HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/14/1991a'
1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 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 - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Item 8 in regard to presentation of Annual financial report for fy90
be removed and schedule for May 28th.
b. Item 11H(6) under Util.(Contr.for Engin.Serv.re:Central Regional Alternate
Effl.Disposl,etc.)be removed & brought back @ a later time.
c. Item under Publ.Works 11G(6)be added in regard to litigation & appraisl.of
I. R. Blvd. prop.Ph.III. d. Addn.of report on actions taken by Tourist Dev.Council
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Special Meeting of 5/1/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Occupational license taxes collected during month of
April, 1991
(memorandum dated May 2, 1991)
B. IRC Bid #91-56 / Scada System for Utilities Dept.
(memorandum dated May 6, 1991)
C. IRC Bid #91-60 / 20th Ave. Bridge Replacement -
Public Works Department/Engineering
(memorandum dated May 6, 1991)
D. IRC Bid #91-71 / Fuel Spill Containment Facility
Solid Waste Disposal District
(memorandum dated May 6, 1991)
E. RFP 91 - RFP 41 / Contract Addendum
(memorandum dated May 3, 1991)
�FJk� 83
Fq `� Vic,
L HAY 14 1991
NAY 14 1991
BUCK 83 PAGE 2
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Presentation of FY 1990 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report
(memorandum dated May 7, 1991)
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Countryside Phase IV Report
(backup distributed previously under separate cover)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 301 - FALSE ALARMS
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE, PRO-
VIDING FOR ADOPTION BY REFERENCE, PRO-
VIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDING FOR
PENALTIES, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON-
FLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR IN-
CORPORATION IN CODE, PROVIDING FOR
APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVER-
ABILITY PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated April 30, 1991)
13(1) PUBLIC HEARING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
HEARING BOARD
IRC Environmental Control Board Rule 1
A RULE OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENVIRON-
MENTAL CONTROL BOARD ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 85-427,
SPECIAL ACTS, LAWS OF FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR TITLE, PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE, PROVID-
ING FOR AUTHORITY, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION
BY REFERENCE, PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY,
PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDING FOR
PENALTIES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated April 30, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Winter Beach Cemetery
(memorandum dated April 17, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Architectural and Engineering Services - Indian
River County Courthouse Project
(memorandum dated May 2, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued) :
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Maintenance of Unmaintained Right -of -Way
Vero Lake Estates
(memorandum dated April 30, 1991)
2. Proposed Contract for Traffic Engineering
Services - Kimley Horn Assoc., Inc.
US 1 at Highland Drive SW and SR 60 at 82nd Ave.
(memorandum dated May 7, 1991)
3. County Commission Approval - Use of Impact Fees,
District 4 - Improvements to 49th St. & US#1
(memorandum dated May 7, 1991)
4. Request from Vista Civic Assoc., Inc. for County
Special Assessment Funding to Construct 600 +/-
Feet of Pedestrian Path along South US 1
(memorandum dated May 7, 1991)
5. Acceptance of Apple Way Road by County
(memorandum dated May 6, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. 12th St. Water Service Project
(memorandum dated May 1, 1991)
2. Gifford Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Phase II
(memorandum dated May 1, 1991)
3. Construction services for North Beach Reverse
Osmosis Plant
(memorandum dated April1 17, 1991)
4. Final Pay Request & Change Order #2 for 6", 8",
& 12" Water Distribution Mains on 43rd Avenue,
44th Ave., and 19th St.
(memorandum dated May 2, 1991)
5. North County Utilities (I.E.), Sewer Collection
& Water Distribution
(memorandum dated May 2, 1991)
6. Owner/Engineer Contract for Engineering Services
for the Study, Design, Permitting, Construction,
Administration, & Inspection of a' Central Region
Alternate Effluent Disposal & Transmission System
(memorandum dated May 1, 1991)
ROOK Oa FAL. Jj
MAY 14 1991
MAY 1d 1991
RUK 83 p
AE301.
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
A. Agreement to Facilitate the Construction of the New
Courthouse & Associated Parking Facilities
(memorandum dated May 8, 1991)
B. Hawk's Nest Management, Inc. - Developer's Agreement
(memorandum dated May 1, 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
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting 2/5/91
2. Authorization to. Purchase Replacement Hurst Rescue
Tool (Jaws of Life) and Funding Approval
(memorandum dated May 6, 1991)
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - 5/7/91 Meeting
2. Bid Award: IRC 91-75 / Steel Building and
Concrete Slab
(memorandum dated May 6, 1991)
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, May 14, 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,
May 14, 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, and Commissioner
Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE • AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler asked that Item 8 inregard to the
presentation of the FY 1990 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
be removed from the Agenda as it should have been scheduled for
May 28th. He also requested that Item 11H(6) under Utilities -
(Contract for Engineering Services re Central Regional Alternate
Effluent Disposal & Transmission System) be removed to be brought
back at a later date. The Administrator then asked that an item
be added under Public Works as 11G(6) in regard to litigation and
appraisal of Indian River Boulevard property, Phase III.
County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he has been
asked by the Clerk's Office to add the Minutes of the last
meeting of the Environmental Control Hearing Board for approval
when the Commission sits as that Board.
Commissioner Wheeler later in the meeting requested the
addition of a report on actions taken by the Tourist Development
Council.
11N114199
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously deleted from
and added to today's Agenda the items described above.
EkOOK O FACE 30
MY 1 99
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOOK
83 FACE 300
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 1, 1991.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 1, 1991,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert had a question on Item B and asked that
it be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Occupational License Taxes - Month of April, 1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted
the following report from Tax Collector Morris on
the Occupational License Taxes collected during
April of 1991.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: May 2, 1991
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $2,047.17 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of April 1991, representing the issuance of
166 licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
2
B. Bid #91-56 - Scada System (Utilities Dept.)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton and
memo from Environmental Engineer Wisemen:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
May 6, 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi es �,t�
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager i_,w
�
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-56/Scada System
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
,,Data Flow Systems
Melbourne, Florida
Westerman and Company
Bremen, Ohio
Engineer Service Corporation
Jacksonville, Florida
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
AMENDED TOTAL OF BID:
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Utilities Sewer Office
Equipment Account.
March 6, 1991
Five (5) Vendors
Three (3)
LUMP SUM PRICE
$50,620.00
$69,500.00
$70,000.00
$50,620.00 (4 RTU's)
$41,060.00 (2 RTU's)
$38,240.00
Furniture & Equipment Other Machinery &
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Data Flow Systems for
the purchase and installation of two (2) RTU's only. This vendor
is the lowest, most responsive, responsible bidder meeting speci-
fications. (See attached memo and requisition.)
3
MAY 14 1991
ETU
MAZY 14 1991
BOOK 83 PAGE °.5
DATE: APRIL 30, 1991
FRAN BOYNTON
PURCHASING MANAGER
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIr' SER ICES
FROM: ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
.SUBJECT: BID NO. 91-56 (SCADA SYSTEM)
ANALYSIS
The three bids received are as follows:
1. Data Flow Systems
2. Westerman Controls
3. Vericom Scada Systems
$50,620.00 (with 4 RTU's)
$69,500.00
$70,000.00
The Data Flow Systems will enable us to go into multi -bases network
in the future when it is so desired. It proposes a fully configured
486-25 MH personal computer beyond what is originally specified.
A standard warranty is as requested in the specifications. Three of
the TAC II users list from the lowest bidder had been contacted for
their comments. They are completely satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility. Services recommends the award
of this contract to Data Flow Systems, Inc., to purchase SCADA
Systems with only (2) two RTU's in the amount of $41,060.00,
including performance and payment bonds and, by doing so, approve
the forthcoming contract document. A copy of the requisition is
attached.
Thank you for your assistance.
Commissioner Eggert was not sure just what the Scada System
was, and Administrator Chandler explained that it relates to our
wastewater collection system. It ties into a main computer at
the wastewater plant and to the lift station and monitors flows;
it is a monitoring system for our lift stations.
Board members had questions as to whether 2 RTUs are
adequate, and this was confirmed by the Administrator.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-56 to Data Flow Systems as being the lowest,
most responsive, and responsible bidder meeting
specifications, in the amount of $41,060 for 2 RTU's
only as recommended by staff.
4
C. Bid #91-60 - 20th Avenue Bridge Replacement
The Board reviewed memo from the Purchasing Manager:
DATE: May 6, 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: 91-60 20th Avenue Bridge Replacement
Public Works Department/Engineering
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION:
B.K. Marine
Deerfield Beach, F1
Martin Paving
Vero Beach, F1
Murphy Construction
West Palm Beach, F1
Cone Constructors
Tampa, F1
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
March 20, 1991
Fourteen (14) Vendors.
Three (3) Vendors
UNIT PRICE
$462,134.00
$476,739.57
$522,586.82
$548,553.75
$462,134.00
Roads and Bridges Account.
$462,134.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that bid be awarded to B.K. Marine as the lowest,
most responsive, responsible bidder meeting specifications. Contract
will be brought back to the Board for approval.
D.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-60 for the 20th Avenue Bridge Replacement
to B. K. Marine in the amount of $462,134, as being
the lowest bidder meeting specifications.
Bid #91-71 - Fuel Spill Containment Facility (SWDD)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton:
C
5 BOOK. ,GL i J14
MAY 14 1991
MAY 9 4 1q9
POOK 3 PAL 30
DATE: May 6, 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: 91-71/Fuel Spill Containment Facility
Solid Waste Disposal District
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: April 24, 1991
L_.
Specifications mailed to: Ten (10) Vendors
Replies: Two (2) Vendors
BID TABULATION: TOTAL LUMP SUM PRICE
Hunley Hubbard Construction
Vero Beach, F1
Butler Construction
Rockledge, Fl
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
$15,997.00
$24,382.00
$15,997.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Sanitary Landfill Construction in Progress
Account.
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $60,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Hunley Hubbard Con-
struction as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder
meeting specifications. Authorization for this work will be by
purchase order, lump sum payment upon completion of work and ac-
ceptance by the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #91-71 for Fuel Spill Containment Facility to
Hunley Hubbard Construction as the low bidder meeting
specifications in the amount of $15,997.
6
E. Addendum to Contract w/Stanford & Co. re Negotiations with PPO
15 oviders
The Board reviewed memo from Personnel Director Jack Price:
James Chandler, Date: May 3, 1991
County Administrator
From: Jack Price, Personnel Sub: RFP 91 -RFP -41
Contract Addendum
On April 23, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners approved the
recommendation that Stanford & Co. be used to represent Indian
River County in negotiations with PPO providers. This was done to
maximize discounts on health care services.
Please review the contract addendum attached for this purpose and
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve its,
execution by Chairman Bird.
Thanks for your assistance.
Approved by:
J.�es Chandler, County Administrator
For meeting date: May 14, 1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Addendum to Agreement w/Stanford & Co. for Consulting
Services, Employee Benefit Program.
7
POCK FA L JOS
MAY 14 i991
BOOK zj PAGE 309
ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND
STANFORD & CO. INSURANCE CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PROGRAM
THIS ADDENDUM to the Agreement dated January 31, 1991, by and between Indian
River County and Stanford & Co. is for the purpose of expanding consulting services
beyond those described in the original agreement. Such additional consulting services
shall include Stanford & Company's assistance to Indian River County in negotiating with
Indian River Memorial Hospital and Doctor's Clinic for preferred provider discounts for
employees and their dependents covered under the County's group health insurance
program.
The scope of Stanford & Company's services shall be limited to negotiations only. The
development of a formal contract with preferred providers shall be the responsibility of
the County and its legal counsel. If requested, however, Stanford & Co. will provide
sample preferred provider contracts commonly used by physicians and hospitals to serve
as a guideline to the County in developing its own contracts.
•
•
For the additional services covered by this Addendum, Stanford & Co. shall bill for
consulting time at the rate of $90.00 per hour. Out of pocket expenses such as travel,
telephone, photocopies, and so forth will be billed in addition. Consulting fees to
complete negotiations with Indian River Memorial and Doctor's Clinic are not expected
to exceed a maximum of $5,500.00.
Services under this Addendum are limited to the initial negotiations with Indian River
Memorial Hospital and Doctor's Clinic, and shall not extend to any renewal negotiations
after the initial contract is in place.
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto, by the undersigned, do bind said parties, set
their hands and seal on the 14 day of May , 1991.
STANFORD & CO.
INSURANCE CONSULTANTS, INC.
by Mary Stanford, ' resident
Witness
8
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL
By:
Richard Bird, Chairman
Bd. of County Commissioners
Attest:
Jeffrey Bartgi; Cle
COUNTRYSIDE PHASE IV REPORT
Chairman Bird requested that Administrator Chandler give the
Board his report before this is opened to the public for discus-
sion. The Chairman complimented the job done by the Administra-
tor along with staff in preparing the voluminous report supplied
to the Board. He then requested that everyone who wished to
speak be as brief as possible and act like ladies and gentlemen.
Administrator Chandler went over the summation of his report
to the Board in considerable detail, as follows:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 3, 1991 FILE:
FRO
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler
• County Administrator
REFERENCES:
As requested by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) , at the March 19,
1991 meeting, I have conducted a thorough review and analysis of the
Countryside Phase IV -water and sewer franchise from 1980 to date. In the
process I reviewed a considerable number of documents, met with staff on
numerous occasions, and met with Countryside representatives twice.
Attached is a chronology and list of documents reviewed (2 - 12)a. Although
to varying degrees each of the documents relates to the matter in question,
I have attached to this report only copies of those considered most pertinent
to the primary issues. The total file is available to anyone who may be
interested. Also attached is the correspondence received from Mr. Edson
Nelson, -President, Countryside North Homeowner's Association, Inc. (192 -
242).
The mobile home park in question, over the years has been referred to as
Village Green West, Phase IV; Village Green South, Phase IV; and
Countryside North, Phase IV (1) .
There have been a -number of questions raised by the Association that will be
addressed in this report. However, it appears the majority fall within three
major areas: 1) County administration of the 1980 franchise and collection of
prescribed fees; 2) vesting under the original 1980 franchise; and 3)
initial impact fees payments from the developer pursuant to the 1985
agreement.
Franchise Administration: 1980 - 1985
The Village Green Phase IV Water and Sewer System Franchise was adopted
by Resolution 80-88 (32 - 50) on September 10, 1980. Referenced in the
franchise are ordinances 80-21 (18 - 26) and 80-22 (27 - 31) which delineate
the fee structures in affect at the time. Section XV of the franchise
prescribed various fees that were to be paid by the developer,
Florida -Atlantic Associates. Although the language in this section is
somewhat vague and refers to water, both ordinances and correspondence
relate to water and sewer. Florida Atlantic was required to pay $227 per unit
for main extension ($70) and plant capacity ($157) , as each unit was
a Numbers in parenthesis in report refer to page numbers of
attachments
9
MAY 14 199
EOOK 83 FH t, 10
MAY 14 199
BOOK
FA6E o.311
completed. $500 per month was also to be paid for main extension until a
total of $27,424 was accumulated. The amounts derived from the $227 per
unit and $500 per month were to be deposited in a separate escrow account.
The $70 per unit and $500 per month amounts in the franchise are referred to
as contributions in aid of construction in Ordinance 80-21. Additionally, $500
per month was to be paid into a separate repair and/or replacement account
until a total of $30.000 had been paid.
The park site plan was approved May 22, 1980 by the Planning and Zoning
Commission (13 - 17) .
On July 20, 1981, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Development
of Regional Impact Report was issued (51 - 57) . The DRI stated the
Council's policy discouraging the proliferation of package wastewater treatment
plants. The report further indicated, since there was no other option
available the package plants were approved but considered temporary until
the development could be served by a regional county facility.
A review of the Building Department microfilm records indicated that the first
recorded permit for a mobile home was issued on September 1, 1981 (13 - 17) .
The first recorded payment by Florida -Atlantic was not received until
September 9, 1982 (114).
Joe Baird was hired as the Utilities Adminstrative Manager on June 7, 1982.
He has indicated that at that time he found the County had in excess of 80
utility franchises, franchise administration was weak and a- number of
franchises, including Phase IV, were delinquent in payments. His primary
responsibility, initially, was to correct the situation. Terry Pinto was hired
as Utilities Director on September 17, 1982.
The question of Phase IV delinquency was addressed in correspondence from
Baird in 1983 and 1984 (58, 59, 60, 61) . Payments increased in 1984 but
were still in arrears as of November, 1984 in the amount of $75,546 (61).
On December 5, 1984, the BCC entered into an agreement with Florida -
Atlantic requiring a minimum payment of $2,000 per week to be applied
against the outstanding balance or future certificates of occupancy would not
be issued (62 - 65) . Payments were made from that time until transfer of the
franchise in June, 1985 (114) . At the end of March, 1985, the balance due
was $24,677.25.
Included in Ordinance 80-22 was a provision whereby the plant capacity
charges "shall" be automatically escalated per a construction index and also
provisions for the Commission to increase or decrease the charges (29 - 30) .
The 1980 franchise stipulated that the County "may" adjust the .impact fee and
Florida -Atlantic would pay such increases (44) . The fees were modified per
the index in July, 1983 and January, 1984 (190 - 191) . The fees were
further increased by ordinance in May, 1984 and January, 1985 (190 - 191).
None of the increases were applied to the Phase IV franchise or any other
existing franchises that I have been able to determine. I have been advised
that due to the problems relating to the continuing Phase IV delinquency and
other franchises the total staff effort was to bring the basic required
payments into compliance. Had the modifications been applied, additional
funds obviously would have accrued to the escrow account. However, as will
be related in the "Vesting" section, the developer had been advised that the
current impact fees would have to be paid when the park connected. This
led to the Commission, April, 1985 decision to file for Declaratory Relief and
ultimately the 1985. agreement.
At the time of the June 5, 1985 amendment of the franchise and transfer to
Realcor, the escrow account contained a balance, including interest, of
$142,707.01 (114). According to Joe Baird's work sheet the amount should
have been $142,967 with the amount in arrears being $259 (106). The total of
$142,967 equates to 509 units and the $27,424 for main extensions. Records
reflect $227 payments tied to 501 specific lots ( 115 - 122) . The difference
between 501 and 509 appears to be the interest amounts. On February 20,
1986, a total of $146,023.08, including interest, was transferred from the
escrow account to the impact fee fund (110 - 114) . For some undetermined
10
reason, $2,270 paid May 21, 1985 was not included in the February, 1986
transfer and remains in the original escrow account (114) . Once the entire
matter is finally resolved the current amount ($6,916.16) in that account
should also be transferred.
The separate repair and/or replacement account contained a balance of
$30,381.18 on June 5, 1985 (188).
Conclusion: There is no question that payments were not made in a timely
fashion by Florida Atlantic nor were the plant capacity adiustments applied by.
the county. It appears, in my opinion, in the early 1980's the county was
beginning to establish a total utility system and an organization to administer
such a system, including existing franchises. Franchise administration
previously, in my opinion, appeared to be very weak at best. With the
staffing changes in 1982, the county began and continued to address the
franchise payments that were in arrears. The plant capacity fee modification s
could . have and should have, in my opinion, been applied. However, in
discussing the matter with staff l can fully appreciate the magnitude of the
effort in rectifying the delinquency problem with this and other franchises.
Additionally, the provisions of the franchise Resolution 80-88 stipulate that
the .plant capacity charges "may" be escalated and, therefore, in my opinion,
there was no absolute legal requirement to do so.
There can be speculation as to the amounts that would have been in, the
account if certain actions had been taken by the County. However, the
"inefficiency" of the County in the early 1980's does not, in my opinion,
create a legal liability. The fact remains that $1142,707.01 was in the escrow
account on June 5, 1985 and the repair and/or replacement account was
current.
Vesting
As stated previously, Ordinances 80-21 and 80-22 contained the basic fee
structures that were incorporated into the Village Green Phase IV franchise
(Resolution 80-88) in 1980. Included in both ordinances are qualifying
references relating to the economic feasibility of providing the service (18,
21, 27). The developer, Florida Atlantic, was responsible for payment of the
fees and all such payments were made by the developer under the 1980
franchise. By the mid 1980's, the Utilities Department had determined that
the revenues generated from the fee structure were not sufficient to make
connection economically feasible. A study was performed by Arthur Young
specifically on impact fees and an increased rate structure adopted by
ordinance 85-3 on January 9, 1985. In 1985 the County maintained that the
then current impact fees should be applied at the time the park hooked into
the system (67). The developer disagreed. The Commission, at the April 3,
1985 meeting, authorized the County Attorney to take whatever steps
necessary to resolve the disputed portions of the Phase IV franchise,
including filing for Declaratory Relief if necessary (66 - 72) . Subsequently,
negotiations were initiated between the County, Florida Atlantic, and Realcor,
the perspective purchaser. The resulting agreement, approved by the
Commission at the June 5, 1985 public hearing, addressed the issue and in my
opinion resolved that particular matter (73 - 105) . Florida Atlantic released
the escrow funds and Realcor relinquished any right to the funds, agreeing
that the funds could be used by the County for any legal purpose.
Furthermore, the new franchise with Realcor, authorized by Resolution 85-61
(78, 92, 94 - 98), prescribed the method by which current wastewater impact
fees would be paid over a ten year period. The developer was to pay
wastewater impact fees on 100 ERU's within the first 18 months. The
developer also is required to pay for each remaining ERU as each existing
pad changes tenants. The developer is responsible for paying one ERU for
the total number of pads within 10 years. The agreement states that water
will not be addressed until June, 1995 (97).
Conclusion: In my opinion, there is no vesting under the prior franchise.
The original franchise agreement was with the developer, Florida Atlantic.
11
MAY 1410
00 8: F' .)t ij4
iiiY t 4 199
BOOR C�1 F GE.Jj3
The developer was responsible for all payments. Furthermore, the applicable
fee ordinances contained the qualifying references where "economically
feasible". In my opinion, since the agreement was with the developer,
Florida Atlantic had the right to relinquish the escrow funds to County. The
1985 franchise agreement is also with the developer Realcor and, in my
opinion, the developer, who is responsible for payment, has the right to
commit to the impact fees necessary to serve his development. The intent of
the 1985 agreement was to resolve the impact fee issue between the parties
involved, i.e. Florida Atlantic, Realcor, and the County. That was
accomplished in the' form of the 1985 agreement. Under the current impact
fee ordinances, vesting and in the specific amount occurs per ERU at the time
the current fees are paid. Agreements, if any, between the developers, past
or present, and the tennants is strictly between those two parties.
Independent of my analysis of the vesting question, I requesteda written
legal opinion from the County Attorney. Attached is his legal opinion in
which he concurs that there was no prior vesting (182 - 184) .
As a result of my review of this aspect of the franchise, there are several
matters that need to be resolved. For some undetermined reason, after
adoption of the June 5, 1985 agreement, the County began accepting
individual payment of the impact fees from tenants. Although there may be
some practical reasons, as well as convenience, since the developer is
responsible for the payments, I believe all future impact fee payments under
this particular franchise should be from the developer.
The agreement also provides that all impact fees paid shall be paid in the
"Village Green, Phase IV (West) Escrow Accounts" until the park connects to
the wastewater system. At that time the escrowed funds and any future
impact fee, will be deposited in the "Impact Fee Trust Fund". Since June 5.
1985 the fees collected have been deposited in the -impact fee trust fund.
Those funds collected to date should be transferred to the escrow account as
provided for in the franchise agreement.
As provided in the 1985 agreement, the escrow funds from the prior franchise
were relinquished to the County to be used by the County for any legal
purpose. In 1986, the escrowed funds were transferred to the impact fee
trust fund. To date there has been no formal decision as to the use of those
funds. Although there is no legal requirement, the funds, in my opinion,
could be and perhaps should be applied in some form to the Phase IV utilities
since they were generated from Phase IV. Recognizing that the funds were
paid by the original developer and the current franchise is with the
developer, Realcor, any such decision would benefit the developer. In my
opinion this matter warrants further discussion with the Commission and at
this point I have not developed a specific recommendation.
1985 Franchise Agreement - Initial Impact Fee Payments
The June 5, 1985 agreement states that the developer acknowledged that there
were approximately 100 vacant pads as of the date of the agreement. It also
provides that the developer would pay impact fees for each vacant pad as
occupied and that in any event the developer would pay for 100 ERU's within
18 months of the date of agreement whether or not such pads were occupied
(96). By letter dated July 18, 1985 to Terry Pinto, Realcor's attorney
advised that there were 80 unsold units in Phase IV and requested
confirmation of a prior conversation that the 100 ERU payments could come
from either Countryside IV or V rather than amending the agreement (107,
108). After confering with the County Attorney, Terry Pinto by letter dated
August 19, 1985 indicated that 100 units may come from either Countryside
(109). As reflected in the attached memo (145 - 181) Terry Pinto advised
that the decision was based on his interpretation of the agreement and the
inter -relationship of the two Countrysides to the County utility system. By
December 5, 1986, a total of $47,500 from Phase IV was paid, amounting to a
total of 38 ERU's as follows: 35 pads, clubhouse (2 ERU's),• and office (1
ERU) (185). Based on Terry Pinto's interpretation the balance was satisfied
by Realcors June 20, 1985 reservation of 285 ERU's resulting from the Route
60 assessment program.
12
IMO
Conclusion: In my opinion, the matter should have been presented 'to the
Commission for approval of either an amendment to the agreement or
concurrence in the Utility Director's interpretation. There appeared to be, in
my opinion, sufficient justification to approve either. Mr. Nelson has
indicated that since the 100 ERU's were not paid from Phase IV by Realcor in
the first 18 months, Realcor is in default per Section 7 of the agreement and
should be required to pay the balance due on all impact fees per Section 7
(96, 97). In my opinion, Realcor had no reason not to rely on, and in fact
has, the decision by Terry Pinto in his capacity as the County's Utility
Director. Hypothetically, even if his interpretation were incorrect, since
Realcor relied on that approval I do not think they can be declared in
default. The impact on the County, is the amount that would have been
collected by December 5, 1986 from Phase IV was reduced, but Realcor
remains liable for the entire amount by 1995, with continuing individual
payments as pads turnover.
As of April 9, 1991, of the 648 units, payments have been made on 174 lots,
amounting to $222,530, including the clubhouse and office (185 - 187) . The
developer is responsible for payment of the balance by June, 1995 per the
agreement. Payment of franchise fees are current (189) and the R & R fund
contained a balance of $29,273.18 as of February 11, 1991 (188).
As of this date, Phase IV has not connected to the county wastewater system.
Predicate upon the 1980 201 plan, 1981 DRI, and the franchise agreements
the developer is required to connect. Notification to connect was given to
Realcor on October 10, 1986 (123) and April 12, 1990 (124) . Throughout,
there has been continuing discussions and correspondence concerning the
required point of connection. On February 22, 1991, the Utilities Department
requested the County Attorney to proceed with all legal options 'due to the
lack of response from Countryside (126) . This matter is currently under
consideration by the Attorneys office.
Presentation of this report has been scheduled for the May 14, 1991
Commission meeting. Mr. Nelson has been notified of the schedule and a copy
of this report provided to him on May 3, 1991.
The Chairman determined that Board members had no questions
for Mr. Chandler and then opened the discussion to the audience.
Mr. Ed Nelson, president of Countryside North Home Owners
Association and District 4 president of the Federation of Mobile
Home Owners of Florida, noted that on March 19th last, the Board
was subjected to 21 hours of dialogue regarding the impact fee
dilemma which affects about 1,000 residents in their manufactured
homes community. At that meeting he was disappointed that the
Board was deprived of the documents he felt they needed, and he
hoped that today the Commissioners ail have been supplied with
the booklet entitled COUNTRYSIDE PHASE IV REPORT, which was
prepared by Mr. Chandler and staff. He was assured that all
Commissioners do have a copy of said report, and copy of same is
on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.
Mr. Nelson thanked Administrator Chandler for doing a mar-
velous job with the report, but he believed in it even more
inconsistencies have surfaced. He did not wish to bore the
Board, but believed it is necessary to again emphasize some of
the main points although he felt that his group is at an
overwhelming disadvantage no matter how many facts and figures
13
MAY 14199
EOOK. F�,'.E e.1
-14 1991
N00
FAGS
they submit because it is only natural for the.County Adminis-
trator and County Attorney to lean toward the protection of their
colleagues.
Mr. Nelson noted that he has heard some talk about taking
$120,000 out of that $143,000 and putting it towards extension of
mains or whatever, but that would only benefit the developer, not
the residents who have beer burdened by the fact that proper
impact fees have not been collected. Mr. Nelson felt the
"economic feasibility" aspect was well covered in Ordinances
80-21 and 80-22, both of which had clauses that stated the impact
fees "shall be escalated not more often than semi annually." .He
did agree that the agreement with Florida Atlantic (Resolution
80-88) did say they "may" be. Mr. Chandler's report, however,
stated that they may pass it on, and Mr. Nelson stressed that it
read instead that the county may adjust, and that is entirely
different. He emphasized that not only did it say they may
adjust, but they did adjust - on 7/12/83, the impact fee was
changed from $227 to $757 and then a few months later, it was
adjusted downward to $756; on 5/1/84 it was escalated to $920,
and January 1, 1985, it was escalated to $2,390.
Mr. Nelson did not wish to pick on anyone personally, but he
pointed out that the person who was headmof that department on
7/12/83 is the same person who is still Utilities Director today.
So, when Joe Baird was making his investigation into the
delinquent payments of fees, why didn't someone in that staff
pick up the fact that those fees had been escalated and demand
that they be paid? Instead they based all the unpaid fees on
$227, which was totally in error because
that was made on impact fees in November
was $757. Mr. Nelson then referred to a
fees contained in the back of the report
the very first payment
of 1983 was not $227; it
breakdown of the impact
and stated that the
first 20 should have been paid at $757; the next 50 at $756; the
next 150 at $920; and the last 150 at $2,390. If these amounts
had been collected, then by June 5th, 1985, there would not have
been $113,000 in that escrow account, there would have been
$675,000 in there! Mr. Nelson then addressed incorrect amounts
paid into the R&R account where he claimed they carried impact
fee payments on 41 homes. He questioned why these 41 homes
weren't recorded in the general account #6300 and continued to
point out flaws in the bookkeeping. Mr. Nelson noted that we
could go over these figures forever, but he felt the bottom line
is why didn't the Utilities Department realize back in 1983 when
the..first payment was made that it was not the right figure.
Mr. Nelson stressed that it is very frustrating today to
think they are burdened by impact fees that they would not have
14
had to be. He claimed that back when they were meeting in these
groups with Doug Scurlock and Wayne Gerhold and the group from
Village Green, they knew nothing about these impact fees of
$143,000 versus what it should have been. That was not brought
up at all, and when at the last meeting Wayne Gerhold thanked
Doug for the nice cooperation we had, he did not realize at that
time, and he doubts that Village Green, Phase 1, 2 and 3,
realized that they also should have been in the same predicament;
so, maybe they didn't get such a good deal as they thought they
did when they settled to pay 1/3. Mr. Nelson continued to
contend that there are too many facts that were never brought out
until they continued this investigation.
Mr. Nelson then referred to Mr. Baird's letter of 8/12/83 to
Mr. Robert Miller, V.P., Village Green, which uses the figure of
impact fees for 509 homes, as follows:
B04,t1) OF COUNTY COMMISSIO. ;RS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
August 12, 1983
Mr. Robert Miller, V.P.
Village Green
8775 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Miller:
Suncom Telephone: (305) 424-1012
We have reviewed the.franchise for Village Green, Phase IV
(Resolution 80-88) and found the Impact Charges have not been
paid as stated in Section XV of your resolution. The following
is an account of what is due, at this time, to Indian Rvier
County:
$ 16,000 - Nbnthly portion of impact fees ($1,000 per month),
$ 17,500 - Monthly portion of maintenance escrow ($500 per month)
$115,543 - Unit portion of impact fees (($157 plant capacity + $70
hydraulic share) X 509 units
$149,043. TOTAL
If payment is not made in full within 30 days, appropriate legal
action will be taken.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Baird
Administrative Ilanager
MAY 14199
15
OOK. F"'`F '
i
,�r=
MAX '14 1991
BOOK
PAGE..l7
Mr. Nelson did not see how you could use that figure in 1983
and still again in 1985. Were there no more homes put in the
park in that 22 month period? There are so many inconsistencies.
Further, they are mixing in interest along with payments, and you
cannot credit interest to payments. Mr. Nelson then referred
back to the agreement with Realcor in 1985 and stated that first
of all the $142,967 was incorrect, and when he hears that the
difference between payments for 501 homes and 509 could be
interest, he would repeat that interest has nothing to do with
payments.
Mr. Nelson emphasized that the number of homes that were
paid for is extremely important, and we don't really know what it
is. In that agreement with Realcor, it was stated there were
approximately 100 vacant lots in the park; then later Attorney
Block stated there were only 80. Mr. Nelson believed there were
648 lots originally, but that included the water plant; so, there
were actually 646. If you subtract 80 from that, you will get
566 - so why were fees paid on only 509 when the ordinances all
read that impact fees have to be paid at time of occupancy or the
time a permit is issued, and when it comes to crediting Realcor
for homes put on South, that is hog -wash! He felt it is too bad
that Terry Pinto wrote his letter at that time,Awhich stated that
100 wastewater units may come from either Countryside, formerly
known as Village Green South and/or Village Green West, and you
would think that Attorney Block would have known that a letter
can't supersede a legal document, but apparently Realcor did hang
their hat on that letter. What Realcor is doing on the sale of a
home is making the payment of impact fees a condition of sale,
which is in complete violation of Fla. Statute 723.059, but the
residents can't go after the County for this, of course.
Mr. Nelson noted that the bottom line here is money, and
with 509 homes, you are talking probably around 2 million
dollars. Somewhere a wrong has been done, and how we correct it,
Mr. Nelson did not know. He felt it is just a shame that when
the franchise was passed on from Florida Atlantic to Realcor that
we didn't realize this because at that time, all this could have
been straightened out.
Mr. Nelson stated that he understood Commissioner Scuriock's
position about the money problem. This is not a personal
problem; it is an overall problem between the residents and the
County and the Utilities Department and their bookkeeping and
their enforcement of the ordinances. Mr. Nelson felt this
problem should be studied even further, and in the meantime, he
did not think the County should let anyone purchase that park and
he would hope that Utilities would be very reluctant to pass
16
on a franchise until this is all settled. Mr. Nelson did
appreciate the offer about crediting the $143,000, which is now
down to $120,000, to some part of the project, but that would not
help the residents. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that we
can come up with some kind of an agreement in the meantime. Mr.
Nelson sat down amid much applause from the audience.
Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to be heard, and
there were none.
Commissioner Scurlock had some comments. He did agree that
Administrator Chandler did an excellent job going back into the
history of this whole situation, but he felt he did have to
correct a few things that have been said. First of all, the
system can be charged for any shortfall in revenues, and he has
looked at that. If the Commission indicated for whatever reason
that they believe what has been said and that 2 million had to be
generated, it would be collected with a 16% rate increase for the
rest of the people that are on the system. Our utilities system
is an enterprise fund, and it is totally supported by the users;
so, if a decision were made that there were some dollars due, it
would come from all users of the entire system wherever they were
located.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that Mr. Nelson has made an
excellent presentation._ He noted that Mr. Nelson is very bright,
and pointed out that Mr. Nelson was at all the meetings back in
1985; he had all the franchise agreements available and all the
documentation available back at that time; and Commissioner
Scurlock noted that he personally brought that 1985 franchise
agreement to the table at that time. Now, what everyone at those
meetings did or did not understand at that time, no one can say,
but Commissioner Scurlock noted that he personally can state that
in regard to the transfer, the universal agreement of the
committee was don't go too strong and too heavy against the
mobile home park owner because if you do, it will be interpreted
that it is mandated and there will be an immediate pass back to
the resident. That group consistently warned him, as the
County's liaison, not to be too aggressive. It was urged, since
they had lifetime leases, that we work out an agreement with the
park owner to spread this out and give him a 10 year payment
plan. The overriding concern was don't do anything too
aggressive, and everybody thought this was a vehicle to spread
payments over a period of time and, in fact, allow individuals
not to have to pay anything until they sell their unit.
Now, whether those decisions were good decisions or bad
decisions may be debated today, but Commissioner Scurlock pointed
out that the D.R.I. said the wastewater was a temporary facility
17
MpY 14 1991
BOEir. 83 flj.k_ 31S
MAY 14 P991
Poor 83 F'dJE 31 0
from day one, not the water. He stressed that this county has
been here to try to provide services not to "gig" 546 residents.
He noted that the 890 people on the other side are tickled pink.
Mr. Nelson says maybe they don't understand the deal they got,
but they were at that same negotiating table and the same
meetings when it was approved in 1985.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that the park residents do have
a problem, and that is the leases they entered into with the park
owners. To say we have never made a mistake, however, would be
ridiculous. He noted that when he was elected in 1980, we didn't
have a utility system, a utility director, or a finance
department within the Utilities Department; everything was in the
infancy stage. We had over 86 package plants out there with no
money to do anything, and in some cases with raw sewage running
in the streets. Commissioner Scurlock could say that the people
did work with him at those meetings in a good faith effort to
make things better, and they brought that agreement of 1985 to
the Board and they supported it aggressively. All the problems
came about 10 or 11 years later. Now they are at the point of
deciding whether to buy the park or not, and Commissioner
Scurlock pointed out that if they do, everything will be passed
on to them including the $40 a month bill.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he has worked extremely
hard for the mobile home community in this county and tried to
bring them utility services; there has been no "cover up" and
nothing dishonest, and he finds the statements that have been
made about him very hurtful. He. has made mistakes, but he has
not knowingly ever misrepresented, and he has certainly never
called Mr. Nelson or anyone else on the committee dishonest,
untruthful, a liar or incompetent. Mr. Nelson was there and
worked together with him in those years; so, possibly he made
some mistakes also, and now for him all of a sudden to say that
Indian River County is a bunch of "sleezebags" who are trying to
steal your money is not right. For the record, Commissioner
Scurlock advised that he got his Countryside Phase IV Report
Booklet not until Monday morning, which was after Mr. Nelson
received it, and he asked Administrator Chandler if any
Commissioner involved themselves in any way in the making up of
this report or if he checked with any of the Commissioners before
giving out the report.
Mr. Chandler confirmed that no Commissioner involved
themselves in any way with his report, and the only people he did
check with were OMB Director Baird and Utilities Director Pinto
just to ask them to look at it from the standpoint of whether it
was accurate, not as to whether they agreed with his conclusions.
18
Commissioner Scurlock continued to express his unhappiness
with statements that have been made regarding his character.
Attorney Vitunac questioned Mr. Nelson about the letter he
wrote to our State Representative saying that "So, once again,
the County Officials are untruthful." He wished to know who
specifically Mr. Nelson meant since in that report his name was
mentioned along with that of Mr. Chandler, Mr. Pinto and Mr.
Scurlock.
Mr. Nelson contended that "untruthful" does not say that
someone is a liar. He stressed that he did not want to get into
personalities, but noted that there was a statement made by both
Commissioner Scurlock and Attorney Vitunac, which was quoted in
the newspaper, that "never has the County accepted a check made
out to the Utilities Department for the residents," and that
statement is not in accord with the facts.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that statement was
corrected at the March 19th meeting. He further commented that
Mr. Nelson stated at that meeting there is no way you could have
hooked us up for $227.
Mr. Nelson agreed he said that $227 was not feasible, but he
stressed that had the proper amounts been picked up, then it
would have been feasible. He further noted that if these
payments had been -made in 1980, maybe it would have been feasible
at that time, but no_payments were made until November of 1983.
Mr. Nelson next contended that as to him having all the informa-
tion back when they had all those meetings, they did not have
copies of Ordinances 80-81 and 80-82 then, and, in fact, when he
was supplied with them one year ago, that was all new to him.
Argument continued between Mr. Nelson and Commissioner
Scurlock as to just what he knew in 1985, and Mr. Nelson
continued to contend that he never called anybody a liar but just
said that what was stated was not a fact. Mr. Nelson did not
wish anyone to bear a grudge because this problem is too big and
stressed that he would just ask that we do some more study on
this thing and see if there is any way to iron it out.
Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Commissioner Eggert was unclear as to what Mr. Chandler's
thoughts on going forward are, and Administrator Chandler advised
that what he has included in his report are his recommendations.
He felt it is clear the impact fees were escalated but that was
not passed along, the reason being staff capabilities at that
time. What may have missed to a certain extent in today's
discussion is the fact that the County in 1985 was taking the
position with the developer that at the time of connection he was
to pay the then current impact fees. The County Attorney came to
83
Cis ,N'
BUUK PALL .J2,`
19
hL MAY 14 1991
MAY 14 1991
BOOK8d PAGE J
the Commission in April, 1985, with that opinion, and the Commis-
sion made the determination either to go to court or negotiate.
Negotiations then ensued which resulted in that 1985 agreement.
Commissioner Eggert brought up the vesting issue, and
Administrator Chandler advised that it is strictly his opinion
that the '85 agreement was entirely clear in its wording and
since the funds that were in that escrow account were generated
from Countryside, he felt they should be used for utilities out
there, plus whatever interest accrued.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that if we do that, we should do
something that benefits everybody, not just the developer. He
believed the Administrator's recommendation, therefore, would be
no vesting - status quo - and anything to be done would be done
with that $146,000.
Administrator Chandler noted that $146,000 was transferred
to the impact fee fund. That, as well as the $2,250 that was not
transferred and is still sitting there, and now with interest is
around $6,000, need to be transferred out. There is no question
in his mind that from this point forward as relates to this
specific franchise, that the impact fee payments should be
received from the developer and not from the -residents. There
is also no question in.his mind that a separate escrow account
needs to be set up for the funds that we are collecting since
1985 and those monies that are now in the impact fee fund need to
be transferred into that.
Chairman Bird believed the primary question that remains is
about vesting, and he wished to know of the total units available
in Countryside, how many as of today does our Utility Department
consider to be vested forever more in the system and how many are
in question.
Administrator Chandler stated that as of the 1st of April a
total of 174 ERU has been paid, $222,253, and included in those
174 ERUs were 2 for the clubhouse and 1 for the office.
Chairman Bird asked how many total units are subject to an
impact fee, and Mr. Chandler stated 648, including 2 ERUs for the
clubhouse and 1 for the office.
Mr. Nelson interjected that out of the 174, there are 128,
give or take 1 or 2, that come under the category of what they
consider paid the second time. The difference is between 128 and
174 that there is no question about. Those would definitely be
vested and that is only for sewer.
Mr. Chandler agreed that is correct because according to the
franchise, water is not to be addressed until 1995. He referred
the Board to Pages 185-186 and 187 of his report which contains a
20
breakdown of Countryside fees paid after June 5, 1985, and noted
they are paying $2,163 as of the last increase.
Chairman Bird recapped that out of 640 some total units, we
are acknowledging approximately 174 vested; we, therefore, know
there are approximately 470 that are not vested, and we know
those by specific lot numbers. So, as those units are resold,
the prevailing impact fee at the time of sale will be paid, but
after a certain period of time, the developer pays for the unsold
ones.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that the developer under
the terms of the '85 agreement is responsible for paying the
entire amount of ERUs by 1995.
Commissioner Scurlock discussed possibly extending the
vesting period for this group. We are now to an impact fee of
$2,163, but he believed some residents did not pay earlier
because they were waiting for this matter to be resolved. He,
therefore, has some sympathy for allowing them to pay in at a
lower amount.
Discussion followed as to the amount, and Administrator
Chandler noted that at the time we adopted the new rate
structure, the fee we gave the option to vest at for a certain
period was $1,004.17.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that is• the figure he felt we
still should extend lo these residents to vest in and pay now.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that we will have to pick
up the difference between $2,163 and $1,004, and Commissioner
Scurlock agreed there is no doubt that we have to make up that
difference.
Discussion ensued as to how long a period of time should be
allowed for such payments.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it should be a fairly reasonable
period of time, and Chairman Bird noted that if they don't sell
between now and 1995, they don't have to pay anything; so, it is
a judgment call.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed, but he believed a lot of
people are sitting on the sidelines and have not made a decision
based on what may come out of this meeting.
Chairman Bird referred to the ordinances where we increased
the impact fee and asked why did we make those increases if it
wasn't to bring the impact fee to a point that made it financi-
ally feasible to vest that unit in the system?
Director Pinto explained that when you are paying the fee
directly into the impact fee fund, it is different than paying it
into an escrow fund anticipating connection. When someone
actually becomes a customer of the system, that is vesting. When
21 &Q 83 f ,r.-�:�►�
MAY 14 1991
11AY 14 i991
Pooic Si �ei5
roJEb
si
you are paying into an escrow fund, that is money sitting out
there anticipating that when you do connect, you will have to
look at the value of that fund versus what your new capacity will
cost at time of connection.
Director Pinto wished to make one thing very clear and that
was that from the day he came here, he wanted to take that
developer to court to get this cleared up. The amount of that
impact fee going into the escrow fund was really meaningless, and
he asked that we go to court immediately to determine that the
developer has to pay the current impact fee at the time he
connects. His ability to pass through or not pass through is
something we can't be involved in. When it comes time to
connect, we have an impact fee and the determination has to be
made, not as to whether we shouldn't charge this developer or
this development an impact fee, but as to whether we should cause
that cost to be passed on to other customers.
Chairman Bird noted that Director Pinto's position then is
that the amount of monies that were required as we escalated
through those ordinances went into an escrow fund to be held
aside and later applied against whatever the impact fee was at
the time that the unit was connected to the system.
Director Pinto stated that the franchise was very clear in
that area - that it had to be "financially feasible" and was to
be paid by the developer. Mr. Pinto continued to stress that his
insistence always has been to go to court and get this
straightened, and he stated that Mr. Scurlock is absolutely
correct that Mr. Nelson came here and said No, we don't want to
stop this sale; we want to figure out some way to make the
payment of these impact fees acceptable; and, therefore, to try
to appease the people, we tried to figure out a way these could
be paid over time because we all realized they have to be paid.
Mr. Pinto further stated that he could not in clear conscience
recommend spreading this cost to other people on the system who
have no part of this.
Glenn Baldwin, Countryside resident, was.concerned that Mr.
Chandler talked about putting these impact fees into an escrow
account, but Director Pinto says if these fees go into an escrow
account, then we are not vested.
Administrator Chandler advised there is a distinct differ-
ence between the structure of the ordinances in 1980 and those
adopted in 1984 and 1985. The '84/85 ordinances were adopted
based on a specific study done on impact fees, and that is why
with impact fees collected since that point in time, a person is
vested at the particular rate and time when they pay it.
22
Director Pinto confirmed that he was talking prior to the
'85 agreement.
Commissioner Eggert noted that we have listened to both
sides at length, staff has gone into this very deeply,and we have
read and studied this to the very best of our abilities. We have
hired a good staff and put trust in them, and she did not see how
we can do anything different from what she voted to do before,
which was to stay with the '85 agreement and then do something
with the money given to the county that would be beneficial to
everyone.
Commissioner Wheeler felt from listening to all of this, it
seems the $227 may have been an error; however, he believed Mr.
Nelson recognizes that the utilities could not have been provided
for that cost. It appears we are hanging on technicalities, but
the bottom line is that to provide utilities costs "X" number of
dollars, and, therefore, the only thing he could support is that
those people who are going to receive and use the utilities would
pay their fair share based on the cost of doing business. If
that is not the case, then he felt the correct place to go is to
court and let a judge decide who is going to pay what because he
was not in favor of discounting anything and doing anything that
would lay an additional burden on the other utility customers.
Jack Wyner,'tot #55.0, Countryside, just wished to state that
Mr. Pinto is absolutely right that the land owner is charged the
impact fee, not the tenant.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should be clear once again on
the record that it is the developer who owes the money.
Commissioner Bowman recommended that the tenants get the
best utilities attorney they can find.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler to retain the 1985 agreement and
expend $147,000 in a way that will be beneficial to all.
Dale Miller, Seagull Circle, Countryside North, informed the
Board that in 1981 before he bought and moved down here, he
corresponded with Village Green, and they mailed him general
information in question and answer form, part of which he wished
to read to the Board, as follows: "Question - you mention that
there are services that are included in the price of the lot
rent, what are they? Answer - The services at Village Green
include water, sewerage, trash removal, lawn mowing, security,
and complete use of all recreational facilities and amenities in
23
MAY 14 1991
EW 0F..
°SAY 14 199'
BOOK ' FAG.
the community." He, therefore, felt this is the developer's
responsibility.
Board members indicated they agreed, and Commissioner
Scurlock again stressed that he and Mr. Pinto have testified
under oath that they think it is the developer's responsibility.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 11:00 A.M. and
reconvened at 11:15 A.M. with all members present.
ORDINANCE - NEW CHAPTER 301 - FALSE ALARMS
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
In the matter of a f�Lh. aea /lJ/
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues ofg 1ff,
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 4a day of ` A.D. 19 9�
(SEAL)
0
(Bu_. hess Manager)
jele[k.of. the eircuit-eeurt;-Indlan River GountyyFlorlda) ---
Notary Public, State bt Houma
MtCemmissIon Expires June 29. 1193
24
BoardNOTICE .
The
er Canty, Florida County of nosionerstice h
Rof
Public Hearing ached ed far 9.05 a.m. on Tuesda
=01991. to discuss the following propoix
• AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN • RIVER OOUNr
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 301 — FALS
Anyone
who
at�A
may bemade meeting to wn ennsx
that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is mask
f which IncludesM�d sevidence testimony and evidenupon *tic
the appeal is Apr9 /2,1991 • 1 • 78704-
Commissioner Bowman had a problem with Section 301.25 which
sets the service fees at $25.00 for the first false alarm in
excess of 3 false alarms; $50.00 for the second; and $100 for the
third. Commissioner Bowman did not believe you can even pull a
fire engine out of the station for $25 and suggested that these
amounts be changed to $100, $125 and $150.
Doug Wright, Director of Emergency Services, advised that
this is patterned the same as the City of Vero Beach policy, and
those are the amounts they charge. For the Board's information,
he reported that even with the $25 charge, we have had some major
penalties against the hospitals during their recent renovations.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we could adopt the proposed
ordinance and then modify it later when we see how it goes.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know how many false alarms we
average in a month.
Fire Chief Otis Humanes noted that it varies but felt we
have possibly 15/20 a month. This average is down quite a bit,
however, since the present ordinance went into effect. The fees
do escalate, and we do collect quite a bit of money from some
agencies; in fact, we have collected as much as $1,000 and more.
Chief Humanes advised that they work with the people and do check
to see whether it is a true malfunction - this charge is only
aimed at the negligent klarm system owners that are out there.
The situation has been greatly improved; when this first started,
we were running about 400-500 alarms a year, and we have cut that
in half.
Commissioner Eggert commented that if these alarms are due
to truly negligent people, she could support Commissioner
Bowman's recommendations very easily.
Chief Humanes believed the ones we are having now are true
malfunctions. He believed $100 gets their attention.
Director Wright noted that they will support and charge
whatever the Commission specifies, and Commissioner Scurlock
stated that he can support raising the fees as long as we are
making a diligent effort to see that the violators are trying to
correct the problem.
Chairman Bird felt that he was hearing that the system seems
to be working pretty effectively with what we are charging now;
so, why gouge the people any more?
Other Board members indicated the reason for higher charges
is that the cost of responding to such calls is not covered by
the present charges and why should the other taxpayers have to
make up for this.
Commissioner Wheeler suggested new charges he set at $100 -
$200 and $300.
25
MAY 14 1991
BOOK 3 FAuE 326
NIPPY 14 1991
KIR
FM.cr
JCo� di
Chairman Bird felt that could hurt some small businesses,
but Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that they are allowed 3
false alarms free as it is.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Chairman Bird voting in opposition,
the Board by a 4 to 1 vote adopted Ordinance 91-21,
adding a new Chapter 301 - False Alarms, with fees
for false alarms in excess of 3 to be set at $100 -
$200 - $300 as discussed.
ORDINANCE 91-21
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 301 -
FALSE ALARMS.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is in the process of
enacting a new code of Ordinances, and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has for its purpose the
editorial transfer of the regulations governing False Alarms
from the old code to the new code,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. NEW CHAPTER
A new Chapter 301, False Alarms, as set forth in
Attachment "A" to this ordinance is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2. REPEAL
Those portions of the Indian River County Code.
(1974) superseded or in conflict with the provisions herein
adopted, in particular Chapter 11, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutibnal, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
26
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming
law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
day of mily , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 12 day of April , 1991, for a
public hearing to be held on the 14 day of May
on this 14
1991, at which time it was moved for
adoption by
Commissioner Bowman , seconded by Commissioner Eggert
and adopted by the following vote:
ATTEST:
By
Jef reyK. ar on
Clerk•
:61".
Chairman Richard N. Bird Nay
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
ATTACHMENT "A"
CHAPTER 301. FALSE ALARMS
Section 301.01 Intent
This article is intended to protect the health, safety, and
welfare of the people of Indian River County by preventing
the misuse of fire protection resources caused by false
alarms and telephone alarm devices, thereby allowing these
resources to be accessible and available in the event they
are truly needed by members of this community.
Section 301.02 Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter, whenever any of the
following words or terms are used herein, they shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this section:
Alarm shall mean any device which is used in a building or
premises for the detection of fire and smoke and which when
activated emits a sound, signal, or message to alert others,
whether emitted on or off the premises or to the central
office of an alarm business.
27
M( 1.4 1991
POUF
MAY 14 1991
BOOK
83 FA E ..)4',,
Alarm business shall mean any person engaged in the licensed
business of selling, leasing, monitoring, maintaining,
servicing, repairing, altering, replacing, moving, or
installing any alarm for any building, place, or premises.
Alarm user shall mean any person, business, institution or
corporation using an alarm or occupying and controlling a
premises or building, or portion of a premises or building,
served by an alarm.
Class "A" alarms shall mean all those alarms activated by
lire or smoke or in response to fire .and includes alarms
activated solely by an act of nature not contributed to by
faulty design, maintenance, installation, or use.
False alarms shall mean all activated alarms, responsed to
by the fire department which do not qualify as class "A"
alarms, including, but not limited to, alarms activated
through inadvertence, neglect, accident, alarm testing, or
faculty installation or maintenance.
Section 301.03 Notification required
1. The alarm user shall notify the fire department of fire
alarm inservice and shall: provide the following
information:
a. Name, address, and telephone number of the alarm
user.
b. Address and telephone number_of the alarm user's
premises or building to be served by the alarm.
c. The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or persons in charge of the premises or
building serviced by the alarm.
d. The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or persons or entity installing the alarm.
e. The name, address, and telephone of the person or
entity monitoring the alarm.
f. The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or entity providing maintenance and repair
service to the alarm.
g. An agreement by the alarm user, binding the alarm
user's heirs and successors in interest, to
promptly pay or lawfully contest any penalties
assessed against the alarm user for an excessive
number of false alarms for described in this
article.
2. A permit to use said alarm shall be issued.
3. An amended application shall be filed within ten (10)
days after any change in the information provided in
the application. Upon such amendment, a newalarm
permit shall be issued.
4. It shall be unlawful to install and operate an alarm
without a permit.
'Section 301.04 Excessive false alarm declared a public
nuisance.
The emission of more than three (3) false alarms within any
six month period of time is excessive and constitutes a
serious nuisance, and is hereby declared to be unlawful and
28
a violation of this article. No person shall allow, permit,
cause or fail to prevent the emission, for any reason, by
any alarm used by him, or any alarm serving a premises or
a building occupied and controlled by such person, of more
than three (3) false alarms within any six-month period of
time.
Section 301.05 False alarm service charge; collection
1. For response by the fire department to excessive false
alarms, the alarm user shall be charged a service fee
by the county of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for the
first alarm in excess of three (3) false alarms in any
six-month period, Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for the
second false alarm in excess of three (3) in any
six-month period, and Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00)
for the third and each successive additional false
alarm in excess of three (3) in any six-month period.
The fire chief shall determine whether a false alarm'
has occurred and the frequency of such false alarms,
and the county shall notify the alarm users of amounts
owed to the county and shall make demand thereafter,
pursuant to the provisions of this article.
2. The county attorney may proceed by a suit in a court -.of
competent jurisdiction to collect such charge after
demand therefor has been made by the county and the
payment thereof refused by the alarm user.
Section 301.06 Interference with fire department
telephone trunk lines prohibited,• alarm
business central office required;
identification required
1. No person shall use or cause to be used any telephone
or electronic device or attachment that automatically
selects a public primary telephone trunk line of the
fire department or any other department or bureau of
the county and then reproduces any prerecorded message
to report any fire, or other emergency.
2. No person shall provide a private alarm service system
programmed to a central alarm reception office unless
such central office is staffed at all times,
twenty-four (24) hours a day, including holidays.
3. Any staff member of a private alarm service system
reporting an alarm activation to which a fire response
is requested shall identify himself and state the name
and telephone number of the alarm business by which
such response is requested.
Section 301.07
Audible alarms
All alarms which may be heard in any public place shall be
maintained .to ensure proper functioning in the event of an
emergency due to fire.
Section 301.08 Enforcement through code enforcement
board
In addition to other methods of enforcing county ordinances,
the fire department may initiate or cause to initiate action
before the code enforcement board of the county to obtain
compliance with this article and payment of service charges
assessed by the county. The board shall have the authority
to place a lien against the property served by a fire alarm
in the amount of all assessed service charges.
29
MAY 1 41991
vorfr
e"H.
t"u C o4 ej u
MAY 14 199T
Boar;
83 Fr�6C.�
°�r��
SUPPLEMENTARY ORDINANCE DEALING W/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof
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
of Publication
in the matter of
In the
Court, was pub-
Iished In said newspaper in the issues of ti+
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this_ day of A.D. 19 9` -
(SEAL)
(Business Manager)
(Clerk el-the-ClrcUit COurt; lniilan River County, Florida)--
i PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of loan
River County, Florida, wB conduct a Putts Hearing
on Tuesday, May 14, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. in the
Commission Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, FL 32980, to consider the adoption of an
ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR PUR-
POSE, PROVIDING FOR DEFINITION;
PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION BY REFER-
. ENCE, PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT,
• PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, PROVIDING
. FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROM- • '
SIONS, PROVIDING FOR INCORPORA-
TION IN CODE, PROVIDING FOR APPLE
CABIUTY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL-
ITY, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
The ordinance M substance adopts by
reference all laws of the State of Florida
pertaining to envlonmental regulation and
protection of the public health and ail rules
of all state a Inctud'ng tint not lirRed to the *.
Regulation, the Departmedlt nt of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, the Department of
Natural Resources, the SL John's River
• Water Manan District, the Division of
Forestry, and the Departments of Business
and Professional Regulation, pertaining to
environmental regulation or protection of
public health and provides for the enforce-
ment by the Indian River County Public
Health Unit and the Indian River County En-
vironmental Control Officer in the manner
set out in Chapter 85-427, Special Acts,
Laws of Florida. and also provides that it
may be enforced as any county ordinance,
Including but not limited to enforcement by
the Board of County Comrrdssloners seek-
ing injunctive relief.
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 end evidence upon which
the appeal Is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RICHARD BIRDCHAIRMAN
ApraN. , 20,1991 789578
Attorney Collins reviewed the following memo:
TO:
FROM: v..)(-' William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: April 30, 1991
SUBJECT: Supplementary Ordinance and Rule Dealing With
Environmental Health
The Board of County Commissioners
The attached ordinance and rule have been requested by legal counsel
for the State Department of Environmental Regulation, as a condition of
continued DER funding of our local underground storage tank inspection
program. The ordinance and rule do not add any powers not already
available under Section 7 of the Special Act creating the Environmental
Control Board. The proposed ordinance and rule simply specifically
list DNR, St. Johns River Water Management District, the Division of
Forestry and the Departments of Business and Professional Regulations
as those agencies whose laws and rules may be enforced under the
Environmental Control Act by the Environmental Control Officer.
30
RECOMMENDATION
1. As the Board of County Commissioners, adopt the attached
ordinance providing for the adoption by reference of the rules and
laws of the listed state agencies.
2. As the Environmental Control Board, adopt the attached rule,
Indian River County Environmental Control Board Rule 1 (which
also specifies state agencies whose rules and laws will be enforced
by the Environmental Control Officer) .
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 91-22 specifically identifying the agencies
whose laws and rules may be enforced by the Environ-
mental Control Officer as described above.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-22
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE, PROVIDING FOR DEFINITION,
PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION BY REFERENCE, PROVIDING FOR
ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN
CODE, PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, wishes to protect the health and environment
of its citizens, and to that end seeks to facilitate the
enforcement of laws and rules designed to protect the public
health and environment within Indian River County.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS
All definitions contained in Chapter 85-427, Special
Acts, Laws of Florida, are hereby adopted by reference.
SECTION 3. ADOPTION BY REFERENCE
All laws of the State of Florida pertaining to
environmental regulation and protection of the public health
31 BOOK 83
MAY 1.4 i991
Kw141991
mot(
83 PACE' B ey
and all rules of all state agencies, including, but not
limited to the Department of Environmental Regulation, the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the
Department of Natural Resources, the St. John's River Water
Management District, the Division of Forestry, and the
Departments of Business and Professional Regulation,
pertaining to environmental regulation or protection of
public.health, as they may from time to time be adopted
or amended, are hereby adopted by reference as if set out
in full in this Ordinance.
Section 4. ENFORCEMENT
This Ordinance may be enforced by the Indian River
1
County Public Health Unit and the Indian River County
Environmental Control Officer in themanner set out in
Chapter 85-427, Special Acts, Laws of Florida, or may be
enforced as any county ordinance; including but not limited
to enforcement by the Board of County Commissioners seeking
injunctive relief.
SECTION 5. PENALTIES
Any person who shall violate or fail to comply with the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to punishment
as provided by law for a county ordinance. Violation of this
Ordinance shall also be subject to the provisions of Chapter
85-427, Special Acts, Laws of Florida.
SECTION 6. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or action of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special
acts applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County which conflict with the provisions of this.
Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 7. INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this code shall be incorporated into
the county code and the word ordinance may be changed to
section, article or other appropriate word. The sections of
this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
32
SECTION S. APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply in the
unincorporated areas of Indian River County and in those
incorporated areas where the governing municipality has not
adopted a conflicting ordinance.
SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall
not affect the remaining:: portions hereof, and it shall be
construed to be the legislative intent to pass this Ordinance
f
without such unconstitutional, invalid, or inoperative part.
SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become
effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State
of official acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been
filed with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 14
day of Mav
, 1991.
This Ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press Journal on the 20 day of
April
, 1991, for a
public. hearing to be held on the 14 day of
Mav
, 1991, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded :by
Commissioner Bowman
vote:
, and adopted by the following
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCYA
•
8Y
WILLIAM G. COLLINS 11
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
MAY 14 1991
__Aye
axe
_Aye
__Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Attest By:
33
Jeffr y K. Ba o ,C erk
toric ) )< n �n"
MAY 1 4 1991
BOOK
za FAGE.J,j5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
The Chairman recessed the Board briefly at 11:25 A.M. in
order to reconvene sitting as the Environmental Control Board and
act on adopting the Rule dealing with Environmental Health
described in the preceding item. Those Minutes are being
prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:30 A.M.
with all members present.
WINTER BEACH CEMETERY
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 17, 1991 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler
County AdministratorfCC'
FROM: Assay to Dowling
ty AdministratoFEFERENCES:
SUBJECT: WINTER BEACH CEMETERY
BACKGROUND
The Winter Beach Cemetery Association, a non-profit corporation, asked the
Board during March 1976 for approximately 19+/- acres of adjacent
county -owned Hobart Park for cemetery expansion. Since plots in this
cemetery are given away to anybody on a non-discriminatory basis and
occasionally used by the County in burying indigents, the Board entertained
the Association's request and investigated the matter further. The Board,
during its August 13, 1980 meeting, authorized that the 19+/- acres be
immediately designated solely for cemetery purposes and during its August
`•:`x`27, 1980 meeting formally dedicated the acreage for cemetery purposes and
cemetery related services for the benefit of the citizens of Indian River
County. Since a portion of Hobart Park was acquired by federal funds, the
entire park was placed under a perpetual public recreational deed restriction
and could not be converted to cemetery uses. Therefore, the 1980 dedication
was voided and the Cemetery Association has been asking for the land ever
since. However, according to the Florida Department of Natural Resources
(FDNR) and the National Park Service, the County has the option to give the
19+/- acres to the Association for cemetery uses provided the County convert
another piece of non -recreational property to recreational property that has
equal value, location, and utility as the 19+/- acres.
The Board, during its April 5, 1988 meeting, directed staff to pursue using
the 43+/- acres at the old county -owned landfill site on Old Dixie Highway as
the convertible property. County staff sent a letter dated June 8, 1988 to
the FDNR inquiring about the feasibility of transferring the 19+/- acres from
Hobart Park to the Cemetery Association and converting the 43+/- acres at
the old landfill site to recreational uses. The FDNR sent back a reply dated
June 27, 1988 indicating that the transfer may be satisfactory . provided that
34
all state and federal guidelines are met including certified appraisals on the
subject properties. The Board, during its July 12, 1988 meeting, authorized
staff to obtain certified appraisals for both properties. The total cost of the
appraisals were $5,480.
On October 18, 1989, County staff sent a completed conversion application to
the FDNR for their approval. The FDNR replied on September 13, 1990
indicating that the application has been reviewed and everything was
acceptable except for the appraised value figure of the 43+/- acres. The
FDNR believed that the appraisal did not adequately reflect the fact that the
property has several long-term (20 years) radio tower leases attached to it.
Therefore, since the value of both pieces of property were not equal, the
conversion application could not go forward.
A suggestion was made to decrease the 19+/- acres to 15+/- acres so both
subject properties could be of equal value. .The FDNR agreed to that solution
and advised the County that the two appraisals would need to be revised to
reflect the decrease in acreage in the 19+/- acre tract and the long-term
radio tower leases on the 43+/- acre tract.
During the October 23, 1990 Board meeting, County staff requested
authorization to revise the two appraisals and submit an amended conversion
application to the FDNR. The appraisal revisions were estimated to cost a
total of $1,000. The Board tabled the item.
CURRENT
The Winter Beach Cemetery Association has contacted the County requesting
the status of this lengthy matter. The cemetery has approximately less than
an acre remaining for burials out of its 11.5 total acres or about 270_ plots.
At the current rate of about 150 burials a year, this acreage would last about
1.5 years. The . County initiates about four indigent burials a year. The
all-inclusive maximum cost of an indigent burial that is paid by the County's
Welfare Office to a local funeral home is $900 for an adult, $400 for a child,
and $200 for cremation. However, the County's indigent burials are not
necessarily done .at . the Winter Beach Cemetery. Some burials are done in
Vero Beach, Ft. Pierce or elsewhere, depending on the family's wishes and
the funeral home's arrangements with the Winter Beach and other cemeteries.
In fact, only one burial of a county indigent has occurred in the Winter
Beach Cemetery in the previous four years. In essence, two options exist:
Update the two appraisals, revise the land survey of the 19 +/- acres to
reflect 15+/- acres, prepare an addendum to the original conversion
application reflecting the changes, and submit the application to the
FDNR. After receiving approvals from the FDNR and the National Park
Service, give the 15+/- acres to the Cemetery Association and deed
restrict the 43+1- acres at the old landfill site and develop the site into
some type of recreational use. The estimated cost of this option is
$170,000 which includes $1,000 for appraisal revisions, staff time for
revising the land survey and preparing the addendum, the actual cost of
the 15+/- acres conservatively estimated to be $150,000, and developing
the 43+/- acres into recreational uses.
2) Deny the association's request based upon the infrequent County usage
of the Winter Beach Cemetery and inform the local funeral homes, who do
business with the County, to seek indigent burial arrangements with that
cemetery as well as others in the area or use cremation when applicable.
Cremation of identified but unclaimed bodies is legally easier now since
HB689 was passed by the legislature during the recently completed
legislative session.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve Option 2.
35 Boo
MAY 14 1991
tiPX 119 ca
buoic J 1-kuE
Sandridge
sp Golf Course
Et
CEMETERY ROAD
WINTER BEACH
A.;, CEMETERY
-61". . -
-11+ acres 2-
9+ acre
OUNTY OWN
34:
$44 •
r..7.•21
L._!1
4JI,
69th
a ;
1
6 _
•
••11,,
•
:P.
NORTH viniTER
MAP OF THE 43 +1- ACRES AT THE OLD COUNTY -OWNED LANDFILL
11 1
•
• —
Sr „
• i I •
"..1:
1
0.
a
871
34
0.11
36
IMP
3a 34 1
Chairman Bird asked if there is any requirement for the
County to provide a public cemetery or be responsible for
indigent burial.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we don't have to have a
cemetery, but we are responsible for indigent burial or
cremation.
Leon Blanton came before the Board speaking for Winter Beach
Cemetery Association to stress the benefit this cemetery offers
the people of the county. He noted that the Board has been
hearing about this item since 1974. Mr. Blanton felt that the
real concern is not the indigents, and they don't keep records on
indigents; they just bury people who are dead. He did agree that
proper records were not kept when their forefathers took care of
this, but that has been improved on. He further pointed out that
it was the Commission's predecessors who made these agreements
and promises to the Association, and although it is not
absolutely required that this Board go along with what a former
Board did, he believed this Board has made commitments in the
meantime. He could not understand why this has taken 17 years,
but believed that when it was pointed out this land was to be
used for recreational purposes only is when the problem arose.
Mr. Blanton hoped that the Board can settle this today and noted
that if they do say no, he can live with it since he already has
his plot, but he is concerned about the future generations. He
urged the Board to keep their commitment.
Chairman Bird asked who actually owns the cemetery land, and
Mr. Blanton advised that it is the Winter Beach Cemetery Associa-
tion which was formed in 1931. Before that there was no
Association; this was all done by volunteer work and still is.
Mr. Blanton stressed that they do not offer perpetual care, but
they do have enough money by donation that they can keep the
cemetery in pretty fair shape.
Chairman Bird believed if we are having a problem coming up
with matching options, one of the options is to come up with less
than 19 acres, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that reducing
the acreage and retransmitting this has been suggested.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she personally was very torn
between two commitments - one to the cemetery and one to the
taxpayers in general where you are, in essence, asking for
$150,000 of their land to be exchanged here.
Chairman Bird pointed out that it is going for a public
purpose, however.
37
'IAY`41991
BOOK 0 F L. )C)
MAY 14 199'
M
ROOK 83 FAGS :33
Commissioner Eggert felt our responsibility at this point is
to the indigent, and it is impossible for this to benefit
everyone in the county.
Chairman Bird felt one benefit is that this is a Tess
expensive place to bury someone.
Commissioner Eggert asked if anyone in the county can use
the cemetery, and Mr. Blanton confirmed that absolutely anyone
can use it and the burial plots are free. You can just call him
up and reserve one.
Chairman Bird assumed that if do we give the cemetery this
additional land, a lot of surveying for plots would need to be
done, more roads would have to be created for access to them,
etc., and he asked if the Association is prepared to take on
those expenses.
Mr. Blanton confirmed that they are prepared to develop this
as they need it.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the first step is to reduce the
acreage and then he could s-upport this being an option.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that you have a limited
number of lots and it is possible you could have everyone in the
county call up and try to reserve a lot out there. He noted that
he has only been on the Board since 1986 and has' not really been
in on the history of this whole thing, and he has the same
problem Commissioner Eggert has in regard to giving away public
property for something that cannot possibly benefit the whole
county.
In regard to the size of the cemetery and its benefit to the
county, Mr. Blanton advised that there is 12 acres up there. The
cemetery started in 1904 and it is not quite full yet; so, the
cemetery could go on for a long, long time. He realized that
back when the commitment was made, the land was not as valuable
as it has become now.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed his feeling that if we were
going to honor the commitment, it would be based on two things -
first, we would not want anything being developed on that
property that would interfere with the golf course, and this
would certainly fit in with that. Then, there is the historical
nature of this cemetery itself, as well as its history of taking
care of our indigents. He felt we could close the book on this
long time issue with 11 acres and say that is it, and we would
have preserved the historical aspect and buffered the golf
course.
Attorney Collins pointed out that the original proposal was
19 acres and then it was proposed to reduce it to 15 acres +/-,
38
whatever makes it an equivalent value to the First Street site.
He further noted that while the State has indicated their
approval, this exchange still has to be approved by the federal
people.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioners Eggert and Wheeler
voting in opposition, the Board by a 3 to 2 vote
approved Option 1 scaling the acreage down to 15 +/-.
ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES - COURTHOUSE PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
DATE: MAY 2, 1991
TO:
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV
.''SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
As authorized at their regular meeting on April 16, 1991, staff
negotiated a contract with Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander, and Linville
;to perform Architectural and Engineering Services for the Courthouse
`•'.Project. This was the number one firm on the short list.
-ANALYSIS: .
The following is a break down of cost associated with the contract:
"Basic Services, Lump Sum $776,000.00
' Interior Design, Lump Sum 50,000.00
SUBTOTAL $826,000.00
Reimbursable (not to exceed)
Surveying $ 8,148.00
`Traffic Study 23,250.00
Concurrency Certificate 3,075.00
Upgrade Program 20,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 77,465.00
GRAND TOTAL $903,465.00
We had budgeted $1,012,884.00 for these services. This contract
represents a savings of $109,419 on that budget. '.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the contract and requests authorization
for the Chairman to execute the documents.
39
iiAY1.41991
BOA J E'AiJL i4tJ
MAY 14 1`99
PUDK. 83 FA.GL:341
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the contract with
Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander and Linville, as recom-
mended by staff and authorize the Chairman to execute
same.
Commissioner Wheeler expressed concern about the lump sum
broken out for Interior Design. He noted that he voted against
that for the Library; he does not agree with it; and he does not
want to see it in this contract. He further informed the Board
that he has talked with an individual who is head of the American
Society of Interior Design, and as a community project, they have
offered to work with us and with the architects on this. Another
area that concerns him is the Upgrade Program. He did not see
why we should pay an additional $20,000 to update the space needs
study that was done.
General Services Director Dean wished to use the Libraries
as an example, He advised that we contracted out separately to
do the interior design for the two libraries at a cost of
$44,000, or about 87(t a square foot, and this proposed contract
is for 50 a square foot. He checked with another firm that does
interior design work, and they said they'would not have
approached this for less than $1.00 sq. ft.; so, he believed we
have a good deal. Mr. Dean stressed that some people mistake
interior design for just picking out the color of drapes, walls,
carpets, etc., but there is a lot more involved, especially in a
public building, speccing out the furniture, coordinating colors,
and developing these specifications so staff can bid this out to
get the quality and type furniture we need. This assists staff,
and he would recommend we have it in the contract.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed included in this is the work
station modules, but Director Dean and Commissioner Eggert
explained that none of these are furnished; this just involves
drawing the lay -out.
Commissioner Eggert commented that if we had had the group
referred to by Commissioner Wheeler at the time the libraries
were being constructed, she believed we would have used them
instead of having one designer do one room and one do another
because this is the professional group that has gotten together
as a unit. This group should have the ability to do everything
including specifications, and seeing as we are talking about
possibly saving $50,000, she would like to table any decision on
this contract a week so this group can be thoroughly investigated
to the satisfaction of staff. She would hate to just ignore
them.
40
Director Dean noted that staff's concern is that we have
someone responsible to see that this is done in a timely fashion
and we do not delay the project.
Commissioner Eggert felt there are a lot of responsible
people out there, and she believed you will find Mrs. Lloyd -Lee
exceedingly responsible.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that he talked to Mrs. Lloyd -
Lee, who is president of the American Society of Interior Design,
and she said this would be a free gratis project for their
organization. She also said she has worked on large buildings
and she would be willing to serve with our staff and the
architects and to write the specs.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about working with
someone where you have no contract setting out exactly who does
what and wondered what happens if you have a disagreement.
Commissioner Eggert continued to stress that she would like
further investigation to determine if this is a viable alterna-
tive. If it is and would save us $50,000, we should go with it.
Administrator Chandler would suggest that, if the Commission
is amenable, they at least should approve the rest of the
contract, and then staff can bring this aspect back. In regard
to the update Commissioner Wheeler also expressed concern about,
he pointed out that in the presentations made by the different
architects, all of them had questions about the validity of the
square footage in that 1988 study except the firm that did the
study.
Commissioner Wheeler argued that all this should be part of
the package; that the architect should do all this update.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that they are going to,
and that is what the cost is for. He agreed the architects could
just go ahead and use the square footage originally identified,
and then if it were wrong and not workable, we would be stuck.
Commissioner Scurlock believed what Mr. Chandler has done is
itemized this to a greater extent than we usually see, and he
believed we still have a good price. You must look at the
percentage, and that is 6.7%.
Administrator Chandler continued to argue that the need for
an update of square footage is appropriate, and Director Dean
informed the Board that he has had two of the Constitutional
Officers call him and express concern about this. The Clerk
wants to add more people, and the State Attorney advised that his
staff has almost doubled since the previous study.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should just address whether
6.7% is an acceptable fee.
41
MAY 14i91
MAY 141991
ROOT 83 PAGE J43
Chairman Bird suggested that, if the Board desired, we could
just separate out the Interior Design aspect, and Commissioner
Eggert preferred that be done as she felt because of the
community participation, we should investigate the interior
design aspect further.
COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND BOWMAN WITHDREW THEIR EARLIER
MOTION.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve the contract with
Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander, and Linville, with the
exclusion of Interior Design, and expect that part
to be brought back to the Board in a two week period
with a specific delineation of what it is that they
are going to do.
Director Dean advised that there are two representatives of
the architects here if the Board has any questions.
Gene Aubrey of Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander and Linville,
wished to stress that interior design really has to go hand in
hand as you design the -building, and there is a lot more to it
than looking in a catalogue and picking out furniture and colors.
He emphasized that there will be a lot of computerization in this
building; the lighting has to be very carefully designed in the
courtrooms. All that is part of the interior design services,
and all this has to be coordinated by the interior design person
as the construction moves ahead. It is not just a decorating
service; it is a very highly technical thing.
Commissioner Eggert believed everyone understood all that,
especially after just having constructed two libraries, but noted
the fact remains that we do have a community situation that
should be looked at before we move forward.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the point is that their overall
design will be affected by the other. It is nice to have people
volunteer, but he felt it is a distinct advantage to have one
firm do the job.
Commissioner Eggert appreciated that, but just felt we owe
it to the community to investigate this.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SAID CONTRACT EXCLUDING INTERIOR DESIGN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
42
MAINTENANCE OF UNMAINTAINED R/W - VERO LAKE ESTATES
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Maintenance of Unmaintained Right -of -Way
Vero Lakes Estates
DATE: April 30, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the March 5, 1991 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, staff was requested to recommend a program of
additional road maintenance within the Vero Lakes Estates
Subdivision. Staff recently field inspected all roads
within the Vero Lakes Estates area which serve the
approximate 300 homes in the area and grading of additional
roads is recommended.
,ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1"
Many roads not currently on the road grading route
provide direct frontage to more than two homes in the
area. The following additional roads are recommended
for grading:
Road Name
From and To Length in Miles
91st Avenue 87th Street to 89th Street .25
93rd Court 87th Street to 89th Street .25
94th Court 84th Street to 82nd Street .25
94th Court 79th Street to 77th Street .25
95th Avenue 81st Street to 79th Street .25
95th Court 80th Street to 78th Street .25
97th Avenue 89th Street to 77th Street 1.5
97th Court 81st Street to 77th Street .5
98th Avenue 85th Street to 83rd Street .25
98th Avenue 79th Street to 77th Street .25
98th Court 89th Street to 88th Street . .125
98th Court 83rd Street to 79th Street • .5
99th Avenue 89th Street to 79th Street 1.25
99th Court 87th Street to 89th Street .25
100th Avenue 89th Street to 81st Street • 1.0
100th Court 84th Street to 83rd Street .125
101st Avenue 85th Street to 83rd Street .25
101st Court 95th Street to 93rd Street .25
101st Court 89th Street to 85th Street .5
102nd Avenue 90th Street to 87th Street .375
102nd Court 93rd Street to 92nd Street .125
102nd Court 89th Street to 87th Street .25
102nd Court 85th Street to 83rd Street .25
103rd Avenue 95th Street to 93rd Street .25
103rd Avenue 89th Street to 87th Street .25
93rd Street 101st Avenue to 101st Court .06
92nd Street 101st Avenue to 100th Court .06
89th Street 102nd Court to 104th Avenue .2
43
MAY 14 1991
B K.. 3 FN:„t.:.1
P'IY14199
1
88th Street
85th Street No.
85th Street
85th Street So.
83rd Street
81st Street
79th Street
79th Street
102nd Avenue to 98th Avenue
102nd Avenue to 106th Avenue
94th Avenue to 95th Court
102nd Avenue to 102nd Court
102nd Avenue to 106th Avenue
102nd Avenue to 105th Avenue
90th Avenue to 92nd Avenue
98th Avenue to 102nd Avenue
BOOK. 8J PALE ;J4 )
. 5
.5
. 2
.06
. 5
.4
.25
.5
12.98 mileS
Most of the 12.98 miles of additional unmaintained
roads listed above are in reasonable condition and
extensive reconstruction is not needed. Additional
shell/marl stabilized material will be needed to
improve the roads so that adequate grading can occur.
It is estimated that 10,000 C.Y. of material will be
needed at a cost of $50,000.00.
The existing grader route *6 can absorb the additional
grading and still provide a 4 - 6 week period between
gradings. A map of the proposed grading route is on
file in the office of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Alternative No. 2
In addition to the approximate 12.98 miles of
additional grading, all of the approximate 70 miles of
roads in Vero Lakes Estates could be graded. This
alternative would result in approximately30 miles of
additional grading than Alternative No. 1. Staff does
not recommend such an aggressive grading policy since
demand is not existing.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved.
Funding to be from FY 90/91 and FY 91/92 Road and Bridge
Division Fund 111-214-.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERV. - KIMLEY-HORN (U.S.I AT
HIGHLAND DR. SW & SR60 AT 82ND AVE.)
The Board reviewed memo from Traffic Engineer Dudeck:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: :Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.E.
County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed Contract for Traffic
Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc.
US 1 at Highland Drive SW and SR 60 at 82nd Avenue
Engineering Services
DATE: May 7, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Traffic Engineer has recently received approval
from the Florida Department of Transportation for the
installation of Traffic Control Signal at Highland Drive SW
at US 1 and SR 60 at 82nd Avenue.
In negotiations with the Florida Department of
Transportation the County will be responsible for the
design preparation and actual construction of the
intersections.
Florida Department of Transportation will be responsible,
utilizing their existing "Push Button Contractor" to install
the required strain poles and purchase the equipment for
each of these installations since they are on roadways under
State jurisdiction.
This cooperative approach maximizes roadway user benefits
while minimizing the cost to both the Florida Department of
Transportation and Indian River County.
Indian River County has a Professional Services Agreement
with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. which is in effect thru
December 12, 1991.
Given the existing work load of the Traffic Engineering
Division Staff and the desire to expedite these two signals
which have been judged to be "warranted", it will be in the
best interest of the County to engage Kimley-Horn and
Associates to provide complete Design Services for these
locations, per the Florida Department of .Transportation
Specifications.
Kimley-Horn and Associates has prepared the attached
contract for County execution and is prepared to commence
design activities as soon as the Notice to Proceed is
received. The total amount of the Design Contract for both
locations is $7900.00.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the plans must be developed in strict accordance with
Florida Department of Transportation Standards, the design
activities required are more extensive than on non -state
roadways. The present work load and lack of personnel,
preclude "In-house Design" at the present time. Kimley-Horn
can expedite the design of the signalized intersections
45
MAY 14 '99
Boor 0�
PLAY i4 1991
NUOK 83 FAGS 347
thereby allowing the County to install these. two badly
needed signals in the shortest possible time period.
In-house Design would postpone the signal installations by
at least three months.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the $7900.00 Design Contract
with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. Funding for the design
activities will be provided from District 6 and District 8
Impact Fees as follows:
1. US 1/Highland Drive SW, District 6 from account
#101-156-541-067.28, $4000.00.
2. SR 60/82nd Avenue District 8, account #101-158-541
$3900.00.
Commissioner Eggert assumed these amendments are okay, and
Director Davis confirmed that they are.
ON MOTION By Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the $7900 Design Contract with Kimley-Horn Associates
as recommended by staff. (Work Order No. 4)
WORK ORDER NO. 4 W/KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC. IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
USE OF IMPACT FEES DISTRICT 4 (IMPS. 49TH ST. 6 USI)
The Board reviewed memo from Traffic Engineer Dudeck:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.E.
County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: County Commission Approval
Use of Impact Fees, District 4
•Improvements to 49th Street and USA_
DATE: May 7, 1991
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Condition 58 of Resolution 85-128 requires that the
;Developer of the Grand Harbor DRI accomplish an Annual
Monitoring Report to identify needed roadway improvements
'per its Development Order.
46
)The Peak Season 1990 Annual Monitoring Report identifies the
..49th Street/US 1 Intersection as operating below acceptable
standards. Subsequent Traffic Studies and "Highway Capacity
Analysis" indicate that 49th Street is indeed operating at a
LOS "E". The aforementioned Condition 58 dictates that the
County shall accomplish needed improvements to maintain a
_LOS "D" during Peak Season.
The Grand Harbor Developer has agreed to having his Engineer
accomplish all design activities, including Drainage Permits
and Florida Department of Transportation Permits which will
allow the County to construct the following improvements at
the subject intersection:
1. An additional Southbound Right Turn Lane on US 1.
2. Additional Eastbound Approach Lane on 49th Street.
3. Additional operational signs, pavement markings
etc. as required.
Based upon Preliminary Design Plans developed by the Grand
Harbor Engineer, an estimated cost of $60,000 has been
projected to accomplish the needed Intersection
Improvements.
Traffic Engineering Division Staff's review of this matter
is contained in the attached November 30, 1990 memorandum.
In addition research indicates that school buses for all
levels of students, utilize this intersection at the present
time and will continue to do so inthe near foreseeable
future. These vehicles also have difficulty negotiating
this intersection.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
.J_:c Engineering Division Staff recommends approval of
the use of District 4 Traffic Impact Fees for the
re -construction of the US 1 and 49th Street intersection
once the Grand Harbor Engineer has accomplished all design
activities, including securing Florida Department of
Transportation and Drainage Permits as well as providing
Indian River County with a full set of Bid Documents which
the County will then utilize for the actual construction.
The cost of all design activities and bid specification
preparation is to be borne by Grand Harbor's owner while
Indian River County's obligation is for actual construction.
The present estimate for this construction is $60,000.
Funding is to be from account #101-154-541-.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the use of District 4 Traffic Impact Fees for the
re -construction of USI and 49th Street intersection
as recommended by staff.
47
VA? 14199'
83Fi..i�, rL .48
MAY * 4 199
BOOK U3 F'AGE � 4J
REQUEST SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN PATH
ON SOUTH USI (VISTA CIVIC ASSOC.)
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
Request from Vista Civic Association, Inc. for
County Special Assessment Funding to Construct
600 ± Feet of Pedestrian Path along South US 1
REF. LETTER: Sam Alia, Secretary, VCA, Inc. to Bill Lewis,
FDOT dated Mar 30, 1991.
DATE: May 7, 1991 FILE:vista.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The residents of Vista Gardens, Vista Royale, and Forest
Park are requesting that the County participate in funding
25% of the cost of a 600'± pedestrian path along US 1
leading from the south driveway of Vista Royale to the new
South-- Vero Square Shopping Center (Publix, etc.). The
approximate cost of the project is $6,000. The County's
share would be $1,500.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the project is relatively small in scope, the County
staff does not recommend that an extensive special
assessment district be established due to the lengthy
clerical work involved. The Vista Civic Association has
indicated that a fund raising campaign will raise the 75%
property owners share. The alternatives presented include:
Alternative #1
The County fund 25% of the project costs of
approximately $1500. The Vista Civic Association would
raise the 75% share of $4500. County funds would be
from budgeted Petition Paving funds (Fund 173). Public
hearings would not be recommended. In addition, the
County staff would prepare plans and manage the
project.
Alternative #2
Proceed through the formal special assessment program
procedures which would require resolutions, public
hearings, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended whereby the County would
fund 25% of the project cost and the Vista Civic Association
would fund 75% of the cost of a 600'± long pedestrian path.
Funding to be from Fund 173 - Petition Paving Account.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve Alternative #1
as recommended by staff.
48
Commissioner Scurlock thought we should make an effort to
make sure everyone along this area is encouraged to participate.
Commissioner Bowman asked if a biker could come down Indian
River Boulevard and scoot in through the back road to Vista
Gardens to get to the path.
Sam Alia, Secretary of the Vista Civic Association, noted
that he could get on the path of the highway itself, but anyone
from the Gardens would come in through Vista Royale and go right
out to the bike path there.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there could be no connection
between Vista Royale and Indian River Boulevard, and Mr. Alia
felt there could be, but it would be quite expensive - that would
be possibly a mile of road, and we are just talking about
500/600'.
Commissioner Wheeler felt this is a good start and believed
we should look at it all the way down close to the South County
line as that area continues to build up.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
APACAM1612F APPLE WAY ROAD BY COUNTY
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Acceptance of Apple Way Road by County
May 6, 1991 FILE: apple.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In January of 1984, the property owners of Apple Way
Subdivision petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County to bring their private road known as
Apple Way up to County standards so that the property owners
could then dedicate the private road to Indian River County.
On April 11, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners
unanimously approved the property owners' request, and the
paving project was completed during the summer of 1985.
In June of 1988, it was brought to our attention that the
formal dedication of Apple Way Road had not been consummated
by the property owners. A Quit -Claim Deed was prepared and
letters were mailed to each property owner instructing them
49
MAY 14 1911
mg 14 199
RUOK 83 FAGE 351
to come into the County Attorney's office to execute the
Quit -Claim Deed, however several property owners did not
respond.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
It has now been more than five years since the paving
project has been completed, and the County is now in a
position to file a maintenance map, or in the alternative,
the Board of County Commissioners, by resolution, can
formally accept the dedication of Apple Way Road from the
offer on the plat.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board approve the attached
resolution to accept the dedication of Apple Way Road.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 91-58 accepting the dedication of Apple
Way Road. .
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
:A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF 'COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORDIA FORMALLY ACCEPTING THE
DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF APPLE.WAY
ROAD (AKA 29TH AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the property owners of Apple Way Subdivision
have petitioned the County to accept the dedication and
maintenance of Apple Way Road (aka 29th Avenue) located within
Apple Way Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 2, Public
Records of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Department of Public
Works has completed a full inspection and evaluation of all
factors relevant to the acceptance of the dedication and
maintenance of road right-of-ways within Apple Way Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Department of Public
-Works has recommended that the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County accept the dedication and maintenance of the
road right-of-ways located within Apple Way Subdivision.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby accepts the
dedication and maintenance of the right-of-ways for Apple Way
located within Apple Way Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9,
Page 2, Public Records of Indian River County.
50
The foregoing resolution was offered by 'Commissioner
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bowman
the vote was as follows:
and, upon being put to a vote,
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice -Chairman 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 14 day of May
1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest; ;
Jeffrey. K. Ba on, Jerk
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
I.R.BLVD. PHASE III- R/W PARCEL #103 (FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENT)
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
TO:. James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Indian River Blvd. Phase III -
Right -of -Way Parcel #103(Indian River West, Inc.) -
Final Offer of Judgement
DATE: May 13, 1991
FILE: irb.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Final Compensation Jury Trial for Indian River Boulevard
Parcel #103 is scheduled to begin July 22, 1991.
Depositions of Appraisers have been conducted and the
following opinions of value will be presented as testimony
throughout the trial proceeding for the approximately 54.246
acre parcel:
Calloway and Price
Kenneth B. Cline
Joe R. Kern
$ 365,200
$1,116,800
$ 700,000
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Throughout the deposition process, the property owners'
appraisers have stated that the 54.246 acre parcel could
have a value range of $700,000-$1,116,800. Based upon that
51
MY 1.4 1991
R0o1 3 F't,vL 352
KY 1_ 4 1991
BOOK 83 PACE 353
opinion and the County's appraisal, the average of the
values is $532,600 (using the Kern appraisal) or $741,000
(using the Cline appraisal). The County's legal counsel,
Blackwell and Walker, is recommending a Final Offer of
Judgement in the amount of $525,000. If the property owner
accepts this final offer, the compensation would be
resolved, and a jury trial would not be necessary. If the
property owner does not accept this final offer, the Jury
Trial would proceed and the County's position would be that
the land has a value of $365,200. If the Jury determines a
greater value than $525,000, the County would have to pay
the established value in addition to legal costs for
services performed after May 22nd in preparation for trial,
expert witness fees, trial costs, etc. Since the property
owners have two attorneys, these costs are estimated at
$25,000 for trial attorneys, $20,000 for preparation for
Trial, and Expert Witness fees of $10,000 for a total of
$55,000.
The Florida DOT will need 10.484 acres of Parcel 103 for the
Merrill Barber Bridge right-of-way and -proximately 6.5
acres for a permanent easement and will pay the proportional
share to the County for this property. The alternatives
presented are:
Alternative #1
Authorize Blackwell, Walker to present a final offer of
judgment in the amount of $525,000.
Alternative #2
Adhere to the present County offer of $365,200.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative #1. Funding to be from Fund
309, Indian River Boulevard North account ($360,627) and
Florida DOT ($164,373).
Director Davis pointed out that if we offer $525,000 as
recommended by our legal counsel and the Jury awards Tess than
that amount, then the attorneys' fees and related costs would not
be the County's responsibility.
Chairman Bird commented that he had always felt that
appraising is a more exact science than is indicated by the
figures presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative #1 authorizing a final offer of judgment
in the amount of $525,000 as recommended by staff.
52
12TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROJECT (ASSESSMENT PROCESS)
The Board reviewed memo from Director Pinto:
DATE: MAY 1, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAIN L
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSES1SM T PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 12TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -09 -DS
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 1990, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Work Authorization 90 W-1 with Masteller and
Moler Associates, Inc., to provide water service to
substandard -sized properties as required through the Comprehensive
Plan. We are now ready to begin the assessment process associated
with this project.
ANALYSIS
Attached please find Resolutions 1 and 2 for the assessment project.
The cost per square foot is $0.0968, and the project will serve the
area bordered on the north by 12th Street, on the south by 8th
Street, on the west by 43rd Avenue, and on the east by 27th Avenue.
Five of the subdivisions in the project, south of 12th Street, have
petitioned for water service. The attached map displays the area to
from the assessment project. The total cost to be assessed
,14,100.31:.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions and
set the assessment hearing date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 91-59 providing for installation of a
waterline on 12th Street as described and Resolu-
tion 91-60 setting a time and place for a public
hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 5q
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR INSTALLATION OF
A WATERLINE IN THE AREA BORDERED ON THE
NORTH BY 12TH STREET, ON THE SOUTH BY 8TH
STREET, ON THE WEST BY 43RD AVENUE, AND
ON THE EAST BY 27TH AVENUE; PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT
OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
AREAS SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
53
MAY 14 8991
ROOM•.
MP 141991
He 83 F° GE.J)5
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 60
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA
BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY 12TH STREET, ON
THE SOUTH BY 8TH STREET, ON THE WEST BY
43RD AVENUE, AND ON THE EAST BY 27TH
AVENUE, AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE
PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF
CONSTRUCTING A WATERLINE EXTENSION, AS TO
THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT
THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST
EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
RESOLUTIONS 91-59 AND 91-60 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
GIFFORD WW TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION, PHASE II
The Board reviewed memo from Director Pinto:
DATE: MAY 1, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTII6I'I S'ZRVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJEC • ,%►' ' ER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF U � TY SERVICES
-SUBJECT: GIFFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
PHASE II
BACKGROUND •
'On August 11, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved Work
Authorization No. 21 with the firm of Masteller and Moler
Associates, Inc., for the design of the above -listed project. We
are now preparing to bid this job out sometime in late May or June.
Since the original design was completed, several changes in both
design and scope of engineering services have had to be made.
ANALYSIS
An addendum to the above -listed Work Authorization is attached. An
exact description of the additional work is under Task 1 of that
document. There is one cost element associated with this Work
Authorization --an additional $7,500.00 for basis engineering
services. The total cost for engineering services is well within
the acceptable percentage range. Payment for this work will come
from the Wastewater Impact Fee Funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization with Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 91WW-1 with Masteller & Moler
Associates (Addendum to Work Authorization No. 21)
as recommended by staff.
ENGINEERING WORK AUTHORIZATION
DATE: Auril 17. 1991 . WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 91WW-1 FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES. PROJECT NO. 9104 COUNTY, I.D. 8821S MASTELLER & MOLER
ASSOCIATES, INC. WASTEWATER.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title: Addendum to Work Authorization #21, dated 8/11/88 for Proposed
1.0 MGD Expansion and Modifications to Existing Gifford
Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant as follows:
TASK I: Engineer, design and prepare contract plan modifications to
plant influent after static screens to allow influent to go directly into
plant or surge tank; preparation of specifications to allow
poured -in-place concrete in lieu of Marolf Pre -cast construction; design
and application of permits for installation of an above ground diesel
fuel storage tank to handle both the new and existing electric generator;
and review of poured -in-place concrete specifications by a structural
engineer.
II. LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
The Lump Sum Fee for the above described project is listed below for each
Task. All fees will be due and payable monthly. The amount due shall be
determined by the estimated percentage amount of work completed to date.
This will be accomplished by taking that estimated percentage amount of
work completed to date and multiplying it by the project lump sum fee.
Lump Sum Fee Task I $ 7,500.00
APPROVED BY:.. SUBMITTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
BOARD OF COUNTY'COMMISSIONERS
By
By .',Aft '2
Richard N. Bird Earl H. Masteller, P.E.
Chairman President
Data / - ?./
MAY 14 199
Date 9// $/9/
55
!I K 83 F';,1,E.:35e
MAY 14 1991
BOOK
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR NORTH BEACH R.O.PLANT
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
McCain:
FADEJj 1
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 17, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY RVICES
WILLIAM F. M•CAIN
CAPITAL PROJE
DEPARTMENT OF
GINEER
ITY SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE NORTH BEACH
REVERSE OSMOSIS (R.O.) PLANT
BACKGROUND
Bids have been received for the North Beach R.O. Plant expansion and
will be awarded by the end of April. In keeping with this schedule,
.-we are now prepared to contract the construction and final brine
treatment disposal services. For a summary of services associated
with this project, see the attached letter dated April 1, 1991, from
' Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
*ANALYSIS
There are three cost elements associated with this project; they are
as follows:
1. General services during construction: $ 46,858.00
(Attachment B-1)
2. Resident inspection services: 49,639.00
(Attachment B-2)
3. Permitting and startup services: 26,072.00
(Attachment B-3)
Total $122,569.00
The total amount for construction services is $96,497.00, which is
approximately 6% of the estimated construction cost of $1.6 million.
This is in an appropriate range historically for projects of this
nature. For a detailed Scope of Services, see Attachment A (Scope
of Services) for the attached Work Authorization. For specific
details of permitting and brine treatment -requirements, see the
attached copy of the Plant Permit No. IT31-188147.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Servicesrecommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., for $122,569.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
in the amount of $122,569.
CDM PROPOSAL AND WORK AUTHORIZATION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
56
FINAL PAY & CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR WATER DIST. MAINS ON 43RD &
44TH AVES. & 19TH ST.
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Department:
DATE: MAY 2, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITN/SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McC
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJEC
BY: DEPARTMENT OF
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
EER
TY SERVICES
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE.ORDER NO. 2 FOR 6",
AND 12" WATER DISTRIBUTION MAINS ON 43RD AVENUE,
44TH AVENUE, AND 19TH STREET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -16 -DS
g"
On October 23, 1990, the Indian River County Board. of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Belvedere Construction for
the above -listed job. The project has been finalized out, andwe
are now prepared to make final payment.
ANALYSIS
The original contract -amount was $150,552.50. This was amended by
Change Order No. 1 for the construction of a water main on 48th
Court (cost $14,998.00). The revised total was $165,550.50.
Attached is Change Order No. 2 (deduct of $872.25). This revises
the contract amount to $164,678.25. A detailed breakdown of Change
Order No. 2 is attached. The final pay request is in the amount of
$40,822.73, and it is also attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 2 and the
final payment of $40,822.73.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 w/Belvedere Construction and final
payment of $$40,822.73 as recommended by staff.
MAY 1 1991
57
El00K
MAY 14 i99
CHANGE ORDER
BOOK 83 FAGS:355
No. 2 (Final)
PROJECT: 6", 8", and 12" Water Distribution
Mains on 43rd Ave., 44th Ave., and 19th Street
OWNER:
(Name, Indian River County
Address) 1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
CONTRACTOR:
DATE OF ISSUANCE:
April 9, 1991
OWNER's Project No. UW8916DS
Belvedere Construction Co.
P.O. Box 15107 ENGINEER: Kimball -Lloyd, Inc.
West Palm Beach, FL 33416 1835 20th Street
CONTRACT FOR: Vero Beach, FL 32960
Installation of 6", 8", & 12"
Water Mains, Services, Hydrants, etENGINEER'S Project No. 89-128
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
DESCRIPTION: Reduce final contract price from $165,550.25 to $164,678.25
Intim RIv r Co
Director
P ►C ...AM
Engineer
Other
ATTACHMENTS:
, %
..
(List documents
13a 19
raRDER:
supporting
Adjustment of final quantities
-change.) See Attached
for contract closeout
Indian River Co.
Approved
Date
Admin.
Y
S= 7 - ej L._
Leg&
(
.5 .(:
5udget
`t
5.- tib
•
utii'ties
1
1
. (e - , /
"S
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price
$ 1Sn,557 5n
CHANGE
Original Contract Time
-V 1\1gr.
IN CONTRACT TIME:
days or date
Previous Change Orders
$ 14,998.00
No. 0 to No. 1
Net Change from Previous Change. Orders
,
•
days
Contract Price prior to this Change Order
$ 165,550.50
Contract Time prior to this Change Order
days or date
Net ite/Decrease of this Change Order
$ . -877.75
Net Increase/Decrease of this Change Order
days
Contract Price with All Approved Charge Orders
$ $164.678.25
Contract Time with All Approved Change Orders
days or date
RECOMMENDED:
B
APPROVED:
Engineer •
EJCDC No. 1910-8-B (1983 Edition)
Prepared by the Engineers' Joint Contract Documents Committee and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America.
Owner
z,1"--- i4e— 7/
58
DISCUSS REMOVAL OF SEBASTIAN FROM NORTH CO. SEWER COLLECTION AND
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: MAY 2, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINT/
DIRECTOR OF UTIL �Y ICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc AIN
:AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO,A S E NEER
BY: DEPARTMEN `i/ s'" ITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY UTILITIES (I.E.), SEWER
COLLECTION AND WATER DISTRIBUTION
BACKGROUND
We currently have consultants under contract for design of a North
County Water Distribution System, and a Wastewater Collection System
around US Highway 1 and Indian River Drive. These contracts are with
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., and Kimball/Lloyd and
Associates, Inc., respectively. We are at a point in these projects
where we need some direction from the Board of County Commissioners.
ANALYSIS
.The basic study phases of these projects are complete. However, due to
recent changes with the City of Sebastian, we must decided how to deal
with the Sebastian service area. In order to proceed with these
projects, we are requesting authorization to remove the city service
area out of the projects and proceed with design.
2
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the removal of the City of
Sebastian from these projects so that we may proceed.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that although he feels we
need to move ahead, he felt we should check with Sebastian one
more time to make sure they really want out, or at least put them
on notice they should make provisions for servicing. He actually
did not know how we can totally exclude them in that we have a
line that goes right through a portion of their city, and he
certainly did not want to read headlines in the newspaper that
the County kicks out Sebastian because that certainly is not what
we want to do.
Commissioner Eggert also had a problem with the word
"removal." She noted that we have people who are already using
the service up there.
Director Pinto stressed that the major problem is that we
are ready to design the water system but we can't until we are
clear on whether we are going to be providing services in the
59
L MAY 1 4 1991
BOOK 83 F'°,,L360
r �
MAY 14199
POOK ?Q Fr1GE •.16I
Sebastian area. As to wastewater, both south of Sebastian and
north of Sebastian, there are people who have prepaid impact fees
and are ready for service, and we can't finalize our design until
we find out what the City is going to do.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that, especially for water, he
would like them to reaffirm they are out because that will be a
brand new system we are designing from scratch. We have already
got a wastewater system in there that has capacity in that line
for at least that portion and that will have to be reassigned to
other areas if they get completely out.
Commissioner Eggert asked if on wastewater this wouldn't be
an extension of our current system and line.
Director Pinto explained that we have to design all the
interior lines. You have the County on both ends of Sebastian,
and we have to know if we are going to incorporate the part
inside Sebastian into that design. What's happening now is that
we have people walking in and saying I am ready to connect, and
we are saying we don't know what size line to build yet.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she would like to have
something definite in writing from Sebastian.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have had one meeting
with Sebastian, and he•believed at that meeting'•it was indicated
that they are not sure just how much out they want to be.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that we kept asking that
they give us something in writing. That was a month ago, and all
we have received from them is a letter asking for information.
We tried very hard to indicate that we need something tangible
from them.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we can't give them a deadline
and state that if there is no notification by such and such a
time, we will consider that you wish to be removed.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed we need to do that. He advised
that members of the City Council have commented to him that when
they do their study, they may not want to get out, but there is
no saying how long that study will take, and we can't run our
system that way. It costs money to oversize lines, and we need
an answer. He felt it would appropriate for the Chairman, with
the help of the Administrator and Director Pinto, to write a
letter to the City and advise them that we need something
definite.
Commissioner Eggert believed that any answer should be from
the City Council after a vote.
Director Pinto stressed that this is a serious situation for
us. We are proceeding with the wastewater; we have a franchise;
and we have a responsibility to the customers there. He noted
60
that Oyster Bay, who took a very strong position that they have
their own system and shouldn't be forced to connect to our
system, were found out to be by-passing their waste directly to
the river. Now the DER is after them, and they are saying please
let us connect, and they are right in the middle of Sebastian.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed the
Chairman with the assistance of Administrator Chandler
and Utilities Director Pinto, to write a letter to
the City Council of Sebastian advising that we intend to
remove them and go on our way unless instructed otherwise
and that we need an answer by such and such a date.
AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF COURTHOUSE 6 PARKING
FACILITIES
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney O'Brien:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorne
DATE: May 8, 1991
RE: AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
NEW COURTHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED PARKING FACILITIES
The attached agreement which is self-explanatory would, if executed by
all parties, allow for the continued operation of the Florida Federal
drive-in facility. Because of time constraints this agreement is being
circulated to all parties at the same time. It is anticipated that the
City of Vero Beach will consider it at its May 21, 1991 meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Agreement w/the City of Vero Beach; Vero Limited
Partnership; Florida Federal Savings & Loan Assoc ;
and the Downtown Merchants Assoc.
COPY OF PARTIALLY SIGNED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
MAY 141 9
61
POO S F'':GL @JUS
i!( .4 199
EOOK
Fi[ �Q ti
�i�L v
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT (HAWK'S NEST MGMT.) SUBSTITUTE MORTGAGE
The Board reviewed memo from Attorney Collins:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: u; William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 1, 1991
SUBJECT: Hawk's Nest Management, Inc. - Developer's Agreement
Bruce Barkett, representing Hawk's Nest Management, Inc., has
requested that the developer be allowed to give the County a mortgage
on the Hawk's Nest property in the amount of $81,837.45 as substitute
collateral for a letter of credit in the same amount which now runs in
favor of the Board of County Commissioners from Barnett Bank. The
letter of credit is due to expire August 16, 1991.
The mortgage would secure a developer's agreement to construct a
2 -lane, 24 -foot wide paved road within Storm Grove Road right-of-way
between the FEC Railway and the Lateral G Canal on the Hawk's Nest
property.
The original 1985 agreement provided that "Developer may, at any time,
substitute guarantees subject to the approval as to form and amount by
the County." The right .to 'substitute guarantees, subject to approval
by the County, was carried over into a subsequent amendment to the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
substitution of a mortgage on the property for a letter of credit.
Consistent with the terms of the original agreement, the following
conditions must be met:
A. The mortgage is not more inferior than a second mortgage.
B. The principal balance of the mortgage plus the principal balance of
any first mortgage does not exceed 70% of the appraised value of
the property, as expressed by an appraiser acceptable to the
County Attorney's Office.
Also, a title insurance commitment and policy must be provided by the
applicant, Hawk's Nest Management, Inc., prior to acceptance of the
mortgage. The mortgage must be in a form acceptable to the County
Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION By Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
substitution of a mortgage for a letter of credit by
Hawk's Nest Management, Inc., as recommended by staff.
62
REPORT ON ACTION BY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Commissioner Wheeler referred the Board to the following
memo:
TO: Board of County DATE: May 9, 1991 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Tourist Development
Council
FROM: Gary C. Wheeler REFERENCES:
County Commissioner
I am requesting approval of the following actions that were
taken at the .Tourist Development Council meeting of April 22,
1991:
ON MOTION made by Richard Bireley, SECONDED by John
Morrison, the Council, on a vote of 5 to 1, with Robert
Tenbus voting in opposition, approved recommending to
the Board of County Commissioners that $5,000 from the
Tourist Tax be approved for the City of Sebastian and
$5,000 for the City of Vero Beach for their Fourth of
July celebrations.
ON MOTION by Richard Bireley, SECONDED by Sam Pascal,
the Council, on a vote of 5 to 1, with Robert Tenbus
voting .in opposition, approved recommending to the
Board of County Commissioners that an additional $5,000
be approved out of the General Fund for the South
County's Fourth of July celebration and up to $5,000
for the North County's celebration based on their
budget proposal.
The following action is just for information purposes only:
ON MOTION by George Bunnell, SECONDED by Richard
Bireley, the Council unanimously (6-0) approved
recommending to the Town of Indian River Shores that
they participate in the Fourth of July celebration for
$2,500.
Commissioner Wheeler explained that the action taken
recommending approval of $5,000 from the Tourist Tax for the City
of Sebastian and $5,000 for the City of Vero Beach 4th of July
celebrations was in response to the encouragement of President
Bush that the whole country celebrate because of Desert Storm.
14IAY 14 1891
63
BOOK. 83 E' .a.3
MAY 141999;
FAur 365
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Commissioner Scurlock voted in
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote approved
giving the City of Sebastian and the City of
Vero Beach $5,000 each from the Tourist Tax towards
their 4th of July celebrations.
Discussion then followed regarding the recommendation that
an additional $5,000 for each of these celebrations be taken out
of the General Fund. Commissioner Wheeler advised that he would
not support spending monies out of the General Fund for this
purpose; he explained that he only agreed to present this
recommendation to this Board.
Chairman Bird referred back to the above Motion and asked if
funds would normally be taken out of the Tourist Tax for this
purpose if it weren't for Desert Storm.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that this was done two years
ago but not last year, and he probably would not support doing
this next year.
Commissioner Eggert believed the Tourist Tax is an
appropriate place to take the funds from, and Chairman Bird felt
we should note that this is being done because of an abnormal
circumstance this year.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that the reason he voted
against the Motion is because he was concerned about setting a
precedent and establishing this as an annual contribution.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he supported taking these
funds from the Tourist Tax because this is a special year where
we are welcoming the troops home, but he would not support taking
funds out of the General Fund for this purpose.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, Chairman Bird voting in opposition,
the Board by a 4 to 1 vote denied the request to approve
monies out of the General Fund for the.. South County and
North County 4th of July celebrations.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:18 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
64