HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/5/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Carolyn K. Eggert
Don C. Scurlock
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - Rev. Jerry Sweat, Pastor
Asbury United Methodist Church
MAR 5 1991
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
It. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1) Addition of presentation of two plaques to the BCC
from the City of Sebastian and the Sebastian area
Little League.
2) Addition of some comments on North County wastewater.
3) Continuation of Public Hearing on Russell Concrete rezoning.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
*
* *
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 2/5/91
B. Regular Meeting of 2/12/91
C. Special Meeting of 2/12/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & placed on file in the Office of Clerk
to the Board:
1. St. John's River Water Management District
Annual Financial Audit for FY1989-90.
2. Public Facilities Report for the Indian River
Mosquito Control District, dated March 1, 1991
B. Proclamation designating March 6, 1991 as RSVP Day
in Indian River County, Florida
MAR 5 1991
BOOK L PAGE 799
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued):
C. Request BCC approval for Carolyn Eggert to attend
1991 Treasure Coast Legislative Conference in
Tallahassee, April 8-10, 1991
D. Release of County Assessment Liens
(memorandum dated February 27, 1991)
E. Approval of Change Order #9 & #10, IRC Main Library
(memorandum dated February 22, 1991)
F. Title IV. Contractor and Building Regulations
Request to Schedule Public Hearing
(memorandum dated February 25, 1991)
G. Release of Easement Petition by: Gregory J. and
Denise J. Jiruska, Lots 2, 2 & 11, Block B, Dixie
Heights S/D Unit 1-A
(memorandum dated February 20, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Robert Fields Request to Rezone Approximately
.28+/- Acres
(memorandum dated February 8, 1991)
2. Russell Concrete Request to Rezone Approximately
+1- 11 Acres from A-1 and RM -6 to IG
(memorandum dated February 15, 1991)
3. Purchase of Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 45 & Lot 3.1, Blk.
45 for the New Courthouse Site
(memorandum dated February 25, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Purchase of Lot 13.1, Block 45, for New Courthouse Site
(memorandum dated February 26, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Troop L, Florida
Highway Patrol, Relating to Radar Units Purchased by
Indian River County
(memorandum dated January 24, 1991)
1
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued):
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Program Construction Manager Selection - Indian
River County Courthouse Project
(memorandum dated February 26, 1991)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
Proposed Amendment; Administrative Manual
(memorandum dated February 27, 1991)
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Request by Joe Berlin for 25% County Reimburse-
ment for Paving 7th Avenue South of 10th Street
(memorandum dated February 6, 1991)
2. Maintenance Acceptance of Non -Maintained County
Unpaved Roads
(memorandum dated February 6, 1991)
3. Request by Mr. John Crews for County to Main-
tain 122nd Street Bridge West of CR 507
(deferred from 2/12/91 BCC meeting)
(memorandum dated February 22, 1991)
4. Wabasso High Level Bridge Repairs Engineering
Services Agreement
(memorandum dated February 26, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. Owner/Engineer Contract - Engineering Services
for Design & Construction Inspection of Various
Water Mains & Subdivision Distribution Systems
(memorandum dated February 15, 1991)
2. Reimbursement to Vero Beach Oceanfront Limited
Partnership for Oversizing of Off -Site Utilities
(memorandum dated February 25, 1991)
3. Final Payment & Change Order No. 3 with Elkins
Construction - No. Co. Wastewater Treatment
Plant Contract No. 1
(memorandum dated February 25, 1991)
4. Site Plan Approval for the Regional Sludge
Facility & the Gifford Wastewater Treatment Plant
(memorandum dated February 27, 1991)
5. Hedden Place Water Distribution System Final
Payment
(memorandum dated February 26, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Golf Course Architect Agreement
(memorandum dated February 4, 1991)
POOK 82 PAGE 800
MAR 5 1991
MAR :' 5 19$J
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
BOOK 82 F E 801
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
1. A Resolution of Indian River County, Florida,
Creating an Affordable Housing Advisory Comm.
2. Economic Development Council
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. 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.
Tuesday, March 5, 1991
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, March 5, 1991,
at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary
C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert;
and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler,
County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Jerry Sweat, Pastor of Asbury United Methodist
Church, gave the invocation, and Administrator Chandler led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Bird announced that the Public Hearing on the
Russell Concrete rezoning request will be continued for two weeks
until March 19, 1991 for a time certain and will not be
readvertised.
Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition of some comments
on North County wastewater.
Commissioner Wheeler requested the addition of a short
presentation of two plaques to the Board of County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
BOOK 82 PAGE 802
MAR 5 1991
MAR 5 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 803
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Commissioner Wheeler reported that he attended the opening
of the Barber Street Sports Complex in Sebastian last Saturday,
and accepted two plaques on behalf of the County Commission. One
plaque is from the Sebastian Area Little League in appreciation of
the County Commission's dedication to the area's youth through the
commitment to the Barber Street Sports Complex. The second plaque
is from the City of Sebastian in grateful acknowledgment of the
County Commission for their 50% participation in the funding of
the sports complex.
Chairman Bird felt it was very thoughtful of them to present
these plaques to the Board and that it was very nice of
Commissioner Wheeler to accept them at the ceremony last Saturday.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 5, 1991.
Commissioner Bowman wished to make a couple of corrections on
Pages 12 and 13. On Page 12, paragraph 4, it should read "the
reason for this is that the Army Corps does not have the
enforcement capacity." At the bottom of Page 13, Mr. Whitmore's
name is misspelled. Instead of Doran, it should read "Dorn
Whitmore".
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 2/5/91, as
corrected.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 12, 1991. There
were none.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 2/12/91, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 12, 1991. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 2/12/91, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the
Board:
1. St. Johns River Water Management District Annual
Financial Audit for FY 1989-90.
2. Public Facilities Report for the Indian River Mosquito
Control District, dated March 2, 1991.
B. Proclamation - RSVP Day
The following Proclamation is hereby made a part of the
record:
3
PiAR 5 1991
82�'
BOOK EAU 804
Pr -
MAR 5 '1991
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING MARCH 6, 1991
AS RSVP IThY IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOOK 82 PA. U 805
WHEREAS, 505 senior volunteers, members of The Retired
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) of Indian River County donated a
total of 95,000 Hours of volunteer service to Indian River County
which translates into $500,000 of work it saved the community;
and
WHEREAS, to honor these unselfish senior citizens, the
Retired Senior Volunteer Program of Indian River County will hold
its fourth e.nnua] Recognition Luncheon on Wednesday, March 6,
1991 at the Polish American Club; and
WHEREAS, The RSVP is sponsored by the Indian River County
Council on Aging and ACTION, the federal volunteer agency; and
}
WHEREAS, RSVP is founded on dedication and a commitment to
provide a variety of opportunities for retired Persons who are
age 60 or more to partir_ipZte more fully in life through
significant volunteer service; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County benefits greatly by the
thousands of volunteer hours that senior citizens donate each
year; and
WHEREAS, presently more than 45 non-profit organizations and
agencies have senior volunteers doing a number of challenging and
interesting volunteer jobs in our. community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COtMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that Wednesday,
March 6, 1991 be designated as
RSVP DAY
in Indian River County.
BE IT FURTIHER PROCLAIMED that the Board commends the
unselfish senior citizenvolunteers who donate their time and
efforts in this County.
Adopted this 5th day of March, 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
C. Approval of Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -county travel for Commissioner
Eggert to attend 1991 Treasure Coast Legislative
Conference in Tallahassee, April 8-10, 1991.
D. Release of County Assessment Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/27/91:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nancy II. Massa li - County Attorney's Office LnaltC', (AWOL
DATE: February 27, 1991
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF COUNTY ASSESSMENT LIENS
I have prepared the following routine release of assessment lien forms
in connection with paving and drainage improvements to 87th Street in
Vero Lake Estates from 102nd Avenue to CR -510 (Project No. 8226),
and request that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
MAR 5 1991
(1) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00004-0030-00006.0
Lot 6, Block C, Vero Lake Estates, Unit A
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0140-00003.0
Lots 3 and 4, Block N, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-90006-0140-00005.0
Lots 5-8, Block N, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0140-00009.0
Lots 9-12, Block N, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0160-00006.0
Lot 6, Block P, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0200-00006.0
Lot 6, Block T, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0210-00007.0
Lot 7, Block U, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0010-00026.0
Lots 26 and 27, Block A, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00000-7000-00002.0
E2 of NEI of SEI of Section 27-31-38
5
MU 82 PAGE 8U6
MR 5 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 807
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0010-00001.0
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0080-00006.0
Lot 6, Block 8, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
All in the name of MIAMI GARDENS, INC.
(2) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00001-0140-00006.0
Lot 7, Block N, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0080-00001.0
Lot 1, Block H, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0090-00001.0
Lot 1, Block I, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
All in the name of EDMUND N. ANSIN
(3) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0090-00002.0
Lot 2, Block 9, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0090-00003.0
Lot 3, Block 9, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
All in the name of GERALDINE MOORE
(4) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0160-00001.0
Lot 1, Block P, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the names of W. C. CHRISTENSEN and S. O.
CHRISTENSEN; and JOHN SIROCHMAN and MARY
SIROCHMAN
(5) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0080-00003.0
Lot 3, Block 8, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
In the names of MICHAEL MARIOLIS and
ANASTASIA MARIOLIS
(6) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00001-0060-00008.0
Lot 8, Block F, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
In the names of JOHN R. BARNEY and PATRICIA
A. BARNEY; and JOHN B. MILANO
(7) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0140-00013.0
Lot 13, Block N, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
In the name of CATHERINE B. STEPHENS
(8) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0140-00001.0
Lots 1 and 2, Block N,; Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
In the names of PAUL BARRECA and RALPH
COLLETTI
(9) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00001-0150-00006.0
Lot 7, Block 0, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
In the names of JOSEPH CAMIC and ANN CAMIC
(10) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0080-00005.0
Lot 5, Block 8, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
In the names of ANTHONY MERENDO and CARMEL
MERENDO
(11) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0080-00004.0
Lot 4, Block 8, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
In the names of GEORGIOS VARAHIDIS and
MELPOMENI VARAHIDIS
6
(12) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0080-00016.0
Lot 16, Block H, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
In the name of CHARLES B. TOOCH
t (13) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0120-00015.0
Lot 16, Block L, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
In the names of' THOMAS SHERROD and DONNA
SHERROD
(14) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0130-00012.0
Lot 12, Block M, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the name of HARRY L. BUSH, JR.
Back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment Liens as set out in the
above memo.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Change Orders #9 and #10 - IRC Main Library
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/22/91:
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR/"
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS, SUPT.
BUILDINGS AND G a
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1991
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #9 AND #10
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MAIN LIBRARY
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The attached Change Orders #9 and #10 for the Indian River County
Main Library Project have been forwarded by the Construction
Manager for approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Change Order #9 includes Proposal Requests #22, #23, #24. Total
add $2,320.00.
Proposal Request #22 - Tree Island Replacement add $442.00 is
required in order to protect the root structure of the Laurel Oak
in the south parking lot.
MAR 5 1991
7
no. PAGE. SUS
BAR 5 1991
BOOK 8? PAGE 809
Proposal Request #23 - Exit light revision add $1,598.00 is
required to replace five (5) exit lights which did not meet the
minimum height required by the building code.
Proposal Request #24 - Zone Maps add $280.00 are required by the
Fire District to show the location of fire and smoke detectors
within the structure.
Change Order #10 includes Construction Change Directive #2 and
Proposal Request #16 ($2,329.00) credit.
Construction Change Directive #2 - Delete insulation of R.A.
Ductwork ($2,079.00) was issued to delete external duct insulation
deemed unnecessary.
Proposal Request #16 - Sprinkler head revision add $250.00 was
requested due to a variation in layout by the Fire Sprinkler Sub -
Contractor.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The total amount of change to the contract is a net deduct of $9.00
for Change Orders #9 and #10. Adjusted contract amount will be
$2,866,988.00 after execution of Change Orders #9 and #10. No
further Change Orders will be issued.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends approval of Change Orders #9 and #10 and requests
authorization for the Chairman to sign. Funding account #322-109-
571-066.51.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Orders #9 and #10 for the Indian River County
Main Library.
ABOVE CHANGE ORDERS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
F. Title IV - Contractor and Building Regulations
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/91:
8
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney7C%
DATE: February 25, 1991
RE: TITLE IV. CONTRACTOR AND BUILDING REGULATIONS
Title IV has been reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory
Committee and the Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
The several questions raised were considered and resolved. The item
is now ready for a public hearing. It is suggested that the public
hearing be held on March 26, 1991.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise notice of a Public Hearing scheduled
for March 26, 1991 for the purpose of adopting Title IV
- Contractor and Building Regulations.
G. Resolution 91-27 - Release of Easement - Dixie Heights
Subdivision - Jiruska
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/20/91:
9
MAR 1911
POOP( ? PAGE 810
AR 5199
BOOK 82 PAGE 811
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
e„,.:22‘
Robert M. Kea ing,C3 ICP
Community Dev lopmejn7t Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois ,AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Charles W. Heath ela
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: February 20, 1991
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT PETITION BY:
Gregory J. & Denise J. Jiruska
Lots 2, 3 & 11, Block B, Dixie Heights
Subdivision Unit 1-A
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 05, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Gregory J. Jiruska and Denise J.
Jiruska, his wife, owners of the subject property, for the release
of a thirty-eight (38) foot portion of the ten (10) foot utility
and drainage easements of Lots 3 & 11, Block B, Dixie Heights
Subdivision Unit No. 1-A, being that northerly thirty-eight (38)
feet of the easterly ten (10) foot easement and the northerly
thirty-eight (38) feet of the westerly ten (10) foot drainage and
utility easement of Lots 3 & 11, Block B, Dixie Heights Subdivision
Unit No. 1-A, Section 30, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian
River County, Florida; according to the plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book 4, Page 85, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida. It is the petitioner's intention to construct a single-
family residence on the subject property.
The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L-
2, allowing up to six (6) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power & Light Company, United Artist Cable Corporation, the
Indian River County Utilities Department and the Road and Bridge
and Engineering Divisions. The petitioner's original request was
for a release of the total fifty (50) foot north -south length of
the drainage and utility easements on Lots 3 and 11. However,
Florida Power & Light Company requested that the southern twelve
(12) feet of the easements be retained to allow for the maintenance
of a guy/anchor wire for its electric transmission system. Florida
Power & Light does not object to the release of the remaining
thirty-eight (38) feet of these utility and drainage easements, as
the petitioner is now requesting.
10
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a
resolution, the release of that thirty-eight (38) foot portion of
the common ten (10) foot side lot utilities and drainage easements
of Lots 3 & 11, Block B, Dixie Heights Subdivision Unit No. 1-A,
being that northerly thirty-eight (38) feet of the easterly ten
(10) foot easement and the northerly thirty-eight (38) feet of the
westerly ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement of Lots 3 &
11, Block B, Dixie Heights Subdivision Unit 1-A, Section 30,
Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Plat Book 4, Page 85, of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-27, abandoning certain easements in the
Dixie Heights Subdivision Unit No. 1-A, Lots 3 and 11,
Block B, to Gregory J. Jiruska and Denise J. Jiruska.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-27
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE DIXIE
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 1-A, LOTS 3 & 11,
BLOCK B, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 85 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described
below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River
County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
32960, Grantor, to Gregory J. Jiruska and Denise J. Jiruska, his
wife, their successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose
mailing address is 2365 16th Avenue S.W., Vero Beach, Florida 32962
Grantee, as follows:
MAR 5 1991
11
POOK 8? PG[ 81 2
MAR 5 1991
BOOK
82 PAGE ���l'
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title,
and interest that it may have in the following described easements:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Wheeler
and adopted on the 5 day of March , 1991, by the
following vote:
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman ' Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 5 , day of March
, 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Attest By
N. Bird, Chairman
Jemmy K. Barton
C erk
RESOLUTION NO. 91-27
EXHIBIT "A"
The northerly thirty-eight (38) feet of the easterly ten (10) foot
utility and drainage easement of Lot 3, and the northerly thirty-
eight (38) feet of the westerly ten (10) foot utility and drainage
easement of Lot 11, Block B, Dixie Heights Subdivision Unit 1-A,
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 85,
Section 30, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County,
Florida.
12
PUBLIC HEARING - ROBERT FIELDS REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
.28± ACRES
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read aloud the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
vtsru tseucu......it. .1 ..t.i. .,..,.
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
sajs that n; is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of c.f.
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 ckab 19 yi
/ 1
(tr (Business Manager)
(SEAL)
(CI ;-Indiari-R--
Proposed
Rezoning
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoptic
e county ordinance rezoning land from: R
Multiple -Family Residential District. to IL, I
. Industrial District The subject property Is a
by Robert Fields, and Is located at the sou*
corner
y Road) and Ff the .
E.O. Raaihvon ay abutting OlStreet iCd
Hwy, on 8w. east: The subject property cw
Ing approximately .28 acres la Tying in the a
east quarter of Section 3. Township 32S. F
39E, lying and being In Indian River County
A public hearing at which parties In In
and citizens shall have an opportunity
heard, will be held by the Board of County
misslonera of Indian River County. Florida,
Administration Commission l i Building, atambers of 184C
Street, Vero Beach. Florida, on Tuesday.
5,1991, at 9.05 a.m.
prove a less Intense Board of County
g districtCommissioners
m
• trill requested provided RIs within the
general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any di
which may be made at this meeting will r
ensure that a verbatim record of the pr
Inge Is made, which Includes the testimo
evidence upon which the appeal is based
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s -Dick Bird. Chairman
Feb. 8,1991
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/8/91:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Kea ing �CP
Community De elopnent Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM:
Christy Fischer LO
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: February 8, 1991
SUBJECT: ROBERT FIELDS REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .28± ACRES
MAR 51991
13
MCIK 82 PACE 814
MAR 5 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 815
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 5, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This is a request to rezone approximately .28± acres of an overall
2.48 acre site from RM -6, Multi -family Residential District (up to
6 units/1 acre) to IL, Light Industrial District. The property is
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 71st Street
(Cemetery Road) and the F.E.C. Railroad right of way. The property
is owned by Robert Fields. The applicant intends to develop the
property with industrial uses.
On January 10, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0
to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the request
to rezone approximately .28 acres from RM -6, Multi -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to IL, Light Industrial
District be approved.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is presently vacant land containing two zoning
designations; approximately .28± acres are zoned RM -6, and 2.2
acres are zoned IL. The land north of the subject property is in
citrus groves and is zoned RM -6. The land south of the subject
property is vacant and is zoned RM -6. The land east of the subject
property is vacant and zoned IL. The land west of the subject
property is vacant and zoned RM -6.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property lies within the Hobart Road and 65th street
Commercial/Industrial Corridor. This designation permits various
types of commercial and industrial zoning categories. The
properties north, south, and east also share this land use
designation. The property to the west lies within the L-2 land use
designation.
Environment
The 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.
Transportation System
The property abuts 71st Street (Cemetery Road) to the north.
Cemetery road is classified as a local road on the Future Roadway
Thoroughfare Plan map. This segment of Cemetery Road is a two lane
paved road with fifty (50) feet of road right-of-way. An
additional ten (10) feet of road right of way is required for local
roads with swale drainage. As with all development, a more
detailed review will be conducted during development approval.
14
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 utilities systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This
section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Compatibility With Existing Services and Facilities
The 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 that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service would not be lowered. A typically high traffic generator
type of development which could be built on the subject property's
2.48 acres in the IL district would generate approximately 140
trips per day. A high traffic generator development on the subject
property's .28± acres would generate approximately 16 trips per day
in IL zoning district. The actual number of trips would depend on
the total square footage and the exact mix of uses. A standard
two-lane road can accommodate approximately 13,000 trips per day.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that Cemetery Road and
other roadways serving the project can accommodate the additional
trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
- Utilities
The site is within the urban service area; however the area is not
currently serviced by water and wastewater. At present, capacity
for these services is not available for this portion of the county.
Since no ERUs for water and wastewater have been reserved as of the
present time, the applicant has entered into a developer's
agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to
expand county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the
needs of his development.
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 year 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 flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development
will be required to maintain its pre-existing discharge rate for
the design storm. Together, these regulations limit the potential
for on-site and off-site flooding and damage. As with all
development, a more detailed review will be conducted during
---development approval.
VIP 5 199
15 POCK
82 F',1U.8ie
OAR 5 1991
BOOK
- Recreation
8? F'AGE 817
Requirements related to the concurrency determination for county
recreational facility capacity apply only to residential
development. This zoning would not be required to have a park
concurrency determination.
ANALYSIS
The proposed rezoning represents a change from residential to
industrial use. In assessing this request, three major issues must
be addressed: compatibility with the surrounding area, consistency
with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of public facilities.
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. The area is
predominantly vacant land, or citrus groves. It is probable that
any development north or south of this property would be similar in
intensity or density, having the same light industrial designation.
Any development will be buffered from the residential district to
the west of the subject property.
A review of this rezoning -request with the Future Land Use Map and
policies, as well as the policies of the other plan elements, does
not reveal any inconsistency. Among the policies applicable to
this request is Future Land Use Policy 1.19 which permits
commercial and industrial uses only in commercial/industrial
corridors and nodes. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
commercial/industrial corridor policy.
Concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste, and parks has been
met with the proposed zoning. Since capacity for water and
wastewater services is not available, the applicant has signed a
developer's agreement to ensure these facilities will be provided.
This is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.7, which requires
development projects to maintain established levels of service.
CONCLUSION
The subject property is currently bisected by a zoning district
boundary line, leaving a small part of the property zoned
residential, while the remainder is industrial. This situation
severely restricts development of the property. Not only would
rezoning the subject property unify the site under one zoning
category; it would also serve to implement the comprehensive plan
by making the subject property's zoning consistent with its land
use designation. For these reasons, as well as the fact that the
proposed request satisfies applicable compatibility, consistency,
and concurrency criteria, staff supports the subject request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to rezone property to IL.
16
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 91-8, rezoning .28± acres from RM -6, Multi-
family Residential District, to IL, Light Industrial
District.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-8
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6,
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO IL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF 71ST STREET (CEMETERY ROAD) AND THE F.E.C. RAILROAD
R/W ABUTTING OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY ON THE EAST, AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
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:
17
lin 5 1991
'1001(
ASE
MAR 5 19 ,
BOOK 82 FACE 81
A parcel of land lying in the N.W. } of S.E. } of•S.W. } of
Section 3, Township 32, Range 39. Being more particularly
described as: Beginning at a point 36.43 feet south of the
N.W. corner of said N.W. } of S.E. } of S.W. } thence continue
south along the west line of said N.W. } of S.E. } of S.W. }
a distance of 295.15 feet; thence run east on an interior
angle of 900 29' 29" from the north to east a distance of
82.36 feet; thence run northwesterly a distance of 307.16 feet
to the point of beginning, said parcel contains .28 acres more
or less lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6, Multi -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre) to IL, Light Industrial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approvedand adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 5 day of March , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 8 day of February , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 5 day of March , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Aye
Ayr
Aye
Ay e
BOARD OF'.COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman r
ATTEST BY: '
Jeffrey K. B rton, Clerk
18
PUBLIC HEARING - RUSSELL CONCRETE REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX. ±11
ACRES FROM A-1 AND RM -6 to IG
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M.
having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read aloud the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter of
42€6/04,iyz,zd
In the Court, was pub-
Iished 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
(SEAL)
_ daylo .D. 199/
(Business Manus)
:,
(Clark-of-the-hire•nit-ecrurt tncli f fver-Getii y,-Flocida)-
Chairman Bird announced that staff is
,•:: " > NdfICE =� PUBUG HEAtUNG .�
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a county ordinance rezoning land from: RM -8,
Multiple-F8mWI Residential District, and A-1.
al District to IG, • 3eneral lndueW*l fsts
ct. The subject property Is owned by Russell
Concrete, Inc., and Is located to the west of the
F.E.C. RR. R/W, north of 73rd Street. The sub-
ject property containing approximately 11
+-acres is lying In the northwest quarter of Sob -
00n_ 3, Townthip 325, Range 39E, lying and
being In Indian River County.
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-
missloners•of Indian -River County, Florida In the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Buliding, located at 1840 25th
. Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. March
5,1991 at 9:08 a.m.
vBoard dd�s
prove a less Inzoning district than the dis-
trict
requested Provided ft 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-.
in Is made, which Includes the testimony and
evkfence upon which the appeal Is based.
,. Indian River County
?•t Board of County Commissioners ' ,
• By -it -Dick Blvd; Chairman 787883
Feb. 8.1891 .
recommending that this
Public Hearing be continued at the Regular Meeting of March 19,
1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M.
Attorney Vitunac advised that when a Public Hearing is
continued to a time certain, there is no requirement to
readvertise the Public Hearing.
Iii 5 199
19
Q
PAVE
MAR 5 199
BOOK 82 F'AGE 8 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously continued
the Public Hearing for 9:00 o'clock A.M. on Tuesday,
March 19, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 45 AND LOT 3.1
BLOCK 45 FOR THE NEW COURTHOUSE SITE
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read aloud the Notice with Proof of Publication attached,
to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of 4.11YLM-
in
the //�' Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ? �%%Le%G �f; l % 4/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously 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 10the purpose of securing this
ad ertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
S corn 10 and subscribed before me this day • �.l'4�.1.' A.D. 19 9/
(SEAL)
(Business -'
ircuit
20
nty;•Florida) •
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners of Indlap
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of
a Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on
Tuesday, March 5,1991. to discuss the following .
proposed purchase: ;
The Board of County Commissioners shall con-.
eider whether to exercise options on the follow •
-
Ing properties. •
1. Description: Block 45, Lot 1 842, original •
town of Vero
Owner: Bloomfield Vero torp.
c/o Edgar L Schlitt, Trusted, •
-Drtinock5,2. Description: Block 4 17' o
flot 8, origi-
nal town of Vero •
Owner Ennis and Gay Proctor ,' r ;;
Option Price: 570,000.00
Seld properties are to be taken as part of the ac- s 1
quisltlon program, for new courthouse. ;4
»Anyone who may. w1sh.-to-apDeal.anv•dada) on `"
which rfiay bif made atbde i iiflr w111 need to
'-ensure-that a verbatim record dT fircCeed-
' Ings Is made, which Includes testimony and evi- .
dence upon which the appeal Is based.
Jan. 31, 1991 784795 •
s1' "/ii•; = -
c�•
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/91:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 25, 1991 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler L,
County Administrato.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF LOTS 1 & 2
BLOCK 45 & LOT 3.1,
BLOCK 45 FOR THE NEW
COURTHOUSE SITE
FROM: Randy Dowling EFERENCES:
• Asst. to County AdministratoR
BACKGROUND
The Board, during its January 29, 1991 regular meeting, approved a public
hearing for the March 5, 1991 Commission meeting to execute Ed Schlitt,
Trustee, (Lots 1 & 2, Block 45) and Ennis and Gay Proctor's (Lot 3.1, Block
45) Option Agreements for the new courthouse site. Ed Schlitt, Trustee and
Ennis and Gay Proctor have agreed to sell their property for $353,000 and
$70,000 respectively. These prices are consistent with the acquisition
budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve Eds Schlitt, Trustee and Ennis and Gay
6 Proctor's Option Agreements and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the
agreements and all other related necessary documents.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Option Agreements for Ed Schlitt, Trustee, and Ennis
and Gay Proctor, and authorized the Chairman to execute
the agreements and all other related necessary
documents, as recommended by staff.
OPTIONS TO PURCHASE ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
21 FMK 82, ma
MAR 5 i991
4.4
1R 51991
BOOK
PURCHASE OF LOT 13.1, BLOCK 45, FOR NEW COURTHOUSE SITE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/91:
C PAGE 0
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE:
THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrat
Ran
FROM: Assay ooCounty Administr-atoPEFERENCES:
sr Q
February 26, 1991
FILE:
PURCHASE OF LOT 13.1,
SUBJECT: BLOCK 45, FOR NEW
COURTHOUSE SITE
BACKGROUND
The Board, during its December 18, 1990 regular meeting, approved the new
courthouse site and authorized staff to proceed with land acquisition. The
Board approved and executed Bernice Meyer's (Lots 12 & 13, Block 44), Dave
Whitfield's (Lot 3, Block 44), and Janice Diggs' (Lot 10, Block 45) Option
Agreements during its February 19, 1991 regular meeting. The Board has
also approved a public hearing for the March 5, 1991 Commission meeting to
execute Ed Schlitt's (Lots 1 & 2, Block 45) and Ennis & Gay Proctor's (Lot
3.1, Block 45) Option Agreements. The proposed courthouse site consists of
15 parcels and 13 property owners.
CURRENT
Bernard and Norma Tedeson, owners of Lot 13.1, Block 45, have signed an
Option Agreement to sell their property for $130,000. This price is
consistent with the acquisition budget. This property was acquired according
to Chapter 73 F.S. and the Resolution of Condemnation. Therefore, a notice
and public hearing are not required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve Bernard and Norma Tedeson's Option
Agreement and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the agreement and all
other related necessary documents.
Administrator Chandler advised that we are well on our way
and within budget on all the parcels for the new courthouse site.
Chairman Bird asked why this purchase didn't require a
public hearing, and Administrator Chandler explained that when
we started the acquisition process, we were going under a
different chapter in the State Statutes which permitted us to
maintain the confidentiality of appraisals as we negotiated and
22
if we had to go to condemnation. The first two parcels that were
acquired where we signed options were handled under that chapter.
As we got deeper into negotiations, we felt there was no need to
continue that process because it is beneficial in some respects
Chairman Bird felt it was rather unusual for the buyer to be
responsible for the the realtor consultation fee of 1/2 of one
percent of the purchase price payable at closing. Although it
only amounts to $650 in this case, he didn't want to see us gets
in the habit of doing this.
Administrator Chandler explained that on this one we felt
the overall price was fair and well within our budget. In fact,
on the first 6 parcels that we will have acquired, we will be
$274,000 below our budget, and if we bring in the next 2 as
expected, we will be $332,000 below our budget.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that if we went through condem-
nation, we would have to pay for their costs.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Option Agreement with Norma Tedeson and authorized
the Chairman to execute the agreement and all other
related necessary documents, as recommended by staff.
OPTION TO PURCHASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TROOP L, FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL,
REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF RADAR UNITS PURCHASED BY INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/24/91:
L. MAR 51991
23
4
BAR E '991
BOOK 82 FACE 825
TO: Board of County, Commissioners
FROM: Doug Wright,,, Director
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: January 24, 1991
SUBJECT: Approval of Interlocal Agreement with
Troop L, Florida Highway Patrol, Relating
to Radar Units Purchased by Indian River County
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In 1985 and 1989, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the purchase'of four radar units each year for
a total of eight units for the Florida Highway Patrol. The radar
units were purchased for use by Troop L in Indian River County.
The radar units purchased by the county are identified on the
attachment which was obtained from the fixed asset records of the
county and verified by the Florida Highway Patrol.
The Florida Highway Patrol has submitted the attached Agreement
relating to the use, ownership, and maintenance of the radar units
purchased for Troop L. The units are operational and being used on
a routine basis by the assigned officer per Trooper Byron Sickman.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
No action is being requested by the Florida Highway Patrol other than
approval of the Agreement.
This agreement is different from the one approved by the Board on
February 5, 1991, for Troop J (Turnpike Troop). The Troop J
Agreement in Article Two stated that the County is the lawful owner
of the radar unit and that the FHP would be the custodian and
responsible for the installation, maintenance, and repair of the
radar units.
The Agreement submitted by Troop L indicates in Article Two that the
County shall be the lawful owner of the eight radar units and
responsible for the maintenance and repair of the radar equipment.
Staff does not feel this section of the agreement would have a
substantial impact on funds for maintenance or other equipment since
the four radar units purchased in 1989 have five year maintenance
agreements which will cover the units through 1994.
The five year maintenance agreement for the four units purchased in
1985 will expire in 1991, however, the FHP indicates that they plan
to ask the County to replace these four units by submitting a budget
request for consideration by the Board. If the Board approves the
new purchase request, the language in the Agreement will not impact
this Department as staff would not have to fund any maintenance costs
for the units. If approval is denied, staff would have to budget for
projected maintenance expenses of the older units.
24
Trooper Byron Sickman indicates the language was changed in the Troop
L Agreement due to the fact the State indicates that they the radar units provided by the Countyll not
pay for maintenance of
Since the Interlocal Agreement does not identify or specify a certain
time frame, it appears cancellation with notice could occur if
maintenance expenses exceeded that which the County felt was
reasonable and acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Agreement with the Florida Highway
Patrol, Troop L, regarding the use, ownership, and maintenance of the
eight radar units identified in the attachment.
ATTACHMENT
Referenced Agreement
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
FOR: 3›--C-9/
BY:�-2
ames Chandler
County Administrator
L rygal
15udgei
Caps.
Risk Mgr.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the County purchased
these radar units back in 1985 and 1989 after the State said they
could not provide radar units, and now the State is saying that
they cannot pay for maintenance on the units. He would like to
see us pull the units back and give them to the Sheriff's
Department.
Commissioner Wheeler recalled that he had voted against it
the last time because the FHP came in after the budget was
adopted and it was coming out of contingencies at that time. He
didn't like the idea of paying for the maintenance, but felt it
25
MAR 5 1991
POOK
F,.a 82C
11AR 5 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 8 7
was important that the FHP continue to have the use of these
radar units here in our county. He suggested that we go back to
the State again for maintenance funding rather than just slamming
the door in their face.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S MOTION to deny the request for
funding of maintenance costs failed for lack of a second.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that whenever the FHP
writes a ticket in the unincorporated area of the county, the
County receives a portion of that fine. He believed the
collections from fines are up this year from the previous two
years.
Emergency Management Director Doug Wright noted that the
other troop agreed to the rrrraintenance agreement because it was
only for one radar unit.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that his point is not the
money the County takes in, it is the principle that the State
could at least pay for the maintenance of the radar units.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the bottom line is that the FHP
wouldn't have the benefit of using the radar units in this
county, particularly on 1-95 and SR -60.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
the maintenance agreement with FHP and directed
staff to negotiate with the FHP for the State to pay
for the maintenance of the radar units.
26
PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER - COURTHOUSE PROJECT SELECTION
COMMITTEE REPORT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/91:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 4, 1991
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI
PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER - COURTHOUSE PROJECT
SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
BACKGROUND:
On Friday, March 1, 1991, the Selection Committee for the subject
project met to hear oral presentations from the five short-listed
firms.
The following final short list was determined:
1. Centrex Rooney Construction Company
2. Sverdrup Corporation
3. CRSS Constructors, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff request authority to negotiate a contract with the firms as
outlined in Florida State Statue 287.055. The contract will be
brought back to the Board for final approval.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board authorize
staff to negotiate a contract with the 3 firms listed
in the above staff recommendation.
Under discussion, Chairman Bird asked if any local firms had
bid on this project, and General Services Director Sonny Dean
advised that two local firms had gone together with larger firms
and one had submitted by itself.
GEAR 5191
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
27 fool( 82 PAGE 82S
LIAR 5 1991
BOOK 82 PAGE 829
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL - WORKERS'
COMPENSATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/27/91:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manage
DATE: 27 February 1991
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment; Administrative Manual
With your concurrence, we request the following proposed
Administrative Manual amendment be considered at the Board's
March 5, 1991, meeting.
Background
During the recent legislative session, Florida amended its workers'
compensation statutes, altering some provisions which formerly
favored employees. One such change was an increase from 14
calendar days to 21 calendar days before the injured employee is
entitled to wage loss benefits for days 1-7. In addition, the
Florida Retirement System has recently made changes in its
reporting requirements for workers' compensation absences. Under
current Personnel policy, employees who sustain an on-the-job
injury compensable through workers' compensation are prohibited
from using accrued sick leave time to supplement the statutorily
required 66 2/3% salary wage loss payments.
Analysis
The current policy, however, in a compassionate gesture, has been
interpreted differently at departmental levels, resulting in some
employees being allowed to use accrued sick leave for their entire
absence. The workers' compensation wage loss payment has been
subsequently returned by the employee to the County and the used
sick leave has been restored to the employee's account.
While this provided full continued salary, it has resulted in
significant accounting problems for the Clerk's Finance staff.
Social Security and federal withholding deductions have been
charged against employees who, if they had been paid strictly
through workers' compensation wage loss, would not have had such
charges. Additionally, because workers' compensation payments are
exempt from federal income tax and Social Security deductions,
employees can receive more than full salary by using a combination
of accrued leave and workers' compensation payments.
The proposed amendment standardizes workers' compensation payroll
procedures, provides for uninterrupted payments to injured
employees, does not excessively tax employees, and meets the
requirements of the Florida Retirement System. It allows employees
to use accrued leave for the first seven calendar days of a
compensable injury.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed amendment to the
Risk Management section of the Administrative Manual to address the
limited use of accrued leave during workers' compensation
disability absences.
28
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed amendment to the Risk Management section
of the Administrative Manual regarding Workers'
Compensation.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION PORTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SELECTION - COUNTY COURTHOUSE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/91:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 26, 1991
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
/5'
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR J
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SELECTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
As previously authorized by the Board, a Request For Qualifications
was advertised for the subject consulting services. Twenty-one
proposals were received and the following five firms were short
listed to make presentations to the committee on Friday, March 1,
1991.
Barton Malow Company
Heery Program Management, Inc.
Centex Rooney Construction Company
Sverdrup, Corporation ,.
CRSS Constructors, Inc.
It is very important that a PCM firm be under contract with the
County as soon as possible. Proposals for an Architect will be
received the first of March and staff is looking at the PCM firm to
help in selecting that Architect.
The response to our advertisement for an architect, on this project,
has indicated we can expect somewhere around fifty proposals. The
process for short listing this many firms will consume a tremendous
amount of time from the selection committee which is comprised of a
Commissioner, two Judges, the Clerk of the Circuit Court and two
staff members. Our tentative schedule does not allow for any slack
time during this critical phase of selecting consultants.
29
BOOK 82 ,a{,E 832,
MAR 5 1991
Ai
UAR 5 991
ANALYSIS:
BOOK 82 F'AE 8:11
The March 12th Board meeting agenda has scheduled a utility rate
increase public hearing. This item will consume a great deal of time
at that meeting. Staff has been instructed to keep agenda items at a
minimum to facilitate the scheduled public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In keeping with our schedule and based on the above, it is requested
that staff be authorized to provide the Board with three short listed
PCM firms, in priority on Friday, March 1, 1991, after the selection
committee meeting, and action be taken by the Board at their regular
meeting on March 5, 1991, to allow negotiations with the firms as
outlined in the Florida State Statues.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to negotiate with the firms as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
REQUEST BY JOE BERLIN FOR 25% COUNTY REIMBURSEMENT FOR PAVING 7TH
AVENUE SOUTH OF 10TH STREET
Public Works Director Jim Davis presented the following
staff recommendation of Alternative No. 1 whereby the County
would not participate in the funding:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Request by Joe Berlin for 25% County
Reimbursement for Paving 7th Avenue
South of 10th Street
DATE: February 6, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Scotad, Inc. (Joe and Adam Berlin, Principals) has developed
the new Shoney's Restaurant on U.S. 1 south of 10th Street.
The Corporation is also planning to construct a Comfort Inn
Hotel/Motel on the adjoining property. A condition of Site
Plan approval is that an approximately 500 foot portion of
7th Avenue abutting the site to the east must be paved prior
to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the proposed
30
Comfort Inn Hotel/Motel. On August 18, 1988, the Public
Works Department received a petition from three property
owners along 7th Avenue requesting that the road be paved.
The petition was only signed by=three of eleven owners (27%
of frontage), thus the petition did not have sufficient
signatures for Staff to pursue a voluntary assessment.
Prior to Site Plan approval, Staff indicated to Mr. Berlin
that the developer could pave the 500'± frontage of 7th
Avenue with no funding by the County or he could submit a
valid petition signed by 66.7% of the property owners (based
on number of owners or front footage) and the road could be
paved under the Petition Paving Program if approved after a
Public Hearing is conducted. If a Petition Paving Project
is approved, the County would pay 25% of the cost. Staff
has still not received a complete valid petition.
Recently, even prior to beginning the Comfort Inn
Hotel/Motel construction, Mr. Berlin applied for a County
Right -of -Way Permit application to pave 7th Avenue and
completed road paving construction. The, County crews did
participate in removing trees in the right-of-way. At this
time, Mr. Berlin is requesting that the County reimburse him
25% of the total cost of $34,416.85 which amounts to
$8,604.21. The construction cost per lineal feet is
approximately $69.00, which is substantially higher than
typical County construction costs ($35.00 to $50,00 per
L.F).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since a valid petition has not been received and proper
Public Hearings have not been conducted, Staff is of the
opinion that Petition Paving guidelines have not been
followed. As a result, the County has no obligation to
participate in the funding. The alternatives presented are
as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Scotad, Inc. could have delayed the timing of the
development of the site until the County had
received a valid petition or paved the road with a
mandatory County initialed program. Scotad, Inc.
has elected to pave the road prior to County
paving. The County should not participate in
funding, since this action could set a precedent
on County funding participation in areas where
Public Hearings and Public Input has not occurred.
Alternative No. 2
Participate in the funding of 7th Avenue road
paving without following the normal Petition
Paving Program procedure.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the County would
not participate in the funding.
31
5 1991
!400 2 PAGE
s Ty'%
11AR 5 199'
BOOK 82 PAGE
671)(711,
Commissioner Scurlock understood that staff's biggest
objection is that construction costs exceeded our normal con-
struction costs and 25% of that is a larger number than what we
usually pay.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if any consideration had been
given to paying the 25% since the road needed to be paved in any
case, and they went ahead and paved it before it would have been
paved under the petition paving program.
Director Davis explained that staff did consider that
alternative. The main objection was due to the adverse effect it
would have on our petition paving program.
•
Commissioner Scurlock asked what the average cost would-be
for the size of this project, and Director Davis believed it
would run around $35 per lineal foot. The ones where we have
been estimating it at $50 per lineal foot are the ones where we
anticipate bidding the work out to the private sector. However,
if County crews did it, he believed $35 per lineal foot would be
a fair cost, and that would have to be multiplied by 25% for the
County's share.
Adam Berlin, 514 Bay Drive, Vero Beach, came to the podium,
and Chairman Bird explained that the third option just identified
would be to reimburse him for 25% of the cost figured at $35 a
lineal foot.
Mr. Berlin noted that he is here today because of this third
option that wasn't set out in staff's recommendation. He
believed there was a dialogue problem with the Planning
Department right from the beginning when they brought in their
site plan, but what he is saying now is that he will go ahead and
pay for the other people on the street. He doesn't want to go
through the petition process; he just would pay their fair share.
He asked if the cost of $35-$50 per lineal foot includes
drainage.
Director Davis advised that it includes the cost for paving
and drainage, but believed that the County moved some trees out
32
of the way there also. The $50 is the high figure we use if we
put it out to bid in the private sector, and the $35 is a typical
cost if the County crews do the work. If we multiply the $35 a
lineal foot by 25%, the amount is $4,375, and if the County
wanted to participate, he wouldn't recommend more than that.
Commissioner Wheeler was sure the County saved some funds in
office staff, etc., by not having to go through the public
hearing process for petition paving, and suggested that in the
spirit of fairness we pay the 25%.
Commissioner Bowman believed we would be setting a very
dangerous precedent, but Commissioner Wheeler didn't feel we
would since the road needed to be paved and the Board has always
encouraged road paving. He believed it would be fair to pay 25%
since that has been our policy.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the County pay 25% of the
actual paving costs.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed with Commissioner Bowman that
we would be setting a precedent because there are a lot of
developers out there who have to pay for paving before they can
get their site plan approved or their C.O. issued.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the road needed to be paved if
this development had not gone in, and Director Davis stated that
it did.
Chairman Bird stated that he would feel better about the
Motion if we paid 25% of what the cost would have been had a
County crew done the work.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER amended his Motion to
authorize County reimbursement of $4,375, which
is 25% of the paving cost at $35 a lineal foot.
CHAIRMAN BIRD SECONDED THE MOTION.
33
HAR 5199A
POG' 82 F,`,.E 8J 4
MAR 5 1991
BOOK
FA
'JC „I)
Discussion continued, and Commissioner Scurlock felt that
since we would be establishing a precedent by approving this
Motion, he would like to see criteria set that is much more
stringent and specific than what we have now. He stressed that
we better make sure it is uniformly applied and see what the
long term pluses and minuses are.
Commissioner Wheeler stressed that the differences here are
that they were on a grader route and they wanted it paved, and
the petition paving effort failed two years ago when they didn't
get enough signatures.
Both Commissioner Scurlock and Commissioner Eggert stated
they would have a hard time voting for this Motion without seeing
something very specific set out in policy and when it applies and
when it doesn't and what the ramifications would be.
The Board discussed postponing this matter for a couple of
weeks, but Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if staff needs more
time than that, there is no emergency here as far as a time limit
is concerned.
Commissioner Scurlock noted the extensive road paving
improvements the DeBartolo mall would have had to make to comply
with the State's concurrency requirements, and Commissioner
Eggert felt she would be much happier if this would come back
with some policy setting recommendations.
Director Davis pointed out situations where developers are
paying the cost of paving an entire stretch of roadway where
other people fronting the road objected, such as the County -
maintained road in the Town of Orchid that will be used by the
Environmental Learning Center. He stressed that the payment of
these type of paving projects would deplete the resources for
voluntary petition paving programs.
COMMi I SS I ONERS WHEELER AND BIRD WITHDREW THEIR MOTION.
34
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
tabled this item for approximately 30 days to give
staff enough time to set some standards to be used in
this type of situation.
Chairman Bird explained to Mr. Berlin that if staff can come
up with a policy that is consistent enough to satisfy a majority
of this Commission, then a majority of the Commission may agree
to reimburse him for all or a part of the reimbursement he
requested.
Mr. Berlin understood then that he will not be caught in a
situation where he would have to meet new standards, but Chairman
Bird felt that if the Board took a vote right now on his request,
it probably would be to deny the reimbursement he requested,
because they are afraid of establishing a precedent. He felt the
delay might be to Mr. Berlin's advantage.
MAINTENANCE ACCEPTANCE OF NON -MAINTAINED COUNTY UNPAVED ROADS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/6/91:
TO:
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
DATE: February 6, 1991
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
Maintenance Acceptance
County Unpaved Roads
of Non -Maintained
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the regular Board of County Commissioners meeting on
June 19, 1990, Staff was requested to evaluate the current
policy on maintenance acceptance of dedicated, unmaintained
roadways in the County. At that time, Ms. Kathryn McKerny,
resident of Oslo Park Subdivision, requested that the County
maintain 12th Court SW in Oslo Park Subdivision.
iliAR 51991
35
mot( 8:.. FADE 8:j6.
Pr -
MAR 5 i99
BOOK
PAGE8a7
Current Policy
In May 1981, the Board approved the current road
maintenance acceptance program whereby a numerical
evaluation program was adopted for maintenance
requests. The program considers the following
evaluation criteria for acceptance:
Right -of -Way availability
a School Bus Routes using Road
o Development along the Road
Connection with other County Roads
• Roadway Condition
o Roadway Function
a Traffic Volume on the Roadway
o Drainage Conditions
o Availability to Maintenance Route
o Future County Road System Planning
Since May 1981, Staff records indicate that the
following requests for maintenance were formally
recommended for approval/denial:
Approval Recommended
- West Side Villas Subdivision - June 1988
Country Walk Subdivision - April 1985
Apple Way Subdivision -
- 10th Court South of Oslo Road - 1986
80th Avenue in Roseland - July 1984
Wauregan Avenue and Brevard Avenue in
Roseland May 1981
- Suburban Acres - 34th Terrace - 1987
Denial
Recommended
Durrance Road
12th Court SW
Various Roads
Davis Road in
- May 1981
in Oslo Park - June 1990
in Vero Lakes Estates
Wabasso
Other requests have been verbally made, but no formgl
requests or action taken.
Unmaintained, Dedicated Right -of -Ways in County
The following is an estimate of unmaintained,
dedicated right-of-way mileage in the County east
of I-95:
Area Description Estimated Mileage
Oslo Park Subdivision - 4 miles
Vero Homesites East of I-95 - 3 miles
13th Street SW - 1 mile
Pine Tree Park Subdivision - z mile
Gifford Area - 1 mile
Wabasso Area - 3 miles
Vero Lakes Estates - 45 miles
Roseland - 3 miles
Roseland Gardens (Private) - 2. miles
South of Sebastian , West
of Old Dixie Highway - 1 miles
Durrance Road - 1 mile
Miscellaneous, Indian River
Farms Water Control District
Sublaterial Canal Roads East
of I-95 - 20 miles
Summerplace - 3 mile
Subtotal east of I-95 87.5 miles
36
West of I-95 (including Fellsmere) there are numerous
unpaved roads serving agricultural areas, most of which are
not dedicated to the General Public.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
The following Alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Retain the present evaluation and criteria system.
The present point system appears to be effective,
and each request for maintenance is handled on an
individual basis.
Alternative No. 2
Accept for maintenance the estimated 87.5 miles of
unmaintained right-of-way east of I-95. At the
present time, Grader Route #7, which serves the
Fellsmere area, can complete his assigned grader
route within a two week period, whereas the other
six graders complete their route within a four-six
week period. The Staff would assign a substantial
portion of the additional 87.5 miles (45 miles in
Vero Lakes Estates) to Route 7 and the other six
routes would assume maintenance of the remaining
42.5 miles. The impact would be that instead of
reducing the number of grader routes from seven to
six in the next few years, the Road and Bridge
Division would operate seven full routes and the
level -of -service would be reduced whereby the
four-six week grading frequency level -of -service
would be increased to five -seven weeks. The
addition of one grader route (Route #8) would have
to be reinstituted (this route was eliminated in
1988 due to the success of the Petition Paving
Program in the South County) to maintain the
current four-six week grading frequency. The cost
of purchasing a grader (approximately $85,000),
staffing an operator ($30,000/year) and operating
costs ($10,000/year) would have to be budgeted to
add the additional route. In addition, some
roadways require substantial tree removal and road
construction to bring them to a maintainable
condition. Where this is the case, the County
could assess this cost to the benefitted owners.
One time Fixed Costs and subsequent Annual Costs
to add Route #8 are as follows:
Initial Year (1991/92) Fixed Costs
Purchase one Motor Grader
(if current level -of -service
is maintained). Initial costs
to improve road condition, clear
right-of-way (including Landfill
fees), install drainage, etc. so
that grading can commence
87.5 miles @ $10.00/L.F.
Subtotal
Recurring Annual Costs
Grader Operator Salary
(including fringe benefits)
Fuel, Lubrication, Maintenance
Road Material
37
MAR 5 19911
I.__________
$ 85,000
$4,620,000
$5,705,000
$30,000.00
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$90,000.00
!BOOK
WOR 5 1991
BOOK 82 FACE 83C
Alternative No,. 3
Recent discussions with the members of the Vero
Lakes Estates Homeowners Association, Road and
Drainage Subcommittee, indicate that many of the
homeowners support a more aggressive paving
program within Vero -Lakes Estates. Mr. Edmund
Ansin still owns many lots (approximately 4,000)
in the area and he is opposed to increased
assessments. If the County initiates more
aggressive paving assessments, Mr. Ansin may sell
his lots in Vero Lakes Estates and the area would
more rapidly develop prior to water and sewer
being available. The poor soils in the area
justify a Public Sanitary Sewer System. If a more
aggressive paving program is initiated,
improvements should only be scheduled for the
eastern half of the area and allow the western
portion of the subdivision to remain substantially
undeveloped. Since Vero Lakes Estates Subdivision
contains approximately 50% of the unmaintained
road mileage in the County, a controlled
management plan for road maintenance within Vero
Lakes Estates Subdivision could eliminate the need
to add grader Route #8, reduce the impact on Mr.
Ansins land holdings in the southwest quadrant of
the subdivision, allow a stormwater system to be
constructed prior to complete road paving and
aggressive development in the area. Alternative
No.3 would be to accept for maintenance the
approximate 42.5 miles of unmaintained roads east
of I-95 with the exception of Vero Lakes Estates,
and for the Staff to prepare a phased maintenance
plan for the Vero Lakes Estates area since it is
uniquely subdivided and developed. This plan
would be considered in a future meeting of the
Board. For this alternative, the Initial and
Recurring Annual Costs are as follows:
Initial Year (1991/92) Fixed Costs
Road improvements to improve roadway conditions,
clear right-of-way (including Landfill fees),
install drainage facilities, etc. so that grading
can commence
42.5 miles @ $10.00/L.F. = $2,244,000.00
Recurring Annual Costs
Road Material $50,000.00
The above alternative would result in a five to
seven week grading level -of -service.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff prefers Alternative No. 1, however, if the Board would
prefer to increase road grading in the County, Alternative
No. 3 is the recommended action.
Public Works Director Jim Davis pointed out the 7 grader
routes on a map of the county, noting that route #6 is entirely
Vero Lake Estates and route 7 is in the Fellsmere area, which
includes Blue Cypress Lake.
38
Chairman Bird asked what our obligation is for somebody
living along a dirt road in Vero Lakes Estates that is barely
accessible, and Director Davis advised that the road would be
evaluated under our point system, and if it did not qualify for
maintenance, the parties have the right to come before the Board
and ask for that road to be paved. We have followed that policy
since 1981. We don't know the reason why certain roads were on
the list to be graded before the 1981 policy was set, but we do
know about the ones since 1982 that have been added to the
grading route.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we have a responsibility to Vero
Lake Estates especially since that is one of the few areas left
for affordable housing. He could support a grading route in that
area and would like to see it squared off. He has received more
calls from people in this area than any other area, and felt a
grader route in that area would go a long way in explaining to
those residents where their tax monies are being spent.
Director Davis explained that Alternative #3 calls for $2.2
million to improve 42.5 miles of roads. That amount is just to
improve roadway conditions, clear right-of-way (including
Landfill fees), install drainage facilities, etc., so that
grading can commence.
Administrator Chandler believed that it should be done on an
assessment basis rather than have the general taxpayers pay for
it, which is why the proposed cost is figured at $10 per lineal
foot.
Chairman Bird felt it would be very difficult to access this
project since some of these areas are on the other side of 1-95.
He didn't feel that Alternative #3 adequately addresses Vero Lake
Estates.
Director Davis didn't feel we should maintain everything in
Vero Lake Estates. In some of the more extreme portions we
should take those roads as they come in and use our point system.
39
MAR 5 1991
eOO FA 84G
MAR 5 1991
ROOK 82 FAGE 841
Perhaps we could make it easier for them to qualify, however, but
we would continue to take them on a case by case basis. Many of
these lots are selling for $3,000 and for them to have the same
service as areas where people are paying $20,000 a lot is not
equitable.
Commissioner Wheeler believed we would be setting a
precedent in reverse by having the general fund subsidizing the
area, and Administrator Chandler felt we should address Vero Lake
Estates separately, change the criteria and come back with a
separate program.
Director Davis advised that some new officers have been
elected by the Vero Lake Estates Property Owners Association and
staff does meet with them quarterly. He really felt that water
and sewer lines should be installed before any roads are con-
structed, and that we should prepare a master management plan for
the area.
Commissioner Eggert understood that alternative #2 is for
everything and alternative #3 is for everything but Vero Lakes
Estates, and Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we table this
and have the County Administrator develop some specific recommen-
dations on Vero Lake Estates.
Administrator Chandler felt the best route to go is with our
point system, but perhaps liberalize it a bit. Staff could bring
something back for growth management.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Alternative #1 of staff's recommendation,
except for Vero Lakes Estates, which is to be
considered separately, and if adjustments are needed
in the point system, the Board will consider that at a
later date.
40
REQUEST BY JOHN CREWS FOR COUNTY TO MAINTAIN 122ND STREET BRIDGE
WEST OF CR -507
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/22/91:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.,,,
Public Works Director
Request by Mr. John Crews for
County to Maintain 122nd Street Bridge
West of CR 507
February 22, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the February 12, 1991 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Board tabled action on the subject item
and requested the following additional information:
1) Estimated cost of repairs to correct existing
maintenance deficiencies.
2) Research formal instrument by which County deeded
or conveyed the ownership of the bridge to Carson
Platt.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The estimated cost to repair the bridge, including
construction of new guardrail at both ends of the bridge, is
$4,925.06.
In researching whether the County executed an abandonment
resolution or other formal document to transfer the bridge
to Carson Plat, Staff could not find any executed document,
however, in the County files is a letter from Thomas
Hamilton, Jr. indicating that the 12' wide roadway between
CR 507 and the Park Lateral Canal Bridge (approximately
2,000') is actually located outside of the Ditch 1 40' wide
right-of-way and is on Mr. Platt's property. This road was
constructed and maintained by Mr. Platt. The County Staff
in 1985 saw no need to execute a legal abandonment of
right-of-way where the roadway and bridge existed since no
County right-of-way existed. Mr. Platt obtained a legal
survey of the road from Carter and Associates to
substantiate that the road was private. No County
right-of-way or County owned land lies within 2,000' of the
bridge.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since Mr. Hamilton, agent for Mr. Platt, substantiated the
fact that neither the road leading to the Park Lateral Canal
Bridge nor the bridge itself lie within public right-of-way
via a legal sketch or survey, the County Public Works
Department and County Attorney's Office is of the opinion
that the County should not reassume maintenance of the
bridge. If the County Commission would prefer to reaffirm
this action, the attached proposed resolution could be
adopted.
,MAR 5 1991
41
BOOK 82 PAGE 842
MAR 5 199T
BOOK 82 PAGE 8 3
Director Davis advised that staff's recommendation is the
same as it was on February 12th, and that was that the County not
reassume maintenance of the bridge. The County Attorney's Office
has researched the matter and prepared a resolution if the Board
should wish to adopt a formal resolution abandoning the County's
interest.
John Crews, petitioner, explained that the bridge was put in
there to serve several homes that were built on the west side of
the bridge. There are two home sites who are owned by people who
are not relatives, and he didn't feel he had the right to close
the bridge or the road to them. He questioned why the County
ever put that bridge in there originally if it was not for a good
reason.
Chairman Bird felt the County should either give Mr. Crews
the bridge and allow him to have a private bridge and road, or go
ahead and accept maintenance.
Attorney Vitunac advised that his office is recommending
that we adopt a resolution abandoning Indian River County's
interest, if any, in the road and bridge west of CR -507 along
Ditch 1 north of Fellsmere. If Mr. Crews has some neighbors who
have a right to continue using it, that is a private matter. It
doesn't make it a public road. If he wanted to have a locked
gate there and give the key to certain people, he could do that
with a private road.
Commissioner Scurlock anticipated that one of the questions
that would be raised at the public hearing on the proposed
resolution would be why public dollars were spent to access
private property.
Mr. Crews believed the reason for that was that the bridge
was put in way back when they dug the Park Lateral Canal.
Chairman Bird asked Mr. Crews if he would be willing to
convey the right-of-way if the County assumed maintenance, but
Director Davis indicated that would not be a good solution.
42
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise for a public hearing for abandoning
Indian River County's interest, if any, in the road and
bridge west of CR -50-7 along Ditch 1 north of
Fellsmere.
WABASSO HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE REPAIRS - ENGINEERING SERVICE AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/91:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
DATE: February 26, 1991
.9
Wabasso High Level Bridge Repairs
Engineering Services Agreement
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the December 4, 1990 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, staff was authorized to negotiate an
agreement with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. for
Engineering Services to repair the Wabasso Causeway Bridge.
The attached agreement provides a negotiated Scope of Work
and Compensation in the amount of $17,300 for Phase I
Design and Contract document preparation, $x.1.,000 for Phase
II Contract Administration, and not to exceed $5,000 for
reimbursable expenses.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has negotiated the attached contract and is of the
opinion that the Scope of Work and Compensation is
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the attached agreement be
and that the Chairman be authorized to execute it.
Funding to be from account #111-214-541-033.19
Bridge - Professional Services. '. --
MAR 5 1991
L
approved
Road and
43 ou 82 PAGE 0744
Pr-
IAR 5 IN
BOOK 82 PAGE 845
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Engineering Services Agreement with Post, Buckley,
Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. for repair of the Wabasso
Causeway Bridge for the amounts set out in the above
staff recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
ENGINEERING CONTRACT - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF
VARIOUS WATER MAINS AND SUBDIVISION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/15/91:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 15, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECT•R •E,UTZLITY SERVICES
ex OAP
H. • MD • "' b 1 ER, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
OWNER/ENGINEER CONTRACT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION OF VARIOUS WATER MAINS AND SUBDIVISION
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -02 -DS
BACKGROUND:
On January 29, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations with the
selected firms and to proceed with an agreement based upon
negotiations.
ANALYSIS:
Negotiations with Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., for Phase I of
the Water Expansion Plan have been completed, and a "Standard Form
of Agreement between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services"
has been submitted to the County for approval. Phase I includes
transmission mains on 27th Avenue, on 4th Street, and on 5th Street,
S.W., and includes water distribution facilities for Indian River
Heights, Moreland Subdivision, Clearview Terrace, Bonny Vista Acres,
Emerson Villas, and Graves Annex.
The estimated lump sum fee for Phase I design services with one
prime contractor is $134,750.00. This fee will be adjusted when
firm construction costs are known, and shall be based on FmHA
44
percentages. Additional services of Engineer are estimated to be
$81,020.00 with one contractor, and include field surveying, soils
investigation, computer disk copies of as -built drawings, assessment
roll, and resident project services. If two contractors are
utilized, additional services would total $95,140.00.
All fees shall conform to FmHA guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
Agreement with Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., for Phase I
design and additional services for the estimated fees as stated
above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Engineering Agreement with Masteller & Moler
Associates, Inc. for Phase I design, as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
REIMBURSEMENT TO VERO BEACH OCEANFRONT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR
OVERSIZING OF OFF-SITE UTILITIES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/91:
DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS :� �= ►" R
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTI SERVICES
SUBJECT:
REIMBURSEMENT TO VERO BEACH OCEANFRONT LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP FOR OVERSIZING OF OFF-SITE UTILITIES
BACKGROUND
During the construction of Seaview Subdivision in the North Beaches
on A1A, certain off-site water lines were constructed. The
developer is now requesting certain reimbursements for oversizing
these off-site utilities.
MAR 5 199
45
ROOK �'F'AvE
BAR 5 1991
ANALYSIS
BOOK 82 PAE84
In constructing this subdivision, approximately 9,000 linear feet of
both 12" and 10" water main was installed along with other
appurtenances. The cost for the oversizing was $39,960.00.
Attached is a copy of the Developer's Agreement, which outlines the
amount and method of reimbursement to the developer.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
approval of the attached Developer's Agreement with the Vero Beach
Oceanfront Limited Partnership.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved the Developer's Agreement with Vero Beach
Oceanfront Limited Partnership, as recommended by
staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FINAL PAYMENT AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT CONTRACT NO. 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/91:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 25, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
WILLI
CAPIT
DEPAR
F. McCAIN
CTS •NGINEER
TILITY SERVICES
FINAL PAYMENT AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
WITH ELKINS CONSTRUCTION - NORTH COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONTRACT NO. 1
BACKGROUND
We have completed all corrections to the electrical grounding
problems at the aforementioned plant, and are ready to have both the
final pay request and final Change Order No. 3 approved by the Board
of County Commissioners.
46
ANALYSIS
The final pay request is in the amount of $113,363.15; this includes
Change Order No. 3 for $2,600.00. The third change order covers
additional grounding rods not indicated in the contract documents.
Attached please find copies of all release of liens, copies of
Change Order No. 3, final pay request, and a copy of the maintenance
bond.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Change Order No. 3 and approval of Elkins' final pay request in
the amount of $113,363.15.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order No. 3 and approved Elkins'
final pay request in the amount of $113,363.15, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
WORK AUTHORIZATION - SITE PLAN MODIFICATION FOR REGIONAL SLUDGE
FACILITY AND GIFFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/27/91:
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1991
TO:
FROM:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
:::13
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAI�
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS -1k N ER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF T- SERVICES
SUBJECT:
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE REGIONAL SLUDGE
FACILITY AND THE GIFFORD WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
BACKGROUND
Due primarily to new restrictions in the County's Land Development
Regulations, we must modify existing site plans for the
aforementioned facilities. This must be done to secure site plan
approval from the Planning Department prior to construction of
MAR 5 1991
aDO 8 PA E 8.48
MAR 5 199
BOOK 82 PAGE 84C
either facility. The Utilities Department is preparing to put both
plants out for bid in the near future. Also due to recent changes
in state and federal regulations regarding underground fuel storage
facilities, we have instructed the engineer to redesign the fuel
storage tank to be above ground. A portion of the fees in this Work
Authorization will cover this redesign. This is an addition to the
existing contract with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., for the sludge
facility and does not require going through the CCNA procedures.
ANALYSIS
Several options for securing these services have been reviewed
(i.e., engineering services). Due to the fact that Camp Dresser and
McKee, Inc., is responsible for the largest of the two facilities
and the sludge facility will be out to bid first. It is the
Utilities Department's recommendation that the firm of Camp Dresser
and McKee, Inc., be awarded the contract for these services.
A scope of services and an upper limit cost has been negotiated, and
is set at $9,500.00. (See attached Work Authorization.) Funds for
this work will come from both project accounts (i.e., the impact fee
fund) .
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why we didn't go out for bid on
this item, and Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that this
is not something that is out of the ordinary. We have two
contractors working at the same time, and we asked them for bids
and took the lowest. We didn't want to go to a third party.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization dated 3-5-91 with Camp Dresser
McKee for a lump sum of $9,500, as set out in the above
staff recommendation.
WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
48
FINAL PAYMENT - HEDDEN PLACE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/91 and Pay
Request No. 3 (Final):
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TER1ANCE G. PINT
DI' ' •R •` UTIL Eii SERVICES
• 1 �iir.
PREPARED H. �: e , P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
HEDDEN PLACE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
FINAL PAYMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -08 -DS
BACKGROUND
The subject project for construction of a water main to service
residents of Hedden Place has beer% completed. The installation has,
been accepted by the Department of Utility Services, and proper •
certification has been provided the Department of Environmental
Regulation.
ANALYSIS
On August 14, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved
funding of $45,195.00 for this project, and the contractor is now
requesting final payment. The contractor's final cost totaled
$29,927.40. This cost, plus Engineering, Inspection, and
Administrative Costs, totals $33,413.40, or $3,338 per acre
(approximately $0.0766/sq. ft.). This represents a reduction of
about 26% in the assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached request for payment in the amount of $29,927.40 for
services rendered and recommends approval of Resolution IV with its
final assessment roll.
49
MAR 5 I9911
POOK
F'" GE 8c 0
MAR 5 1991
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
TED MYERS CONTRACTING CO., INC.
6290 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY
P.O. BOX 229
WINTER BEACH. FLORIDA 32971
567-8390.466-0207
FAX (407) 770-0674
32960
JOB: 91-24/HEDDEN ?TACE WATERLINE
PAY REQUEST NO. 3 and Final
BOOK
82 FAGE 851
January 07, 1991
DESCRIPTION
6" D.I.P.
Encasement
6" PVC Water Main
8" PVC Water Mair
12" PVC Water Main
FHA's
Dual Services
Single Services
Road Restoration
Trench Restoration
Permits
TM/prl
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
40
1275
335
440
2
9
2
2,200
LF
LS
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
LS
LF
LS
UNIT
PRICE
$ 11.95
363.00
6.89
9.25
20.36
1,160.50
427.90
189.20
242.00
.66
-0-
Less Pay Request
Less Pay Request
TOTAL
$ 478.00
363.00
8,784.75
3,098.75
8,958.40
2,321.00
3,851.10
378.40
242.00
1,452.00
-0
$29,927.40
No. 1 25,410.06
No. 2 1,524.60
TOTAL AMOUNT DQE THIS INVOICE $ 2,992.74
TED MYERS CONTRACTING CO., INC.
240
Ted Myers 7
President
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Pay Request No. 3 (Final Payment) in the amount of
$2,992.74, and adopted Resolution 91-28, certifying
"as -built" costs for installation of a water main in
Hedden Place and final assessment roll.
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
50
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 28
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING
"AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATER MAIN
IN HEDDEN PLACE, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT NO.
UW -90 -08 -DS, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED
BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE,. AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND
INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County determined that the improvements for the
property Located with boundaries as described in this title
were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county;
and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 1990, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place and the owners of the
property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be
heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such
improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-100, which confirmed
the special assessment cost of the project to the property
specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in
an attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified
the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been
completed are Tess than in confirming Resolution No. 90-100,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Resolution Na. 90-100 is modified as follows: The
completion date for the referenced project and the last day
that payment may be made avoiding interest and pena,Ity
charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this
resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 12% per
annum may be made in five annual installments, the first to
be made twelve (12) months from the due date. The due date
is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution.
MR 5 1991
51 e `�'
pori C PAGE 852
• VAR 5 1991
BOOK 82 PACE 833
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in
Resolution No. 90-100 shall as be shown •on the attached
Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit
"A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on attached Exhibit "A" to
Resolution No. 90-100 were recorded by the County on the
public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall
remain prima facie evidence of its validity.
This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert
Bowman
as follows:
, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this day of March , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jeffrey '�Z:tarton
C I e r >7 42.44,
g
By
Richard NT -BM
Chairman
Indian River Co
Approved
Dale
Adrnln.
cr
-7 -.X. 7 -cit.
Legal......--IJ).7j'7
Dupt.
7/7375---;971T
Risk Mgr.
Attachment: Final Assessment Roll/Exhibit "A"
51a
GOLF CCURSE ARCHITECT AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/4/91:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM:
DATE: February 4, 1991
RE: AGENDA ITEM - B.C.C. MEETING 3/5/91
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
On February 5, 1991, the Board approved staff's recommendation to
have LINKS DESIGN do the landscape architectural planning and final
design for an additional 18 -hole golf course at Sandridge. Our Office
has prepared a Second Addition to the original contract of October 16,
1985, and Ron Garl, President of Links Design has agreed to sign this
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and execute the attached amendment.
Attachment: 2nd Addition to Contract
Original Contract of 10/16/85
1st Addition to Contract - 10/2/90
Attorney Vitunac explained that originally it was thought
that the architect would hire the engineer for the incidental
engineering necessary to do his plan. The architect cannot do
that, however, because of an insurance problem, so the County has
to hire an engineer for a fairly small job. What we are
requesting today is that the Board declare an emergency so that
we can compress the time limits in the Consultants Competitive
Negotiation Act (CCNA) and go out and hire an engineer for this
work. We still will get as many engineers as we can to submit a
statement of interest, and a committee will go through and rank
them 1, 2 and 3, probably without a public hearing. The whole
idea is to get an engineer selected within a week or two, because
the architect cannot proceed until he has a topographical survey.
The final selection will be approved at a public meeting.
Bl P 5
F,k F
52 AJ t
MAR L� ,
MR 5 1991
BOOK
&
PAGE bat)
�t)
Commissioner Scurlock understood that the engineer would do
the permitting, which is the real emergency here.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Second Addition to Contract with Links Design,
Inc., and declared an emergency in the selection of an
engineer which allows a compression of the time limits
in the CCNA in order to go out and hire an engineer to
do the topographical survey, permitting, etc.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION CREATING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commissioner Eggert explained that since this came up she
has had several questions on it, and the suggestion is to perhaps
put a Savings & Loan representative on it and one at -large
member. She would like to move those appointments with the
understanding that if we need others with some expertise in a
specific area, it would be brought back to the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-29, creating an affordable Housing
Advisory Committee.
53
RESOLUTION NO. 91-29
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CREATING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statutes, the County has
adopted Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, one of the objectives is Housing
Affordability; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that it would be advisable to
create an advisory committee of persons familar with housing
needs and how those needs may be met to make recommendations
to the Board of County Commissioners to achieve the
objective of housing affordability;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. There is hereby created an Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee to be composed of .representatives of the
housing industry, financial institutions, housing
authority and citizens for a total of 15 members with
membership and terms of office as follows:
a. Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
b. Housing Industry - Ann Reuter, Steve Pate, Vern
Toulson, Tim Zorc and Jim Lieffort;
c. Financial Institutions - First Union - Lynn
Wright; Citrus Bank - Randy Reilly; Indian River
National - Charles Lavin; Harbor Federal Savings
and Loan
d. Housing Authority - Chairman of the Board, Martin
Wall;
• e. Citizens - Charles Davis, Habitat for Humanities -
Bill Elliott and Charles Cox;
f. Ex -officio - Bruce Redus, Council of 100;
g•
Staff - Christy Fisher, Guy Decker, and Tony
Brown; and
h. At large member
2. The committee shall meet monthly or at the call of its
chairman and shall be advisory only.
3. The committee shall be charged specifically with the
duty to submit a final report to the Board of County
Commissioners by 1993 containing the following:
54
MAR 5 1991
ROOK PAGE 85
1AR 5 199
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
BOOK 8? PAGE 857
Recommended strategies for housing and
neighborhood conservation alternatives >;
feasibility;
Public/private joint sponsorship of activities and
funding programs;
Approaches to reduce housing costs and upgrade
neighborhoods;
Policies concerning the formation of non-profit
housing sponsors; and
Principles and criteria to guide residential
density planning, special housing facility
locations, and effective means of integrating
housing planning with general community planning.
f. Submit recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners on any matters affecting Housing
Affordability in Indian River County.
4. The provision of Title 1, Chapter 101 of the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County shall apply to this
advisory committee except terms shall be at the
discretion of the Board.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman • , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
The
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner,Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Chairman thereupon declared the
passed and adopted this 5 day of March
UTTITey K. Barti717—CTFR—
,e'r tit ,F. •
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
resolution duly
, 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
55
Ryer Ca
A drain.
Legal
Eudq'l
Dent
1417.k 1.4 .•,r
1a�rm•ed
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - DISCUSSION ON HARBOR TOWN MALL
The Board reviewed the following draft of a letter dated
3/5/91:
March 5, 1991
bear (Name of Store) :
Those involved with Harbor Town Centre have informed us that
ome incorrect information has been circulating about its status.
We would like to inform you of the following:
1. On this date there is only one approvedmall in Indian
River County and that development order has been issued to Harbor
Town Centre.
2. Our residents have to leave Indian River County to do
anyl mall hopping.
3.v We ould like to keep the millions spent for mall
shopping within our county.
4. We would like to benefit from the jobs provided and the
taxes raised rather than having it go to our north or south.
Sincerely,
Richard N. Bird
County Commission Chairman
or
Carolyn K. Eggert
Chairman, Economic
Development Council
Commissioner Eggert reported that the Harbor Town Centre
came to the Economic Development Council with their concern over
some misunderstanding that two mall sites still had approval in
Indian River County. They would like a letter from us over the
Chairman's signature or that of the Economic Development Council
stating that there is only one mall approved at this time.
Chairman Bird advised that Harbor Towri Centre had approached
him also, and he had asked Director Keating to advise him of the
56
MAR 5 199
mor 82 FAGE. 8a V
11AR 5 199'1
BOOK 82 PAGE 85
status of the DeBartolo mall. He sera that reply memo to Harbor
Town thinking that would suffice, but apparently they want
something more than that.
Commissioner Scurlock had talked to them as well, and felt
that while the Board wants to encourage development, we should
not be placed in a marketing situation for anyone. He didn't
have a problem in stating the facts of the developments' status,
however.
Commissioner Eggert explained that the draft is just a
suggestion for a letter that would be sent to 5 or 6 anchor
stores.
After a brief discussion, the Board indicated their
preference would be for Chairman Bird to send out just one letter
to Harbor Town, identifying the factual situation. The letter
would be sent out under the Chairman's signature and attached to
Director Keating's reply memo, and Harbor Town could do what they
want with it from there on.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to send a cover letter over Director
Keating's memo identifying the factual situation
of the mall's status.
DISCUSSION REGARDING NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
Commissioner Scurlock reported that Administrator Chandler,
Attorney Vitunac, Director Pinto and himself had met with Mayor
Conyers this past week after hearing about some significant
controversy in the north county about our wastewater program. He
indicated to Mayor Conyers that the approach he took as liaison
between Utilities and the County Commission was one in which our
57
only goal and desire was to respond to the north county request
for wastewater service in order to assure orderly growth, which
is basically mandated by the concurrency requirements under the
new Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Since the City of Sebastian had
been unsuccessful on numerous occasions of trying to develop
their own system, the County was willing to lend a helping hand.
He emphasized to the Mayor that it was never the County's desire
to mandate or force anything on the City of Sebastian. The
County, with its orderly growth policy, is required to provide
efficient and effective service both north and south of the City
of Sebastian limits, and would be constructing such a line in any
event. He suggested to the Mayor that if the City of Sebastian
wished to remove itself from any program, including abolishing
the franchise agreements, it would be his recommendation to the
County Commission to do so. Staff has determined that there
would be no economic hardship on the County if we took such a
course. We could reimburse those customers that paid the impact
fees and reassign those capacities back into the unincorporated
area. In fact, we already have selected an engineer for a
million gallon a day expansion, so we feel that the demand is out
there. What we would do is not proceed with the next expansion,
but go ahead and reassign capacity.
The fact of the matter is there's been tremendous miscommu-
nication in the north county, and when this County Commission has
tried to do nothing but lend a helping hand, he finds it very
disturbing that certain individuals in the community are cir-
culating mistruths, half truths and in some cases outright lies.
There is a memo being distributed in mailboxes that is factually
incorrect and, at best, leaves a wrong impression about some of
the facts that are correct. The fact of the matter is that the
City of Sebastian has control of its total destiny. There has
been no approved program in terms of how the assessment would be
done. From the very onset, our program has been one of voluntary
participation. Some of the people who have been circulating
58
MAR 5199
BOOK 82 F' i[ 8 C
MAR 5 199
BOOK PAGE 851
these various brochures have pointed to our ordinance indicating
that mandatory hookup is required, but the fact is that the
Commission's position has been that unless capacity is reserved,
there is no mandatory hookup. All capacity in the plant is
reserved, which is why we are planning on expanding it by one
million gallons a day. It is also a fact that either the City of
Sebastian or some other entity will have to provide water and
sewer service if economic growth is to occur in the north county.
Building permits will not be issued to commercial and other
development in the area since the Comp Plan says it is in an
urban service area and provisions for water and sewer must be
obtained. One of the misquoted facts is that the County has
indicated that the $1250 impact fee would be the only charge for
north county sewer. That has never been the case. We always
have indicated that there was an impact fee for plant capacity
and core system and that there would be an additional charge to
hook up into the system. This has been a consistent
non-discriminatory policy throughout the county. He wondered how
anyone ever could have imagined that they could hook up to a
public facility for $1250 when the average cost of a septic tank
is more than that. The only situation in which mandatory
collection ever has been enforced is when there is a significant
health hazard to the community, and that is enforced by the
Health Department.
With regard to this system being a money maker and a big
bonanza for the County, the County would derive no general
revenue money from serving Sebastian because both the impact fees
and rates go back into the utility system. The County makes
money on its franchise fees, which would be collected in the
unincorporated area, but not inside the city limits. The
franchise fee goes to the municipality, not to the County. His
recommendation would be for the City to have complete flexibility
to make their own determination, and then if they desire to
59
withdraw the franchise from the County, that they would not have
to go to any expense to do it. His recommendation would be that
we do it on a voluntary basis with the thought of buying back the
capacity and reassigning it. For those who would continue to
want voluntary hookup, we would allow them to do so with the
developer's agreement indicating that at such time as the City of
Sebastian built its own system, we would convey those customers
over to them. This would not impact our system, because our core
system has to go through Sebastian to get to the unincorporated
areas.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to clarify that the dialogue
between this Board and the City of Sebastian has been relatively
positive and that this opposition is from individuals who are
under the impression that hookup is mandatory. He wanted it made
clear that this is not the City of Sebastian versus the County.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that Mayor Conyers could
not have been more polite in his request for additional
information, but both Mayor Conyers and Councilman Oberbeck had
indicated to him that they would be happy if the County would not
try to litigate or do anything that would keep them from having a
chance to step back and make their own determination. The tiff
is by no means being
destiny of Sebastian
facilities available.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if anyone claims authorship to
memo being circulated, and Commissioner Scurlock advised that
the
created by the City. In fact, they know the
is going to be determined by having public
apparently the author
Association, which he
Mr. Maxwell. Some of
is from the Indian River Property Owners'
believed was formed by Mrs. Sullivan and
their facts are distorted, and some are
just absolutely wrong. He believed the opposition is coming from
a number of people who haven't even reserved capacity. There are
only approximately 2000 ERUs reserved in the corporate limits of
Sebastian, but he has been receiving calls from people who are
MAR 5 I99
60
ow 82 PAU 3f
MAR 5 199
BOOK 82
PAGE 853
afraid that they will be forced to hook up under our ordinance.
The ordinance does not say that. Capacity is not available.
Mandatory collection is mentioned in our ordinance only because
of our bond company, and it says if you provide capacity to
people and they pay for it, they have to hook up.
Chairman Bird asked if there are some commercial estab-
lishments where it is mandatory that they hook up, such as a
restaurant, and Commissioner Scurlock noted, for example, that
there is a restaurant in Sebastian that was denied expansion of
their business because the septic tank was not acceptable.
Whether we had our system there or not, they would not be allowed
to put a septic tank in.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that any business having a
pipe running in front of the property has to hook up when they
come in to pull a permit for something. It's mandatory that you
hook up or you don't get the permit.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that is a State health law
requirement, not a County Utilities' requirement. However, they
can only hook up if there is capacity to hook up. The Health
Department cannot force Utilities to let them hook into the line.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that many people in the north
county are under the mistaken impression that somehow somebody
has decided that they will be put on the system in the entire
service area within the corporate limits, which is basically from
the river up to U.S. #1, and that everybody in that area is going
to be charged $.18 a square foot. That is not the case, and
actually it would be his recommendation not to do that. He
preferred that we follow the same voluntary assessment process we
did on SR -60. In any event, he felt the solution is that the
destiny of Sebastian should be in the hands of the City Council
of Sebastian. It would be his recommendation that the County
formally indicate to them that this Commission's policy is that
if they wish to remove themselves from that service area and
61
dissolve the franchise agreement, then it is the intent of the
Commission to cooperate with them.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously set a
timeframe of 30 days for the City of Sebastian to
decide if they wish to remove the City from that
service area and dissolve the franchise agreement
with the full cooperation of the County Commission.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
11AR 5 1991
62
Chairman
BOOK 8? PAGE 84