Turkey Day" storm when there was millions of dollars of damage done, and all we have had is talk and study. Mr. Sexton noted that you have to have a vehicle by which you can do something, and he felt the proposed erosion control taxing district would be that vehicle. He noted that the City of Vero Beach can study all they want to and go to the voters all they want to, but until a vehicle is set up and a method of paying for it is devised, it will never get 35 buctK 8? F'DuC D E C 18 199® Fr- 7 DEC 18 1990 noK 8 30 done. He, therefore, is asking the Board to take responsibility for Indian River County and for our property and move forward. Mr. Sexton stressed that he is not trying to circumvent the City of Vero Beach; he just wants a hearing; he feels he is entitled to it; and he is asking for it. He is going before the Beach Advisory Committee tomorrow, but he felt the County needs to face up to this problem, that they have bounced it around and swept it under the rug long enough. Chairman Eggert commented that she has no problem with having a preliminary type public hearing if only to understand just where the Beach Committee is heading, how the City of Vero Beach feels about it, and what the ramifications pro and con are in having this kind of distri.ct. Commissioner Bird concurred. He noted that there are a lot of people here today, and he does want to work with the City on this because it is a mutual problem. He did not know if setting this up in 6 weeks is adequate or too long, but emphasized that he did not foresee the County spending any appreciable amount of money to have staff work on this between now and then. He feels that burden is on Mr. Sexton and those sponsoring this to be sure we have adequate information. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Chairman Eggert, to grant a public hearing as re- quested in approximately 6 weeks. Attorney Vitunac inquired if the purpose for this public hearing is to act as a straw ballot of the Board as to whether to go ahead and function under this Authority law? Commissioner Bird stated that for him the thrust of the public hearing will be for the Commission to receive input and gather information as to whether it is to the best interests of the county and the residents to establish the district proposed. Commissioner Wheeler noted that he does not like it when Tallahassee or the federal government tells us what to do, and he is not going to tell the voters of the City of Vero Beach what they should do. If the City of Vero Beach requests our assistance with this, he would be in favor of a public hearing. He did not agree that this matter has been swept under the carpet but rather that it has been addressed to the "NTH" degree. He pointed out that there are things that have occurred in this 36 community that cost far more than this project and that were supported overwhelmingly - the school bond issues, the libraries, the jail, etc., and it appears to him that just because government hasn't moved with the side that prefers sand pumping, the accusations are that we have kicked it under the rug. The voters of the City have spoken. They have representation from the City Council, and he would prefer to have the City Council ask us to pursue this. Chairman Eggert did not disagree, but basically felt that if a group of people request a hearing, they should be allowed a public hearing. Commissioner Wheeler stressed that they should be asking the City Council for this. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that they are in front of the wrong group. He also believed the State of Florida has done everything they can to eliminate districts, and we have been moving to consolidate our districts rather than create new ones. He felt it is important to get the City's input, and as to contending that no county staff time would have to be spent on this, he noted that as one Commissioner, he relies on staff to get him prepared for the meetings so that he can make a good and informed decision and he felt one of the basic questions involved is whether it is or is not illegal and how you would assess for it unless there was 100% participation. Commissioner Wheeler assured those present that if the City requests us to look into this, he will give it his full attention. THE CHAI.RMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to grant a public hearing. It was voted on and failed 2 to 3 with Commissioners Bowman, Scurlock and Wheeler voting in opposition. The Board recessed briefly at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened ten minutes later with all members present. DEC 18 199037 �OoK D Fct37 r DEC 18 1990 mow COURTHOUSE SITE APPRAISALS Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 11, 1990 FILE: COURTHOUSE SITE SUBJECT: APPRAISALS Am E. Chandler FRO County Administrator REFERENCES: In the continuing consideration of the courthouse project, the Commission at the August 14, 1990 meeting considered several development concepts ( attachments 1 & 2) in the area bounded by 20th to 21st Streets and 14th to 17th Avenue. By motion the Commission indicated that Concepts J and M were the most favorable of those presented and also authorized proceeding with obtaining appraisals. An appraisal of the current courthouse and state attorney sites were also authorized for evaluation purposes. As would be anticipated the appraisals by the two appraisers (Armfield and Napier) differed from lot to lot. In meeting with the appraisers, staff feels extremely comfortable with the appraisals. The appraisals reflect lesser market property value than the selling price provided by Mr. Flick, which are the amounts contained in the alternate master plan concepts presented in August. Considering the appraisal differential, staff believes that in proceeding with site evaluation considerations and ultimately acquisition, the average value should be used. This approach is consistent with our past practice. , Florida Statutes require an extra -ordinary vote if the purchase price exceeds the average, on an individual parcel valued above $500,000. Although the individual parcels are valued less than $500,000, the total value of lands to be acquired is well in excess of $500,000. In estimating closing expense staff has applied an average 4% of the purchase price, as a result of discussions with our appraisers and attorneys office. The closing expense reflected by Mr. Flick is somewhat higher. — Included in some of the values provided by Mr. Flick are relocation expenses. The attorneys office has indicated the county may be liable for relocation (moving) cost for some of the properties. As a result of discussions with the attorneys office, staff has applied an average 5% of the purchase price for relocation (moving) expense. The county is not liable for business damage expense, unless only a portion of the business is acquired. There would be no partial business acquisition, with the possible exception of the Florida Federal drive -up teller facility. In some instances, a delineation between selling price, closing costs, and relocation expense was not reflected in the information provided by Mr. Flick. However, it has been assumed, if applicable, they are accounted for in the totals. The primary land acquisition expense comparison is between the total value presented by Mr. Flick and the average value established by the county appraisals including staff estimated closing and moving costs. Recognizing individual acquisitions may be the result of negotiations or condemnation, to be realistic a contingency has been included in the total estimated potential site acquisition cost. The figures reflected are conservative and in effect assume all properties would go to condemnation and all final judgments would be well in excess of the county's appraised value. This obviously would not be the case. However, to be consistent with our approach of utilizing conservative cost estimates in the master plan phase, we believe this figure should be utilized. It should not be misconstrued that the base property value will be increased and a new "floor" established. The preceding applies to each of the following concepts: E _I Concept J The appraised market value for all parcels involved in this concept range from $1,564,000 to $2,057,600. As stated previously, the following compares the estimated average cost with the costs currently contained in the Master Plan Concept, as provided by Mr. Flick. B Corrected total. Master Plan contained $3,158,480. The total estimated project cost is $18,824,259 utilizing the $3,159,660 land acquisition costs. The new total would be $18,362,691. Concept M The appraised market value for all parcels involved in this concept range from $2,190,000 to $2,841,100. Average Master PIanA Difference Property Value $1,810,800 $2,501,460 ($690,660) Relocation Costs 90,540 465,000 (374,460) Closing Costs 72,432 193,200 (120,768) Acquisition Cost $1,973,772 $3,159,66V ($1,185,888) Contingency 724,320 -0- $ 724,320 Total $2,698,092 $3,159,666B ($ 461,568) A Relocation and/or closing costs were not provided on some of the parcels. _. B Corrected total. Master Plan contained $3,158,480. The total estimated project cost is $18,824,259 utilizing the $3,159,660 land acquisition costs. The new total would be $18,362,691. Concept M The appraised market value for all parcels involved in this concept range from $2,190,000 to $2,841,100. B Corrected total. Master Plan contained $4,073,480. The total estimated project cost utilizing the $4,074,660 land acquisition cost is $19,784,259 and $19,905,140 if replacement parking were provided. The new totals would be $19,457,768 and $19,578,649 respectively. Concept L Although Concepts J and M were those favored at the August meeting, Concept L in scope falls between the two. As a result, we have included it in this report for comparative purposes. The optional parking in Block 36 has not been included in the cost and is not recommended at this time. The appraised market value for all parcels involved in this concept range from $ 2,008,700 to $2,492,100. Average Master PIanA Difference Property value $2,515,550 $3,416,460 ($900,910)• Relocation Costs 125,777 465,000 ( 339,223)" Closing Costs 100,622 193,200 ( 92,578) Acquisition Cost $2,741,949 $4,074,66V ($T.-332,711) Contingency •1,006,220 -0- 1,006,220 Total $3,748,169 $4,074,6606 ($ 326,491) A Relocation and/or closing costs were not provided on some of the parcels. _. B Corrected total. Master Plan contained $4,073,480. The total estimated project cost utilizing the $4,074,660 land acquisition cost is $19,784,259 and $19,905,140 if replacement parking were provided. The new totals would be $19,457,768 and $19,578,649 respectively. Concept L Although Concepts J and M were those favored at the August meeting, Concept L in scope falls between the two. As a result, we have included it in this report for comparative purposes. The optional parking in Block 36 has not been included in the cost and is not recommended at this time. The appraised market value for all parcels involved in this concept range from $ 2,008,700 to $2,492,100. 39 DEC 18 1990 Bou 6,9 f'!ut 'JO Average Master* PIanA Difference Property Value $2,250,400 $3,072,000 ( 821,600) Relocation Cost 112,520 375,000 ( 262,480) Closing Cost 90,016 215,700 ( 125,684) Acquisition Cost $2,452,936 $3,662,70015 ($_1_,209,764) Contingency 900,160 -0- 900,160 Total $3,353,096 $3,662,706B ($ 309,604) 39 DEC 18 1990 Bou 6,9 f'!ut 'JO 'DEC 18 90 A BOOK 82 F-AGE.3-4 i Relocation and/or closing costs were not provided on some of the parcels. Corrected total. Master Plan contained $3,662,200. The total estimated project cost utilizing the $3,662,700 land acquisition cost is $19,277,006. The new total would be $18,967,402. In summary, the comparison of each of the concept project cost with the current land acquisition expense included is as follows: Land Total Acquisition Cost Project Cost Concept J $2,698,092 $18,362,691 Concept L $3,353,096 $18,967,402 Concept M $3,748,169 $19,457,768 / $19,578,649 The overall estimated project costs are conservative and as mentioned previously the site acquisition contingencies are also conservative. The appraisal of the current courthouse and state attorney sites reflect a total value of $1,175,000. The individual site values are as follows: $375,000, state attorney; $350,000, courthouse annex; and $450,000 courthouse. At the December 18 meeting, the preceding will be elaborated on, along with graphics. In addition, the appraisers Armfield and Napier will be present to address any specific questions concerning the appraisals. If a final determination is made concerning site and development concept, staff will immediately proceed with initiating the land acquisition process. Also scheduled for the December 18 meeting is our recommendation for implementation of the design and construction phases. The recommendation -is to utilize the program/ construction management approach. Upon approval of the specific approach, staff will immediately release the appropriate RFPs. Administrator Chandler assured the Board that staff has met with our appraisers, gone over this entire matter with them, and feels they have solid appraisals with which we can be extremely comfortable. Commissioner Bird asked if staff and the consultants feel that any of the 3 concepts could work and satisfy our needs and is the basic difference in the costs of acquiring additional land and displacing businesses. Administrator Chandler confirmed that any of the 3 would meet the need. From a staff perspective, they feel Concept L would work out very well. Concept M provides more than is needed, and they do not feel Concept J is as functional or that it will provide as much flexibility as the other 2. Staff, therefore, would recommend Concept L. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the Administrator suggested that Concept M has the most flexibility, and when we are talking 40 W M about such a long range project as building an 18-20 million dollar project, why would we not give a tremendous weight to flexibility? Administrator Chandler advised that staff has done that. He agreed that Concept M does give the ultimate degree of flexibil- ity, but Concept L meets our needs both now and well into the future, and from a dollars and cents standpoint that would be the route to go. There is about half a million dollar difference in terms of land between L and M, and staff has tried to be conservative in their figures. Concepts L, M, and J, are as follows: U_ El ir i r " ti St —� ..'.�-� —[o,w sru[t ■ .. __totes aruat_ 7I y 41 MOK I I ra D I I , Hr -.1 F. 11- LUS III L if nr U. O '�1' . i � 1 � i I �' I' 7M*E 11, Siltt JUDLOIAIA�YAt4tq?R CAN A (.� I Iq al=�' �� � � �=moi 1 oil 17-M C -T - �I 5d 12 p lilt :1 . p:5-: FMr .I J,� 1INIld! Indian River County Or W c1:1 r"D 1INIld! Indian River County Or W c1:1 r"D Commissioner Wheeler felt what is a little misleading with Concept L is that it does not include the Brackett property to the north of the State Attorney's office although it is drawn in, but he does feel that L is the best project. Commissioner Scurlock asked if L has us with no out parcels involved, and this was confirmed. Chairman Eggert commented that the only problem she has with Concept M is that it takes up the City parking lot and it closes 15th Avenue. She personally would prefer to put a building square on a block rather than over a street. Commissioner Wheeler felt that no matter what we do with Concepts M or J, the parking for the Courthouse and the businesses is going to be a constant conflict. These concepts set the buildings practically on top of each other, and he likes the concept of moving the Courthouse away another half a block. He agreed with staff that L addresses all our needs, and he would support staff's recommendations. He also liked having the building square on the block rather than closing 15th Avenue. Commissioner Bird asked if we keep the State Attorney's building and the old Courthouse and Annex, are we still convinced that we need to build a 75,000 sq. ft. building. Administrator Chandler believed that determination has been made based on our prior discussions, which confirmed this would be needed. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing Vero Beach Printing Company, which is owned by the Graves family and for more than 3 decades has been located at 1525 21st Street. It is one of the few businesses that still exist from the time when he was in Vero Beach High School. Concept J is the only one that preserves the integrity of that business, and Vero Beach Printing Company is not a willing seller to say the least. Attorney O'Haire felt that the more important fact is that here we have a business that has been in place for more than 30 years, and when the aim is to redevelop the downtown area, he felt the question is should a concept be adopted that is going to destroy something that is alive and vital in downtown Vero Beach? He does not feel it should, and, therefore, he is here today to ask 43 DEC 18199Q eooK. �� FA.GL, -w DEC ib �WO the County to adopt a concept that will not impact the Vero Beach Printing Company. Commissioner Scurlock noted that it is always difficult to talk to anyone when it is their property, and he has known the Graves family for a long time. It does seem to him, however, that having that out parcel sitting there is ultimately a time bomb ticking that will have to be dealt with in terms of the future. We are going to have to continue to expand the downtown area; so we will have to deal with this at some time. Commissioner Bird asked if it would be fair and accurate to say that Concept J requires the least acquisition of buildings and displacement of businesses of any of the concepts. Administrator Chandler agreed there is no question of that, and it also is unquestionably the least expensive route to go since you would be acquiring less land. Commissioner Bird felt that this Commission can't be faulted for taking a step forward and he does not want us to be short- sighted, but he also felt that we have to be reasonable as to how far we go towards buying land that may or may not be needed 20 years from now. Commissioner Scurlock believed that the problem with Concept J is that it moves the facility much further to the east and very close to the existing businesses, which he felt is a detriment. Commissioner Wheeler brought up the eyesore created by leaving the old market and laundry building in front of our beautiful new library. He felt that there is still plenty of property left in the downtown area for a business and that there is not that much area to build a Courthouse and a parking garage. He personally would not support any plan that did not keep the continuity with our Courthouse facility and the parking garage. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that, if it is any consolation to Mr. Graves, the County will pay his relocation expenses, including moving the heavy presses, and there is no reason his business can't continue another 30 years. Attorney O'Haire continued to argue the trauma to the business, and Commissioner Scurlock commented that he had no doubt that we will have to pay heavily for this property. 44 Phil Yaccuci, Public Defender for the 19th Judicial Circuit, informed the Board that he is here to ask the Board to consider the future space determinations needed both for the Public Defender and for the States Attorney. He stressed that the Public Defender's office has a large number of citizens who come in to them every day, and they need to be in proximity with the State Attorney's office because they are required by law to cooperate with them in a number of areas. Commissioner Wheeler assured him that the space needs study done in 1987, which was done in cooperation with the former Public Defender, the States Attorney, the Clerk, the Judges, etc., addressed the space needs for each office. That study simply addressed the actual square footage required to accommodate everything, and when we get to the design phase, we will contact everyone involved to get their input as to how this should be set up. Tom Schlitt, realtor associated with Mr. Flick, had some concerns. He noted that he tried again to recontact most of the people they had talked to, and they are still very willing to work out something with the Commission. He believed the reason Mr. Graves is so concerned is that we are working in an area that for the last 10 years has had depressed sales consistently rather than fair market value if you took all office locations into consideration. He felt what might happen in Mr. Graves' case is that when he tried to relocate, he probably would be talking to someone who is not really interested in selling and can get a higher price. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the other option is that we don't build the Courthouse downtown and his property continues to degradate in value. He felt sure that the people in that area will get more for their property #han they would if we weren't building that facility because when we do finally locate the facility there, the property in that area will appreciate rapidly. The one big decision this Commission has to face is that if we are going to locate and try to do something in that downtown area, we are going to displace some people. The other option is that we can always move the building over near the new Health Building where we already own the property. Administrator Chandler again stressed that by law we have to go by appraised values, and staff feels extremely comfortable 45 DEC 19 � boor, L- DEC i o 10W with the appraisals we have received. Excluding relocation costs, closing costs, etc., we are talking $600,000 an acre, Mr. Schlitt felt if the $600,000 per acre cited by the Administrator is a true figure, that is a bargain compared to other commercial properties around town because you can have your building go up 501. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that there is a process in place for anyone who doesn't feel they are getting a fair value, but Mr. Schlitt again -made the further point that someone who has to relocate may not be able to find something equal to his present property at a comparable market price. William Stegkemper, county resident since 1949, commented that he remembered the downtown as it was then and he would like to see it that way again. He personally felt that Concept J, which does not affect the Vero Beach Printing Company, is the better plan and the way to go. He felt there is very little government can do that private enterprise can't do better and more efficiently, and he urged that the Board go back to Concept J which is what Mr. Flick presented. Commissioner Wheeler believed the reason that Mr. Flick's plan did not encompass the Printing Company property is that he knew there was an unwilling seller and he did not have the power of condemnation. Chairman Eggert at this point determined that no one else wished to be heard. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to approve Concept L. Commissioner Bird wished to know, whatever Concept we decide to go with, what the next instruction to staff would be about how we want to proceed towards acquisition, condemnation, etc. Administrator Chandler advised that our intent, based on appraisals, would be to make offers for each of the individual parcels involved and get responses. Commissioner Bird stated that he would rather not say today that we are going with one particular concept whether or not we have willing sellers. He first would rather have ars idea of how 46 many of these can be purchased within reason of the values we have set on them. Commissioner Scurlock felt this can go on forever and that we need to get on with it. He commented that he was in the Courthouse recently, and it is probably the crummiest facility in the four county area. Those people working there are really stressed, and we need to pick a concept and go with it. Commissioner Wheeler stressed the hours that have been spent working on this project and developing a concept; the public hearings that have been held, -etc. He felt that we have had a tremendous amount of public input; he feels totally comfortable with Concept L; and he is ready to move ahead. Commissioner Bird asked if he still will be comfortable with it, if the negotiations come back and it turns out to be 5 million to buy the property needed rather than 3.3 million. Commissioner Wheeler confirmed that he would because we have good appraisals; there is a process to go through; and the courts will decide on it. He felt even if that happened, we still will be under budget for what we have allowed with our contingency. The majority seem to be willing sellers, but naturally all will be looking for the most they can get out of their properties. He, however, is confident that we will come in at budget or below. Chairman Eggert agreed. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that we can either have Administrator Chandler's people go out and get signed contracts to sell to be brought back to the Board or the Board can tell us today to file a quick taking for all the property you want and get title within Z months and then deal with the valuation later through the courts. Commissioner Scurlock believed we are trying to take a friendly approach and felt that approach should be exhausted first. Administrator Chandler advised that it would not be his recommendation to go out and immediately file for condemnation; we certainly should make offers first. The Administrator felt one thing we have to keep in mind, if we are looking to get into 47 DEC 18 199 R�u� ��,,.: 4' II DEC 18 1990 the design phase, is that it would be a waste of dollars and cents to get an architect on board if we still don't have a site or concept. He reiterated that he does feel comfortable with the numbers set out in his memo; he has been on the line with any number of people as to how realistic those figures are; and he does feel that we need to make a determination on site and concept at this time. Chairman Eggert agreed that it is decisionmaking time, and she is totally supportive of Concept L. Commissioner Bird stated his preference for Concept J, and expressed his hope that some day the Commission will get its due for buying a very expensive piece of land to put the Courthouse on in order to help revitalize the downtown area because there are a lot of other places in the county we can put that facility and not pay $20 a square foot for the land. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if he supported any other concept, it would be Concept M which is even more flexible and more expensive. Attorney Vitunac believed the cost actually is more like $14 a square foot. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to approve Concept L. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commis- sioner Bird voting in opposition. Commissioner Bird explained that he voted in opposition only because he preferred Concept J. NEW COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY CONCEPTS Administrator Chandler made the following presentation. referring to staff memos of December 7th and 14th: 48 DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR `` FROM: H.T. !'SONNY" DEAN, DIRECT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: NEW COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY CONCEPTS BACKGROUND: There are currently three types of delivery concepts being considered for construction of the proposed Indian River County Courthouse. They are: 1. Traditional 2. Design -Build 3. Program Management/Construction Manager A brief synopsis of each is provided. TRADITIONAL This concept allows for the County to hire an architect; through the selection process as outlined in Florida Statues, to design and engineer the project. The architect will program and design the facility, prepare it for bid, and make a recommendation for award when bids are received. During design process the architect will estimate budget for the project but actual cost will not be known until bids have been received from prospective general contractors. During construction there is heavy reliance on the architect to handle day-to-day administration of the contract and to monitor the _ contractors performance. This is the concept that has bed'h used for all county projects in the past. The only deviation has been the utilization of a modified form of construction manager during construction.' of the four facility projects this past year. Some of the advantages and disadvantages are: Advantages 1. Most traditionally accepted system. 2.. Competition may be maximized. 3. Overall price determined prior to awarding contract. 4. Less county involvement during construction. Disadvantages 1. Does not allow for construction expertise. 2. Overall length of project is maximized. 3. Owner in a three way adversary position with the architect and general contractor during construction. 4. Change or unforeseen difficulties often lead to disputes and/or litigation which will drive up cost of project. 5. Does not allow for value engineering during design. Estimated cost would be 7-8 percent for the architect and 3-4 percent for contractor's profit. 49 0 F,,I'r.= � DEC 18 1990 DEC 1c") 190R IQ00K :? ,',�-q E, � DESIGN -BUILD This concept calls for the owner to be very involved in the beginning. Initially, adoption of rules or ordinances for award of design -build contracts is required by State Law. Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA), then requires a two step process for hiring of a firm to design -build a project. The first step. involves the contracting with a firm to provide the "design criteria package" which is defined as concise, performance -oriented drawings or specification of this project. Included is such information as site legal description, survey data, interior space requirements, material quality standards, schematic layouts, conceptual design criteria, etc.. The purpose is to furnish sufficient information for design -build firms to prepare a bid or response to our Request For Proposal. The selection of this firm involves following the normal CCNA process. The second step would involve selection of design -build firm utilizing the RFP prepared by the design -criteria firm. The selection process for design -build firm would basically be the same as the first step except the RFP could require a quoted price to perform the services. The firm selected has total responsibility for designing, constructing and delivering a completed project. The advantages and disadvantages are: Advantages 1. Only one overall contract to deal with. 2..14inimum coordination by County between construction and design. 3. Construction time may be reduced through phased construction. 4. Construction expertise may be incorporated in -the design. 5. Implementation of changes are simplified. 6. Total cost is guaranteed prior to bid. Disadvantages 1. The County has minimal involvement and less control over the project. This could result in an end product not exactly desired. 2. County may not be aware of problems in the project if the designer and builder are one in the same. This checks and balances issue is a legitimate concern for the County. 3. Since, the design -build contractor prepares the construction documents, the County may have little control or flexibility for design changes after signing the contract. 4. Concept does not allow for value engineering controlled by the owner to reduce cost. 5. If performed under a lump sum or guaranteed maximum price, quality and performance may suffer. If the project is done on a cost-plus basis; the County may be extensively involved in cost verification. Estimated cost above construction hard dollars is 2-3 percent for the project program and 8-10 percent for the desiqn-build firm. 50 PROGRAM/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (P/CM) Although there are a number of P/CM approaches, the one under consideration would involve separate selection of a Program Construction Manger, Architect, and Construction Company. The P/CM and Architect would be selected through the CCNA process. The P/CM provides management of the project and assumes responsibility .for cost schedule and quality control during all phases. The P/CM is totally involved as the County's agent from design to completion. A three -party team of the owner, P/CM and architect approach is used to insure a more economical and efficient project is the final result. A contractor is selected through the County's normal bidding process. Some advantages and disadvantages to this concept are: Advantages 1. Special construction skills will be used during design and construction of the project. 2. Independent evaluation of costs, schedules, performance and changes, helps insure decisions made in best interest of the County. 3. Opportunities for cost control and value engineering are significantly increased. 4. Adversary relationships are replaced with a team approach. Disadvantages 1. County delegates some project control. 2. county is required to fulfill certain responsibilities in a timely manner. 3. Success depends on the planning, scheduling, estimating and management skills of the construction manager. Estimated cost—of the concept is 4 to 6 percent of construction figure for P/CM, 7 to 8 percent for Architect, and 3 to 4 percent for Contractor's profit. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has evaluated each of the concepts described above in an effort to determine which would be the most beneficial and most economical for the Courthouse project. In the process, extensive discussions have been held with contractors, architects, construction management firms, design build firms, University of Florida Engineering Department, and other interested parties. Similar projects were visited., contract documents and specifications reviewed, together with results of application of the various concepts. All the data received from these various operations have indicated that a complex project such as a courthouse would best be designed and constructed using the Program Manager/Construction Manager concept. During design, special interest groups, i.e. judges, clerk of the court, state attorney, etc., will be providing a tremendous amount of input to accommodate their needs. The input to assist the owner an economical and efficient project. for the owner to have this much design. . P/CM can mediate and evaluate this d architect to provide the most The other concepts do not allow expertise at the various stages of 51 BOOK E �a� EG It should be remembered that significant savings on a construction project are made during the design phase and through value engineering. Value Engineering is defined as qualified engineers evaluating the various systems during design in a building project and making a determination which type system will function best in that environment with less cost from both short and long range projections. This is a very effective, recognized method of cost reduction in any building project. A project such as this calls for a tremendous amount of staff time with land acquisition, design, construction, etc. A P/CM will have the resources and time to coordinate the various phases of design and construction of this project. At the same time the P/CM maintains control along with checks and balances through the team approach. Based on the project size, cost, staff involvement required and type facility it is recommended that the construction management concept be adopted. DATE: December 14, 1990 TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THRU: James E. Chandler County Administrator FROM: H. T. "Sonny" Dean, DirectQ o SUBJ: Indian River County Courthouse Project Delivery System Estimated Cost The Master Plan as submitted, indicated an Architect and Engineering fee of $1,060,708 predicated on 10% of their estimated judicial building cost, but not the parking requirements. Staff recalculated the A & E fees using a estimated percentage of 8% on all construction cost, and included a 5% figure for the Program/Construction Manager. The results of these calculations, as shown in the attachment, indicate an amount more than was allowed in the various concepts of the Master Plan. While investigating the various delivery systems for this project, it was common knowledge throughout the industry that a Program/Construction Manager's fee will be recovered through savings in design, value engineering, change orders, etc. However, rather than reflecting the P/CM fee as a "wash", the attached chart indicates the worst case scenario rather than project savings. 52 � � r COURTHOUSE PROJECT — DELIVERY SYSTEM ESTIMATED COST A&ECOST®8% P/CM COST ® 5 % SUB TOTAL LESS MASTER PLAN ALLOWANCE DEFICIT CONCEPT CONCEPT CONCEPT CONCEPT J L M X $1,012,884 $1,012,884 $1,012,884 $1,012,884 $673,762 $671,248 $676,012 $682,056 $1,686,646 $1,684,132 $1,688,896 $1,694,940 $1,060,708 $1,060,708 $1,060,708 $1,060,708 + ($625,938) ($623,424) ($628,188) ($634,232) MASTER PLAN TOTAL COST $18,362,691 $18,967,402 $19,457,768 $19,578,649 PLUS DEFICIT $625,938 $623,424 $628,184, $634,232 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $18,988,629 $19,590,826 $20,085,952 $20,212,881 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to adopt the construction manage- ment approach as recommended by staff. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone wished to be heard. David Balz representing The Haskell Company of Jacksonville, Florida, informed the Board that they are design -builders, and he commended the Board for looking at the various approaches. Haskell Company does not purport that Design -Build is perfect for every project, but they do feel there are some benefits from that approach that could accrue to the county for this particular project as they have in a very, very similar facility, Haskell Company did in Volusia County. Mr. Balz would like the Board to consider that there is an opportunity here to combine the benefits of both Program Management and Design -Build. He explained that the Statutes on Design -Build provide you have someone called a Design Criteria Professional be your advocate in the process and the Statutes are open in terms of scope that professional can have. What he would recommend is that the Board consider broadening the scope of the Design Criteria Professional's role to include many of the responsibilities shown here as those of the Program Manager. He noted that by doing so, you could expand that professional's role to be your advocate throughout the entire process. Mr. Balz then discussed how change orders occur and felt that reduction of change orders is something that the Board might want to consider as a benefit of Design -Build. He pointed out that another 53 RUOK F',1Gr 39", r ®EC 18 1990 NOGR ►P� F'1�E .�� I benefit of this approach is time. He has heard a timeframe of 1994 for completion for this project. Volusia County's Justice Center, a very similar project of 80,000 sq. ft., was a 14 month design and construction schedule. It was Mr. Balz' recommenda- tion that the Board give some consideration to combining the roll of the Program Manager and the benefits of Design -Build into a process that will deliver the project in a timely fashion with a minimum of project stress and at a competitive cost. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff has analyzed this, and Administrator Chandler stated that in the 2 years he has been here, he does not know of any particular issue that we have looked at more closely. Staff has talked to very many firms and counties about this in the last 18 months, and to try to get an unbiased view, they even pulled in the University of Florida Department of Engineering. The bottom line is that staff feels we can best be represented by going the Program Management route. They like the idea of more checks and balances. As to the timeframe of 1994, it is hoped that once we get into this we can improve that schedule. We have a Construction Manager on the 4 projects we currently have ongoing, and on all 4 of those projects, we are on schedule, within budget, and with change orders minimized. The Administrator stressed that staff feels our best interest is represented by the checks and balances of Program/Construction Management. Commissioner Wheeler confirmed that we have spent a lot of hours on this. He noted that he did go to Volusia County, and he agreed that Haskell did an outstanding job up there. He does agree that under certain conditions Design -Build has its advantages, but at this point, he still prefers the Construction Manager concept for us. Clerk Jeff Barton asked if it is his understanding of the Motion on the floor that now we would be going out for RFPs for both a project manager and architectural services. Administrator Chandler stated that was correct and advised that the plan is to release RFPs for Construction Manager in early January and then a few weeks later, the.RFPs for the architect. He assured the Clerk that we want to expedite both. Clerk Barton wished to know when they were anticipating having the contracts approved, and Administrator Chandler felt, 54 s after going through the required selection process, we are probably looking at having both on board in March. Clerk Barton noted that he had written a letter some time ago urging that we do proceed with these RFPs because no matter where we build the facility, we will need these services. He received no response nor did the Chief Judge when he wrote. Administrator Chandler advised that he did have such a letter from the Chief Judge but not from the Clerk. He has responded to the Chief Judge, and he reiterated his feeling that it would have been an exercise in futility to get these profes- sionals on board until site and concept decisions had been made. Clerk Barton was happy to hear that a timetable of 3 months was anticipated in obtaining these services. Commissioner Wheeler advised that we have expanded the Selection Committee to include both Clerk Barton and the Judge. Clerk Barton stressed the bad conditions at the Courthouse and the adverse comments we are getting about it from both the Judiciary and the public and urged the Board to keep moving forward. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to adopt the Construction Management approach. It was voted on and carried unanimously. REZONING TO A-1 (SOUTH SIDE 65TH ST. - BELLSOUTH MOBILITY TOWER) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 55 DEC lb `J90 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 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/d44dax'of''A!D. 19 ✓ 1 (BUsiness Manaer) �-� (Clerk of 4heCircuit- Court, Indian River Courfly. Florida) (SEAL) -7 boost Fa,E 66.th S • cti i a , t „�. Subject .. ! Property� NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of. a county ordinance rezoning land from: RS -6, Single -Family Residential District and RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District to A-1, Agri- cultural District. The subject property is owned by Indian River County and leased by BellSouth Mobility. The subject property is located on the south side of 65th Street, approximately 1320 feet west of the FEC Railroad R/W, and contains approximately 19.77 acres. The subject property lies in the NE '/4 of the NW % of the SW '/4 of Sectin 10, Township 32S. Range 39E, lying and being in Indian Aiver County, Florida. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, Decem- ber 18, 1990, at 9:05 a.m. The Board of County Commissioners may recommend a less intense zoning district than the district requested provided it is within the same general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings is made, which Includes testimony and evi. dence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Nov. 28. 1990 744590 Community Development Director Keating reviewed the following: 56 TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: Sasan Rohani S<< - Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek Staff Planner, Lon Range DATE: December 10, 1990 DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ob rt M. Keatin , AI Community Development irector Planning SUBJECT: BELLSOUTH MOBILITY REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 19.77 ACRES FROM RS -6 AND RM -6 TO A-1 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 18, 1990. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to rezone approximately 19.77 acres from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (6 units/acre) and" RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (6 units/acre) to A-1, Agricultural District (1 unit/5 acres). The property is located on the south side of 65th Street approximately 1320 feet west of the FEC Railroad right-of-way. The property is owned by Indian River County and leased to BellSouth Mobility. The applicant intends to construct a transmission tower on the property. On October 25, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the approval of this request. Existinq Land Use Pattern The property presently has two uses. The northeast corner of the property contains an Indian River County transfer station for drop- off of solid waste materials and recyclable materials. The remainder of the parcel is vacant, overgrown land. The parcel also has split zoning, the west + 10 acres being zoned RS -6 and the east + 10 acres zoned RM -6. The same zoning pattern is present on property north and immediately south. East of the subject property is Vero Millwork, a contractor trades building, which is zoned IL, Light Industrial District. West and South of the subject property is an active citrus grove; the property to the west is zoned A-1 and to the south is zoned RS -6. The property to the north is vacant. Future -Land Use Pattern The subject property is designated as L-2, Low Density, on the county future land use map. This designation permits low density residential zoning categories up to 6 units per acre. Adjacent properties to the west and south also share this land use designation. Property to the north has an L-11 Low Density land use designation, and the property adjacent to the east is within the commercial/industrial land use designation. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM). Utilities and Services The site is within the urban service area of the county; however, water and sewer lines do not extend to the site. 57 E C I Fr - DEC 18 1990 P�GK �� r A„r ,3 4.1 Transportation System The property fronts South Winter Beach Road (65th Street), a collector road on the county thoroughfare plan map. South Winter Beach Road is paved and has sufficient right-of-way for this portion of the roadway. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the potential impacts on surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems,.and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This section will also consider alternatives for development of the site. Compatibility With Existing Service and Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. Transportation A review of the traffic impacts resulting from the development of the property indicates that the existing level of service would not be lowered. The maximum build out permitted by zoning would be 4 units, which would generate approximately 40 average daily trips. This volume would maintain the existing LOS "C". - Utilities The area is not currently serviced with water or wastewater. The site is within the urban service area, and the applicant may purchase and reserve these services through the utilities department for such time when services become available. Down zoning to A-1 will reduce the impact and would allow the use of wells and septic tanks, while regional system is not available. Solid waste service includes pick up by private operator and disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the landfill has a 5 -year remaining capacity, and. the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. - Drainage All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements of the county stormwater management ordinance. Together, these regulations limit the potential for on-site and off-site flooding and damage. Recreation Recreation Level of Service applies only to the residential development. Since agricultural zoning allows a limited amount of residential use, the recreation concurrency test is applied to agricultural zoning requests. A review of county recreation facilities and projected demand as a result of this rezoning indicates that adopted levels of service will be maintained. 58 I_ I M RINNAT VQ TQ In reviewing this request, staff has examined the existing land use pattern and the future land use pattern set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As Policy 1.12 of the Future Land Use Element states, agricultural uses may be developed in Low -Density Residential areas. In addition, Future Land Use Policy 6.3 allows "the continuation of agricultural uses east of I-95 where they serve as or enhance open space and green belt areas of the County". Agricultural uses currently exist adjacent to the site and most likely will continue to exist. Residential uses, however, do not exist in close proximity to the property. For these reasons and because there are no public services available to this part of the County, Staff feels that a lower land use would be consistent with surrounding uses. CONCLUSION The subject property is located in an area which does not'have the necessary facilities and services to support a higher density development at the present time, and the lower density designation conforms to adjacent uses. The proposed change in zoning would be consistent with county policies and would not create a noticeable change in the existing land uses in the area. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed. zoning would be reasonable and not negatively impact adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone property to A- 1. Commissioner Scurlock inquired if there has been any FAA comment on the tower as he understood they are objecting to it. Director heating advised that we have not received the site plan in yet, but the applicant apparently is processing his FAA application and it appears there are some problems with the height and the location of the tower. Commissioner Scurlock noted that in any case downzoning only reduces the density in the area. Commissioner Bird felt in fairness to the applicant, we leased them the land for the purpose of erecting a tower, and he now felt we should give them the zoning they need. ®C 1 199 59 kooK F"r DEC I b 19s® Director Keating confirmed staff recommends approval, The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTICN by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 90-31 rezoning the property described in the above memo to A-1 as requested by Bellsouth Mobility. ORDINANCE NO. 90-31 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6, AND RS -6 TO A-1, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 65YH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET WEST OF THE FEC RAILROAD R/W, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, .the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the he4einafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The east } of the NW I of the SW } of Section 10, Township 32 south, Range 39 east, Indian River County, Florida, less rights-of-way of record. Be changed from RM -6 and RS -6 to A-1. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River.County, Florida, on this 18 day of December , 1990. 60 This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 28 day of November , 1990 for a public hearing to be held on the 18 day of December , 1990 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Dick Bird Aye Commissioner Richard N. BirdyK a-- Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Caroly�'K. Egge Chairman REZONING REQUEST (WINDSOR POLO/101 ACRES TO RM -6 The Chairman announced that this item was withdrawn from today's Agenda and is to be rescheduled to a time certain on February 26th. REQUEST FROM INDIAN RIVER ARTS COUNCIL The Board reviewed the following request from the Indian River Arts Council: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 17, 1990 FILE: THRU: James E. Chandler CD County Administrator SUBJECT: RIVER UEST ARTS FROM OUNCILN c. FROM: Randy Dowling rREFERENCES: Ass t. to County Administrato BACKGROUND The Indian River Arts Council contacted this office on December 17, 1990 to request the use of all County Courthouse parking on Saturday, January 12, 1991 for a food court area for their annual Bourbon Street Festival. The Arts Council has already obtained or will obtain all necessary city permits, food handling permits, and insurance. requirements as mandated by the County. The Courthouse staff has been contacted and has no scheduling conflicts. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board approve this request. Nancy Offutt of the Arts Council will attend the Board meeting to answer any questions. 61 poor G� DEC 18 1990 DEC b 420 BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted the Arts Council permission for the use of all County Courthouse parking on Saturday, January 12, 1991. INDUSTRIAL REV. BONDS - ESCAMBIA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 12, 1990 SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND - ESCAMBIA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM WITH WILLIAM R. HOUGH AND CO. FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director 1P - DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION Last year William R. Hough and Co., underwriters, made a presentation to both the Economic Development Committee and Financial Advisory Committee regarding County participation in a low to moderate income single family housing program. This program would involve the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds; specifically, the funding would come from District 9B allocations. Although the Economic Development Committee and Financial Advisory Committee approved the participation in the housing program, William R. Hough and Company requested a waiver of both the application and administrative fee. The Board: of County Commissioners did not waive the fees; therefore, we did not participate in the program in the 1990 year. After discussions with William R. Hough and Company regarding the fees it seems there was the misunderstanding that the fee was an on going annual fee. William R. Hough and Company is now willing to pay the $1,000 administrative fee plus the .5% of the face value of the bonds (.5% up to a maximum of $10,000). We received a letter from Raymond James and Associates, Inc. dated November 23, 1990 - offering Indian River County an opportunity to participate in the Leon County Housing Finance Authority Single Family Mortgage purchase program. ANALYSIS Industrial Revenue bond allocations are released by district each year beginning in January on a first come first served basis. Indian River County is in district nine with St. Lucie, Martin, and Okeechobee and the allocation for 1990 was about $9.2 million. Since we received the letter from Raymond James only on November 27, 1990 we would not have time to make presentations to the Economic Development Council; Financial Advisory Committee, a selection committee and then have the resolutions and agreements approved by the Board of County Commissioners before January 2, 1991. 62 If we were to go through a selection process between William R. Hough and Company and Raymond James and Associates we would not have our application into the state by January 2, 1991 and potentially would lose the Industrial Revenue Bond allocation and could not participate in the low income housing program again in 1991. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Inducement Resolution and Interlocal agreement with Escambia Housing Authority. Chairman Eggert believed this was presented before and approved in concept subject to the Finance Advisory Committee reviewing the fees. Commissioner Scurlock advised we have a standard fee schedule for this. On the original proposal the timing was such we could not get that approved through the other counties involved. This time that is not the case. He explained that these are the "only guys on the block," and it is our only shot at some low cost interest money. He noted that Ed Bullitt of Hough 8 Co. has spent a lot of time helping us put this together. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to adopt.Resolution 90-184 approving the issuance by the Escambia County Housing Finance Authority of not exceeding $60,000,000 Single Family Mortgage Bonds, etc., and to approve the Inter- local Agreement as recommended by staff. Al Garbeth of the Citrus Bank informed the Board that he is in the mortgage lending department and has had a number of realtors call and ask about this program. The Citrus Bank is in favor such a program, but being such a new bank, he doubted they will participate initially until they see the actual fees and costs. The rates are coming down right now. They are in the business to make loans, and are much in favor of some type of low cost housing in the area. Chairman Eggert believed we do have other banks that are interested. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 63 PUCK .�j F�tuC. • p e:% Fr- -7 D E 1990 noK. Face24 RESOLUTION NO. -20--J84 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ESCAMBIA COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE ESCAMBIA COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE ESCAMBIA COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF NOT EXCEEDING $60,000,000 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991, PURSUANT TO SECTION 147(f) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED; APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF A PORTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND VOLUME ALLOCATION FOR SUCH PURPOSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 159, Part IV, Florida Statutes (the "Act") authorized counties to create housing finance authorities to exercise powers of the Act within their boundaries or outside their boundaries with the consent of the governing body of the territory outside their area of operations; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County, Florida, on May 1, 1980, adopted Ordinance No. 80-11, by which it created the Escambia County Housing Finance Authority (the "Issuing Authority") and authorized the Issuing Authority to exercise all powers under the Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida hereby finds a shortage of affordable housing and capital for investment therein and a need for a housing finance authority to function in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, it is not practicable at this time under existing Florida and federal laws and regulations for a single local agency or county to issue its bonds for the purpose of implementing a single family housing program, although the shortage of such single family housing and capital for investment therein is continuing in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Issuing Authority has by resolution duly adopted on August 7, 1990 (the "Authorizing Resolution") authorized the issuance of not exceeding $60,000,000 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 1991 (the "Bonds"), and has indicated to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County its willingness to exercise its powers in Indian River County to finance single family housing therein as permitted by the Act upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") requires public approval of certain SAID RESOLUTION 90-184 W / ATTACHED FULLY SIGNED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 64 w M 77 RESOLUTIONS FOR PAVING_ &_ DRA I NAGE_ IMPROVEMENTS(FRANGIPANI _ DRIVE, 39TH AVE. FROM 6TH TO 8TH ST., & 1ST PL. FROM 27TH TO 24TH AVE.) Michelle Gentile, C.E.T., reviewed the following, noting that this is just required to adopt the providing Resolutions and the date and time for the public hearing: ----------------------------------------- TO: James Chandler County Administrator n THROUGH: FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer }�.� n �- , px-) Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution to Provide for the Paving and Drainage Improvements to: 1) Frangipani Drive from CR510 to Magnolia Drive 2) 39th Avenue from 6th Street to 8th Street 3) 1st Place from 27th Avenue to 24th Avenue DATE: December 6, 1990 ------- ------------------------------------------------- ------- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County Public Works Department has received petitions for road paving and drainage improvements for the following: 1) Frangipani Drive from CR510 to Magnolia Drive 2) 39th Avenue from 6th Street to 8th Street 3) 1st Place from 27th Avenue to 24th Avenue A separate resolution will need to be adopted to hold a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount ;of the assessment against each property owner. This Public Hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 29, 1991 at 9:05 A.M: in the County Commission Chambers. An assessment roll and plat has been prepared and filed with the Clerk to the Board. _ RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that motions be made to: 1) Adopt the resolution providing for the paving and drainage improvements for the projects subject to the terms outlined in the resolution. The applicable interest rate shall be 12% at the time the final assessment roll is approved. 2) Allocate $286,391.43 from the Petition Paving Account #173-214-541-035.39. 3) Road Projects will be advertised for bid and constructed by a private contractor. 4) Adopt a resolution setting the time and place of the Public Hearing. 65 ��r;) DEC�,. � ���� ROOK � [AC -1 J FF'_ DEC TJ�90 BUUP� V..n• F�Ai �t e�P-�'l.i' ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu- tions 90-185, 90-186, 90-187 and 90-188, as required by the Paving and Drainage Improvements proposed for: Frangipani Dr. from CR510 to Magnolia Dr. 39th AVe. from 6th to 8th Sts., and 1st Place from 27th Ave. to 24th Ave. RESOLUTION 90-.x.85 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PLEASE TARE NOTICE that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River county, Florida, will hold a Public Hearing at 9:05 AM on Tuesday, January 29, 1991 in the Commission Chambers located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida to discuss the advisability, cost and the amount of the assessments against each property for paving and drainage improvements, to: 1) Frangipani Drive from C.R. 510 to Magnolia Drive 2) 39th Avenue from 6th Street to 6th Street 3) 1st Place from 27th Avenue to 24th Avenue RESOLUTION NO. 90— 186 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO FRANGIPANI DRIVE (BETWEEN C.R. 510 AND MAGNOLIA DRIVE) IN OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED. RESOLUTION NO. 90-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 39TH AVENUE (BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND STH STREET), IN CITRUS GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING .THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED. RESOLUTION NO. 90-188 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 1ST PLACE (BETWEEN 27TH AVENUE AND 24TH AVENUE), PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED. ABOVE RESOLUTIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 66 APPROVAL OF KINGS HWY. STUDY 13ETLVEEN_ SR60_ &_ OSLO _ROAD Public Works Director Davis made the staff presentation: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director / FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E., Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Kings Highway (58th Avenue) Study between SR 60 and Oslo Road DATE: December 10, 1990 FILE: 58th.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Gee & Jensen, under contract with Indian River County, has completed the corridor improvement study for Kings Highway between SR60 and Oslo Road. The attached report provides three alternate alignments. The width of additional right-of-way that the County must acquire to implement improvements, will be determined by which alignment is selected. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The following alternatives are presented in the report: Alternate "A" promotes a four lane divided section that is basically using the current power pole alignment as *,the center line of the roadway. The intersection of SR60 and 58th Avenue remains in the same position, while the alignment going southward, shifts using reverse curves to the west to place the power poles in the median. While saving the expense of relocating the power poles and possible the use of guardrail, Alternate "A" requires considerably more right-of-way. The cost of the additional right-of-way could easily displace the savings=- in construction costs. The main advantage of this alternative is that it can easily be expanded. Since the projected need for six lanes should not be until well beyond the design year, the ease of expansion loses its importance. In addition to this, placing the power poles in the median would create an unsafe condition. Alternate "B" promotes lane) that is positions lanes. This alternate w roadway alignment to th controlled by providing the existing power poles This alignment will work Road. a three lan d to allow ill not requ e west. a 30' clear and the sou well connec e section (middle turn for expansion of future ire the shifting of the The alignment will be recovery area between thbound edge of travel. ting to SR60 and to Oslo Alternate "B" does not increase the capacity of the road immediately. Its ultimate capacity is equal to the initial capacity of Alternatives "A" and "B". Alternate "C" promotes a four lane section between the power poles and the Lateral "B" canal. The northbound two lanes will be located along the same alignment as the existing roadway, This alignment uses the Right-of-way the most efficiently and will be the least disruptive in maintaining 67 DEC IS 1990 BO��� ' fou:tr Q d BOOK 82 FA,C .31J j C-' the flow of traffic during construction. This alternative provides an increase in capacity for the least amount of money while still retaining the flexibility to be expanded to six lanes if the need arises in the future. The estimated detention pond area for Alternate "B" and Alternate "C", as per the IRFWCD adopted interim criteria of two inches per 24 hours during the 25 -year storm, is 8.0 acres. Alternate "A" requires 9.4 acres. RECOMEMATIONS AND FUNDING Staff agrees with the Consultant's recommendation to select Alternate "C". It is recommended that the Board approve Alternate "C" with the provision that right-of-way be acquired in sufficient width to allow for expansion to six lanes if the need arises in the future. Commissioner Bird had three areas of concern - the power poles, the proximity to the canal which is so deep and so dangerous, and the possible existence of considerable areas of muck that could affect construction costs, and he wished to know if all these are addressed in all alternatives. Director Davis agreed that the poles are certainly a physical constraint on the west side of the roadway, but Alternate "C" does provide for a 4 lane median roadway east of the pole line, and they do not foresee Kings Highway needing more than this in this section for more than the 20 year planning horizon. The canal is to the east of the highway, and Director Davis advised that we have talked to the Drainage District about this. They are concerned about being able to maintain the canal, and we have provided an 18' green area between the back of the curb and the canal for maintenance operations. There is to be a continuous guard rail along the road the length of the project, and we may have to shift that guard rail a bit closer to the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding the canal possibly encroaching on road R/W, and Director Davis advised that the language in the instrument which conveyed the R/W for road purposes addresses the paramount rights of the drainage in the corridor, and it suggests a cooperative atmosphere between the District and the County. As to concern about muck, he noted that we will certainly have muck problems wherever we put the road. We will have to do some above -normal construction methods to compensate for these 68 r sections. Vie had this along the Ryanwood section and handled that by thickening up the base material. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Alternate "C" with the provision that R/W be acquired in sufficient width to allow for possible future expansion to 6 lanes, as recommended by staff. TREASURE SHORES PARK, PHASE I (PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN) The Board reviewed the following memo from Capital Projects Manager, Terry Thompson: TO: James E. Chandler, THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. County Administrator Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.-_11� Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Treasure Shores Park - Phase I Preliminary Site Plan DATE: December 6, 1990 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the December 6, 1990 regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee, the. Committee considered the Preliminary Site Plan for Treasure Shores Park as presented by Landscape Architect Bradley A. Smith. The Committee approved the plan with the provision that the following items be considered in the preparation of construction. drawings: 1. Provide drop off area near dune walkover so vehicles can stop and unload without obstructing the flow of traffic. 2. Consider alternatives to increase security at the northwest corner of the site (eliminate unauthorized foot traffic). 3. In one of the future phases, provide pedestrian access near the Phase I entrance road for foot traffic between the oceanfront area and the area west of AlA. ' 4. In one of the future phases, provide large pavilion with no tables that will accommodate 30-50• people. Facilities that allow groups to bring"in their own tables for birthday parties, wedding receptions, church groups, etc. are in high demand. The design contract for this project requires that the Consultant present the Preliminary Site Plan to the Board for approval. Construction drawings will be prepared based on the approved Preliminary Site Plan. Bradley A. Smith, President of Brad Smith Associates, Inc. will be present at the Commission meeting to present the Preliminary Site Plan. 69 BEC 18199Q 0 u't 06U fif.F. i N• LI NF or �.i 1.,r i a .. iR.:VEA 40 2.' PRESERVA•0'14 ZONE _ .1 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for Treasury Shores Park as presented. Commissioner Bird introduced Brad Smith whose firm, Brad Smith Associates, designed this. He noted that he was very impressed with the time and effort they have put into this and believed that what they have come up with is a great compromise between man and nature. Commissioner Bowman expressed her dissatisfaction with the plan as she felt there is too much parking and too much paving which will destroy a lot of that coastal vegetation. She certainly did not want this to look like the last park we did which she felt was a total disaster with a great big open parking area without a tree in sight and an ugly plastic slide that is the first thing you see. Capital Projects Manager Thompson assured her this park will be considerably different. Commissioner Bowman wished to know why we are allowing so much parking and if it is all to be paved parking. Ms. Thompson confirmed that it is all to be paved, and it is impervious surface, but rioted that the number of spaces have been reduced considerably from the management plan and stressed that SITE DESIGN CONCEPT TREASURE SHORES -WIPNPIMNI PMV1 IMl Ri APP11ECMAI[ON ARTA .0 Ntl1UNIi1W ilWUNI t, I•LOItll1A / Brad SM0, ASSDCiafese Pi- � n....• moi{ a M• .�_.q. •n . rrrr .. YM :. r fif.F. i N• LI NF or �.i 1.,r i a .. iR.:VEA 40 2.' PRESERVA•0'14 ZONE _ .1 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for Treasury Shores Park as presented. Commissioner Bird introduced Brad Smith whose firm, Brad Smith Associates, designed this. He noted that he was very impressed with the time and effort they have put into this and believed that what they have come up with is a great compromise between man and nature. Commissioner Bowman expressed her dissatisfaction with the plan as she felt there is too much parking and too much paving which will destroy a lot of that coastal vegetation. She certainly did not want this to look like the last park we did which she felt was a total disaster with a great big open parking area without a tree in sight and an ugly plastic slide that is the first thing you see. Capital Projects Manager Thompson assured her this park will be considerably different. Commissioner Bowman wished to know why we are allowing so much parking and if it is all to be paved parking. Ms. Thompson confirmed that it is all to be paved, and it is impervious surface, but rioted that the number of spaces have been reduced considerably from the management plan and stressed that they identified where the hammock was and tried to keep all the parking out of the hammock area. Bradley Smith emphasized that they share Commissioner Bowman's concerns about environmental impact. They realized all three ecosystems on site are threatened and decided at all costs to preserve the existing hammock. They, of course, did have to provide some public access to the site, but they have tried to mitigate the impacts as much as possible. This is a resource based park, and we certainly don't want to destroy the resource in the process of developing the park. Commissioner Bowman was sure they have made these efforts but hoped we could do more, and she would like to meet with Mr. Smith and go over this. Commissioner Bird believed that Commissioner Bowman will be pleased with the amount of research done on this. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to approve the Preliminary Site Plan. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commis- sioner Bowman voting in opposition. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERV. (INTERSECTION IMPS. SR A1A/CR 510) The Board reviewed the following memo from the Capital Projects Manager: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator a THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., ) Public Works Director W� r i FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E., I Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 - Professional Engineering Services SR AlA at CR510 Intersection Improvements DATE: December 7, 1990 FILE: 510-AlA.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS , Gee & Jenson is under contract with Indian River County to design intersection improvements at SR AlA and CR510. One of the tasks included in the professional services agreement was a signal warrant study. 71 ® DEC 18 1990 DEC 19 1990 PUUK U � F,1 c 3 The Department of Transportation has issued authorization for the signalization of the intersection based on this warrant study. The attached amendment provides for increasing the scope of work to include signalization design at an additional cost of $4,912. This, added to the current contract amount of $141,002 (which includes $81,435 for 58th Avenue Improvement Study and $59,567 for CR510/AlA Intersection Improvements) will result in a new contract amount of $145,914. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Approve the attached Amendment No. 3 to- the _ Professional Engineering Services Agreement between Gee & Jenson and Indian River County. Alternative No. 2 Issue a request for proposals and select a firm to perform the services in accordance with CCNA procedures. RECOI4MENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved whereby Amendment No. 3 is approved and the Chairman is authorized to sign the amendment. Funding for this project is from Account #101-151-541-067.11. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Alternative No. 1 authorizing the Chairman to sign Amendment No. 3 as recommended by staff. 72 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RINGS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CR510 & AlA AMENDMENT NO. 3 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT Dated June 6, 1989 This is an amendment to the existing PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) dated June 6, 1989 between Gee & Jenson, Engineers, Architects & Planners, Inc. (ENGINEER) and Indian River County (COUNTY). The Amendment is for services to be performed by ENGINEER pursuant to the terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT related to the intersection improvements for CR510 at SR AlA beyond the scope of the original agreement dated June 6, 1989. The ENGINEER agrees to perform the services as described in the following tasks as defined in Exhibit A attached herein. A summary of Total Cost for presented in Exhibit A. SCOPE OF SERVICE additional professional text and the specific hereto and incorporated the additional work is The section, of the original AGREEMENT entitled "SECTION III - SCOPE OF SERVICES" is revised as follows: 1. Insert the following paragraph 2(e) in Sub -section B, "Project Specific Services". e. Prepare signalization plans for the intersection of CR510 and SR AIA. 2. Insert* the following paragraph 8 in place of the existing paragraph 8 in Sub -section B. "Project Specific Services". 8. Prepare SJRWMD Stormwater Discharge Facility Permit Application, FDOT Road Modification Permit and FDOT Traffic Control Devices Permit. TIME FOR COMPLETION Insert the following paragraph D in the Section of the original AGREEMENT entitled "SECTION IV - TIME FOR COMPLETION". D. Signalization Design Phase Signalization plans shall be delivered within sixty (60)days from written Notice -to -Proceed on the design which will be issued by the County. COMPENSATION Original AGREEMENT "SECTION V - COMPENSATION" shall be revised by increasing the compensation due the ENGINEER for Part B Intersection Improvements to CR510 at SR AlA by $4,912.00. The total described items for Part B, including previous amendments is increased from $59,567.00 to $64,479.00 and the Grand Total for the AGREEMENT is increased from $145,91:4 to a f�19 I new Grand Total of 141 , oo2.ou 4145,1 J 4 . cO 73 NDO� ,.fPm-�) ,� Pti POCK 82 The AGREEMENT is hereby amended as specifically set forth herein.'- Those provisions included in Sections III, IV and V relevant hereto and not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect and are incorporated in the amended agreement. All other sections of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein. This Amendment No. 3 to the AGREEMENT regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed by the laws of the State of Florida. In witness whereof the parties have executed this Amendment this day of - 6u I_ , 1990. Gee & Jenson , Engineers Board of County Commissioners Architects& Planners, Inc. Indian River County, Florida One Harvard Circle P.O. Box 24600 West Palm Beach, FL 3.34-160 ly Carolyn. Eggert 7rJChairman Attest Attest I�Xto K.Barton, Clerk r EXHIBIT "A" TO AMENDMENT NO. 3 of the Professional Engineering Services Agreement Dated June 6, 1989 Indian River County Kings Highway Corridor Improvements Intersection Improvements CR510 & AIA TASK # of Sheets Hours/Sheet Cover Sheet 1 2 General Notes 1 4 Summary of Quantities 1 8 Signal Plan Sheet 1 52 Pole Tabulation Sheet 1 6 FDOT Permit Application 1 8 Total Hours 80 FEE: Personnel Hours Rate Amount Project Manager 8 $87.00 $ 696.00 Engineer 16 $68.00 $ 1,088.00 Technician 52 $58.00 $ 3,016.00 Clerical 4 $28.00 $ 112.00 Total 80 $ 4,912.00 74 RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH BEACH RECREATION PATH The Board reviewed the following: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director �j� FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E-�, Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Resolutions for Construction of the South Beach Recreation Path: 1) Providing Resolution Declaring Special Assessment Project 2) Setting Resolution to Fix Time and Place of Public Hearing DATE: December 7, 1990 FILE: bikepath.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On March 6, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the Public Works Department to bring back a special assessment project for construction of a Recreation Path on the west side of AlA from the south City Limits of Vero Beach to the south Moorings line (Spyglass Lane). The path was requested by south beach residents under the standard special assessment procedure where affected residents are assessed 75% of the cost and the County contributes 25%. Attached is a Resolution providing for construction of the Recreation Path and a separate Resolution setting the time and place of the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, 1991 at 9:.05 A.M. in the County Commission Chambers. An assessment roll and plat map has been prepared and filed with the Clerk to the Board. This project will be advertised and competitively bid for construction by a private contractor. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that motions be made to: 1. Adopt Resolution providing for the Recreation Path subject to the terms outlined in the Resolution. Under the Board's current policy, the applicable interest rate shall be 12% at the time the final assessment roll is approved. 2. Adopt Resolution setting the time and place of the Public Hearing. Funding for this project is from Account #173-214-541-066.31. 75 BOGS ["a•j4b- DEC 18 19OU 7 T P0ox. 46 The Capital Projects Manager informed the Board that first Resolution has been amended. We got a new printout from the Tax Assessor's office, and it turned out there were less units. The public hearing date remains the same, just the dollar figures changed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu- tions 90-189 and 90-190 as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 90-189 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION PATH ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIA FROM THE SOUTH CITY LIMIT OF VERO BEACH TO THE SOUTH MOORINGS LINE (SPYGLASS LANE) WHEREAS, the property owners have submitted a petition for construction of a recreation path along AlA south of the Vero Beach City limit to the south Moorings line (Spyglass Lane). WHEREAS, the construction of a recreation path by special assessment funding is authorized by.Section 11-21, 11-22, and 11-41, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and cost estimates and preliminary assessment rolls have been completed by the Public Works Department; and the total estimated cost of the proposed recreation path is FOUR HUNDRED AND NINE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY SEVEN CENTS($409,286.67); and RESOLUTION 90- 190 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PLEASE TARE NOTICE that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a Public Hearing at 9:05AM on Tuesday, February 12, 1991 in the Commission Chambers located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida to discuss the advisability, cost and the amount of the assessments against each property for construction of a recreation path on the west side of AlA from the south city limit of Vero Beach to the south Moorings line (Spyglass Lane). RESOLUTIONS 90-189 AND 90-190 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 76 I NTERDEPARTMENTAL__VEH I CLE_.TRANSFER (.FLEET_ MGMT, _ TO__UT I L I T I ES) The Board reviewed memo from John Lang of Utilities: DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED JOHN F. LANG . AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL PE ALIST BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SER CES SUBJECT: INTERDEPARTMENTAL VEHICLE TRANSFER BACKGROUND The Department of Utility Services, in its Rockridge project, purchased two large generators. The sewer group this year will receive a 26 -foot trailer to move the tractor and implements. ANALYSIS Fleet Management has a 1970 Ford F700 truck, Fleet No. 3 with a lift gate that is being surplused. The vehicle has 56,400 original miles and would serve as an excellent tow vehicle for the Department of Utility Services. RECONIlKENDATION - The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transfer of Asset No. 1579 from Fleet Management to the Department of Utility Services. __ ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the transfer of the above described vehicle, Asset No. 1579, from Fleet Management to the Department of Utility Services. REVISIONS TO COUNTY WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto: C 1 1990 " �? °I NUC (�� F't CE a a DECFr_ -7 18 ANR�aK DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI VICES PREPARED JOHN F. LANG AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL PECIALIST BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS BACKGROUND The Indian River County Department of Utility Services Water and Wastewater Utility Standards wore adopted November 1987. Periodic revision of the standards is necessary to keep pace with 'industry standards, County needs, and advances in engineering design. ANALYSIS The following significant changes are proposed to the specifications: 1. A large meter detail. 2. A chapter with package treatment plant specifications. 3. Reduced voltage motor starters for pumps 30 HP or greater. 4. Lift Station control panels are required to be UL rated 4X. S. Lift Stations are required to have separate float and cable holders. — - RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the additions and clarifications to the Utility Standards. Chairman Eggert asked if the revisions proposed are all new, and Director Pinto advised that the portion that is related to wastewater treatment plants is all new. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the additions and clarifications to the Utility Standards as recommended by staff. COPY OF SAID REVISIONS TO COUNTY WATER 8 WASTEWATER UTILITY STANDARDS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 78 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE Chairman Eggert reviewed the following: TO: DATE: FILE: BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Committee Carolyn R. Eggert FROM: Chairman REFERENCES: Permission of the Board of County Commissioners is requested for me to put together and chair an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as outlined in the Housing Element Objective 1, Policy 1.3, of the Comprehensive Plan, which requires a specific report to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners by 1993. This committee would work closely with the Affordable Housing Finance Committee chaired by Doug Scurlock. His committee may want to become the Housing Finance Authority (Policy 1.6) which must be formed by 1992. Commissioner Scurlock commented that, regarding the last paragraph, the Housing Finance Authority has been created and is a sub -committee of the Finance Advisory Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized Chairman Eggert to put together and chair an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as outlined in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bird commended Chairman Eggert for taking on this additional assignment which he felt is badly needed. APPOINTMENT BY TOWN OF ORCHID TO TCRPC Chairman Eggert referred the Board to the following letter from the Town of Orchid: 79 F"uC 4.�4 I , DEC 18 ISS`0 December 13, 1990 BOOK TOWN OF ORCHID County Commission Office 1840 -25th Street Vero Beach,FL 32960 Attn: Alice White �7/ Dear M . White, At the Town Council meeting of December 12, 1990, Councilman J. Wayne Schasane was appointed to represent the Town of Orchid as an alternate to the Treasure Coast Planning Council. Please direct all correspondence to Councilman Schasane at 9300 Town Square, Vero Beach, FL 32963. If you have any questions, please call 589-6100. Sincerely, T rnest Polverari Town Manager The Chairman explained that Indian River Shores did not wish to go; we then go to Fellsmere to get their next person, which is Mr. Mraz, and Orchid is their backup. Orchid first recommended Mr. Polverari, but he is not an elected official; so this is their new recommendation. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the appointment of Councilman J. Wayne Schasane to represent the Town of Orchid as an alternate to the TCRPC. REPORT ON REQUEST FROM MANWAC COMMITTEE Commissioner Wheeler informed the Board that because of a timing problem in obtaining their permitting from St. John's and other agencies, the Environmental Learning Center has lost their SWIM Demonstration Grant Funds. This $4,000 grant, which we had offered to match, was intended to be used for a state-of-the-art drainage project at the Center. The MANWAC Committee unanimously supported writing a letter of protect to St. Johns asking them to find us $4,000 in matching funds., and Commissioner Wheeler 80 advised that he is simply asking the Commission to direct staff to write a similar letter. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to write a letter to St. Johns asking for replacement of these funds as per the following letter: Telephone: (407)567-8000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 January 4, 1991 Mr. John Wehle Assistant Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P. O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Re:SWIM Demonstration Grant to Environmental Learning Center Dear Mr. Wehle: The St. Johns River Water Management District had approved a SWIM Demonstration Grant to establish a prototype model of stormwater detention at the proposed Environmental Learning Center which could be a model for developers. The funds were to come through the F.I.T. Marine Resources Council from the St. Johns River Water Management District under the SWIM Program. The application for SWIM funds was submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District prior to February 2, 1990. Since'that time, the contractual relationships between the Water Management District, the Marine Resources Council, and Florida Institute of Technology have altered, and Interested part -les ' locally have been advised that the SWIM Demonstration Funds have been lost. Both the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County and the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee would strongly support the replacement of these funds from any other source available to the Water Management District. The delay In actual utilization of the funds at the demonstration project is from permitting and site plan delays for the overall Environmental Learning Center project. DEC 1 aQUI �� 81 BOOK r pFG. I b 1,390 The 'Envlr�nmental Learning Center is developing almost entirely with primo�✓✓-ate -fund To this point, more than $1.7 million In clam tions have been raised from'.private parties. Both the Board of County Commissioners and the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee believe that some public support by way of the demonstration project previously funded Is important. In addition to being a model, for other estuarine development, this Center will be used to educate all school children within Indian River County (with possible expansion to the Indian River.Lagoon Reg i on) We would strongly request that the funds originally committed for this Environmental Learning Center stormwater demonstration project. be replaced from whatever sources available to the St. Johns River Water Management District In order -to demonstrate the Water Management District and public sector support for this important project which Is presently entirely privately funded. Yo rs truly, Carolyn K. Egger Chairman Board f Count .Commissioners OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL (COMMISSIONER WHEELER) Commissioner Wheeler informed the Board that when he was in St. Petersburg for a Criminal Justice Policy meeting, he met Mr. Tom Allison, head of the Corrections Department in Orange County, and in Orange County the County Commission has taken over Corrections and are implementing a step system and different programs to get people out of jail. He felt what they are doing has a lot of merit and whenever he gets time in the next few months, he would like to go to Orange County and look into their set up. Commissioner Wheeler also wished to go to Bay County on Saturday along with Mr. Wright to look at the facility there done by Corrections Corp. of America and to see what they have done with privatization of their jail. In addition, he would like to go to Ocala and visit their new jail and the courthouse that is nearing completion, and fourth, he would like to talk with Wackenhut and see what they have done in the Keys with their jail and privatization. He would like to take Doug Wright, Director of Emergency Management, with him on these trips. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved blanket out -of -County travel for Commissioner Wheeler and Emergency Management Director Wright to go on trips as described above. 82 DOCUMENTS —TO_BE MADE_ PART- OF THE RECORD County Jail, Phase III, Change Order #5, with Sovran Con- struction Company as approved at the Regular meeting of Novem- ber 6, 1990, having been fully executed and received, has been put on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:30 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk hairman 83