HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 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 -
Charles P. Vitunac, Co. Atty.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Chairman Bird advised he would like to make brief P&R report under his
items, & Corrmr. Scurlock wished to add discussion regarding special
assessments under his matters.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 5/14/91
B. Special Meeting of 5/15/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & placed on file in the office of Clerk to
the Board:
t 1991
Fellsmere Water Control Dist. -Annual Budget FY 91/92
and
General Purpose Financial Statements and Report of
Independent Certified Public Accountants - St. Johns
Water Control District - 9-30-90
B. Sole Brand: Roof Coating & Primer / Koch Materials Co.
(memorandum dated June 4, 1991)
C. IRC Bid #91-88 / Treas. Shores Pk. - Pub. Works Dept.
(memorandum dated June 4, 1991)
ROOK 83 f L
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued):
D. 19th Ave. Parking Lot / Execution of Construction
Contract
(memorandum dated June 5, 1991) •
E. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated June 3, 1991)
F. Proposed Right -of -Way Ordinance
(memorandum dated June 4, 1991)
G. Waste Tire Grant Application & Recycling & Education
Grant Application - Authorized Rep. Signature
(memorandum dated May 28, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. 14th Street Canal Dredging
(memorandum dated June 4, 1991)
2. Request from Gov. Chiles for County to send
veterans to march in Fourth of July parade in
Tallahassee
(letter dated May 30, 1991)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Appraisal Update on 5 Acres at Tracking Station Park
(memorandum dated June 3, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
_Pq
KO8 i°,'ua5r 0
Jul11T,`7ui
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued):
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Tourist Development Committee / 1991-92 Budget
Recommendations
(memorandum dated June 5, 1991)
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
None
H. UTILITIES
1. Engineering Services for Design & Construction
Inspection of Various Water Mains & Subdivision
Distribution Systems
(memorandum dated June 3, .1991)
2. Developer's Agreement with Indian Oaks of Vero,
Joint Venture (Line Oversize Reimbursement)
(memorandum dated May 31, 1991)
3. Final Resolution / Sewer Force Main - U.S.#1 from
14th Street to 4th Street on West Side of US#1
(memorandum dated May 30, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Request Authorization to File Suit
(memorandum dated June 5, 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.
JUN 11 1991
BOOK 8F"":��
ma 531
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS PAGE
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
JUN 11 1991
BOOK.
• FA6E F'
Tuesday, June 11, 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,
June 11, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N.
Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and County
Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Bird advised that he would like to make a brief
Parks & Recreation report under his items, and Commissioner
Scurlock wished to add a discussion regarding special assessments
under his matters.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the additions to the Agenda as described above.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 14, 1991.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 14, 1991, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 15, 1991.
There were none.
JUN 11 19!1
99'
BOOK 83 F [ 534.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 15, 1991,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert asked that Items C and F be removed for
discussion, and Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item G be
removed for discussion also.
A. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Fellsmere Water Control District - Annual Budget
FY 91/91
General Purpose Financial Statements and Report of
Independent Certified Public Accountants -
St. Johns Water -Control District - 9-30-90
B. Sole Brand - Roof Coating & Primer (Koch Materials Co.)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton:
DATE: June 4, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director j
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Sole Brand: Roof Coating and Primer
Koch Materials Company
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In order to maintain the warranty of the roof at the Indian River
County Jail Phase I, it is our request that Koch Materials Co. be
certified as a sole brand to be used on any roof maintenance work
performed. The continuing maintenance is an important factor as to
whether or not a leak is covered and mandatory if the full life
expectancy is to be warranted.
The attached correspondence confirms this recommendation and out-
lines the proper application process.
Application of this material will be done by the Building and
Grounds Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve Koch Materials Company as the
sole source brand and authorize the release of a purchase order
for the primer and coating materials.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Koch Materials Company as the sole source brand as
recommended by staff and authorized the release of
a purchase order for the primer and coating materials.
C. Bid #91-88 - Treasure Shores Park Construction
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton and
from Capital Project Manager Thompson:
DATE: June 4, 1991
TO:
THRU:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services )
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-88/Treasure Shores Park
Public Works Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
May 31, 1991
Five (5) Vendors
Five (5)
VENDOR LUMP SUM PRICE
1.' Schopke
Melbourne, F1
2. Arthur Mizzen
Melbourne, F1
3. MH Williams
Melbourne, Fl
4. Barth Construction
Vero Beach, F1 _
5. Avanti Construction
Stuart, F1
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
$387,115.00
$391,189.28
$400,000.00
$409,124.91
$420,717.00
$387,115.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Treasure Shores Park Construction in Progress
3
s
11 1qq1 BUDK 83 FAuE 535
tiN
BOOK 83 F L.b3
99
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Schopke Construction
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting spec-
ifications for subject project.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Fran Boynton, Manager
Purchasing Division
Terry B. Thompson, P.E5:115r
Capital Project Manager
Bid No. 91-88/Treasure Shores Park
June 3, 1991
The Public Works Department has reviewed the bids for subject
project and recommends award to the low bidder, Schopke
Construction and Engineering, Inc.
Alternate #1 in the amount of $1,195. should be added to the base
bid amount of #387,115 for a total contract award amount of
$388,310. Funding is from Account No. 311-210-572-066.51.
Please prepare a report for the Board's regular meeting of June
11, 1991. The FRDAP Grant for this project requires that
construction be completed by November 1, 1991.
Commissioner Eggert just wanted to make sure exactly what we
are approving as the one memo cites Alternate #1 at an additional
amount, and Administrator Chandler clarified that staff is
recommending that Alternate #1 be included in the award for a
total of $388,310.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, to award Bid #91-88 for
Treasure Shores Park Construction to Schopke Con-
struction as the low bidder in the total amount of
$388,310 including Alternate #1.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about the
we had problems with Schopke on the Jail construction;
he understood that they did a good job at the Library.
wished to be sure that everything is now all right.
Director Dean and Administrator Chandler assured him
is no problem with Schopke.
Attorney Vitunac interjected that we are involved in
lawsuit with Schopke relating to his subcontractors, Dean
fact that
although,
He just
there
a
and
ECSI. They are pointing the finger at each other as to who is
going to pay the damages. The reason we have to sue Schopke is
4
because they are the only ones with whom we have a contract, and
they go after the subcontractor.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to be sure that by approving
another contract with Schopke we do not jeopardize our legal
position, and Attorney Vitunac assured him that we do not; in
fact, this is the second contract we have had with them since the
lawsuit.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
D. 19th Avenue Parking Lot Construction Contract
The Board reviewed memo from the Director of General
Services:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 5, 1991
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECT
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
19TH AVENUE PARKING LOT
EXECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
On Tuesday, May 21, 1991, the Board awarded the subject contract to
CATHCO, INC. with a low bid of $117,399.25. This contract has now
been signed by the Contractor. The insurance and performance bond is
also in place.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the contract and requests authorization
for the Chairman to execute the documents so the Notice to Proceed
can be issued.
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the contract documents with
Cathco, Inc., for construction of the 19th Avenue
parking facility.
CONTRACT W/CATHCO, INC., IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
5
JU6v 111991
ROOK '83 F '6E 537
JUN 11 1991
E. Release of County Utility Liens
MOK 83
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA:
' L 00j
TO: Board of County Commissioners
*re_tt- p.
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: June 3, 1991
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 6/11/91
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them:
1. Releases of Special Assessment Lien from
SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of:
MORGAN
2. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT in the name of:
BOJT
3. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from
HEDDEN PLACE in the names of:
RODA
PANEBIANCO
4. Releases of Special Assessment Lien from
STATE ROAD 60 WATER PROJECT in the name of:
KINGWOOD WEST (Lot 2)
5. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
STATE ROAD 60 SEWER PROJECT in the name of:
HERON CAY (183 Bimini Cay Circle)
6. Satisfaction for. Payment of Impact Fee Lien
Extension in the name of:
ALMOND
Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Releases and Satisfac-
tion listed above.
COPIES OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
6
F. Proposed Right -of -Way Ordinance
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney O'Brien:
-TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: June 4, 1991
RE: PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE
As the County becomes more urbanized it is necessary from an
administrative and safety standpoint that regulations be established for
the use of County rights-of-way. The attached proposed ordinance has
as its objective such regulation.
A hearing date of July 16, 1991 is suggested.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if the proposed ordinance
has gone through the Professional Services Advisory Committee,
and Attorney 0' Brien did not believe that it has.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she would really like to see
all these things go through that Committee, but she felt it is
too late to get this on the agenda for their next meeting and
their next meeting is not until some time in July.
Attorney O'Brien advised that time is not of the essence in
this case so that a delay of some weeks would not be a problem.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed that
the proposed Right -of -Way Ordinance be referred to
the Professional Services Advisory Committee for
review and authorized staff to advertise an appro-
priate hearing date after that review.
G. Waste Tire Grant & Recycling Grant Application
The Board reviewed memo from the Recycling Coordinator:
JUN 11 199
7
SUCK
Fa,E J.3e:
1991
DATE: MAY 28, 1991
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRI
BOOK
k) FAEE 540
SAM ROHLFING, RECYCLING COORDINATOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
WASTE TIRE GRANT APPLICATION and
RECYCLING & EDUCATION GRANT APPLICATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
fourth-year Waste Tire Grant and Recycling & Education Grant ap-
plication requirements for Indian River County, the application
requests must be signed by the county's Authorized Representative
before being sent to the DER. This individual is the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners. The Solid Waste Disposal Dis-
trict has received Waste Tire and Recycling grants for the past 3
years and wishes to continue the programs with the support of the
fourth-year DER grants.. When the applications have been signed
by the Authorized Representative they will be forwarded to the
DER. The deadline by which the DER must receive the applications
is July 1, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
District staff requests that the Chairman of the Board sign the
fourth-year Waste Tire Grant and Recycling & Education Grant ap-
plications.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we still have a
significant problem with 200,000 tires sitting out at Gifford,
and in the paper this morning a problem was mentioned in another
area of the county. Does that go along with this?
Administrator Chandler advised that is a separate matter,
and we are trying to get money from the DER to fund the clean up.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have liens against the
Gifford property, but Administrator Chandler explained that there
is difficulty in locating the owner.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to express concern about the
problems that would arise if these tires ever catch on fire, and
the Administrator assured him that we have taken precautions and
are continuing to press for funding from the DER.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to sign the fourth-year Waste Tire Grant
and Recycling & Educations Grant applications.
8
DER Form 17-716.900(1)
6kctlre
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Lawton Chiles, Governor Carol M. Browner, Secretary
Solid Waste Recycling and Education Grant Application
Part One
1. Name of Applicant: Indian River County
2. Address of Applicant
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL .iZ9b(J
3. Federal Employer Identification Number.
59-6000674
4. Telephone Number of Applicant: ( 407) 567-8000
5. List of Counties and Municipalities Included in the A plication:
Indian River County and the Cities o : Vero Beach, Sebastian, Fellsmere,
Town of Indian River Shores and the 'lawn of Orchid.
6. Cgnttaactrroehspfiper on handling program on daily basis):
7. Address of Contact Person:
8.
9.
Solid Waste Disposal District
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Telephone Number of Contact Person: ( 407 )
567-8000 EXT. 394
Name and Title of Authorized Representative:
Name:
Title:
Richard N. Bird
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
10. Required Attachments (Due July 1 of each year):
X A copy of any interlocal agreement entered into between localgovemments to accomplish the purposes of this rule.
Rule 17-716.410(1)
I CERTIFY that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such
information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to apply for this grant on behalf of this local
govemment.
Signature of Authorized Representative
Richard N. Biard, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
JUN 1 1 1991
Date
Please retum form to:
Department of Environmental Regulation
Bureau of Waste Planning and Regulation
Solid Waste Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Page 1 of 1
9
Indian liver Co.
Approved
:' :'r
Admin.
.3 3J- SJ
Legal
re ,
,�•
J// :J(_:
r,o47 (!
l
Budgcit
,/ i�
Utilities
iiip
�
Risk Mgr.
BOO K
JUN 11 1991
83)5 ►jam
OOK. PAGE H
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin 'lbwers Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • 'Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
1. Name of Applicant.
2. Address of Applicant. 1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
DER Form a 17.718.900(3)
Form Idle Solid Waste The Grant Application
Effective Darn
DER Appdcaton Nn
(Fitted in by DER)
Solid Waste Tire Grant Application
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
3. Federal Employer Identification Number:
59-6000674
4. Telephone Number for Applicant: ( 407 ) 567-8000
5. List of Counties Included in the Application:
Indian River County and Cities of: Vero Beach, Sebastian, Fellsmere. Town of Indian River
Shores and Town of Orchid
6. Contact Person (person handling program on daily basis) Sam Rohlfing, Recycling Coordinator
7. Address of Contact Person Solid Waste Disposal District
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
8. Telephone Number of Contact Person: ( 407 ) 567-8000 EXT. 394
9. Name and Title of Authorized Representative:
Richard N. Bird
Name.
Title.
Chairman,` Board of County Commissioners
10. Purpose for which grant money is requested. (Indicate by checkmarks): Rule 17-716.620
a. Construction of waste tire processing facility
b. Operation of waste tire processing facility
c. Contract for waste tire facility service
d. Equipment for waste tire processing facility
e. Removal of waste tires
11. This application is due by July 1 of each year.
f. Contract for removal of waste tires
g. Research to facilitate waste tire recycling
h. Establishing waste tire collection centers
i. Incentives for establishing private waste tire
collection centers
I CERTIFY that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such
information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to apply for this grant on behalf of this county.
Signature of Authorized Representative
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Northwest District
160 Governmental Center
Pensacola. Florida 32501-5794
Northeast District
3426 Bias Rd.
Jacksonville. Florida 32207
one-7,111.tlrin
Please return form to:
Department of Environmental Regulation
Bureau of Waste Planning and Regulation
Solid Waste Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Page1d1
Central District
3319 Maguire Blvd. Suite 232
Orlando. Florida 32603-3767
407-994.7555
Southwest Maid
4520 Oak Ft's Blvd.
Tempa. Florida 33610.7347
1313-623.5601
10
Date
Indian RiVer Co.
Approved
Date
Admin.
Legal
WWI
j 30
Budget
MX
r ' ,-)
Utilities
ra j/
J c 9 '
Fort Myers. Florida 33901-2996
81312.2667
A
Nest Patin Beach. Florida 33408
407.964.9668
14TH -STREET CANAL DREDGING
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo in
detail:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
14TH STREET CANAL DREDGING
REF. LETTER: J. Richard Sabonjohn to
received May 30, 1991
James Chandler
DATE: June 4, 1991 FILE: 14stcan.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Richard Sabonjohn, 1440 3rd Court, has requested staff
to investigate the 14th Street Canal Dredging project since
it is his opinion that the Contractor, Wally Bailey Dredging
Co., Pierson, FL, did not perform the contractual
obligations specified in the contract. Staff has researched
the matter, and the following analysis is presented:
ANALYSIS
For analysis purposes, the project is divided into the
following categories:
1) History of Project
In October 1984, the Indian River Boulevard Phase II
consultant and staff met with residents of Rockridge to
discuss bridge clearance. At that time, the boat
owners in the groupexpressed the need for dredging the
canal channel. After Indian River Boulevard was
constructed in -1987, the item was discussed by the
Board again and funding from the Florida Inland
Navigation District and special assessments was
considered. Staff was authorized to pursue permitting
for the project and apply for FIND funding. The scope
of the project involved dredging the canal beneath the
new Indian River Boulevard bridge (depth reported to be
1.5' in 1988) and dredging a small area near the mouth
of the channel where staff identified shoaling.
2) Engineering and Permitting
Staff applied for "short -form" dredge and fill permits
for the project. Florida Statutes Chapter 403.813
provides for this type project if less than 10,000
cubic yards of material is dredged.
JUN 1111991
On Sept. 30, 1988, staff applied for a DER and US Army
Corps of Engineers permit to remove 3,800 cubic yards
of material from the canal and Indian River. Since the
permit was a maintenance activity, staff described the
access channel to be 5' deep in the area to be dredged,
based upon communication with persons familiar with the
original canal excavation in the 1950's and 1960's. The
DER required extensive sediment sampling in the
11
EOOK O:�I rA�t t�i3tey
JUN 11 1991 E00a ' 8;iFAH 544
dredging area. Samples showed a concern with suspended
solids concentration (65mg/liter in some areas). As a
result, the DER permit was issued Dec. 28, 1989 for
maintenance dredging of "3,800 cubic yards of sand and
shell from the 14th Street Canal and Indian River". It
is important to note that only two specific sites were
identified in the permit and contract's Scope of Work.
The first site, is beneath the Indian River Boulevard
bridge and the second site begins 150' west of the
Indian River and traverses easterly to the Indian
River, thence north approximately 150'. In this area,
the original pre -dredging topography showed depths of
•water from 0.0' to 0.9'.
_3) Contract Document Requirements
The Contract between the Contractor (Wally Bailey
Dredging) and the County provided for Lump Sum pay
items for the following:
Mobilization Lump Sum $16,000
Site #1 Dredging beneath
IRB Bridge Lump Sum $ 2,250
Site #2 Dredging mouth of
canal at Indian River Lump Sum $14,850
Construction of Containment
site $ 4,200
$37,300
4
5
The Scope of Work included dredging beneath the Indian
River Boulevard Bridge (approx. 500 cubic yards) and at
the canal's mouth (3,300 c.y.) to an elevation of
-5' MSL. A 6" tolerance was allowed.
Construction and Inspection
The following construction schedule
Sept. 5, 1990 Construction of
began.
26, 1990 Containment Site completed - The
Containment area was constructed
larger than plans showed. This is
to County's benefit. -
1990 Dredging of Site # 1 began. An 8"
gas line .was found 5' below canal
bottom.
1990 Dredging of Site #1 complete.
Surveyors confirmed that 5' depth
was obtained.
County Surveyors surveyed Site #2
for pre -construction conditions.
Dredging of Site #2 began. Strong
wind conditions existed through
Oct. 12, 1990.
Extreme low tide resulted in dredge
not being able to operate.
Contractor had to dredge beyond
limits of scope to operate dredge.
Sept.
,Oct.
Oct.
applied to the job:
containment site
Oct. 5, 1990
Oct, 8, 1990
Oct. 12, 1990
Oct. 30, 1990
Nov. 7, 1990
Nov. 9, 1990
Contractor encountered rock.
County surveyors surveyed area.
Dredging of Site #2 completed.
Survey by County conducted.
Results of Dredging
From the surveys taken October 5, 1990 and Nov. 9,
1990, soundings revealed dredged channel depth of 5' in
areas where rock was not encountered. The volume of
spoil from the dredging operation filled the
containment site with over 3,800 c.y. of sand and
12
-shell. Photographs and survey notes are on file in the
Board of County Commissioners office. Due to the
shallow depths at the mouth of 14th Street canal, the
Contractor actually dredged _a greater area than the
Contract Scope of Work indicated so that the dredge
could be maneuvered into position.
On May 9, 1991, the Public Works Director met with Mr.
Sabonjohn at his home and traveled via boat to the
dredging sites. The propeller from Mr. Sabonjohn's boat
agitated silt/mud in the 14th Street canal in an area
west of Site No. 2.
During that meeting, I explained to Mr. Sabonjohn that
I would schedule the survey crews to resurvey Site No.
2. It was agreed that Site No. 1 had been dredged
to acceptable limits. Staff is of the opinion that on
Nov. 9, 1990, Site No. 2 had been dredged to acceptable
depths as specified in the Contract Documents.
Director Davis stressed that staff was happy with the work;
our drawings and inspections revealed that the work was per-
formed, and we signed off on it on November 9th. When he went
with Mr. Sabonjohn in his boat, it was extremely low tide, and he
believed there was a suspended solids problem in the canal to
begin with.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Commission had some
concern about taking on this activity in the first place as we
did not want to set a precedent, but we identified there were
potentially some problems as a result of work on the Indian River
Boulevard bridge. Also, once we agreed to do this, we realized
there is significant rock in the area so that the dredging that -
was to occur would have a limited ability, and he believed it was
approved on that basis and that there was never any thought in
anyone's mind that we would end up having a canal dredged to a 10'
or 15' depth.
Director Davis agreed and further emphasized that the
dredging was not for the entire length of the canal, but just two
specific locations - one being beneath the Indian River Boulevard
bridge location, and site two beginning 100' west of the mouth of
the canal going E/W to the river and turning N/S.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Mr. Richard Sabonjohn, 1440 3rd Court, assumed the Board has
read the file on this matter and has a copy of the survey that
was performed. He referred to the survey and showed two areas
where there are problems. He pointed out that the legend on the
survey shows that small triangles refer to the during dredging
survey and the post dredging survey is indicated by little
octagons, and this clearly indicates that there were no final
surveys done in the two problem areas.
13
JUN 11199
BOOK VAL Ji1j
JIM it 1991
BOOK
83 PAGE 54
Mr. Sabonjohn then referred to a letter from the DER which
states that persons whose substantial interest are affected by
this permit (for the proposed dredging) have a right to petition
for an administrative hearing, and he felt that demonstrates
right to be here. He then referred to his letter
published in the PRESS JOURNAL, as
Channel Work
Not Done Right
There has been a lot of talk
about the canal dredging in Rock -
ridge. The survey performed by
Jim Davis, a county engineer,
showed on completion there never
was a channel 5 feet by 15 feet as
contracted. There have been and
still are large areas 18 inches to
20 inches in the contracted area.
Mr. Davis says soundings were
performed that determined there
was a rock ledge and the dredging
company did the best it could. I.
walked this area and was able to
push a rod 3 feet to 4 feet into the
sand; in other areas I sank in the
muck well past my knees. Mr. Da-
vis insists the channel silted in
less than six months. Yet a chan-
nel that runs parallel to the sup-
posed channel is still 8 feet to 10
feet deep after 40 years.
When asked about trimming
dead branches that break and
follows:
which was
block the canal, Mr. Davis replies,
"This is an environmentally sen-
sitive area." In the next breath, he
informs me that the sewer plant
dumps sludge in the river less
than 100 yards from this spot.
While out in my boat with Mr.
Davis and a Press -Journal re-
porter, we were stuck in the
muck. Mr. Davis insists the work
is done properly. . •
When he is told that people liv-
ing on the canal will testify that
the work was never done prop-
erly, he says they are wrong, his
men did the proper job, and "we
got our money's worth."
Speaking for myself, as a tax-
payer of Indian River County, I.
don't want my money's worth. I
want what I contracted and paid
for. That is to dredge the desig-
nated area to the depth and width
contracted for, 5 feet by 15 feet at
low tide.
J. Richard Sabonjohn
Vero Beach
his
Attorney Vitunac inquired whether Mr. Sabonjohn ever had
petitioned for an administrative hearing, and upon learning that
he had not, pointed out that the time to do so had expired 2
years ago.
Director Davis agreed that the hearing referred to was to
object to issuance of the DER permit.
Mr. Sabonjohn continued to read statements from the
contract, noting that it says the primary use in the canal will
be provided to residents who have waterfront lots; that it will
allow passage through the canal to dock their boats; and that the
canal will once again provide access to the IntraCoastal
Waterway. It also says that the proposed access channel will
link up tothe entrance lagoon to the north, and Mr. Sabonjohn
claimed that it does not do that at this time. He then quoted
the statement in the DER permit which says: "Site 2 will consist
of an area 405 by 50 feet by -5 feet " He next referred
the Board to the following drawing which is part of the DER
permit and shows a 5' depth 30' wide:
14
<'At R LANA
}-1c'M c
A 400'
,,II .seti✓t
`t. •V
x •
II
NORIA •
NOTES:
• APPROX I MATELY 3,300 C.Y. OF
SAND/SHELL MATERIAL TO BE
DREDGED BY HYDRAULIC PUMP
OR CIrAM SHELL TO ELEVATION .
ZN1:7I p11N) • (-) 5 AND DEPOSITED AT DIS- •
POSAL S ITE.
f.
CAAN Net.
c ••
MQ -rag IAL —
5c4t.E: t" = 400' •.•
RIP gAP
/iii erii.`
1 6
LIMITS cP
p rJGrtNcr NIA-RIAL its 5E
REMCA/C—fl •
SE-CTION A-4\
10'
410
LtMlrs of-
'1:7Re47GINC,� MATC--R►4L
•
1/311:4--. , P t'.A o,kie•-ce
V 11. 1"
6EGTiokl
If • 1•. 7.o1
SITE 2
-ro
nTu srgIrT
f5RIo4E
Noct-Tv4
_Z •
4 O
i
15
JUN 11 1991
•
4
VICINITY MAP •
Nor TO xA.LE
DREDGING a DISPOSAL:
COUNTY: INDIAN RIVER
APPLICANT: BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
PURPOSE: MAINTENANCE OF
CHANNEL AREA
DATUM: N. O.V. D. 1929 .
PERMIT 3 1 1 5 6 1 8 3 4
1 DWG. NO, 9-.B•
PoOK..�
PAE b4 i`
JUN it 1991
ROOK 83 PAa.54 :,
Mr. Sabonjohn stressed that a 5' depth 30' wide just does
not exist, but that is what was contracted for.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the important thing is what
did we contract for and what did we get.
Mr. Sabonjohn next reviewed the bidder's instructions and
requirements, which set out that before submitting a proposal,
the bidder is required to visit the site and familiarize himself
with the nature and extent of the work and any surface or
subsurface conditions that may in any manner affect the work to
be done and the equipment, material and labor required and that
he must inform himself thoroughly regarding any and all condi-
tions and requirements that may in any manner affect the work to
be. performed. Mr. Sabonjohn pointed out that the bidder's
attention is called to the fact that any estimates of quantities
of work and material to be removed are estimated only and not
guaranteed, which he believed says that the 3,800 cubic yards of
material removed has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of
contract. He, therefore, felt the size of the containment
and 3,800 cubic yards don't mean a thing. What does mean
something is the size the channel was to be. He then read
contract clauses setting out what the contractor is required to
do within one year if the dredging is not satisfactory.
Mr. Sabonjohn again referred to his boat being undeniably
stuck in the mud, and requested that the Board resurvey the
dredged area as soon as possible and act in a responsible manner
to levy against the dredging company in accordance with the
contract.
Chairman Bird noted apparently surveying was done both
before and after dredging, and he asked if Director Davis felt
the surveying done after the dredging was completed was thorough
enough to show that the work was performed to specifications.
Director Davis stated that he did. He explained that the
survey was done by cross sectioning the area. The elevations we
found in the "before" condition varied from 0.0 (or no depth) to
-1' and -1.7'. The whole area had shoaled in, particularly at
the mouth of the river, and before dredging we found a tremendous
amount of suspended solids. Because of concern about these
suspended solids by both the Health Department and DER, we were
required to silt screen the area at both ends of the job. Our
cross sections show that the dredging contractor achieved -6.5'.
Director Davis stressed that this is a fairly narrow channel, and
you can be 1' or so out of it and be in a very shallow depth.
Chairman Bird asked if it is true that there is quite a
Targe area in the center of the project that doesn't show any
post construction survey work.
the
area
16
Director Davis advised that the cross sections are every
60'. We took shots during the actual dredging operation because
the contractor did indicate he hit some rock. The DER permit did
not involve any rock type excavation, and the equipment used was
not of a nature that could handle rock.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the contract shows 30' wide
and 5' deep, and the question is - is that accomplished?
Director Davis confirmed that we have elevations which show
it is 30' wide and 5' deep, but it is possible there are areas
between the cross sections where it could be lower. He
personally felt the boat got stuck before the limits of the
construction.
Chairman Bird inquired about the approximate cost of having
this resurveyed, and Director Davis stated that it is not an
extensive cost; it is just a matter of getting the survey crews
back together, and they are busy.
Chairman Bird brought up the possibility of having an
independent survey done rather than using our crews.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that his thought is simply
that if the contract does not meet specifications, then at least
Mr. Sabonjohn is right that time is of the essence and we should
notify the contractor before the year is up.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that we have surveyed it both
before and after; Mr. Davis has gone out in a boat and indicated
that he feels it is satisfactory; and Commissioner Eggert further
pointed out that there is quite a wide expanse of the channel
that wasn't dredged.
Director Davis did agree that there are areas that are
shallow. What we have is a representative cross section, but
when you are dredging with a suction type dredge, you don't get
totally straight sides. In fact, you are allowed a 6" deviation.
He stressed that we had a specific site; we had an inspector on
site daily; and we also had the Health Department monitoring the
agitation caused by the dredging.
Discussion continued to the effect that although it has been
proven that we got the 3,800 cubic yards of material, possibly it
may have required 5,000 cu. yds. to get the 5' depth, which is
what is shown in the contract.
Chairman Bird reiterated that he would like to have Mr.
Davis check out the price of an independent survey.
Commissioner Scurlock did not have any problem with that but
was concerned as to what we do if we do determine there is an
area that cannot be dredged satisfactorily with that kind of
equipment or if we can't get a DER permit to remove rock.
17
LJUN $t1991
P001(
P,AU
r
BOOK
. Jud; it 199
PAGE
Commissioner Wheeler felt it has to be flexible when you do
this work with a suction dredge, and he noted that we have spent
a lot of money on this already.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that possibly the language in
the contract should have been more flexible, but it shows 30'
wide by 5' deep.
Administrator Chandler felt something that has to be made
clear is that the whole contract was for maintenance dredging to
remove sand and silt. He did not think there was anything saying
that it would be anything beyond maintenance dredging; in fact,
both the contract and the permit are all for maintenance
dredging; and he felt that the contractor probably encountered
rocks at a certain point.
Mr. Sabonjohn pointed out that it was already established
that there was at one time a 5' channel there, and according to
the documentations, there was never a final survey in the problem
areas. He continued to contend that the cubic yards of material
removed are irrelevant - the channel was to be 30' wide x 5' deep
with a 6" tolerance. Furthermore, his boat which got stuck in
the mud is only an 18' boat with an outboard motor on it. The
contract says there is a guarantee for one year, and if the depth
is Tess than 4'6", then under the contract, this person has to
come back and perform the work necessary to conform to the
contract. As far as rock is concerned, Mr. Sabonjohn noted that
he actually took a canoe paddle and pushed it 3' into the channel
bottom. He further pointed out that the contract states that the
contractor will supply "all" equipment necessary and "all"
material to enable him to perform the contract. If he got in
there with a suction dredge and couldn't perform, that is his
problem, and the containment area is irrelevant to anything.
Attorney Vitunac made the point that there is no guarantee
that this will not resilt in a year; the guarantee is for things
that would fail. If the contractor has once dredged to the
requisite depth and Jim Davis certifies it, and then later on
siltation occurs, he did not believe the contractor has to come
back in and redredge it.
Director Davis noted that we have never been in a situation
where we have gone back a year later to the contractor. In the
dredging at Wabasso, which has silted back in almost entirely,
10,000 cubic yards of material was removed. He also believed
that the hydronamics of the river itself with the velocity of the
narrows corresponding to the low velocity near the 14th Street
canal where the channel is much wider tend to cause silting. Mr.
Davis continued to stress that based on our survey, they found
the contractor had dredged to 5/6'. He agreed that 6 months is
18
not a long time, but in a large river such as the Indian River,
3,800 cubic yards is not a lot of material.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we surveyed the specific
place to which Mr. Sabonjohn is referring, and Director Davis did
not think we had a cross section in that exact place. We have
representative cross sections.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have a "before" survey on
that point, and Director Davis confirmed that we do and it was
-0.2. We have a post survey a little bit to the north at the
beginning of the project, and there it is -5.9.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we identified that we have
gone all the way to the rock or if there is another 3' of
siltation, because he felt it would be easy to suck out that 3'
but if there is rock at 6", then we can't do it.
Attorney Vitunac did not believe that we could take out rock
under the DER permit.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that if we can
identify that there is 3/4' of sand at this particular point;
then it should be excavated, and Chairman Bird agreed that we
should get this resurveyed and clear the area.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he did not think Jim
Davis did anything wrong here. He did his job, but you can't
survey every inch.
Director Davis noted that our crews can do this; it will
take about 2/3 days and cost about $560 a day, but his feeling is
that this was not a high priority item to schedule as we have
major contracts being awarded at this time.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Sabonjohn if that is the
only point where it is not deep enough, and Mr. Sabonjohn stated
that there are two areas - as you come out to the river and after
you make the turn. It is a large area, but this is affecting his
property value and it should be corrected. He again stressed
that the County can levy on this contract. He did not care how
wide the channel is; it is not there.
Stanley Lethig, 1420 3rd Court, advised that his residence
is on the water in this area and he wished to make it part of the
record that 90 days after the dredging, he took his pontoon boat
which draws 16" of water out and it got stuck and he could not
get to the river. He felt the Board should know of this problem
and he also felt the contract should be done right.
Ruth Chapman, Rockridge resident, felt that as far as the
County is concerned, they did exactly what they proposed to do
which was clear the area under the bridge and the entrance so
people could get in and out. She believed Mr. Davis did
precisely what was expected of him, and when you consider that
19
Juti11 1991
BOOK C FALL b51
\ U V911
BOOK 83 PH.'6E 552
$37,000 was spent, she felt the County has done just what it was
supposed to do. If the silt has come back in, she felt it is up to
the property owners to take care of that problem, and she
personally felt the problem is caused by the dead end canals
which collect all kinds of "gunk." Mrs. Chapman did feel,
however, that Mr. Sabonjohn has a number of good points in that
if the contract was not lived up to the letter, it should be
looked into.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed staff
to go back and do the resurveying discussed, either
in-house or by independent contract, and then, if
necessary, decide if there is an ability to remove
material under our permit to allow a 5' channel.
REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO SEND VETERANS TO MARCH IN TALLAHASSEE 4TH
OF JULY PARADE
The Board reviewed the following letter:
GOVERNOR LAWTON CHILES
Honorary Chairman
Honorary Committee
BUDDY MACKAY
Lt. Governor
JIM SMITH
Secretary of State
BOB BUTTERWORTH
Attorney General
GERALD LEWIS
Comptroller
TOM GALLAGHER
State Treasurer.
BOB CRAWFORD
Commissioner of Agriculture
BETTY CASTOR
Commissioner of Education
LEANDER J. SHAW, JR.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
BOB GRAHAM
U.S. Senator
CONNIE MACK
U.S Senator
GWEN MARGOLIS
Senate President
T.K. WETHERELL
Speaker of the House
64111915
May 30,1991
9Mdw Treedonv 9re&tthal
Dear Commisioner,
On behalf of Governor Lawton Chiles and the rest of Florida's Freedom
Festival Honorary Committee, I would like to extend an invitation for
veteran participation in Florida's Freedom Festival "Welcome Home"
Parade. Our day long celebration, to be held on the Forth of July in
Tallahassee, will commemorate freedom and the success of our troops in the
Gulf.
We would like to have all of Florida's 67 counties represented with each
committing to send up to four veterans to march in our parade. As an
elected county official, the Governor thought each county commission
would be the most appropriate body to select the individual(s) to represent
the respective counties. Whether the men (or women) are color guards or
outstanding individuals who have been decorated, we request your input.
This is a military -type parade with participation by active and reserve units
and installations.
20
Congressional Delegation
JIM BACCHUS
CHARLES E. BENNETT
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
DANTE B. FASCELL
SAM GIBBONS
PORTER GOSS
EARL HUTTO
ANDREW IRELAND
• CRAIG JAMES
HARRY JOHNSTON
WILLIAM LEHMAN
TOM LEWIS
BILL MCCOLLUM
DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
CLAY SHAW
LARRY SMITH
CLIFF STEARNS
BILL YOUNG
JEFF SHARKEY
Executive Director
MICHAEL RYSHOUWER
Director
The Parade, which will begin at approximately 9:30 a.m, will help kick-off
the day's schedule of events which include: the dedication ceremony of a
permanent "Freedom Flame" that will pay tribute to the veterans of all wars,
an F-16 flyover, the "Veterans Appreciation" Luncheon, and the Florida
Celebrates America Festival ( which will climax with a spectacular
fireworks demonstration).
Due to the short period of time we have leading to the event, your request
for participation must be in hand (mail or fax) by Monday, June 10.
Upon confirmation, you will be sent a complete information packet on the
parade route, length, accommodations, etc.
If you have any questions, please call me at (904)-561-1253.
Sincerely,
avid W iss
Parade Director
Discussion ensued as to the problems associated with the
shortness of notice, the difficulty that would be encountered
finding lodgings in Tallahassee at this late date, providing
funding to send someone to Tallahassee, plus the fact that our
Veterans Service Officer advises that we have quite a celebration
planned in our own county.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board
a letter be sent expressing
invitation but declining to
discussed.
unanimously directed that
our appreciation of the
participate for the reasons
APPRAISAL UPDATE ON 5 ACRES AT TRACKING STATION PARK
JUN 11 1991
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following:
21
BOOK 83 FA6E 553
JUN 11. 199
BOyl. .83 PAGE 5)
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 3, 1991 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator,''"
APPRAISAL UPDATE ON 5
SUBJECT: ACRES AT TRACKING
STATION PARK
FROM: Randy Dowling REFERENCES:
Asst. to County Administrator
•
BACKGROUND
During the April 4, 1991 Parks and Recreation Committee. meeting, John
McDonald, councilman from the Town of Indian River Shores, discussed the
possibility of trading the town -owned 40 +l- acres at Gifford Park for 5+/ -
acres of undeveloped county -owned land at Tracking Station Park. During a
recent commission meeting, Chairman Bird asked staff to look into this matter.
The Tracking Station acreage is located within the Town of Indian River
Shores. Currently, the town leases Gifford Park to the County for $1.00 per
year and that lease expires in 2002. An appraisal was done concerning the
acreage at Tracking Station Park in 1987.
CURRENTLY
As a prelude to considering this property trade, an update of the appraisal is
necessary. Since Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc, did the
original appraisal, that firm has been selected to do the update.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve obtaining an update of the appraisal
concerning the 5+/- acres of county -owned land at Tracking Station Park.
The appraisal update will have a cost not to exceed $1,800 and will be
included in the next miscellaneous budget amendment.
Administrator Chandler advised that the appraisal done of
this property in 1987 indicated a value of $525,000, and he felt
that should be updated.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if he was asking for an
appraisal of the Gifford site as well, and the Administrator
noted that he is not but understood the Town is doing that.
Commissioner Scurlock wondered if that appraisal normally
would reflect a 12 year lease on the property, and the
Administrator thought that it should.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to obtain an update of the appraisal of the 5 +-
acres at Tracking Station Park at a not -to -exceed cost
of $1,800.
22
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:00 o'clock
A.M. and reconvened at 10:15 A.M. with alI members present.
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 91/92 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
Chairman Bird asked that Commissioner Wheeler, who is
chairman of the Tourist Development Council, review the recommen-
dations made by the Council. He noted that he personally has a
lot of confidence in Commissioner Wheeler and the Council and
will give a lot of weight to their recommendations.
Commissioner Wheeler went over in detail the following memo
and attachment listing the recommendations and the funding
breakdown by districts:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
June 5, 1991
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
1991/92 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In the meeting of May 15, 1991, the Tourist Development Council reviewed all budget
requests submitted from agencies and made the following recommendations:
Save Our Shores
City of Vero Beach
Center for the Arts
Riverside Theater, Inc.
Chamber of Commerce
Rotary Club of Vero Beach Sunrise
Indian River Arts Council, Inc.
Treasure Shores Park
Contingency
TOTAL
ANALYSIS
AGENCY
REQUEST
1991/92
$50,000
$130,000
$33,600
$15,000
$154,074
$20,000
$45,000
$100,000
$20,000
$567,674
T.D.C.
RECOMMEND.
$50,000
$100,000
$0
$7,500
$90,000
$15,000
$32,000
$60,000
$20,000
$374,500
Attached is a breakdown of the funding recommendation by district which was
recommended by the Tourist Development Council. The Board of County Commissioners
can approve the recommendation of the Tourist Development Council or make changes
as they feel necessary.
JUN 1 i
1.
91
23
BOOK 83 FA�E 5)5
1
1
REVENUE:
TOURIST TAX
FUNDING BY DISTRICT
AGENCY
APPROVED REQUEST T.D.C.
1990/91 1991/92 RECOMMEND.
119-000-312-010.00 DISTRICT II -LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX -IRC $100,000 $105,000 $105,000
119-000-312-011.00 DISTRICT I -LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX-VERO BCH. $215,000 $220,000 $220,000
119-000-361-010.00 INTEREST - INVESTMENTS $6,000 $8,000 $8,000
119-000-389-030.00 LESS 5% ESTIMATED RECEIPTS ($16,050) ($16,650) ($16,650)
119-000-389-040.00 CASH FORWARD - OCTOBER 1 $45,000 $60,000 . ' $58,150
TOTAL REVENUE ' $349,950 $376,350 $374,500
EXPENSE:
DISTRICT I:
SAVE OUR SHORES $0 $50,000 $25,000
119-110-572-088.11 CITY OF VERO BEACH $127,000 $130,000 $100,000
119-110-573-088.66 CENTER FOR THE ARTS $10,000 $33,600 $0
119-110-573-088.74 RIVERSIDE THEATRE, INC. $0 $15,000 $7,500
119-110-573-088.75 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $57,434 $154,074 $90,000
119-110-573-088.76 ROTARY CLUB OF VERO BEACH SUNRISE $15,000 $20,000 $7,500
119-110-573-088.77 I. R. ARTS COUNCIL, INC. $22,534 $45,000 $24,500
119-110-581-099.91 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY ' $11,426 $12,000 $12,000
SUB -TOTAL EXPENSE $243,394 $459,674 $266,500
DISTRICT II:
SAVE OUR SHORE 0 $0 $25,000
119-110-581-099.32 TREASURE SHORES PARK $100,000 $100,000 $60,000
119-110-583-088.77 INDIAN RIVER ARTS COUNCIL, INC. 0 $0 $7,500
119-110-583-088.76 ROTARY CLUB OF VERO BCH./SUNRISE 0 $0 $7,500
119-110-581-099.91 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY $6,556 $8,000 $8,000
TOTAL EXPENSE $349,950 $567,674 $374,500
D:%123 91BUDGET\FUND 119
REVISED: 05-30-91
Commissioner Wheeler explained that the City of Vero Beach
request related to a 3 year paving project at.Riverside Park. He
then referred to a letter received from the Chamber of Commerce
in response to his suggestion that the Chamber of Commerce
Tourist Council become the organization which would review and
work with each group requesting tourist tax funds and work out a
system where one request would be made to the County Tourist
Development Council covering all funding requests.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she would like to have
discussion of that letter before going on to address the
Council's budget recommendations. She noted one of the things
she has had a problem with over the years relates to the
definition of what is tourist and what is community and what
exactly the funds are to be used for. Rather than try to make a
decision today on the suggestion regarding the Chamber of
Commerce Tourist Council becoming the organization to review and
work with each group requesting tourist tax funds and to work out
a system for this, she would prefer to have a workshop to see
what we can put together for a good system that would be fair to
everyone - the arts, baseball, beaches, whatever. Commissioner
Eggert believed it might help organizations that apply if they
know something more specific as to what will qualify for these
funds and what won't.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock to workshop the above described
suggestion with the Tourist Development Council, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Arts Council, and anyone else
interested.
Commissioner Wheeler recalled that when we approved this tax
and set this Council up, we set up a two year budget and a
Tourist Bureau, the intent of which was to handle tourist -
oriented activities. Then two years ago, we had some extra
money, and another agency came in (he believed it was the Arts
Council) and we gave them some money, and then the evolution
started over the last 3 years to where people are coming in and
requesting funds from the Tourist Development Council. It has
basically boiled down over the last 3 years that the Chamber kind
of represents the Chamber and everybody else represents
themselves. Commissioner Wheeler felt we should either combine
them or eliminate the tourist bureau from that aspect. He would
support a workshop because we are dealing in areas where people
have intense interests, and the way this is set up is pretty
flexible.
25
JUH 11 1991
BOOK
Ih1Ltt
�. 5ja
LJ
JUN 11 199
BOOK
FNGE 558
Chairman Bird asked if we can schedule the workshop some
time in August as he did not see it relating to this years
budget, and the Board agreed.
Commissioner Scurlock concurred that he personally feels
there needs to be some changes, and he tended to favor the
approach that has been recommended in the letter from the Chamber
of Commerce. Any time you have dollars, you will have competing
interests, and the one thing he would caution about is that he
wants us always to maintain the ability for new entities to make
requests and be considered.
Discussion followed as to the need for more criteria and
parameters. Commissioner Scurlock felt that actually in
comparison to what a lot of other counties have done in making
these funds more or less a political grab bag, we have handled
these tourist tax funds very well.
Commissioner Wheeler believed the requests that have come in
have been legitimate and productive.
Commissioner Bowman expressed her feeling that there should
be tourist tax dollars allotted to the Fairgrounds.
Chairman Bird determined there was no further discussion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on having a
workshop as discussed.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that since we are not going to
set a date for the workshop today, he wished to put everyone
present on notice to leave their name and address with Board
Secretary Alice White so they can be notified when a date is set.
Chairman Bird referred the Board back to the recommendations
made by the Tourist Development Council and asked if anyone
wished to be heard regarding these recommendations.
Frank Zorc, 2044 De Leon Avenue, did not feel the request by
Save Our Shores for $50,000 for another study of the beach is
justified any more than their recent request to support sand
pumping. Mr. Zorc understood that the Beach Committee and City
Council itself has in hand now the full control and ability to
make a decision on the beaches. They are far from completing
their long range plan, and the City Manager has made it clear
they want to have that before making any further decisions. Mr.
Zorc spoke at length stressing the complete coverage that has
been given this problem and the fact that the citizens voted
twice to defeat the project. He urged that the Board reject this
request and allow the City to complete its study.
26
George Bunnell, member of the Tourist Development Council,
came before the Board. He commented that the -large and diverse
group that makes up this Council found it necessary to keep
reminding themselves that their main purpose is to better
tourism. There is an obvious controversy in this community about
the beaches, but there is no such controversy among the tourists.
Vero Beach without the beach is not the tourist attraction it
would be, and the tourists are the ones who give us this money.
This Council is aimed at improving things for the tourists, and
this Council has argued the point at length and decided that
using the tourists' money for this study was more than justified
on the tourists' behalf. This was decided by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Scurlock asked when they were considering this
particular item, why wasn't the focus on a study with a larger
scope that would identify all the reasons people might want to
come to Indian River County as opposed to specifically beaches -
what about the ballpark, for instance, or the river and fishing?
Commissioner Eggert commented that in looking at the
Committee Minutes, she felt they were talking about a broader
study, and that is her concern also.
Mr. Bunnell felt that a broader study of all tourist
attractions is certainly called for, but noted that reasons they
zeroed in on the beaches is that they felt they are probably
number one, and they are in jeopardy.
Commissioner Scurlock discussed the actual beach frontage in
the county and in the city, stressing that his point is that
there is a substantial portion of beach that lies outside the
City - probably more than double the amount in the City.
John Morrison, member of the Tourist Development Council,
stated that it was the intent to broaden this into something
other than just a study of the beaches. He stressed that at the
time they approved the monies for the "Save Our Shores" request,
they also stated these funds were going to be subject to the
criteria for the study which would be submitted to them, and that
information has not yet been submitted to them. Obviously a
study of the beach would be an integral part, but other things
should be done also. In order to avoid a situation where you
have 'a "grab bag," you need to know the interests of the tourists
here and to what extent they participate in that interest, and
that study has not yet been done.
Chairman Bird then asked if the $50,000 is a sufficient
amount to accomplish taking a look at overall tourism or is most
of that $50,000 needed to focus on the beach restoration issue.
Mr. Morrison could not say whether the $50,000 is enough; he
felt the issue is who would be competent to do this study.
JUN 11 199'
L_
27
MOK. ?_d FALL jjiD
JUN 11 1991
BOOK 83 P4u
E dr 15C9
Commissioner Eggert noted that she got the idea this was a
proposal by Save Our Shores, and that proposal was accepted, but
Mr. Morrison reiterated that it was accepted subject to the
criteria. What is submitted today all focuses on the beach, and
we need information on other things as well.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed we must study all the aspects
of tourism, and possibly we may find that baseball is a lot.more
important than beaches. He felt we must determine this and let
the chips fall where they may.
Mr. Morrison concurred and note that his only reservation is
to be sure that whoever does study are thorough -going pollsters
and know exactly what they are doing because you can slant these
things. He did think the idea has merit and that we should
develop the broad strategy in our approach.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that Mr. Morrison is absolutely
correct as to the importance of being objective in this study as
to determining interests and that you must identify a profes-
sional group to come in and truly do this independently and
professionally.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that this originally was a
proposal by Save Our Shores, and it was to take in the City,
primarily the beaches and the project area. It was expanded to
the entire county mainly he believed because that way we could
take funds from both districts. There was considerable
discussion at that time about expanding the study and taking a
broad overview including baseball and cultural interests as well
as the beaches.
Mr. Morrison referred to the highly professional study the
Beach Restoration and Management Committee had done of the entire
coastline in this county and how the whole thing got out of hand
with demagoguery and zealots with the result that we asked
citizens to make a decision based on their lack of information.
He stressed that the Tourist Council was thinking of the
requested study in terms of the beaches in the whole county, not
just in the City of Vero Beach.
Richard Bireley, 1622 Camino del Rio, complimented Commis-
sioner Eggert on her suggestion of a workshop. He agreed this
whole thing started out with very few requests, and now they are
lined up. These are tourist dollars, and Mr. Bireley guessed the
whole idea is to bring tourists to this community and once they
get here, make them happy. Save Our Shores came in with their
request and focused almost entirely on sand on the beaches. He
did think the idea 'of the overall study of people's interests
will help the Council to deal with all these requests and felt
that there is a need for more definite criteria as Florida law is
28
a little vague in this area. Mr.Bireley noted that he has been a
merchant here for 25 years and has heard many, many comments from
tourists. Although he agrees we need to take a broad look and
let the chips fall where they may, hopefully it will point up
that we do need that beach and we need it badly. The comments
he hears are from people coming to the beach, and mostly they
come to the central beach; they don't go up to the north end of
the county. Somehow we have got to get sand on that beach, and
he believed we will hear from Mr. Sexton about the survey being
broader than was intended.
Commissioner Eggert agreed the beaches are tremendously
important, but feared if we keep this study too narrow and let it
become too politicized, it will not be of as much value as if we
had a broader study.
Commissioner Wheeler also agreed that beaches are very
important, but what brings tourists to any community is water -
lakes, ponds, and rivers, as well as the ocean, and he felt that
to say when the beaches are gone, our community will dry up and
blow away is not correct.
Chairman Bird believed the question now is should we broaden
the scope of the study. Beaches would be a part of that, but it
appears the interest is in broadening that study. He asked Mr.
Sexton for his comments.
Ralph Sexton, president of Save Our Shores, pointed out that
the second paragraph of their proposal says this will be a
countywide study. He advised that he wished to introduce Dr.
Strong of Florida Atlantic, an international authority on these
subjects, who happens to be consultant for Palm Beach County on
their tourist matters. Mr. Sexton felt that anything the Board
wishes could be included in the proposed study, but noted that it
could cost more and they should be prepared to pay for it. He
stressed that his group made the proposal and they got the money,
but regardless, this study could include whatever is desired.
Chairman Bird asked Mr. Sexton to consider whether the
entire $50,000 should be aimed at the beach study or if a portion
could be used to broaden the study.
Mr. Sexton wished to point out that Chapter 161 of the Beach
Management law sets out certain things that should be in the
study, and they certainly want those things in the study but
don't see that it couldn't include other things.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there is a budget request
of $50,000 and a contingency of $20,000, but until this comes
back from the Committee with an actual scope of services, you
will not have anything other than a "guesstimate."
JUN it 1991
29
BOOK 83 F 'E 551
JUN 11199'
P00K -83 mE562
Dr. Strong took the floor, noting that he seems to have a
foot in many of the different camps involved in this whole area.
He has done a great deal of work on beaches and on the kind of
work that Save Our Shores would like in Captiva and Marco
Islands. At the same time he and his colleagues do the tourism
research for the Palm Beach County Tourist Development Council,
involving occupancy surveys, surveys at hotels, at tourist
attractions, etc. They also have completed a study statewide on
economic impact of the Arts; so, he does have knowledge of all of
these areas. Dr. Strong believed the broader aspect study that
has been discussed today can be done within the funds discussed.
It was envisaged that there would be surveys of all the tourists
in the hotels asking why they come to the county, as well as
surveys at the beach, and they could do surveys at the arts
events and some of the other funded events. Provided what is
desired is not inflated to an enormous level, he believed it
could be done for the requested amount.
Commissioner Eggert asked about having mail -in question-
naires at the Center for the Arts, Riverside Theatre, etc., and
Dr. Strong confirmed that was the way they do it in Palm Beach
plus having such forms at the airport.
John Bates, operator of the Best Western hotel on the beach,
having been in the hospitality business for 19 years, felt he was
qualified to speak as to hotel occupancy in the Vero Beach area.
He commented that he was here prior to the bed assessment tax.
Since that has been approved and we have been collecting the
revenues, there seem to be an awful lot of entities that are now
professionals as to how to spend dollars to bring tourism to Vero
Beach. Mr. Bates stressed that the whole key is to get the
tourists here to begin with, and unless the monies are appropri-
ated to the proper entities to do this, you are just throwing the
money away.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that his pleasure would be
to accept the budget as proposed with the modification that Item
#1 is to be expanded and reviewed by the Committee to come up
with a scope of services to consider a variety of things as
discussed.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that although he is Chairman of
the Tourist Development Council, he was called away from that
meeting prior to the motion being taken on the recommendation now
being considered, and he has some problems with accepting the
budget as proposed. First of all, he has a problem with the
recommendation of $100,000 for the City of Vero Beach towards
their 3 -year paving project instead of the $130,000 requested.
He personally felt we are obligated to support that project, and
30
he favors capital improvements that encourage tourism. His
second problem is with the recommendation cutting the funding for
Treasure Shores Park back to $60,000 rather than the $100,000
requested, his reasons being that the County would have to pick
up that shortfall, and a lot of the dollars for this are coming
out of District II. Commissioner Wheeler stressed that he could
not support a motion leaving those two requests short.
OMB Director Baird noted that would add $70,000 to the
budget unless you delete something. He informed the Board that
although we had been concerned because the State had released the
fact that we should anticipate a shortfall of tax, we actually
have been running 2% above what was projected. After reviewing
this, he felt he possibly could increase the Cash Forward $40,000
and probably pick up another $10,000 on increased revenues from
the Tourist Tax.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should be very cautious. He
agreed we have not experienced the shortfalls that have been
suggested, but he also believed that whatever hits in the
country, hits Indian River County a little bit later. He
personally did not believe we have experienced the whole impact
of the predicted shortfall as yet.
Discussion continued with Chairman Bird inquiring about the
possibility of reducing the contingencies and Commissioner
Wheeler continuing to stress his preference for capital
improvements rather than intangibles.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that hi_s problem is that this
recommendation was debated at the Tourist Development Council
level, and although it is possible they didn't have enough debate
or it wasn't clear enough on the Save Our Shores issue, he
personally has a hard time with going in and changing their
recommendation.
Chairman Bird agreed he would have a hard time changing
their recommendation also, but he would not mind adding to it if
the OMB Director felt he comfortably could pick up extra monies
by increasing the Cash Forward or from reducing contingencies.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding how to find the
extra monies. OMB Baird agreed the contingencies could be
reduced to $10,000, and he believed we will have $40,000 more in
revenue than anticipated.
Commissioner Bowman suggested adding $20,000 to the $100,000
recommended for the City of Vero Beach and $20,000 to the $60,000
recommended for Treasure Shores Park, and Director Baird pointed
out that increase would not necessitate reducing the
contingencies.
JUN 1.1.1991
31
BOOK 83 PACE 5f 3
it 1991 BOOK 83 FADE 564
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED BY Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Wheeler voted in
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote adopted the
recommendation of the Tourist Development Committee
with the two increases suggested by Commissioner Bowman
and Item #1 to be expanded and scope of study developed
by the Council.
John Morrison ventured his opinion that the sense of the
Committee was that facilities such as Treasure Shores Park and
Riverside Park are not utilized solely by tourists, and he felt
they could be supported by ad valorem taxes.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that there already is a
considerable amount of ad valorem taxes pumped into the parks.
ENGINEERING SERV. FOR VARIOUS WATER MAINS & SUBDV. DISTR. SYSTEMS
The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utility
Services:
BATE: JUNE 3, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE PIN G /,-
DIRECTO' UT IITY S R ICES
( jri '
PREPARED H. D. "11'i " OSTER, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF VARIOUS WATER
MAINS AND SUBDIVISION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -02 -DS
BACKGROUND:
On January 29, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
the Department of Utility Services to negotiate with selected firms
for the subject services and to proceed with agreements based upon
negotiations. Due to the magnitude of the project, more than one
construction contract may be utilized.
ANALYSIS:
McQueen and Associates has been selected for Phase II of the Water
Expansion Plan. Negotiations have resulted in the attached
"Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Engineer for
Professional Services" as modified by mutual agreement.
Phase II includes 5,400 L.F. of 12" water main on 4th Street from
43rd Avenue to 27th Avenue; 1,700 L.F. of 8" water main on 12th
Street from 43rd Avenue west to existing water main; and Pine Hill
Park (31), Clemann Estates (254), West Wind (29), West Lake (16),
Stevens Park (437), Idlewild (80), Emerson Park (152), and King's
Music (160) subdivisions.
32
Total. estimated construction cost is $2,465,800. The estimated lump
sum fee for Phase II design services with one prime contract is
$135,619. This fee will be adjusted when firm construction costs
are known, and shall be based on FmHA percentages. Additional
services of the Engineer are estimated to be $74,658 with one
construction contract, and include field surveying, soils
investigation, computer disk copies of as -built drawings, assessment
roll, and resident project services. If more than one construction
contract is necessary, additional services would increase by
$13,460 per additional contract.
All fees shall conform to FmHA guidelines.
Carter Associates, Inc., has been selected for Phase III of the
plan. Negotiations have resulted in the same basic agreement as for
Phase II. Phase III includes 5,300 L.F. of 18" water main on 8th
Street from 58th Avenue west to Pine Tree Park; 2,600 L.F. of 12"
water main on 33rd Street from 58th Avenue west. Also included are
Pine Tree Park (718), Diana Park (23), Westgate Colony (84),
Greenbriar (60), Verona Estates (100), Rivera Estates (72),
Cherrywood (15), Sunniland (18), and Cherry Lane Manor (22)
subdivisions.
_Total estimated construction cost is $2,454,000. The estimated lump
sum fee for Phase III design services with one prime contract is
$134,970. This fee will be adjusted when firm construction costs
are known, and shall be based on FmHA percentages. Additional
services of the Engineer are estimated to be $87,150 with one
construction contract, and include field surveying, soils
investigation, computer disk copies of as -built drawings, assessment
roll, and resident project services. If more than one construction
contract is necessary, additional services would increase by
$14,120 per additional contract.
All fees shall conform to FmHA guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
agreements with McQueen and Associates for Phase II, and with Carter
Associates, Inc., for Phase III design and additional services for
the respective estimated fees as stated above.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to approve the agreements with
McQueen and Associates for Phase II and with Carter
Associates, Inc. for Phase IIIas described by staff.
Commissioner Eggert had concerns about an increase of over
$13,000 per additional contract. She noted that we have got a
construction contract; then, all of a sudden, we have additional
services that are way up and it seems like we keep going up.
Utilities Director Pinto pointed out that the breaking up of
contracts means totally separate contracts, new specifications,
etc., and involves much extra time and effort.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that Commissioner Eggert has a
legitimate concern, but noted that we work off the Farmers Home
curve.
Director Pinto further noted that outside the design curve,
there is also a curve for inspections and we have tried to keep
within that.
JUN 1t 1991
33
BOOK 83 PAGE 3D
-JUN 1991
BOOK 83 FA[E b66
Commissioner Eggert asked if we keep the total within that
curve, and this was confirmed by Director Pinto.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT W/INDIAN OAKS OF VERO (LINE OVERSIZE)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
William McCain:
DATE: MAY 31, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc AiN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROD S ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OFiU\rILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN OARS OF VERO, JOINT
VENTURE (LINE OVERSIZE REIMBURSEMENT)
BACKGROUND
In order to construct the Indian Oaks Subdivision, it was necessary
to construct 1,647 linear feet of PVC water main on 8th Street. The
Department of Utility Services requested the construction of a 12"
water line, as required by the Master Plan.
ANALYSIS
The Department of Utility Services wants to reimburse the developer
for the difference between the 12" line we required and an 8" line
that would have been necessary to serve the subdivision. The
developer is to be reimbursed at the Department's standard rate of
$2.00 per inch per foot or $8.00 per linear foot. Since the
development was approved and constructed prior to the Comprehensive
Plan approval, it was not necessary to pay impact fees up front.
Therefore, the impact fees are being paid by the individual lot
owners as they construct on their properties. Because of this, the
developer is being reimbursed as impact fees are paid by the
property owners connecting to the line. (For details of the
reimbursement, please see Item 2 of the attached Developer's
Agreement.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's
Agreement with D/B/A Indian Oaks of Vero, Joint Venture in the
amount of $13,176.00.
314
ON MOTION By Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Developer's Agreement with Indian Oaks of Vero,
Joint Venture, in the amount of $13,176 as recom-
mended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
FINAL RESOLUTION SEWER FORCE MAIN - U.S.I/10TH ST. TO 4TH ST. W.
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer McCain:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MAY 30, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc AIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJEINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OFLITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
FINAL RESOLUTION
SEWER FORCE MAIN - U.S. 1 FROM 10TH STREET TO 4TH ST.
ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 1 -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -88 -22 -CCS
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services received authorization to make
the final payment to the contractor on this job on May 28 from the
Board of County Commissioners. Therefore, we are now proceeding
with the final assessment for this project and are seeking approval
of the final resolution. This project will allow for the correction
of potential health hazards due to commercially -generated wastewater
being disposed of on very small sites.
ANALYSIS
The final assessment is in the amount of $71,344.48, at a cost per
square foot of $0.154889279. This equates to about a 30% reduction
in the assessment. (See attached final resolution and accompanying
assessment for details.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the as -built resolution for
the final assessment roll on this project.
ON MOTION By Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner
om-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 91-66 certifying "As -Built" Costs for the
above project.
35
JUN 11 1991
BOOK3 FAG- E5�,
PCO it '99
BOOK • 83 F ;;r
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 66
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUIL" " COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A 'WER FORCI: MAIN IN U 3.
#1 BETWEEN 10TH :i i REET AND 4TH STREET
DESIGNATED AS PROJECT #US -88 -22 -CCS AND
OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY
SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL
COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT
WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
r
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that the improvements for the property located
within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1990, the Board held a public hearing
at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared
before the Board to be. heard as to the propriety and advisability of
making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-144, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 90-144,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 90-144 is modified as follows: The completion date
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 12% per annum may be
made in five annual installments, the first to be made twelve
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
36
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
90-144 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall
stand confirmed and ren , legal, valid, and binding first liens
against the property &i ,ainst which such assessments are made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A, ". attached to Resolution No.
90-144, were recorded by the County on the public records of
Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie
evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bowman , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheel e r
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 1 1 day of June , 1991.
Attest:
Jef 1-eye-K.—BEL tem Clerk
JUN 111991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
RES. 91-66 W/ATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD.
37
BOOK 83 PAGE JOU
Pr-
Juw IA 1991
BOOK F'°:GE-J 8 L
AUTHORIZTN TO FILE SUIT FOR FRANCHISEES TO CONNECT TO WW SYSTEM
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: June 5, 1991
RE: REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO FILE SUIT
Countryside North and Reflections on the River are franchisees of
Indian River County under franchises which require that these
developments connect to the County wastewater system when the system
is available. Both developments have been notified by the Utilities
Department that the service is available and that connection should be
made, and neither group has connected to the system or has agreed to
connect to the system.
While negotiations are still continuing, the County Attorney's Office
requests permission to_file suit against both franchisees to enforce the
terms of the franchise.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he was told Countryside North
is probably going to connect because their sale has fallen
through. He further noted that he is having a meeting tomorrow
with Attorney Brandenburg to negotiate regarding Reflections on
the River.
Commissioner Eggert felt the Board had given authorization
on this matter before, but Commissioner Scurlock advised this
item was put on the Agenda just for clarification.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Attorney's Office to file suit as
requested above.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairman Bird went over the following summary:
38
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
SUMMARY
June 6, 1991
1) Indian River Archers License Agreement
Committee recommended renewal of license upon submission of
certificate of insurance and payment of renewal fee.
2)' Airmasters Remote Control Club Lease
Committee recommended renewal of lease upon submission of
• certificate of insurance and payment of renewal fee.
3) Request for Permit to Rent and/or Instruct Windsurfing
in Indian River County
The applicant was unable to appear. He will be advised that
he will have to abide by a license agreement and submit a
certificate of insurance, plus payment of a rental fee. He
can make application at the August•Parks and Recreation
committee meeting.
4) Committee reviewed plans for the City of Vero Beach Firing
Range
5) FY92 Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program and
Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Programs
The committee recommended that the County apply for grants
from the State to be used for additional construction of
County parks.
6) Request to Rent Space on Wabasso Causeway for Boat Rental
Service
Abyss Marine Systems wants to use a small portion of the
Wabasso Causeway as a staging area to rent small boats. The
owner has spoken with the Sailboard Center, who has a
license to use a portion of the causeway for sailboarding,
and he said they have no objection to his request. His
boats will be kept at a marina in Sebastian.
The committee recommended approval of the request provided
they meet with the requirements of insurance and a license
agreement, and pay the same fee as the Sailboard Center and
provide at least the same amount of insurance.
7) Reviewed Parks Capital Budgets
Committee recommended that the County increase its share to
the City of Vero Beach by 10%, and add an additional amount
to the budget sufficient to cover the County's portion of a
jointly funded study'of recreation as it exists today, where
it should go in the future, and how it should be paid for.
The'committee approved the capital budgets as submitted.
8) Round Island Park Project
The Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee
selected a project to receive $10,000 in funding under the
SWIM program that would improve the habitat and water
quality in the Indian River Lagoon. The project will remove
exotic species from the shoreline at Round Island Park, and
replace them with native vegetation. The beach areas will
be left open.
The committee supported the grant project.
9) It was noted that there appears to be a problem at Golden
Sands Park whereby cars are being broken .into during the day
time. It was suggested that the sheriff be notified and
asked to patrol the area more often.
39
JUS 1991
BOOK _. 83 , FACE 571 1
Pr—
JUN
JUN i1 1991
BOOK 83 PAGE 572
2
Chairman Bird referred to activities on the Wabasso Causeway
and advised that while the Committee does have some concern about
overcommercializing that area, it mainly felt what is proposed
adds to the recreational opportunities. They will, however, take
a hard look at any additional requests for this area. He further
noted that the agreements in question are one-year license
agreements with termination provisions. Although we cannot
afford the very substantial increase requested by the City of
Vero Beach, it was felt there may be justification for an
increased funding share but that there should be an independent
third party study done. The City of Sebastian needs to be
involved and should participate in a study, and Chairman Bird
hoped that between now and budget we could get some feel for the
amount of money that would be required to fund such a study and
also see if other municipalities would be willing to participate.
In further discussion, Commissioner Eggert wondered if we
get out enough information to the public that we have County
parks on the beaches. She believed undoubtedly some of the City
residents use them.
Chairman Bird felt we probably don't publicize the County
parks enough and possibly we should include something for that in
the budget so that we could have printed material about these
parks available for distribution in the Chamber of Commerce and
other appropriate places. He noted that it would be nice if we
could channel more people to our County parks so that the City
couldn't continue to use their statistics against us.
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that he has
discussions set up with the City Manager to go over the requested
increase being submitted to us. He pointed out that we have made
great strides in the last few years, and we are in a different
position now with the parks and facilities we provide and the
improvements we have made.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the 17th Street
recreation complex happens to be all County land.
Chairman Bird advised that we need Board action today on
approving a 1 year extension for the Indian River Archers license
agreement; approving a 1 year extension of the lease with the
Airmasters Remote Control Club; participation in the Florida
grant programs set out in Item 5; and to accept the $10,000 from
SWIM for renovation of the shoreline at Round Island Park.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
items listed above.
40
DISCUSSION REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Commissioner Scurlock believed that most probably each
Commissioner has received phone calls the same as he has
regarding the proposed 12th Street Water Service Project. This
particular project, phase I, is different in that it is not an
100% voluntary situation; the assessments also have changed one
time, and he believed there is considerable confusion in the
community as to what is happening. This project covers a rather
large and varied area from 8th St. to 12th St. and from 43rd
Avenue to 27th Avenue, and the overriding concern is how am I
going to pay for this and in what period of time. Commissioner
Scurlock felt that we need to do something about an easy payment
plan, and he would suggest an increased effort be made to clear
all this up.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that this is a large area,
which includes lots of an acre as well as much smaller lots, and
it is the first to be done other than through the petition
process.
Commissioners agreed they had a problem with the assess-
ments, the inequities, and finding a solution, and Commissioner
Scurlock emphasized the importance of being consistent in what we
are communicating.
Utilities Director Pinto wished to point out that the method
of assessment is more important to the person being assessed than
to Utilities. They want to do what is most equitable to the
people, and he felt what we may wish to do is have a workshop on
the assessments themselves, not the assessment procedure, so that
we can all get tuned in to the direction we want to take. He has
heard the concerns, and noted that when you look at them on an
individual basis, many of them sound logical, but when you keep
applying them across the board, there are other inequities that
show up. He, therefore, wanted to be sure we are all on the same
wave length.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that the hearing on this
project is next Tuesday, and we would need a workshop before
then.
Discussion ensued as to this project being driven by the
Comprehensive Plan; assessment by square footage as opposed to
front footage or the ERU approach, or possibly a combination
approach; the possibility of an overall formula to be applied to
future projects; the fact that this is only the first phase of
the projects and other phases may not have the same
configuration, etc.
Director Pinto commented that although this project is
driven by the Comp Plan, there are a lot of people out there who
41
BOOK 83 FAL 5 ! C
ito4 11 1991
BOOK 83 F E
74
want water, and he did feel it was important to have a workshop
before the hearing.
It was generally agreed that a workshop was needed so that
the Board can determine some answers before being faced with the
questions at next week's hearing, and it was decided to set the
workshop for 9:00 A.M. on Friday, June 14th.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:05 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
42