Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/2/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 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, Jr. 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 - Janet Newman, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Vero Beach 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Gary C. Wheeler 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Admin. Chandler req. that, for record, we formally withdraw Item 11G(4) CR 512 Twin Pairs Widening & defer to another agenda. 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular meeting of 3/5/91 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Proclamation designating April 21 thru April 27, 1991 as VOLUNTEER WEEK B. Proclamation designating Month of April,1991 as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH C. Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: Annual Report for the Environmental Control Office covering the calendar yea' 1390 General Purpose Financial Statements as of 9/30/90 for Vero Lakes Drainage District Minutes of the Board of Supervisors meetings for the FY 1989/90 for Fellsmere Water Control District BOOK APR 21991 83 PAGE 01 r APR 21991 BOOK 83 ME. Uts?, 7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued): D. Acceptance of Reimbursements from Municipalities / Election Expenses (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) E. Release of Utility Liens (memorandum dated March 28, 1991) F. Surety Bond - Dennis L. Smith, Inc. (memorandum dated March 22, 1991) G. Bid Award: IRC 91-66/Aluminum Can Compactor Solid Waste (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) H. Bid 91-45 Grader - Road and Bridge Dept. (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) (continued from 3/26/91 meeting) I. Bid 91-45 End Loader - Road and Bridge Dept. (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) (continued from 3/26/91 meeting) J. Agreement with FEC Railway (memorandum dated March 22, 1991) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Copeland's Landing Request for Approval of Additional Design Waivers (Conceptual PRD Plan Amendment) (memorandum dated February 21, 1991) 2. Bell South Transmission Tower (deferred to meeting of April 16, 1991) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Purchase of Lots 10 & 11, Block 44 for New Court- house Site (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) 11. DEPARTMIiNTAL._MATTFRS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None t i • ti 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued): B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Approval of Interlocal Agreement. with Troop L, Florida Highway Patrol, Relating to Radar Units Purchased by Indian River County (memorandum dated March 22, 1991) (tabled from Meeting of March 5, 1991) C. GENERAL SERVICES Program Construction Manager Contract Indian River County Courthouse Project (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL Automobile / Risk (memorandum dated March 22, 1991) G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Request by Developer Henry Fischer for County to Improve 99th St./US 1 Intersection and to Widen 99th St. West of US 1 (memorandum dated March 27, 1991) 2. Request from United Artists Cablevision Co. to Donate Crepe Myrtle Trees for SR60 Median between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) 3. Recommended Policy - Reimbursement to Developer for 25% Compensation Associated with Paving County Maintained Local Roads (memorandum dated March 14, 1991) 4. CR512 Twin Pairs Widening (memorandum dated March 26, 1991) 5. Firing Range Facility Engineering Services Contract (memorandum dated March 20, 1991) H. UTILITIES Engineering Firm Selection - Hydrogeological Services for Design - Engineering & Construction of Two Raw Water Production Wells Rated at 2 MGD Each at IRC So. Co. Reverse Osmosis Plant (memorandum dated March 22, 1991) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY Agreement between IRC and C. E. Block, Architect, Inc./ Golf Course Expansion APR 1991 L_ BOOK 83 [AUL 03 APR 2 1991 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT None 15. ADJOURNMENT BOOK 83 FACE 04 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. 1110 Tuesday, April 2, 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, April 2, 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; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Janet Newman, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Vero Beach, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Administrator Chandler requested that, for the record, we formally withdraw Item 11G(4) - CR512 Twin Pairs Widening - and defer it to another agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously withdrew Item 11G(4) in regard to CR512 from today's Agenda as requested by the Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 1991, as written. BOOK 83 F,1GE 05 APR 2 199 A4 Pr" APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 FADE DE CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Bird asked that Items H and I be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A. Proclamation - Volunteer Week Proclamation designating April 21 thru April 27, 1991, as VOLUNTEER WEEK is hereby made a part of the record. PROCLAMATI O N WHEREAS, each year, many citizens of our community and county vo]unteer countless hours of service in order to help others; and WHEREAS, these VOLUNTEERS work to build strong community organizations, promote issues in the public interest, and help their fellow citizens in need; and WHEREAS, VOLUNTEERS come from every age group from youth to senior citizens and from all walks of life; VOLUNTEERS give assistance in countless ways and a multitude of avocations; and •WHEREAS, volunteering plays a vital role in any community, • with neighbors showing their concern for one another - both friends and strangers alike; and'; WHEREAS, those VOLUNTEERS who give so unselfishly of their time and themselves to improve the quality of life for all deserve special recognition: NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of April 21 through April 27, 1991 be observed as VOLUNTEER WEEK in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board invites all citizens to honor and emulate the fine individuals who help their communities by opening up their hearts. Adopted this 2nd day of April, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 Ric hard N. B d, Chairman B. Proclamation - Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation designating the Month of April, 1991, as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH is hereby made a part of the record. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MONTH OF. APRIL, 1991 AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect is a serious and growing problem affecting more than two million of our nation's children annually and 3,033 children on the Treasure Coast alone; and WHEREAS, this societal malignancy called child abuse and neglect respects no racial, religious, class or geographic boundaries, and, in fact, has been declared a national emergency; and WHEREAS, the Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse of the Treasure Coast, through its support of parent aide programs, parenting classes and educational programs, is -making significant progress in stopping crime against our nation and community's children and families: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the month of April, 1991 he observed as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to use this time to better understand, recognize, and respond to this grievous problem; and the Board further congratulates the Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse of the Treasure Coast• for its continued success in helping families break free from the cycle of child abuse. Adopted this 2nd day of April, 1991 APR 21991 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Richard N. Bird, •Chairman 3 E1OOK 83 FAGE j7 r APIs 2 1991 C. Reports BOOK 83 PAGE OS The following were received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Annual Report for the Environmental Control Office covering the calendar year 1990. General Purpose Financial Statements as of 9/39/90 for Vero Lakes Drainage District. Minutes of the Board of Supervisors meetings for FY 1989/90 for Fellsmere Water Control District. D. Reimbursement of Election Expenses from Municipalities The Board reviewed memo from the Supervisor of Elections: March 26, 1991 ANN ROBINSON SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394 TELEPHONES: (407) 567-8187 or 567-8000 TO: HON. DICK BIRD, CHAIRMAN, BCC FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 1'1'IL.1 RE: ITEM FOR BCC CONSENT AGENDA OF APRIL 2, 1991 Please approve our accepting the reimbursements from the municipalities for their part of the March 12 election expenses as follows: City of Fellsmere $ 321.10 Town of Indian River Shores 2,007.00 City of Sebastian 3,103.00 City of Vero Beach 5,262.50 $10,693.60. The City of Sebastian sent us a check for $3,500 and we returned $397 for the amount overpaid. Thank you. 4 ISO ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved acceptance of reimbursement for election expenses from the following municipalities as requested by the Supervisor of Elections: City of Fellsmere $ 321.10 Town of Indian River Shores 2,007.00 City of Sebastian 3,103.00 City of Vero Beach 5,262.50 E. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: March 28, 1991 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 4/2/91 RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them: ✓ 1. Release of Special Assessment Lien from STATE ROAD 60 PROJECT in the name of: KINGSWOOD WEST (Lot 30) 2. Satisfactions of Impact Fees in the names of: BENDER KEMP FOLEY 3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT in the names of: GRAN CENTRAL CORP. (2 releases) HOCH WHEELER 4. Release of Special Assessment Lien from INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD SEWER FORCE MAIN in the name of MORETTI Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's Office. 5 APR 2 1991 600K 83 FALE 09 RPR 21991 iso n, BOOK 0 PAGE _LU ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Releases of Special Assessment Liens and Satisfaction of Impact Fees as listed above. COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. F. Call Surety Bond - Dennis L. Smith, Inc. The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: DATE: March 22, 1991 RE: SURETY BOND - DENNIS L. SMITH, INC. Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney The payments of the monthly Solid Waste Disposal District tipping fee charges for Dennis L. Smith, Inc. were secured by a surety bond in the amount of $10,000. The company recently went into Chapter 11, bankruptcy, owing the District, approximately $11,500. The Utilities Department has made a timely claim against the bond, and the bonding company, after some negotiation, is prepared to pay the County the face amount of the bond, i.e., $10,000, if the County will sign a release of its rights against the bonding company as surety for Dennis L. Smith. Staff recommends execution of the release so that the County can get at least $10,000 of the $11,500 owed to it. The remaining money will be filed as a claim in the bankruptcy. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously *authorized the Chairman to sign the Release of rights against USF6G Company as surety for Dennis L. Smith as recommended by staff. 6 RELEASE In consideration of the payment of /eel 774.414.41 ($ Lel 000, Qct )by the USF&G Company, receipt of which is hereby acknowledge, obligee does hereby release, acquit, exonerate, and discharge The USF&G Company from all actions, suits, claims, damages, and liabilities whatsoever as surety for )Q,,irr,'i L f,„; th under bond number _73 O (f J I 0 0 t, (.J 0 E' Obligee hereby acknowledges that The USF&G Companies are subrogated to all rights which obligee has against all persons, firms or corporations who caused, participated in or benefited from said loss; and, to secure said subrogation rights, obligee hereby assigns and transfers to The USF&G Companies all rights of obligee against said persons, firms or corporations. Signed and sealed this a?/ day of April , 19 91 . INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (Nam .f Corporation) (Its Secretary) Jeffiry ar. on C er (Trade Name of Partnership or Proprietorship) Witness: (Its President) Richard N. Bird, Chairman APR 21991 oer Cs A14ia,-''_ _ PArltnerdr owner) Cl 7 Seal BOOK 83 F'A E 1l APR 2 199 BOOK 83 PAGE 1.2 G. Bid #91-66 - Aluminum Can Compactor (SWDD) The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton: DATE: March 26, 1991 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directo Department of General Services' FROM: Fran Boynton, y ton, Purchasing Manager el SUBJ: Bid Award: IRC 91-66/Aluminum Can Compactor Solid Waste BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bid Opening Date: March 13, 1991 Specifications mailed to: Nine ( 9) Vendors Replies: Two (2) Vendors BID TABULATION PRICE Florida Equip. & Machinery $10,250.00 Lakeland, F1 CP Manufacturing Inc $ 10,730.00 National City, Ca TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $10,250.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Recycling Heavy Equipment Wheel Track Account. PROJECTED BUDGET: $20,000.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Florida Equipment & Machinery as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #91-66 for Aluminum Can Compactor to the low bidder, Florida Equipment & Machinery, in the amount of $10,250.00 as recommended by staff. 8 H. Bid #91-45 - Grader (Road & Bridge Dept.) and 1. Bid #91-45 - End Loader (Road & Bridge) The Board reviewed the following memos from Purchasing Manager Boynton: DATE: March 26, 1991 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admin'strator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director. Department of General Servic FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager ; SUBJ: 91-45 Grader Road & Bridge Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 'Bid Opening Date: February 27, 1991 Specifications mailed to: Eleven (11) Vendors Replies: Four (4) Vendors BID TABULATION: UNIT PRICE ALTERNATE TRADE-IN BID ALLOWANCE Linder Machinery $ 69,621.00 (-0-) Ft Lauderdale, F1 Neff Machinery $ 83,985.00 ($ 5,000.00) West Palm Beach, F1 Adam DeWind $ 84,000.00 ($12,000.00) Fort Lauderdale, Fl Kelly Tractor $114,325.00 $101,331.00 ($ 4,500.00) West Palm Beach, F1 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: Minus Trade -In Allowance $78,985.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Transportation Fund Heavy Equipment Wheel -Track. BUDGETED AMOUNT: $85,000.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all bids be rejected and the grader be purchased off state contract, saving the County approximately $6,500.00. 9 APP 2 1991 BOOK 83 F: E 13 SPR 2.1991 POOK 83 PAGE 14 DATE: March 26, 1991 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Services FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager SUBJ: 91-45 End Loader Road & Bridge Department p/P) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bid Opening Date: February 27, 1991 Specifications mailed to: Eleven (11) Vendors Replies: Three (3) Vendors BID TABULATION: UNIT PRICE Adams DeWind Ft Lauderdale, F1 Neff Machinery West Palm Beach, F1 Kelly Tractor West Palm Beach, F1 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $ 84,202.00 $ 88,045.00 $ 97,298.00 $ 88,045.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Petition Paving Heavy Equipment Wheel -Track. BUDGETED AMOUNT: $108,000.0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that all bids be rejected and the end loader be purchased off state contract, saving the County approximately $16,000.00. Discussion re Grader: Chairman Bird did not understand from the memo just who is the low bidder on state contract for the grader. Purchasing Manager Boynton advised that the state now has issued their new contract, and that information was not available at the time we originally reviewed our bids. We now find that the same model grader, the Dresser 830, is available on state contract, and we would be buying it from Linder Industrial out of Lakeland as our state contract vendor at $72,485, or the bid price of $78,985 minus $6,500. Commissioner Eggert did not understand why Linder at a bid of $69,621 isn't cheaper. Purchasing Manager Boynton explained that Linder Industrial out of Lakeland is the authorized dealer for the State of Florida, and when you utilize the services of state contract and 10 the price off state contract, the other dealers do not have to extend that to you. The original deal from Linder was out of Fort Lauderdale; it was a different distributor. Administrator Chandler further explained that Linder did not meet specifications with the particular piece of machinery they bid originally, and staff's recommendation at that time was for Neff Machinery. Chairman Bird still did not understand the figures set out in the memo, and Commissioner Eggert felt that the memo should somewhere have stated that the state contract price is such and such an amount. Chairman Bird asked just what did Linder bid the $69,621 for that did not meet specifications, and Purchasing Manager Boynton advised that it was the Dresser Model 830 and that is what is on state contract. Commissioner Scurlock noted that you do not get a trade-in on state contract; so, we pay that amount and still have the old equipment and sell it. He thought part of the confusion that arises here is because the $69,621 figure is without a trade-in. Administrator Chandler continued to stress that the Linder piece of machinery did not meet specifications at that time even though it was the same model. At this point, it was suggested this matter be tabled until later in the meeting, when the Board can have more information. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board temporarily tabled further discussion of Bid 91-45 for the Grader. Discussion re End Loader: Chairman Bird advised that he basically had the same ques- tion about the bid on the End Loader. Purchasing Manager Boynton explained that on this item, it was staff recommendation to go with the John Deere 624E from Neff, but when we were reviewing this information with the state contract DOT office, we were told a larger unit, the 644E, was available on state contract at a savings of $16,000. Staff, therefore, went back to the Department with this information and were informed they much preferred to go with the heavier equipment. So, we are buying a John Deere 644E; it is coming from John Deere Industrial out of Baltimore, Maryland; and the dealer that would be doing the servicing pursuant to the pro- visions of state contract is Neff Machinery. Adams DeWind's bid. 11 APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 PACE 15 APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 I-A6t 16 was rejected because they did not meet specifications. Ms. Boynton apologized that these figures were not available sooner. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to reject all bids on Bid 91-45 for the End Loader and authorize the purchase of said End Loader off State Contract at a savings of approximately $16,000 as recommended by staff. Chairman Bird wished to have it confirmed for the record that the Adams DeWind bid did not meet specifications, and this was confirmed. Chairman Bird then asked for a further clarification of where the savings of $16,000 comes from. Administrator Chandler explained that Neff was the recom- mended bidder at $88,045 before we found out about the provisions of state contract, and they were the recommended bidder inasmuch as Adams DeWind didn't meet the specifications primarily on the braking ability of the equipment they had bid. All the other bidders did meet specs. Commissioner Scurlock noted that, therefore, the state contract price is $72,045, and that was confirmed. Chairman Bird felt it would be a lot clearer if it were set out in the recommendation that there is no trade-in and the net price under state contract is $72,045 for this equipment. Board members agreed they would like to see the memo set out the actual purchase price off state contract, as well as the dealer we are buying it from and where the service comes from. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on approval of the purchase of the End Loader on state contract. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Return to Discussion on Grader ON MOTION By Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to take the matter of purchase of the Grader off the table. Administrator Chandler informed the Board that, in regard to the Grader, the original recommendation had been to award to Neff inasmuch as Linder did not meet the specifications mainly because of the transmission and the gears. 12 Just for the record, Chairman Bird wished it made clear that the net purchase price off state contract for the Grader is $72,485. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously rejected all bids on Bid 91-45 for the Grader and authorized the purchase of said Grader off State Contract, at a net price of $72,485, or at a savings of approximately $6,500 as recommended by staff. J. Agreements with FEC Railway re Water Line Crossings The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Utility Services: DATE: MARCH 22, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE! G. PINTO DICTOR,OF-UTILI RVICES PREPARED H. D Di i , P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH FEC RAILWAY BACKGROUND The Phase I Water Distribution System to tie together the Pelican Pointe, Park Place and Breezy Village Water Treatment Plants was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 25, 1990, and authorized Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., to provide engineering consulting services. •ANALYSIS Design of the subject project has determined water line crossings at two points along the FEC Railway's right-of-way. Two signed originals of an agreement with FEC are required before construction can begin. In brief, the agreement, which contains specifications, legal requirements, and annual payments to the Railway, is a standard requirement for anyone planning to traverse an FEC right-of-way. Annual payments will be paid out of Utilities Operating Budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the two attached agreements and sign both copies of each agreement. APR 2 1991 13 BOOK 83 f GE 17 IPPR 21991 BOOK 83 F',1GE 18 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the above described agreements with the FEC Railway for water main crossings at Vickers Road and at Stratton Avenue. PARTIALLY SIGNED COPIES OF AGREEMENTS W/FEC RAILWAY RE STRATTON AVENUE & VICKERS ROAD WATER LINE CROSSINGS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. COPELAND'S LANDING - REQUEST APPROVAL OF ADDTL. DESIGN WAIVERS The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 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 I y� ,� a �'ifu/• In the matter of in the �`/ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of / Lef/ 42, _/%1/ 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 aftiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _.� _ day of //� Jff A D. 19 9/ (SEAL) e/ (Business anager) f{dZlr^pi.•0.f' (Clerk of -•the Circuit CDUIt, Indian River County, Flor0) d, I ►'i.hiii., sr..te .rf Florida nieryCi, Unt+firm F-r.ir,.., tun. i?. 1S";9 • 14 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider tPed mnnation of design waivers for an app Resi- dential Development (Copelannd'sLandingEat . PRD). The subject property presently owned by Copeland's Landing Inc. The subject property Iles in Section 3, Township 32 S, Range 39E and is lo- cated in the easterly portion of Govern- ment Lot 2 being just north of 73rd Street. A public hearing at which parties In Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of County Com- ' missioners o1 Indian River County in the County Commission Chambers, at the County Adminis- tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, April 2, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s- RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN March 12, 1991 777346 Planning Director Boling made the staff presentation, noting that the 4 lots in question are isolated and surrounded by wetlands and open spaces: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Fok Robert M. Kea ng, AICP Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling ICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy a 1t ( Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: February 21, 1991 SUBJECT: COPELAND'S LANDING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL DESIGN WAIVERS (CONCEPTUAL PRD PLAN AMENDMENT) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commission at its regular meeting of April 2, 1991. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION: *Background The Copeland's Landing overall project consists of a 28 unit multi- family PRD project, a two phase single family subdivision project, and a PRD project for 4 single family riverfront lots. Carter and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Copeland's Landing has obtained preliminary PRD plan approval for the "riverside" phase consisting of a 4 lot single family subdivision, and a 16 slip boat dock to serve the overall Copeland's Landing Subdivision. The property is located at 3300 73rd Street, and the proposed lots will have frontage on the Indian River Lagoon. Along with the preliminary PRD plan, the applicant requested an amendment to the conceptual PRD plan that would only apply to the 4 lot subdivision phase. At its July 25, 1989 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners granted conditional conceptual PRD approval for the riverside phase. The Board of County Commissioners also granted design waivers which are available through the PRD process. The applicant has obtained preliminary PRD approval for the "riverside" phase and is also requesting additional design waivers. This design waiver request constitutes an amendment to the conceptual PRD and requires consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by Board of County Commissioners at public hearings. At its February 28, 1991 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PRD plan approval, and recommended approval of the additional design waivers to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board is now to consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the waiver request. •Development Update Presently, Copeland's Landing is developing two separate communities, a 28 unit PRD at the intersection of 73rd Street and 15 APR 2199 BOOK 8: rn APR 2 1991 K BOOK 8 FACE 20 U.S. #1 and a three phase single family residential subdivision further east on 73rd Street. The owner has final plat approval for phase I of the single family subdivision, and has obtained a land development permit for phase II of the single family subdivision. Phase II of the single family subdivision is currently under construction, borders the mosquito impoundment, and is located to the east of phase I. Phase II also borders and provides access to the riverside (PRD) phase to the east. For the riverside phase, the applicant is proposing to provide access to and expand some isolated uplands along the river's edge in order to plat the four single family lots. The approved conceptual PRD plan allowed the filling of some wetland areas subject to an approved mitigation plan. A mitigation plan was subsequently approved and permitted. ANALYSIS: The Board of County Commissioners approved the following design waivers as part of the overall conceptual PRD at its July 25, 1989 meeting. Currently Approved Waivers: a. Lot Size: A reduction in lot size from 40,000 square feet (RS -1) to 15,000 square feet (section 5(A) Appendix A - Zoning Code). b. Minimum Lot Width: A reduction from 125' to 85' foot lot width (section 5(A) Appendix A - Zoning Code). c. Right -of -Way Width: A 60' drainage and access easement was approved to access the subdivision and a 40' wide access and drainage easement was approved for access to the individual lots (section 10(c)(2)(f) Appendix B - Subdivision Code). d. Minimum Pavement Width: Decrease pavement width from 22' width to a 20' width (section 10(c)(2)(f) Appendix B - Subdivision Code). The applicant is now requesting additional design waivers to be applied only to the 4 lot subdivision of the "riverside" phase. If the setback waivers are granted, the setbacks would be slightly less than setbacks for other 15,000 sq. ft. lots permitted in the RS -3 zoning district. However, the lots are isolated from adjacent properties by expanses of open space and impoundment area. The requested design waivers are as follows: Requested Additional Waivers (to be added to existing waivers a - d as previously noted): e. Front and Rear Setbacks: A reduction from 30' to 20' for the front and rear setbacks. (Section 5(A) Appendix A - Zoning Code) ("riverside" 4 lot subdivision lots only) f. Sideyard Setback: A reduction from 20' to 10' for the side yard setbacks. (Section 5(A) Appendix A - Zoning Code). It is staff's opinion that the requested reductions in normal size and dimensional standards are adequately mitigated by the low density of the project, the extent of common open space, and the establishment of a conservation easement. These waivers shall in no way be construed to permit a structure to be built on property other than the buildable uplands as established by the approved project plans. 16 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the additional requested design waivers (amendment to the conceptual PRD plan); these waivers shall apply only to the 4 lots in the "riverside" subdivision. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the additional requested design waivers set out in the above memo, said waivers to apply only to the 4 Tots in the "riverside" subdivision of Copeland's Landing. BELL SOUTH TRANSMISSION TOWER Administrator Chandler informed the Board that although it has been requested that the public hearing regarding the Bell South transmission tower be rescheduled for April 16th, it was too late to stop the following ad: 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 Aiieiti in the matter of -41~z;ZI in the Court, was pub- Ilshed 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 _47 day f19 (nesaner) '" � (SEAL) L APR 2 1991 (ClerkotttrErti 13TCConrt; Indian fliver-Courity,-Flori6�a)�... 17 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • Notice of hearing to consider the granting c special exception approval for a fransmisalor tower (+- 360' high). The subject properly is presently owned by Indian River County, and Is located at 3955 65th Street (S. Winter Beach Road), directly southwest of the Indian River County Solid Waste Transfer Station. The sub- ject property is lying in the NW '/ of the SW 'h of Section 10, Township 32 S, Range 39 E, tying and being in Indian River County, Florida. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be • heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- ;. missioners in the County Commission Chambers , of the County Administration Building. located at ..1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tues- day, April 2, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. • Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to • ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings is made, which includes testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is based. • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman March 12, 1991 777347 BOOK 83 PAGE. 21 APR 2 1991 Bool( 8J FACE ` 6 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized rescheduling the above described hearing for the Board Meeting of April 16, 1991. PURCHASE OF LOTS FOR NEW COURTHOUSE SITE Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 26, 1991 FILE: THRU: James E. Chandler /1(7 County Administrato SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK 44 FOR NEW COURTHOUSE SITE (7-V Randy Dowling FROM: Ass't. to County Administrat°REFERENCES: 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 also approved and executed Ed Schlitt, Trustee's (Lots 1 & 2, Block 45), Ennis & Gay Proctor's (Lot 3.1, B lock 45) , and Bernard & Norma Tedeson's (Lot 13.1, Block 45) Option Agreements during its March 5, 1991 regular meeting. During the March 12, 1991 regular meeting, the Board approved and executed James & William Harshbarger's (Lots 4 &. 5, Block 44) Option Agreement. The proposed courthouse site consists of 15 parcels and 13 property owners. CURRENT Patricia Langbehn-Nelson, owner of Lots 10 & 11, Block 44, has signed an Option Agreement to sell her property for $125,000. This price is consistent with the acquisition budget. This property is being acquired according to Chapter 73 F.S. and the Resolution of Condemnation. Therefore, a notice and public hearing are not required. However, the property has an active lease attached to it but the lease will have minimal impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board approve Patricia Langbehn-Nelson's Option Agreement and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the agreement and all other necessary related documents. 18 Administrator Chandler informed the Board that with the approval of this parcel, we will have acquired options with 8 out of the 13 property owners. Commissioner Eggert commented that she would like the map to indicate the lots that we now own. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Option agreement with Patricia Langbehn-Nelson and all other necessary related documents. COPY OF SAID OPTION AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.( et7A„ F AGREEMENT W/HIGHWAY PATROL RE RADAR UNITS The Board reviewed memo from Doug Wright, Director of the Department of Emergency Services: TO: Board of Count Commissioners FROM: Doug Wright, Director Department of Emergency Services DATE: March 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Troop L, Florida Highway Patrol, Relating to Radar Units Purchased by Indian River County (Tabled from Meeting of March 5, 1991) The Board of County Commissioners considered the above agenda item at the regular meeting of March 5, 1991, and tabled the matter until staff could negotiate with the Florida Highway Patrol regarding responsibility for maintenance costs of the radar units. Staff met with FHP officials from Troop L on March 19, 1991, at the Administration Building. The officials agreed that the FHP would fund the maintenance expenses and the modified agreement has been received. The matter is now before the Board for final consideration and staff recommends approval. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute Agreement with the Florida Highway Patrol regarding radar units purchased by Indian River County. 19 APR 2 1991 ROOK 83 FAuE APR 2 199 AGREEMEt]T tIoD 83 F'Act 24 Indian River County Commissioners This agreement is made by and between a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the County), and the FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, a division of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FHP), pursuant to Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, authorizing interlocal agreements. In consideration of mutual promises contained in this inter- local agreement, the County and FHP accept the following terms and conditions: 1. Radar For the purpose of this agreement, radar shall mean law enforcement speed radar, any microwave -based speed -measurement unit that meets the minimum design criteria established by the Department of .Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (HSMV) and is employed for use in the State of Florida by a law enforcement agency to detect the speed of motorists. As contemplated by this agreement, radar units shall include any hardware necessary for the operation and maintenance of such equipment, including tuning forks. The radar equipment governed by this agreement was purchased by the County for operation by the FHP within Indian River County 2. Maintenance of Radar Equipment Indian River County shall be the lawful owner of the radar. Florida Highway Patrol shall be the custodian and shall be responsible for the mainten- ance and repair of such radar equipment. FHP shall be responsi- ble for the installation and operation of such equipment as required by the laws of Florida and the rules, policies, and procedures of HSMV. 20 3. Operation of Radar FHP shall operate such radar in a lawful manner to detect the speed of motorists, to reduce the incidents of excessive speed, and to promote the health, safety, and welfare of persons who travel the highways and roadways of Indian River County. If FHP officers operating such radar are reassigned to any other County, the radar equipment shall remain in Indian River County. FHP, however, may operate the radar in any County of this state upon limited temporary assignment or special detail, pursuant to the laws of Florida and the rules, policies, and procedure of HSMV. 19 gt' . For Entered into this 2 day of County: For Florida Highway Patrol: Signature Title Attest Bobby R. Burkett Director Florida Highway Patrol Russ Rothman, Chief Bureau of General Services Witnesses: FULLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CONTRACT - COURTHOUSE PROJECT The Board reviewed memo from "Sonny" Dean, Director of General Services: 21 APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 f GE APP 2 1991 POOK. 83 PAGE DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: MARCH 26, 1991 HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR` DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CONTRACT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT BACKGROUND: As authorized by the Board on March 5, 1991, staff has negotiated a contract with Centex Rooney Construction Company to perform Program Construction Manager Services for the Courthouse Project. ANALYSIS: ' In checking, with other counties that have done similar projects, we find that our negotiated contract price is below what anyone else has paid. Total price, which includes the fee and general conditions totals $885,000.00 or about 6.12% of the estimated contract price. With this price, we have maintained the original scope of services as outlined in the Request for Qualifications. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the attached contract and requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the required documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Program Construction Manager Agreement with Centex Rooney Construction Co., Inc. as recommended by staff. TRANSFER SURPLUS VEHICLE TO RISK MANAGEMENT The Board reviewed memo from Personnel Director Jack Price: To: James Chandler, County Administrator From: Jack Price,, 3sonnel Date: March 22, 1991 Sub: Automobile/Risk The Risk Management Division has daily requirements to travel to accident sites, cable cuts, vehicle or equipment inspections and for training of County employees. During the past 5 months personal vehicles were used an average of 454 miles each month with expenses averaging $91.00 . 22 The County Property Appraiser has declared a vehicle surplus which can be made available at no purchase cost. It is a 1981 Dodge Omni with 26,000 miles which is in good mechanical condition. The cost of preparing the vehicle for daily use (brake job, air and tune up) is estimated at less than $1,000. Money for fuel, tires, equipment, maintenance and insurance can be transferred from other Risk Division accounts for 1991. We request that you recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that this asset be transferred to Risk Management and that money for operational expenses be set up in the proper Risk Division accounts. Thanks for your assistance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the transfer of the above described surplus vehicle to Risk Management and directed that money for operational expenses be set up in the proper Risk Division accounts. REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO IMPROVE INTERSECTION & WIDEN 99TH ST. (FISCHER) Public Works Director Davis and reviewed the following recommended improvements: 23 APR 2 1991 BOOK Oil FAGL d APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 FALL 2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: James E. Chandler, County Administrator James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director Request by Developer Henry Fischer for County to Improve 99th Street/US 1 Intersection and to Widen 99th Street West of US 1 REF. LETTER: Henry Fischer to Margaret Gunter dated 3-26-91 DATE: March 27, 1991 FILE: fischer.mar DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Henry Fischer is initiating development along the north side of 99th Street (Vickers Rd.) within the City of Sebastian. The County and City staff have recommended that the developer submit a Traffic Impact Study to determine the development's impact on the county, city, and state road system. Mr. Fischer retained a Traffic Engineering Consultant to prepare and submit a traffic study as requested by the City. The results of the study indicate that the following improvements should be constructed to maintain adopted Level of Service standards: 1) US 1/99th Street Intersection Construct a northbound left turn lane along US 1; Construct an eastbound right turn lane along 99th St.; Construct a southbound right turn lane along US 1; Signalize 99th Street/US 1 if warrants are met. 2) 3) 4) 5) 99th Street Widen pavement to 24' CR512/US 1 - County improvements should be complete prior to project completion. CR510/US 1 - Construct an exclusive left turn lane at east and west approaches. Construct signage to prohibit industrial truck traffic being routed through Sebastian Highlands. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The above items should. be required by the City of Sebastian as development conditions. Items 1, 3, and 4 are eligible for Traffic Impact Fee Credits. Item 2 is a recommended safety improvement since large trucks will use 99th Street to ingress/egress the industrial land use. This improvement does not provide additional laneage but would widen the existing road by 4' to accommodate wider vehicles. The County has contacted the DOT and requested that the DOT construct the northbound left turn lane at US 1/Vickers Road (see attached June 19, 1989 letter from Chairman Gary Wheeler to William Lewis, DOT), but no response has .been received. 24 NIB RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The above conditions are being recommended by County staff to the City of Sebastian for consideration. Since the City is the permitting authority, the County should not be the party to relieve the developer of the traffic improvements requested by County staff. Furthermore, staff agrees with the Traffic Consultant that these improvements are necessary. Staff has also indicated to Mr. Fischer that if 99th Street currently is in need of resurfacing, the County would provide the asphalt to widen 99th Street if he would construct the base widening. iHIP.. 31S RANGE 39E PHOTO REF. 7-26 INFORMAT IONAL PLAT NOT A SURVEY WHISPERING 11 PALMS !I , MOBILE 1I TOO .. •VILLAGE I 11 1 • It•$.•fir • I..3•7 Ac. % rn�?'" . r• i • I w•. 6.35 : APP 2 1991 BOOK FACE 30 Commissioner Scurlock asked why this matter is before us instead of the City of Sebastian. Director Davis advised that we did write a letter to Bruce Cooper, Sebastian Community Development Director, re the traffic study recommending these improvements be constructed prior to the project being finaled out, and Dr. Fischer wrote a letter basically requesting we rescind our recommendation. Commissioner Scurlock believed we have an agreement to coordinate with Sebastian projects that are on the boundary line and have some impact on the county, and we can make comments and then Sebastian has the ability either to accept or reject them, and that was confirmed. Commissioner Bowman wasn't clear as to who owns 99th Street, and Director Davis advised that it is a county road, but there is a short portion within the city. The city limit line is somewhat at a border at that point. The proposed development is within the city north of 99th Street, and a very short portion of the road west of the railroad tracks goes through the city limits. The remainder of the roadway is in the county. He continued that staff concurs with some of the items in the traffic study, the impact fee credit, etc., and staff feels that widening of 99th is a safety factor to accommodate the trucks that would be attracted to the industrial use proposed in that area. Chairman Bird inquired with which of the recommended condi- tions Dr. Fischer might have a problem. Director Davis referred to Item 1 about constructing various turn lanes at the U.S.1/99th Street intersection, the eastbound right turn lane along 99th, and eventual signalization of that intersection. He believed that Dr. Fischer feels that some of these improvements should be done by the DOT or the County since other projects in the area do utilize 99th St. Chairman Bird asked if it is staff's recommendation that Dr. Fischer do all those improvements, and Director Davis clarified that it is staffs' recommendation that those improvements should be done prior to all the impacts of the project being at that location. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Commission did not relieve Keith's Oil Can of a similar responsibility at that same intersection because that improvement was supposed to be on a DOT project, and whether we didn't write the DOT urging that they carry out that improvement. Director Davis agreed that we did, but pointed out that was in 1989 and the difference is that we now have concurrency being implemented. 26 Commissioner Scurlock asked if concurrency wouldn't come at the point when Dr. Fischer goes to pull the building permit that exceeds the transportation service level, and he believed that concurrency would be a problem for the City of Sebastian to deal with, not us. Director Davis felt it could be a multi -jurisdictional problem because of possible impacts in the county area. Commissioner Scurlock believed there were representatives from Breezy Village who had indicated they had an interest in participating and possibly making an area special assessment to institute some of these improvements. Director Davis noted that in 1989 he proposed a special assessment district be drawn up, and as you can see from the map, Breezy Village would be in the benefited area. Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss the proposed turn lane improvements and asked if we wouldn't be inconsistent if we were to require another individual in this area to do the same thing we did not require of Keith's Oil Can because we thought it was the responsibility of the DOT. Commissioner Eggert believed concurrency is the answer and asked if there wasn't another property up there that was required to put in a turn lane. Director Davis confirmed there was a 6.3 acre parcel at the northeast corner of the railroad and Vickers Road that was required to put in some of these improvements prior to obtaining a C.O. What transpired there is that the building went up and apparently there were some funding problems with the result that a C.O. was never pulled and the building has been sitting there a number of years now. Commissioner Scurlock felt the whole question involved here is not whether the improvements are needed, but who is respon- sible to pay for them - the DOT, the County, the adjacent property owners, Dr. Fischer, or a combination thereof. Chairman Bird wished to go over the list of proposed improvements; identify what needs to be done and whose responsi- bility it is; and then let Dr. Fischer comment. Director Davis believed he had already gone over the U.S.I/ 99th Street intersection turn lanes, and Commissioner Eggert asked about the traffic signal and the eastbound turn lane on 99th Street. Director Davis advised that the signal warrants need to be met first. That is an intersection of a state roadway and a countyroadway; so, the DOT would have to approve signalization and the local government would have to pay for it. The volume 27 APP 2 1991 BOOK 83 FAC ,771,4 AN 2 1991 EOO. warrants are not there at this time, but he believed as the development goes in, it will trip the volume warrant. As to the eastbound right turn lane, that is a problem now because the vehicles waiting to left turn wait so long that they cause a lengthy delay for those wanting to right turn to go south on U.S.I., and that probably would be a county or local area responsibility. Chairman Bird thought that staff had said everything lumped under Item 1 was Dr. Fischer's responsibility. Director Davis explained that it all relates to timing. If the developer wants to proceed prior to the County's improvement being implemented, then we allow the developer to do the project and get a traffic impact fee credit for that improvement. Chairman Bird asked if he was saying that the 5 items under Item 1 are Dr. Fischer's responsibility, and Director Davis agreed that they are his responsibility if the development is going to proceed prior to the County doing the improvements. Director Davis then addressed Item 2 and advised that the widening of the pavement of 99th Street to 24' is to accommodate the type of vehicle attracted to an industrial area - it is more of a safety improvement, and they do not feel it would be traffic impact fee creditable due to the nature of the development. They feel that also would be Dr. Fischer's responsibility unless the County gets to it before he develops. Commissioner Scurlock felt the whole issue is where the development is triggering use we are going to do the improvement but we don't have money or it is not on the priority list) and he has some problem with that because he felt if this is a county responsibility, it ought to be a county responsibility. Director Davis noted that the problem with reacting to meet the needs wherever these developments may occur is that it plays havoc with our priorities. Commissioner Scurlock addressed the question of cash flow, the possibility of bonding, etc. He felt that there is no question that the improvement will be necessary. This inter- section has been before us several times before, and while he agrees that Dr. Fischer has some responsibility to that intersection, he is only part of it. Commissioner Scurlock, therefore, had some problems with who pays and when they pay, and saying it is a county responsibility, but we don't have any money now so we are going to put the burden on this developer; and then he gets an impact credit if it is on the 20 year plan and we must track all this. Director Davis again stressed that in 1989 we recommended an assessment district for this purpose, but there was a lot of 28 debate about the feeling that the DOT should perform these tasks, and staff at that time prepared a letter for Chairman Wheeler's signature to request the DOT to carry out their project and do this work. We never received a response to that letter, and we called about this again recently and did not get a response to our call. Commissioner Scurlock did not feel that DOT has adjusted to the new Comp Plan concurrency requirements that anticipate the need because DOT does not move until the need can be demonstrated. Director Davis agreed there is a difference in philosophy. Commissioner Scurlock went on to discuss the possibility of having a building moratorium in certain areas of the county because of problems with the state roads. He questioned what happens and how it is enforced if a county continues to issue building permits that exceed service levels. He felt strongly that this system needs a lot of work and felt we should address our Legislature and tell them that they are operating off a different page than we are and there is a time lag. Director Davis next addressed Item 3 which recommends that County improvements at CR 512/USI should be complete prior to project completion. He advised that the County is currently engineering that improvement. There has been some question about the railroad overpass, but if the twin pairs project is not implemented, or some project is not implemented, then we will have problems with 512 and USI. Currently we are on track with that project, and it is in the radius of influence of this project. He felt this is a good example of the impacts improve- ments to these roads have on development because unless we implement some project here, we will have a problem with concurrency. Commissioner Scurlock asked if Director Davis was saying that if we don't move ahead with 512, we could be at moratorium time in that whole radius of influence. Questions followed as to the area that radius takes in, and County Traffic Engineer Michael Dudeck explained that this is not based on mileage but relates to the fact that there are very few roads in this area for the traffic to get on. Radius of influ- ence fluctuates; it depends upon the roadway system that will support that given development; and it can vary a great deal. Director Davis continued that the 512 improvements would be the County's responsibility unless for some reason our 512 project is delayed. Timing is an issue relating to whether the developer wants to wait until those improvements are complete or, whether he wants to move ahead and pay the premium and apply for APR 2 1991 29 nor 83 FA[ E i ) APR 2 1991 BOO 83 F,A6E 34 traffic impact fee credit. We prefer, however, to continue on with our project and implement that improvement. Commissioner Scurlock again brought up the option of bonding these improvements and accelerating the program, which approach he does not necessarily support. He stressed that this is a very complex issue and that concurrency is a much more serious matter than anyone yet realizes. Director Davis moved on to Item 4 - constructing an exclu- sive left turn lane at the east and west approaches at CR510/USI. He informed the Board that is a project we do not have in engineering at this time, and he believed this is the first development that has triggered it. Here again, if the developer wants to do it and get traffic impact fee credit, he can do it. In discussion, the Chairman noted that apparently what we are saying regarding 510 is Fischer now or the County later. Director Davis advised that Item 5 in regard to signage to prohibit industrial truck traffic being routed through Sebastian Highlands is the responsibility of the developer. Dr. Henry Fischer came before the Board. He agreed that concurrency is the problem with the City of Sebastian. He noted that Sebastian Community Development Director Bruce Cooper is here, and he is concerned with the letter Jim Davis sent him. He is worried that if it is a recommendation and they don't do it, that later on the state will come back on them for it. Dr. Fischer personally felt that both his own consultant and Mr. Davis are right on course and that these improvements are needed whether he builds his subdivision or not. He continued that the turn lane to the right out of Vickers and 99th Street is needed now. His percentage of use is only 5%. His percentage of use is Tess than 5% at 510; it is about 6% into 512; and at Schumann Drive and Englar, it is 23%. Dr. Fischer stated that 450 of his traffic goes out 99th Street and 65% of his traffic goes into the City of Sebastian by those back roads. He felt impact fees and percentage of use by him are a problem and pointed out that Jong's vegetable market and other vegetable stands that are major traffic creaters with great impacts weren't required to make any improvements at all, not to mention Keith's Oil Can. He feels as if he is caught between the County and the City on concurrency, and he would like to have some relief Commissioner Scurlock asked of all the improvements on this list what Dr. Fischer does feel is his responsibility and what he would like to see made now. Dr. Fischer advised that the last one with the signage in the subdivision is part of his site plan recommendation by the City, and he will have to do that. He would like to work with 30 the County and do the limerock section on the 4' addition to 99th Street and be reimbursed out of traffic impact fees for the cost of the limerock and then the County can come in and asphalt that road. He believed this was recommended by Mr. Davis. That is his position because the problem is already there - Breezy Village is there; New Horizons is there; and there are existing industrial places (fertilizer and chemical suppliers) which are non -Fischer, and there are a lot of recreational uses. Chairman Bird noted that he, therefore, is agreeing to do the signage and the widening of 99th Street, if he can get credit for the sub -base, but what about the other 3 recommended improve- ments? Dr. Fischer felt those are the responsibility of the DOT because he is only a minor user. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that we have had many incidents of this intersection being raised as a problem area, and Dr. Fischer stressed that 99th Street is a joint problem; it is just a short feeder road. Discussion continued at length in regard to the complexities involved, the possibility of an assessment district, the possi- bility of bonding, cash flow, deficit situations, impact fees, the fact that more development creates more impact fees, the fact that CR 512 is one of our top priorities, and the effects of concurrency. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that this is a dilemma, and he believed it is the responsibility of the County Commission to find a solution. He did not think there is any question the intersection should be improved, and asked if we can fund those improvements and get an agreement with DOT to refund that cost as their cash flow allows. Director Davis felt we can pursue that but noted the DOT is reluctant to sign an agreement unless that improvement is in their current 5 year plan. Commissioner Scurlock recapped that Dr. Fischer has agreed to Items 2 and 5. As to the other items, Commissioner Scurlock did not think Dr. Fischer should have to do 3 and 4, and although Item 1 needs to be done, he did not feel that is all Dr. Fischer's responsibility. Chairman Bird concurred with Commissioner Scurlock's summa- tion. He agreed that Item 1 definitely needs to be done and felt that Dr. Fischer should participate to some degree. Commissioner Scurlock felt it is the County's responsibility to step forth and do something about this, possibly even if DOT doesn't. This is a very busy intersection, and he would like to, accelerate this and get the turn lanes. 31 APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 PAGE 3 r. APR 21991 BooK 83 RAGE 36 Commissioner Eggert felt that would create the opportunity to get the signal. Considerable discussion ensued re the improvements in Item 2 and whose responsibility they are, and Director Davis confirmed that the eastbound right turn lane on 99th is not on the DOT system and would be a county road. Commissioner Bowman inquired about the cost involved with Item 1, and Director Davis estimated roughly about $50/60,000. Dr. Fischer stated that he did not have any problem with doing the eastbound turn lane on 99th and getting an impact fee credit. Chairman Bird asked if he would participate in the signal- ization and get a credit for that, too, but Dr. Fischer had a problem with that as he believed the signal is warranted even if he doesn't build his project. Debate followed as to who would participate in the signal- ization, the benefited area, our capital improvements program, etc., with Dr. Fischer continuing to contend that the signal is required whether or not he builds. Commissioner Scurlock wished to offer a Motion and noted that he would not include doing the signal. Commissioner Bowman brought up the credit for limerock, but Commissioner Scurlock felt that staff should work that out with Dr. Fischer. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously agreed to the following: Item 1 - Try to enter into an agreement with the DOT to get turning lanes built on U.S.I.; Dr. Fischer to go ahead with the eastbound right turn lane on 99th St. and get impact fee credit; no signal now, but keep pressure on the DOT for this. Item 2 - Dr. Fischer to widen 99th St. to 24'. Item 3 - Not Fischer's responsibility. Item 4 - Not Fischer's responsibility. Item 5 - signage Fischer's responsibility. 32 PROPOSED DONATION OF TREES FOR SR60 (UNITED ARTISTS CABLEVISION) The Board reviewed the following memo from Public Works Director Davis: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: James E. Chandler, County Administrator James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo Request from United Artists Cablevision Co. to Donate Crepe Myrtle Trees for SR60 Median between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue REF. LETTER: United Artists Cablevision, to James Davis dated DATE: March 26,1991 FILE: sr60tres.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As a community service project, United Artists Cablevision Company is requesting permission to purchase and donate to the County approximately 70 Crepe Myrtle Trees. The County is being requested to plant the trees along SR60 median between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue spaced 25' apart. The Cable Company will apply for DOT approval. The County would be responsible for maintaining the trees after installation. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since SR60 contains a curbed median and the trees are not projected to grow to a large diameter, staff has no objection. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the County approve the request from United Artists Cablevision Company to donate the Crepe Myrtle Trees to the County for placement in the SR60 median. Labor to install and maintain the trees shall be provided by the County Parks Division and Road and Bridge Division. Commissioner Wheeler suggested a Motion to accept the above offer, but both Commissioners Eggert and Bowman were against this. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that crepe myrtle trees are deciduous and shed their leaves, and Commissioner Bowman agreed that these trees would be pretty only in the spring of the year when they flower. Commissioner Eggert noted that she would like to work with them to find a tree that is not deciduous. Chairman Bird suggested that we write expressing our appre- ciation of their offer, but indicating that we would prefer a different type of tree and ask them to coordinate with the Urban. Forester. APR 2 199i 33 37 SPR 2 1991 BOOK 83 I I [ 38 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed that a letter be written to United Artists Cablevision Co. as suggested by the Chairman. RECOMMENDED POLICY - 25% COMPENSATION TO DEVELOPER ASSOCIATED WITH PAVING COUNTY MAINTAINED LOCAL ROADS Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following, noting that the proposed policy related back to the request for compen- sation made by Joe Berlin, at which time staff was directed to prepare a policy for such reimbursement: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: James E. Chandler, County` Administrator James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director` Recommended Policy - Reimbursement to Developer for 25% Compensation Associated with Paving County Maintained Local Roads DATE: March 14, 1991 FILE: reimbur.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the March 4, 1991 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, staff was requested to develop a policy to provide for partial monetary reimbursement to those developers who pay the cost of paving County maintained roads. Whereas past history has revealed that developers of commercial, industrial and multifamily zoned properties are subject to paving requirements, the policy can be applied to all development types. Also, the County's Petition Paving Program has historically established precedents in County funding initiatives. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the primary goal of the County Petition Paving Program for local road paving has been to reduce the County's burden of grading roads in urbanizing areas and to consolidate the geographic boundaries of the County's seven motor grader routes, staff is proposing the establishment of a road paving urban boundary, east of which all County maintained unpaved roads are high priority for paving(see attached map showing boundary). The policy recommended by staff is that the County provide for 25% cost reimbursement to any developer or individual who paves a County maintained road located east of the road paving urban boundary subject to the following conditions: 34 1 2 4 All paving and construction in County right-of-way must be designed by a Florida Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the County Engineer prior to construction. The design shall be in accordance with the Florida DOT Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways. No work can commence until all required local, state, and federal permits are obtained and a copy sent to the County Engineer. All necessary right-of-way and easements must be acquired. The maximum County reimbursement cost shall not exceed 25% of the average county cost of road paving based on the price per lineal foot of the past year's petition paving cost of roads constructed by the County Road and Bridge Division. In addition, 25% of the Engineering costs may be included. 5) No payments would be issued until all construction is inspected by and approved by the County Engineer. 6) The 25% cost reimbursement must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 7) The Road Construction Contractor or Developer must guarantee the road construction for a minimum of one year. 8) Release of liens must be executed by all contractors or subcontractors furnishing construction materials or services. 9) An approved testing lab must monitor density and compliance with the County standards on subgrade, base construction, and asphalt construction. 10) As -built drawings must be submitted to the County. 11) All Contractors working in the County Right -of -Way must have insurance as required by the County's Administrative Manual. 12) Copies of all construction plans must be sent to the County Utilities Department for information purposes. If a water or sewer line is proposed for construction in the next two years, construction may be delayed by the County. 13) The developer shall notify property owners along the street to be paved that paving is eminent and notify them of paving schedule. 14) Traffic shall be maintained during construction including mail delivery. 15) Appropriate drainage/stormwater management and traffic control devices must be included in the project. 16) The County shall be indemnified against Errors and Omissions or acts of the developer and contractor. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the above policy be adopted to govern the County's cost reimbursement for paving County maintained roadways east of the road paving urban boundary. 35 L APR 2191 BOOK 66 ME 3e r APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 FALE 40 36 Commissioner Eggert felt we should underline the word County in Item 4, and asked about provisions for maintaining safety procedures. Director Davis pointed out that Item 1 says that everything shall be in accordance with the DOT Manual minimum standards. He further stressed that this policy would kick in only east of the boundary they have defined as the urban paving boundary as shown on the map. They are not recommending it west of that boundary in the agricultural and rural areas. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the policy set out in the memo from the Public Works Director dated March 14, 1991. FIRING RANGE FACILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Thompson: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Directo FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.; Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Firing Range Facility Engineering Services Contract • DATE: March 20, 1991 FILE: firrng.agn DESCRIPTION AND, CONDITIONS Staff has successfully negotiated terms of an agreement with Carter Associates, Inc. for design of the proposed Firing Range Facility. The attached agreement outlines the various phases of design. Compensation for Phase 1-A will be on an hourly rate basis, up to a maximum total not -to -exceed price of $5,654. Compensation for Phase 1-B, 2, 3 and 4 shall be negotiated and mutually agreed upon by the Consultant and the County prior to issuance of each work authorization. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Alternative No. 1 Authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement as written. Alternative No. 2 Re -negotiate contract terms. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of Alternate No. 1 Funding is from Account 004-210-572-066.39. 37 APR 2 1991 BOOK 83 F',1GE 41 r RPR 2 199i BOOK 83 fACE 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Alternative No. 1 and authorized the Chairman to execute the Agreement as written. SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION - DESIGN WELLS SOUTH COUNTY R.O.PLANT The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Utilities: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SUBJECT: MARCH 22, 1991 JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PINTO., DIRECTOR OF UTILIT HARRY E. ASHER ASSISTANT DIREC OR OF UTILITY SERVICES VICES ENGINEERING FIRM SELECTION HYDROGEOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RAW WATER PRODUCTION WELLS RATED AT 2 MGD EACH AT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT BACKGROUND The Department of Utility Services received twelve (12) responses to its Request for Proposals to provide engineering services for the above -referenced project. The .selection committee reviewed the twelve (12) responses and selected five (5) firms to be interviewed for the project. ANALYSIS On March 21, 1991, the selection committee interviewed the five (5) firms and, as a result of the interviews, ranked the firms as .follows: 1. Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. 2. Missimer.and Associates 3. Jammal and Associates RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations and to proceed with an agreement with the first choice firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., based upon the outcome of the negotiations. The Department also requests approval to proceed with negotiations .with the second and/or third selection if negotiations fail. 38 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations and to pro- ceed with an agreement with the first choice firm listed above, and if negotiations fail, proceed with the other firms in the order listed. Commissioner Scurlock noted that as part of the scope of services they will do some modeling of the entire area and get the drawdowns of adjacent wells as well as look at other wells in the area. Commissioner Eggert asked if we are getting into any sub- contracting at this level, and Commissioner Scurlock advised that two of the firms did have joint ventures; this firm did not. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. PROPOSED AGREEMENT W/C.E.BLOCK, ARCHITECT RE GOLF COURSE EXPANSION Attorney Vitunac noted that the proposed agreement sets out that the architect will provide his services for 5% of the construction cost - not to exceed a total of $39,200. Also, staff is recommending language to say that the architect will be paid no more than $2,000 for construction administration rather than inspection. There is a total $4,000 maximum for all buildings, not just the clubhouse; so, the total cost would be $39,000 plus $4,000. Commissioner Scurlock believed at 5% that figure indicates we are talking about an $800,000 facility; he had not contem- plated this project could run as high as that, and he has some problems with that. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the budgeted figure and the various buildings that are included, i.e., the clubhouse, the cart buildings, shelters, parking, etc. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know just exactly what 5% of construction costs includes - does it include the parking lot, furnishings or what? He did not know that we need an architect for the shed. Chairman Bird pointed out that the golf cart shed will require heavy electrical service. He advised that we can bring this item back with a complete breakdown. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he is just concerned because we are looked at with a microscope on this golf course, APR 21991 39 �� ROOK 83 PA6E APR 2 199 BOOK 83 PACE 44 and he stressed that there is no thought of subsidizing this even the first year. Chairman Bird suggested that this be brought with more information as timing is not critical at this point. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he does not want to inhibit or delay this project in any way, but he would prefer that it be brought back. After further discussion as to figures, Chairman Bird recommended this matter be deferred 2 weeks so that all this can be made clear. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously agreed to defer the above item for two weeks. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:35 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: AZ/T-_;;;12' Clerk Chairman 40