Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/24/1991Z�o Aud, 1W - or -- AI! " BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman, James E. Chandler. County Administrator Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman = Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac; County Attorney Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 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 County Attorney 4. 'ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Admin. Chandler req.addn.of auth.to file State Library Aid Grant Appls. as Item 11C (3). He advised we sold bonds for new sludge facility & prepared to make reconm.this morning & would like that be added under Item 11 (E). 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -A. Regular Meeting - 8/27/91 B. Regular Meeting - 9/3/91 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Release of Utility Liens (memorandum dated Sept. 16, 199.1) B. Request to represent IRC at West Palm Beach, Florida Assoc. of Counties Meeting (Memorandum dated Sept. 9, 1991) C. Release of Easement Petition By: Claude D. Howie, Lot 14, Block 140, V.B. Highlands, Sub. Unit #4 ( memorandum dated Sept. 16, 1991) D. Bill Cutler's Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval for Ideal Furniture Warehouse ( memorandum dated September 17, 1991 ROOK U'� r:•:�,J,i l L- P 2 4191. SEP . 4 ffl 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd): _ E. Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Progress Report 8 Reimbursement Invoice #2 (memorandum dated Sept. 13, 1991) 9:05 a.m. F. Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board's Annual Report (memorandum dated Sept. 13, 1991) G. Transportation Disadvantaged Community Coordinator ( CTC) Evaluation (memorandum dated Sept. 13, 1991) H. Final Pay Request from J.B. Walker Construction - Fellsmere Racquetball Court ( memorandum dated Sept. 17, 1991) I. - Fellsmere Senior League Fleld Concession Stand, Rest - rooms, and Septic Field, IRC Bid #91-90 (memorandum Sept. 17, 1991) J. IRC Bid #91-129 / Wastewater Plant Refurbishment - Utilities Dept. (memorandum dated Sept. 16, 1991) _ K. Establishing a General Lien Provision = ( memorandum dated Sept. 16, 1991) L. Misc. Budget Amendment 047 (memorandum dated Sept. 18, 1991), 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Supervisor of Elections - Redistricting ( memorandum dated Sept. 17, 1991) 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. I RC's Request for Special Exception Approval to Construct an Expansion of the North Beach (Sea Oaks) Wastewater Treatment Plant ( memorandum dated Sept. 11, 1991) 2. Indian Beach Assoc., Inc.'s Request for Planned Development Special Exception and Conceptual Plan Approval for a 114 Unit Planned Development to be Known as "Olde Oak Park" ( memorandum dated Sept. 13, 1991) 3. St. Edward's Upper School's Request for Special Exception Approval for a Library Expansion and Associated Improvements (memorandum dated Sept. 11, _ 1991) 4. Ordinance Establishing Street Lighting Districts for: 1) Tierra Linda Subdivision; 2) Walker's Glen Subdivision; 3) Floralton Beach Sub. (memorandum dated August 12, 1991) 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd) : B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd): 5. Anita Park - 38th P1. Water Service Project (memorandum dated Sept. 12, 1991) - 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1. Sheriff's Dept. Request for Detention Facility Equipment ( memorandum dated Sept. 13, 1991) 2. Release of Retainage to Sovran Construction Co., Inc. for Phase III - IRC Jail (memorandum dated Sept. 17, 1991)- C. GENERAL SERVICES 1. Indian River County Courthouse Project ( memorandum dated Sept. 12, 1991) 2. Courthouse Land Acquisition Program - S. R. Hubbard Property (memorandum dated Sept. 16, 1991) D. LEISURE SERVICES Automated Tee Time System (memorandum dated Sept. 16, 1991) E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL Claims Administration Agreement (memorandum dated Sept. 12, 1991) G. PUBLIC WORKS , None H. UTILITIES 1. Deep Well Effluent Disposal System - Engineering. Agreement h Work Authorization. No. 1 (memorandum dated August 23, 1991) - (re -scheduled from meeting of 9/17/91) 2. West/Central Region Reuse Water Transmission Main ( memorandum dated Sept. 16, 1991) 3. Engineering Services for Ph. II Expansion of the So. Co. Reverse Osmosis Plant (memorandum dated August 20, 1991) --" I IJ SEP 2 4 1991 BOOK 84 PAGE •. 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd): H. UTILITIES (cont'd): 4. No. Beaches A -I -A Water Line Assessment Project _ Final Assessmnt Roll 8 Resolution No. 4 ( memorandum dated Sept. 13, 1991) 5. No. Beaches A -I -A Water Line Assessment Project Change Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request (memorandum dated Sept. 17, 1990 6. IRC Bid #91-119/Sludge Facility - Utii. Dept. ( memorandum dated Sept. 18, 1991) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY A. Consent to John's Island Water Management, Inc. - Town of I.R. Shores Agreement for Non -Potable Water (memorandum dated Sept. 18, 1991) B. Citrus Utilities Agreement to Connect (memorandum dated August 29, 1991) 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER Tourist Study ( memorandum dated Sept. 18, 1991) C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT Annexation - Indian River Shores ( letter dated August 28, 1991) E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None r 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS (cont'd): C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting 8/27/91 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting 9/3/91 3. Bid Award: IRC 91-125 / 3 Roll -Off Containers (memorandum dated Sept. 12, 1991) 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. > > h s� SEP 24- 1991 Tuesday, September 24, 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, September 24, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and County Attorney Charles Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Administrator Chandler requested the addition of authoriza- tion to file State Library Aid Grant application as Item 11C(3). He further advised that yesterday we sold the bonds for the new sludge facility and are prepared to make a recommendation thi,s morning, and he would ask that be added to the Agenda under Item 11(E). ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert-, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the addition of the above described items to the Agenda. DISCUSSION RE POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF BOARD MEETING Chairman Bird asked for some discussion on our upcoming Board meeting of October 8th as he understood two Commissioners will be out of town for that meeting, and he believed there is a public hearing that has been rescheduled. After some discussion as to -who will be out of town for different meetings, it was felt we will have 4 Commissioners available for every October meeting except that of October 8th, and it was further noted that we will have no meeting on the 5th Tuesday of the month, which is October 29th. The Board, by general consensus, agreed to cancel the meeting of October 8, 1991. SEP PL_ E011K r- SEP 2 a 1991 RooK 8 �,,GE383 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 27, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner'Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of'the Regular Meeting of August 27, 1991, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 3, 1991. There were none. ON MOTION by.Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner-Scur--lock, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 3, 1991, as written. CONSENT AGENDA . A. Release of Utility_Liens The Board reviewed memo from.Lea Keller, CLA: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: September 16, 1991 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 9/24/91 RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS I have prepared the 'following lien -related documents and request that. the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them: 1. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extension Liens in the names of: PMRA/CWS (Village Green Mobile Home Park) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 2. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from _ CITRUS GARDENS PROJECT in the names of: GUY (3) ` BECK ' ZELLER SEELBAUGH ROTH L'HOWEDIEU 2 3. ; : Release of Special Assessment Lien from RIVER SHORES PROJECT in the name of: 'KERSTEN 4. , ' Releases of Special Assessment Liens from A-1-A/NORTH BEACHES PROJECT in the name of: h WELSH k 5. Release of State Road 60 Sewer Project in the name of HERON CAY (2 Calypso Cay) 6. ` -Release of Special Assessment Lien from ,, SUMMERPLACE PROJECT in the name of : , LIEBEGOTT ` ` Releases of Special Assessment Liens for .7. Water & Wastewater from SEMINOLE SHORES PROJECT in the name of: DELVECCHIO 8. Release of Special Assessment Lien from 12 STREET PROJECT in the name of: BUFFINGTON Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's Office. 7 i ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions Liens and Releases of Special Assessment Liens as --listed above. COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. B. out -of -County -Travel: • The Board reviewed the following memo from County Attorney Vitunac: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS _ FROM: -Charles P.. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: September 9, 1991 _ RE: REQUEST TO REPRESENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AT WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES MEETING I have been invited by the Florida Association of Counties to represent _ Indian River County in a discussion group on the topic "What should the county's role be in providing criminal justice programs;" r 3 FP -1 BO.OK g vj - 4 fir i,,C @.�v� The meeting will be held in West Palm Beach on Thursday, September 26th from 10:30 a.m. until,2:00 p.m.,. and I would be happy to attend this meeting if the Board so desires. - RECOMMENDATION: 'Authorize the County Attorney to drive to West Palm Beach on September 26th and return the same day to participate in P the Florida Association of Counties' criminal justice program. ' ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved out - of -County Travel for the County Attorney as described above. C. Release of Easement - Vero Beach, Highlands _(Howie) The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath: .TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DE ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE ImBert--K.' Keatin AIC Vrector Community Develop ent THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois ICP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement FROM: Charles W. Heath Code Enforcement Officer DATE: September 16, 1991 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT PETITION BY: Claude D. Howie Lot 14, Block 140, Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision Unit No. 4 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 24, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Claude D. Howie, owner of the subject property, for the release of a three (3) foot portion of the rear twelve (12) foot utility and.drainage easement of Lot 14, Block 140, Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision, Unit No. 4. It is the petitioner's intention to release the easement to maintain compliance with the required yard setbacks for swimming pools as per Chapter 911.15(2)(f) of the County Land Development Code. The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -6, Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L- 2, allowing up to six (6) units per acre. 4 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company, Florida Power & Light Company, United Artist's Cable Corporation, the Indian River County Utilities Department, the General Development Utilities Company and the Road & Bridge and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, there would be no adverse impact to utilities and stormwater systems of the subject property by the release of the easterly three (3) foot portion of the easement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolution, the release of the easterly three (3) foot portion of the westerly twelve (12) foot drainage and utility easement of Lot 14, Block 140, Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision, Unit No. 4, Section 35; Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Plat Book 8, Page 38, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-148, releasing a 3' portion of the rear lot utility and drainage easement of Lot 14, Block 140, Vero Beach Highlands, Unit No. 4, as requested by Claude Howie. and RESOLUTION NO. 91-148 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 4, LOT 14, BLOCK 140 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Iridian River County has, easements as described below, WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Claude D. Howie, his successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is 2055 13th Avenue S.W., Vero Beach, Florida 32962 Grantee, as follows: Indian} River County does hereby abandon all right, title,, and interest that it may have in the following described easement: A three (3) foot portion of the rear lot twelve (12) foot utility and drainage easement, being the easterly three (3) feet of 5 SEP 2 4 �9T BOOK ��� P,qu� ��JU S E P 24 1991 [BOOK 84 PAGE 87 the westerly twelve (12) feet of Lot 14, Block 140, Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision, Unit No. 4, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 38 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock -,.seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and adopted on the 24 day of September , 1991, by the following vote: Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this -24 , day of _ September , 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Richard N. Bird ,Chajrman D. Extension of Site Plan`Approval_(Ideal _Furniture Warehouse) The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Rison: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Obert M. Kea in , A Community Devel men Director THROUGH: Stan Bolin , AICP Planning Director FROM: Christopher D. Rison Vt' P Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: September 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Bill Cutler's Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval for the Ideal Furniture Warehouse SP -MA -90-08-49 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meetinq of September 24, 1991. [.1 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On August 23, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a major site plan application submitted by Mosby and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Bill Cutler. On October 2, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners granted special exception use approval for the project. Approval was given to construct an 11,200 sq. ft. retail warehouse building at the south east corner of Quay Dock Road and U.S. #1, north of 67th Street. Randy Mosby, on behalf of Bill Cutler, has requested that a site plan extension be granted. Due to financial difficulties, Mr. Cutler has been unable to commence construction of the approved site plan. Furthermore, Mr. Cutler is of the opinion that the current site plan approval expiration date will pass before construction can commence. If no construction has begun by October 2, 1991, the site plan approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted and implemented its new Land Development Regulations in September of 1990. While some regulations have changed, the changes are not significant enough to warrant revisions td the project's design if it were reviewed as a new application today. The members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that the changes that have occurred are not significant enough to require any site plan revisions. _ Pursuant to the provisions of the site plan ordinance, Mosby and Associates, Inc. is requesting a full one (1) year extension of the approved.site plan. Pursuant to the site plan ordinance, the Board may grant, or grant with additional conditions, such site plan extensions. In staff's opinion, the current subject site plan application would substantially conform to current requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Bill Cutler's request for a one (1) year extension of the conditionally approved site plan. The new site plan expiration date will be October 2, 1992. - ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted Site Plan Extension approval for the Ideal Furniture Ware- house as requested by Bill Cutler, the new expiration date to be October 2, 1992. E._Transportation_ Disadvantaged _Planning_Grant_Progress_Report and Reimbursement Invoice 42 NMThe Board reviewed memo from Senior Planner Cheri Fitzgerald: SEP 24 199 7 BOOK I SEP 21 4 1991 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE o ert M. Keatin , AI THRU: Sasan Rohani Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Cheri B. Fitzgerald C&__� Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: September 13, 1991 FOOK. F',1.jE.339- RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE #2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 24, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the transmittal of the county's application to the state to become the local Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the provision of transportation disadvantaged planning activities in the area. In its capacity as the DOPA, the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for coordinating transportation disadvantaged resources in the county. On August 28, 1990, the BCC/DOPA approved the transmittal of a Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant application to the state. The Planning Grant was subsequently executed by.the state and the BCC/DOPA on November 27, 1990. As part of the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant contract between the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) and the State of. Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC), quarterly progress reports must be submitted along with reimbursement invoices. On May 21st, 1991, the BCC/DOPA approved the transmittal of the progress report and invoice for the first quarter of the grant period (November 27th, 1990 through February 28th, 1991). Staff has prepared another progress report and invoice for the second quarter of the grant period. On September 19th, 1991, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating ._Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice #2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Attached is a copy of the progress report along with a brief narrative describing the the second quarter period beginning March through May 31st, 1991. and invoice summaries, status of each task for 1st, 1990 and extending The progress reports and applicable finished products, such as TDLCB meeting minutes, by-laws, etc., are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices. These materials will also be submitted to the state along with the reimbursement invoice. The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are to either approve the transmittal of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice as submitted, approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with revisions, or deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and Invoice to the state. RECOMMENDATION The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA approve the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice (#2), and direct staff to transmit the report to the State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved transmittal of the Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #2 in the amount of $4,254.25 to the State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission as recom- mended by staff and the TDLCB. F. Transportation_Disad__ Local _Coord__Board's _Annual _Report The Board reviewed memo from Senior Planner Fitzgerald: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: ober KdIinftentC Community Develoector THRU: Sasan Rohani - Chief, Long -Range Planni g FROM: Cheri B. Fitzgerald Senior Planner, Long- ange Planning DATE: September 13,-1991 RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD'S ANNUAL REPORT _ It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 24, 1991. DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the transmittal of the county's application to the state to become 9 , 4 ���� SOCK 1 f Ur. �� JM SES c� u�. . L the local Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the provision of transportation disadvantaged planning activities in the area. The State's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC) officially notified the county by letter of its approval as the DOPA on June 15, 1990. On July 24, 1990, the BCC directed the staff to contact the appropriate state agencies and the Council on Aging regarding their suggested appointees to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB). The BCC also nominated Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman as Chair of the TDLCB. On August 14, 1990, the BCC officially appointed the members to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board. The TDLCB reveiwed and approved the Annual Report at its September 19, 1991 meeting. ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, Section 41-2.012(6)(h), requires that the TDLCB prepare by October 1 of each year an Annual Report, to be consolidated with the Community Transportation Coordinator's (CTC) Annual Operating Report. The Annual Report outlines the accomplishments and activities of the TDLCB for the period between July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991. The report summarizes the TDLCB's organization, allocated funding, vehicle inventory and proposed activities. The report also includes the CTC's Annual Operating Report for the same time period. The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are to either approve the transmittal of the TDLCB's Annual Report as submitted, approve the report with revisions, or deny the transmittal of the report to the state. RECOMMENDATION The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA approve the Annual Report and direct staff to transmit the report to the State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Annual Report of the TDLCB and directed staff to transmit same to the State Transportation Disad- vantaged Commission. COPY OF SAID ANNUAL REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 10 G__ Transportation _Disadvantaged _Community -Coordinator - Evaluation The Board reviewed memo from the Planning staff: TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 141, Obert M. Keatin A Community Developmen Director THRU: Sasan Rohani 514t• Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Cheri Boudreaux Fitzgerald Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: September 13, 1991 RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY COORDINATOR (CTC) EVALUATION It is_requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 24, 1991.. DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of the county's application to the state to become the local Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the provision of transportation disadvantaged planning activities in the area. The State's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC) officially notified the county by letter of its approval as the DOPA on June 15, 1990. On July 24, 1990, the Board directed the- staff to contact the appropriate state agencies and the Council on Aging regarding their suggested. appointees to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB). The Board also nominated Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman as Chair of the TDLCB. On August 14, 1990,'the Board officially appointed the members to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB). On August 23, 1990, the TDLCB discussed and recommended the approval of the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) selection proposal to the state's TDC. The state TDC approved the appointment of the CTC in October of 1990. On September 19, 1991, the TDLCB reviewed and approved the CTC's annual performance evaluation submitted herein. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Community Transportation Coordinator's (CTC) approval by the - State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC) is for a one year probationary period and requires the submission of an annual evaluation report of the CTC's performance by the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) (copy attached). The evaluation report has to be reviewed by the BCC/DOPA for recommendation on whether or not to continue with the current CTC. uflnI V~1 FII I SEP 24 J991 The Indian River County Council on Aging (COA) has been the county's transportation disadvantaged services coordinated provider for the last several years. The evaluation report is recommending _ that the Council on Aging remain the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC). The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are to either approve the transmittal of the evaluation report and recommendation for the Indian River Council on Aging to remain the CTC, approve transmittal of the evaluation report and recommendation with revisions, or deny the transmittal of the evaluation report and recommendation to the state. RECOMMENDATION The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the transmittal of the Community Transportation Coordinator's (CTC) evaluation report to the state and recommend to the state that Council on Aging remain the Transportation Disadvantaged Community Transportation Coordinator for the county. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved transmittal of the CTC evaluation report to the state and recommended that the Council on Aging remain the CTC for the county. H. Final Pay—Request_Fellsmere —Racquetball_ Court (J.B.Walker ,_-- — E_0_nst_.T ----------------- The The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E V � Public -Works Director FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E. i County Engineer SUBJECT: Final Pay Request from B. Walker Construction Fellsmere Racquetball Court - IRC Project No. 9011 DATE: September 17, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The construction of the Fellsmere Racquetball Court has been completed by J. B. Walker Construction. The project has been accepted by the County Engineer. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of the final payment in the amount of $5,860.00, which includes the balance due and retainage. Funding to be from Account Number 004-108-572-066.39. 12 a ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved final payment of $5,860 to J.B.Walker Construction for construction of the Fellsmere Racquetball Court as recommended by staff. I. Bid #91-90 - Fellsmere Senior League Field Concession Stand, Restrooms__�r tic_Field The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton: TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: James E. Chandler County Administrator and H.T. "Sonny" Dean General Services Dire o FROM: Fran Boynton Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: Fellsmere Senior League Field Concession Stand, Restrooms, and Septic Field IRC Bid #91-90 DATE: September 17, 1991 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Advertisement Dates: Bid Opening Date: Plans & Specifications Sold to: Replies: BID TABULATION Hunley-Hubbard Construction Vero Beach, FL DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: May 1 and May 8,-1991 May 22, 1991 Nine (9) Vendors One (1) Vendor SUBMITTAL Base Bid Alternate UNIT PRICE $43,877.00 $51,700.00 .Base Bid consists of constructing a one-story concession building with: kitchen, two restrooms, drainfield, one septic tank and one grease trap, all complete and functional. _ The alternate consists of constructing a two-story building i consisting of same as base bid but including a wooden press box as the second story. A meeting was held with Mr. Chris Hubbard of Hunley-Hubbard Construction, Inc. for the purpose of reviewing the specifications and pricing on the bid project, the bid being over the $30,000.00 budgeted. After negotiations, Mr. Hubbard has informed this department that he was able to negotiate a better price for the sitework, being $200.00 less with no changes in specifications. In P 2 4 1991 13�"� Er�C. SEP 2 4 BOOK 84 addition --he suggests that by substituting American Standard fixtures for the stainless steel fixtures specified, he will reduce his -bid price an additional $4,200.00. These changes would reduce the bid price by $4,400.00 to a new price of $47,300.00. (See attached) Because only one bid was submitted although nine vendors purchased the plans -and specifications for this project, this department is of the opinion that by re -scheduling for a new bid, no better response would be obtained from contractors, unless the requirement for the performance bond is waived. The performance bond was the main concern expressed by the contractors not bidding in a follow- up survey done by county staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends re -bidding the contract and waiving the performance bond requirement on the re -bid. SOURCE OF FUNDS: a Account No. 004-108-572-066.39 (Other Improvements - Except Buildings). ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed staff to rebid said project and waive the performance re- quirement -on the re -bid as recommended by staff. J. Bid #91-129 - Wastewater Plant Refurbishment (Vista Gardens) The Board reviewed memo from.Purchasing Manager Boynton: !'DATE:. September 16, 1991 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonnyi° Dean, Director Department of General Serv' FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Managerjita^- SUBJECT: IRC Bid #91-129/Wastewater Plant Refurbishment Utilities Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bid Opening Date: Specifications.mailed to: Replies: BID TABULATION Southland Painting Sunrise, Florida Allen's Environmental Longwood, Florida Skyline Painting Orlando, Florida September 4, 1991 Twelve (12) Vendors Three (3) Vendors UNIT PRICE $50,380.00 $52,800.00 $64,375.00 14 BUDGETED AMOUNT: $64,000.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Sewer Utilities Sidewalks/Curbs/Gutter Account. TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $50,380.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Southland Painting as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. In addition staff requests the Board's approval for the chairman to execute the attached agreement when all requirements are met and approved as to form by the County Attorney. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #91-129 for Refurbishment of the Vista Gardens Wastewater Plant to the low bidder Southland Painting in the amount of $50,380 and authorized the Chairman to execute agreement with same when approved as to form by the County Attorney. I SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. (SAID AGREEMENT NOW RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO BOARD) K. Schedule Proposed_Ordinance -to-Establ_-General Lien Provision The Board Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney O'Brien: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County AttorneyV6 DATE: September 16, 1991 RE: ESTABLISHING A GENERAL LIEN PROVISION From time to time the County takes remedial action to assure compliance with the Indian River County Code. This some time results in expenditure of public funds. In order to assure, to 'the extent practicable, that the County is reimbursed, lien procedures should be established. A proposed ordinance to accomplish this is attached for consideration. A public hearing date of October 22, 1991 is suggested. - ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized staff to advertise a public hearing date of October 22, 1991, for a proposed ordinance to establish general lien procedures. SEP 24 1991. 15 Q(Tr4 Fpl[.*aM J -I BOOK 4 F',":� E'��- 7 L. Miscellaneous_ Budget_ Amendment #047 The Board reviewed the following memo from the OMB Director: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 18, 1991 SUBJECT: AHSCELIANEOUS BUDGET AMENDIVLENT 047 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird ' OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. The ' Golf Course Bond Issue in the amount of $6,015,000. 2. To increase the Police Academy Trust fund budget by $14,000. 3. To increase the Rental Assistance fund budget by $130,000. 4. To increase the Fleet Management budget by $50,000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #047, as follows: 16 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director Entry � 1 A SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 047 DATE: September 18, 1991 se !Capitalized Interest ; ;$ 805.2081$ 0 !Accrued Interest ; !$ 22,0601$ 0 'Contingency ! !$ 1.5941$ 0 2. !REVENUE ! 1 ' !POLICE ACADEMY TRUST FUND/ !Cash Forward ! ! 1103-000-389-040.001$ 14.0001$ ! 0 !EXPENSE 1 1 !POLICE ACADEMY TRUST FUND/ nrcra�-inn iivncncc ! ! 1 i n -i -Ann -Rol _nnR -3o i 6` IA ! nnn 1 & ., !SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE . 1 1 ! !Miscellaneous Services 1107-000-349-009.001$ 130,0001$ 0 ! -! ! !EXPENSE ! 1 1 1 1SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE 1 1 1 Rr�nF-al Acci ai-Anl-c DAl mcnl-c l 1 n7-777-9,6.A-nzr- -7110- inn nnn 1 & .. GENERAL FUND 1 1 -199-581-099.91! 1 1 1 )0 (FLEET MANAGEMENT !Transfer In 1501-000-381-002.001$ 50,000!$ \ 0 1 !EXPENSE ! ! ! 1FLEET MANAGEMENT ! ! ! !Oil. Lube and Gas 1501-242-591-035.531$ 501000i$ 0 17 SEP 24 1-91 SEP 2 4 10 BOOK 84 FnE X09 DISCUSS REDISTRICTING Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson came before the.Board to go over the following three recommendations: September 17, 1991 TO: HON. DICK BIRD, CHAIRMAN, BCC FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS RE: ITEM FOR BCC AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 Indian River County has received the block census figures thanks to the persistance of Sasan Rohani, Chief of -Long -Range Planning, so it's time to proceed with redistricting. His memos to me are attached. Our suggestions are as follows: 1. Move Precincts 40 and 45 from County Commission District 4, put them into District 2, combine and rename them Precinct 27, move the polling place to the Youth Center, 142719th Street. (The only reason Precinct 40 was divided into 40 and 45 after the 1980 census.and reapportionment was due to the Florida Legislature's dividing Precinct 40 into two congressional districts; it is unlikely that any new split would be the same.) 2. Redraw the boundary between Precincts 23 and 25 so that the new Precinct 23 would be expanded westward to 58th Avenue and north- ward to the north relief canal. This suggestion is made in response to the petitions filed in the elections office by Victor Hart, President, NAACP, from residents of Lincoln Estates Subdivision, King Highland Subdivision, and Highridge Mobile Home Park. It will make it more convenient for those residents to vote at Gifford Middle Seven. (Copies of those petitions are in the commission office.) 3. Discuss moving that part of Precinct 13 which is on the barrier island into Precinct 26. The existing Precinct 13 stretches from I-95 to the Atlantic Ocean. (A precinct map is•with this.) When you redistricted in 1985, the deviation in population among the districts was ±12%. The above suggestions will cause a deviation of ±90. Chairman Bird asked if anyone had any problems with the suggested boundaries, and Commissioner Scurlock believed the key is to have Planning staff do the demographics, have the Super- visor of Elections check them out, and not have politics enter into it in any way. Commissioner Eggert was very much in favor of having Precinct 13 stop at the west side of the Indian River rather than stretch over to the Barrier Island. She believed this makes it much more convenient for everyone. Mrs. Robinson informed the Board that she has been advised by Mr. Polverari that the Town of Orchid voted in favor of the recommended change which would put the Town into Precinct 26. 18 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the above described boundary and precinct changes as recom- mended by the Supervisor of Elections and as set out on map which will be placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board. (SAID MAP NOW RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) County Attorney Vitunac advised that these changes will have to be advertised twice in the newspaper before they become official. SPECIAL EXCEP. APPROVAL - EXPAND NORTH BEACH (SEA OAKS) WW PLANT The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vera Beach, Indian River County. Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA _ Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a7U2 In the matter i in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of •t t Afflant further says that the';aid Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been 'entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication In the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this by o 1.19A. L� Z. Business Ma �er) to r ui rt; Indtarr IveM torfda) (SEAL) 'It ,t.2w It j!. ar . • .- &. NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING ' Notice of hearing to consider the granting of spe- dal exceptioon approval for theex lei prey wastewater treatment The -b presently owned bbyy River Catanty, and Is , located lo Section 25, Township 31 S and Range See the above map for the location. A pubtic hearing at which parties In Interest and of zees sha0 have an to be heard, w91 be held by the Boats o} County�Commissfoners of the Indian River Courcy, Florida lo the County Commission Chambers of the Cou my Administra- tion Buik9ng located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. September 24, 1991 at 9:05 am. Anyone ion which may bye made at � �tlrgwmineeddto sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon " which the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -Richard N. Bird, Chairman Sept. 4,1991 928813 Planning Director Stan Boling made the staff presentation: 19 SUP 2 41 W� SEP 2 4 1991 BOOK 84 40 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:. ~ 4oZberAM._-Kea in , AI Community DevelomentCtirector THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP da h Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: September 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Indian River County's Request for Special Exception Approval ,to Construct an Expansion of the North Beach (Sea Oaks) Wastewater Treatment Plant It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 24, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Kimball Lloyd and Associates, Inc. has submitted a major site plan and special exception use application to construct a wastewater treatment plant expansion at 8767 S.R. A.1.A. The property is zoned RM -6 (Multi -family up to 6 units/acre), and is located south of and adjacent to the Sea Oaks development. The site contains an existing wastewater treatment plant which the County acquired from Sea Oaks Communities, Inc. The plant serves the north beach area. As proposed, the expansion will increase the plant's capacity from 0.28 million gallons per day (MGD) to 0.8 MGD. The expansion of a limited utility use in the RM -6 district requires special exception use approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This application was reviewed under the old land development regulations (LDRs), as the application was submitted prior to the adoption of the County's new LDRs on September 11, 1990. However, the applicant has agreed to and is meeting the specific land use criteria in Chapter 971 of the new land development regulations. The Board of County Commissioners is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. At its August 22, 1991 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimously that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the wastewater treatment plant expansion. The major site plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, subject to the special exception use approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Thus, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the special exception use then the site plan will be in effect. 20 ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Development Area: 2.36 acres 2. Zoning Classification: RM -6 Residential Multifamily (up to 6 units per acre) 3. Land Use Designation: L-2 Low Density Residential (up to 6 units per acre) 4. Building Area: Proposed: None Existing: 1,200 sq. ft. existing S. Total Impervious Area: Existing: 8,931 sq. ft. Proposed: 8,986 sq. ft. Total: 17,917 sq. ft. 6. Open Space Required: 50% Provided: 55% 7. Traffic Circulation: The project will be accessed by an existing 23' paved driveway to S.R. A.1.A. 8. Off -Street Parking Required: 3 spaces Provided: 4 spaces _ 9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has been approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with :.Chapter 926, including a perimeter Type "B" buffer. 11. Utilities: The existing facility is served by public water and wastewater services; no changes are proposed. 12. Dedications' -and Improvements: The County comprehensive .bikeway and sidewalk plan requires an 8' bikepath be constructed along the project's S.R. A.I.A. frontage. The applicant has agreed to construct the bikepath in conjunction with the plant expansion. S.R. A.I.A. is classified by the Indian River County thoroughfare plan as a primary arterial which requires 120' of right-of-way. While the County cannot dedicate right-of-way to itself, the project will be set back from the ultimate .right-of-way line, and the required bike path will be constructed in the 10' area to be set aside for right-of-way. 13. Concurrency: This application was submitted prior to the requirement of a concurrency certificate. Therefore, no concurrency certificate is required. 14. Specific Land Use Criteria: a. Between all above -ground facilities (except distribution and collection facilities) and adjacent property having a residential land use designation, a type "B" buffer* (with 6' opaque screening) as specified in Chapter 926, Landscaping, shall be provided. *reduce to type "C" where abutting a local roadway, reduce to "D" buffer where abutting a Thoroughfare Plan roadway. b. All below -ground high voltage cables within a utility right-of-way shall be made known to the public through the use of signs posted therein. SEP�� 21 �oc'K F"�t� i 4 F: U[ 0d c. In all zoning districts except the industrial districts, all equipment, machinery and facilities which cannot, due to their size or nature, be located within an enclosed - building shall be separated from adjacent properties having a residential land use designation by a type "D" buffer (with 6' opaque screening) as specified in Chapter 926, Landscaping. d. All buildings and loading areas shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any lot line adjacent to a residentially designated property. e. Driveways located in close proximity to adjacent properties having a residential land use designation shall provide a 6' opaque screening between the driveway and adjacent property. An 8' opaque screen may. be required if deemed necessary to mitigate noise and visual impacts. The proposed improvements meet all of the applicable specific land use criteria. 15. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: - North: Sea Oaks/RM-6 South: Vacant, proposed Coquina Development/RM-6 East: Vacant/RM-6 _ West: Sea Oaks/RM-6 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, -staff recommends that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use, with the following conditions: a. that 10' of property be set aside for S.R. A.l.A. right- of-way, as described in item #12 of this report; and b. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy ' (C.O.) for the plant expansion, an 8' wide. bikepath be f constructed in the 10' of property to be set aside as right-of-way. Chairman Bird asked if anyone present wished to be heard, and there were none. He thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted Special Exception Approval for the expansion of the North Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant with the conditions as to a 10' R/W set aside and an 8' bikepath as recommended by staff. 22 - M PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION (OLDE OAK PARK) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO ©EACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily . Vero Reach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a In the matter In the Court, was pub- llshed In said newspaper In the issues o 6 Ile1 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, Commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. )) Sworn to and subscribed before me thiso D. 19 4 % _ Gr .off :•fh �, !►, .c�-1a �. w•+ l (Business Manager) ' r {Cferr-o"he-efrmm-ca m--fndlarr RIOT Cdiinty,`Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR114G Notice of hearing to consider the granting of ape - dal exception approval for the Olde Oak Park Planned Development. The subject property is pre - Meade, Carol Bumett. Al- ===4=1 l- cewdMes Solomon. and Chas Invest- ment Co.. Inc., and Is located In Section 1, Town- ship 33 S and Range 38 E See the above map for the location. A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citbrece shall have an opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of Canty Comrtdssior as of _ the Man River Canty, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Adn btra- tion Building located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS sept 4. BY -Richard N: Bird, Chairman 828617 Planning Director Boling reviewed the following memo: 23 SEP` 2 4 199 BOOK; RM -8 I i t.l. State oe •.•a -I C1. .•WW .. RO W A-1. ` n 1 Subject . N Site I nsrl i.•.y•IN�.M.'•r' I 1 Gth ST NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR114G Notice of hearing to consider the granting of ape - dal exception approval for the Olde Oak Park Planned Development. The subject property is pre - Meade, Carol Bumett. Al- ===4=1 l- cewdMes Solomon. and Chas Invest- ment Co.. Inc., and Is located In Section 1, Town- ship 33 S and Range 38 E See the above map for the location. A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citbrece shall have an opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of Canty Comrtdssior as of _ the Man River Canty, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Adn btra- tion Building located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS sept 4. BY -Richard N: Bird, Chairman 828617 Planning Director Boling reviewed the following memo: 23 SEP` 2 4 199 BOOK; moK 8 �',.�r 4 05 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Kbdtifip, Community Developm.rie Director THROUGH: Stan Boling;� Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP,AJA Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: September 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Indian Beach Association, Inc.'s Request for Planned Development Special Exception and Conceptual Plan Approval for a 114 Unit Planned Development to be Known as "Olde Oak Park" It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 24, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Edlund and Dritenbas, Inc. has submitted an application for planned development special exception and conceptual plan approval to construct a six phase 114 unit planned development. The project ..will consist of a mix of 66 townhomes and 48 villas on platted .dots. The subject property is zoned RM -8, and is located at 7655 1*10 S.R. 60. All planned developments (PD's) require special exception use approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant is requesting special exception and conceptual plan approval. If these requests are approved, the developer will need to submit for preliminary PD approval, which will be considered and approve` by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The approval steps in the PD process are as follows: Approval Needed Approving Body *1. Concept Plan/Special Exception P&ZC and B.C.C. 2. Preliminary PD P&ZC 3. Land Development Permit(s) [or Staff written waiver] 4. Final PD (plat) B.C.C. *The subject application covers this first step only. The Board of County Commissioners is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted conceptual plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The 24 County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. At its August 22, 1991 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimously that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use and conceptual plan approval for Olde Oak Park, subject to the conditions outlined by staff. The conceptual PD plan is to be considered in conjunction with the special exception use. Approval of the special exception use and conceptual PD plan will include approval of the waivers necessary to implement the conceptual plan. ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Development: 19.55 acres 2. Zoning Classification: RM -8, Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units per acre) 3. Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density (Up to 8 units per acre). 4. Proposed Density: 114 units at 5.83 units per acre S. Surrounding Land Uses: ,North: S.R. 60; Citrus Groves/RM-6 - South: Citrus Grove/A-1 East: Vacant; S.F. Homes/RM-6, A-1 West: Tamara Gardens multiple family; Vacant/RM-6 6. Open Space Required: 40.0% (PD requirement in M-1 areas) Provided; 45.35% 7. Recreation Area Required: Provided: The primary recreation (fields), club house, walkways. , 59,590 sq. ft. 68,218 sq. ft. area will include a commons area pool and gazebo, and pedestrian 8. Traffic Circulation: The project will access S.R. 60 using a 53' wide divided entry way. The entry way will consist of a two* lane 24' wide entrance drive and a 14' one lane exit drive. The entrance and exit drives are separated by a 15' wide grassed "boulevard" strip. The applicant has prepared a traffic impact analysis in conjunction with the conceptual PD plan. The traffic engineer has reviewed and approved the traffic impact analysis. While not required as a'result of the traffic impact analysis, the developer is constructing a west bound left turn lane and an east bound right turn lane to facilitate better project access. Pursuant to section 913.09(3)(c)4 of the LDRs, the County can require a project to provide for emergency access points to and from the project site. The intent is to provide emergency vehicles with alternate access to a project and provide project residents with access alternatives during emergencies or if normal project entrances become blocked. The applicant has proposed a roadway stub -out to the property to the south, which is presently a citrus grove. While the applicant presently has no documented legal access across the property to the south, the stub -out will facilitate the provision of a future connection for emergency access, and/or formal traffic circulation, when the property to the south develops. The developer has also noted that the additional width of the two way entry drive and the "boulevard" median divider strip will r� 25 aUOK )�� L_ SEP 2 4 1991 J SEP 2 4 1,991 BOOK PAGE be able to provide emergency access if one or more of the entrance or exit lanes is blocked during an emergency. The County Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal to use the entry way and median strip as an emergency access point and has no objection to such use. 9. Landscape & Buffering: The applicant has indicated on the conceptual plan that the to -be -submitted landscape plan will meet all of the criteria of Chapter 926. A detailed landscape plan will be submitted with the preliminary PD submittals. Pursuant to County requirements, a 50' residence (building only) setback is required along the project's south property line. This setback is required to separate residences from active agricultural operations, such as the active citrus grove adjacent to the south of the project. Other than the referenced special 50' setback, the required PD perimeter 25' setback is being provided along the north, east, and west property boundaries. No other setbacks or buffers are required. 10. Utilities: The project will connect to public water and sewer. A conceptual utility plan has been reviewed and approved by the Indian River County Utilities Department. Further details will be reviewed along with the preliminary PD plan(s). 11. Parking Required: 252 spaces Provided: 288 spaces The parking will be achieved through the use of garages, on - .street parking and off-street parking, and through parking facilities provided at the recreation clubhouse site. 12. Drainage: A conceptual drainage plan has been approved by the Public Works Department, which includes littoral zones in the stormwater retention ponds. Final plans will be required as part of the to -be -submitted preliminary PD plans. 13. Environmental Concerns: The applicant has opted to contribute fees in lieu of preserving a native upland set-aside area. The applicant has agreed with the County's Environmental Planning staff on how the fees are to be calculated. The fees will be prorated for each phase, and due when preliminary plan development approval is granted. 14. Accessory Commercial Use: All planned developments are eligible for some accessory commercial uses, based on a ratio of 20 sq. ft. of commercial area per dwelling unit for which a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) has been issued. This development proposes a small "General Store Area" (250 sq. ft.) where residents can purchase "essentials". The store will be located in the recreation area (in the middle of the overall site), and, based upon the above referenced unit to floor area standard, cannot be opened until 13 project dwelling units are C.O.'d. 15. Recreational Area Required: 59,590 sq. ft. Provided: 68,218 sq. ft. 16. Phasing: The applicant has included a project phasing plan and indicated that each phase has been designed to "stand alone". That is, each phase will meet all access, paving, grading, drainage, landscape, utility, open space and recreational requirements individually, without relying on a subsequent phase. 17. Concurrency: The concurrency certificate application submitted for this project has been reviewed and approved. 26 18. Requested Waivers and Special Design Parameters: All proposed units will be "clustered" in fairly typical multi -family building layouts.. However, through the PD platting process, individual lots will be created "under'.' and around individual dwelling units. The following waivers and PD options are being requested by the applicant: a. A reduction in the normal RM -8 individual minimum lot size from 10,000 sq. ft. to 1,800 sq. ft. for the PD lots. b. A reduction of the minimum setback from the normal RM -8 individual lot setbacks of 25' on the front and rear, and 10' on the sides to 6' on the front and 0' on the sides and rear of the PD lots. C. An increase in the normal RM -8 maximum lot coverage from 25% to 65% of the lots. [NOTE: overall project area open space will exceed both RM -8 and PD ordinance standards.] d. A reduction in the minimum lot width from 100' to 251. e. A reduction in the minimum open space per lot from 30% to 25%. [NOTE: overall project open space will exceed the 40% requirement.] f. A waiver from the ,platted right-of-way requirement for :subdivisions. The minimum right-of-way width for a subdivision is 50' with curb and gutter construction. The applicant is not proposing to plat any rights-of-way, but construct the roadways within the common areas. Thus, "common areas" will replace separate right-of-way areas. The County Engineer has agreed to this with the condition that language be included On the final plat to ensure that ingress and egress is over the roadways and cannot be restricted or denied to any resident. The streets, which will all be located within common areas, will be privately owned and maintained. g. A waiver from the subdivision requirement to obtain a land development permit to construct the infrastructure improvements. Through the planned development process, the applicant will submit site plans that will contain land development permit quality, detailed drawings. Thus, the site plans will be the controlling required improvements construction documents. As per the authority provided for in Chapter 913 of the LDRs, the County Engineer has agreed to waive the land development permit, with the condition that for all project phases the testing and inspections of the required improvements are carried out as required in Chapter 913.07(5)(G) through (I) of the subdivision ordinance and with the condition that the appropriate concurrency certificate(s) are obtained prior to the issuance of the written waiver. County staff have reviewed the proposed waivers and have no objections to granting the proposed waivers, with the conditions as referenced above. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception planned development approval and conceptual plan approval with the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the 250 sq. ft. "General Store Area", C.O.'s must be issued for 13 or more project dwelling units. 27 SEP 2 4 1991 Boor, SA F ,a.4JU SEP 24 1991 BOOK 84 P,t GE 409 2. That prior to project construction) the written land development permit waiver must be obtained by the developer. Issuance of said waiver shall be subject to the following: a. prior to issuance of the waiver, the developer shall obtain the appropriate concurrency certificate(s) that would normally be required to be issued prior to issuance of a land development permit; and b. that the construction of required improvements for all project phases shall be subject to the required improvements testing and inspection procedures and standards prescribed in Chapter 913.07(5)(G) through (I) of the LDRs; and C. that prior to the issuance of a land development permit or land development permit waiver for the subject phase(s), the prorated share of fees En lieu of the native upland set aside area shall be paid. R.2 TRI ` _....- �: e: RM -8 TR. A R.7 TR.f UNIT 3 W� 2 > Q v Z � O A% 2 0 u C '0 I r� Tli5 21ST ST. REPLAT o lMIT 2W z S�6a TR. 2 0 4 W !: 3 A-1 1• 28 i -CN •86-53 Commissioner Scurlock brought up the little commercial corner next to Indian River Estates and between them and Village Green. He believed the Commission addressed that a long time ago in that it didn't quite meet the distance requirements but was within a small variation, and he wished to know if they have lost their rights to that at this point. Director Boling advised that is a neighborhood commercial node that was set up, and there was a site plan that was approved years ago that he believed has since expired. The accessory commercial within the Planned Development would not have any effect on" i t. Commissioner Scurlock felt that if we are now approving additional projects, some of which have special exception status and, in fact, are getting some commercial activity within them, possibly we need to rethink whether that node is now needed. When we okayed that particular corner, he felt we stretched the distances to the limit, which he felt made sense at that time, but now that we have other development occurring there, he did believe that intersection may need to be looked at again. Director Boling agreed that is a good point, and Director Keating confirmed that staff will take a look at this and bring it back. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none-, and he thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted Special Exception Planned Development Approval and Conceptual Plan Approval for Olde Oak Park with the conditions set out in staff memo dated September 13, 1991. ST. EDWARD'S UPPER SCHOOL - SPEC. EXCEP. APPR. LIBRARY EXPANSION The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 29 NBOOK SEP ?1 4r ,;991 SEP 2 N91 nn ._ QUflK� FAUE 411 VERO SEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath I says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being In the matter of In the _ Court, was pub- Ilshed in said newspaper In the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day o �. 19 f t is (Bu i (SEAy t -Geon; 4adian-RLver-CountyTFtorida)- dY��•d 4►,i.hr .ate.. n� Firwlri.. NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING Notice of hearing to mer the granting of spe- cial exception approval for the expansion of the St. pEdwards Upper School.. The subject Property Is is locai� Sectioyi Inc.. and 21, To*" *" 33 S rSchoolind Range 40 E. See the above map for the location. A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an 0000rtuNty to be heard, will ssioners of thebe �Wald n R Counthe Board 0ty, Floridaunty . In County �Lloatedethe �tytr�V Blocated t 1840 25thStreet, ero Beach, Florida an Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, witch includes testimony and midenCe upon which the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -Richard N. Bird, Chairman 828809 Sept. 4,1991 Planning Director Boling reviewed the following: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE.- Robert ONCURRENCE:Robert M. K a i, AI Community Devel ment irector THROUGH: Stan Bolin^ICP Planning Director ,00011-1 FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP:.I o, Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: September 11, 1991 SUBJECT: St. Edwards Upper School's Request for Special Exception Approval for a Library Expansion and Associated Improvements It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 24, 1991. 30 � � r DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: McQueen and Associates, Inc. has submitted a major site plan and special exception use application to construct a library addition and other associated site improvements at St. Edwards Upper School. The property is located south of Sand Pointe Subdivision at 246 S.R. A.1.A. The associated site improvements include a dock, parking lot, drainage and landscape improvements. These improvements, as well as the library itself, will require special exception use approval. The subject property is zoned RS -3 (Residential Single Family up to 3 units per acre). The Board of County Commissioners is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. At its August 22, 1991 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimously that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for St. Edward's library expansion and associated improvements. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the major site plan subject to approval of the special exception use by.the Board of County Commissioners. Thus, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the use, then the major site plan will be automatically in effect. ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Development Area: 23.43 acres. 2. Zoning Classification: RS -3 (Residential, Single Family District (up to 3 units per acre) 3. Land Use Designation: L-1, Low Density Residential (up to 3 units per acre) 4. Building Area: Existing: 50,093 sq. ft. Proposed: 11,511 sq. ft. Total 61,604 sq. ft. 5. Impervious.Area: Existing: 89,89$ sq. ft. Proposed: 32,939 sq. ft. Total 122,837 sq. ft. 6. Open Space Required: 40% Provided: 81.9% 7. Traffic Circulation: The school will utilize the existing driveway connection to S.R. A.1.A. 8. Parking: Required: 146 spaces (as determined by approved parking study) Provided: 168 spaces (146 paved spaces; 22 grassed "overflow" spaces) Pursuant to Section 954.08(3), the applicant submitted a parking study (conducted at the site) which indicated that 146 parking spaces would meet anticipated parking demand, rather - 31 ROOK ; F",UC. JL 4`0 SEP 24 19,91 F' SEP 24- 19-9i than the 213 spaces required by the general parking standard for secondary schools. The study was reviewed and approved by the County Traffic Engineer, with the provision that 15% of the 146 total required spaces (22 spaces), must be provided as grassed overflow parking areas. The general parking requirement for schools is based upon the number of classrooms, and assumes a high number of students per classroom. The major difference between the actual parking study results for St. Edwards and the general standard was due, in part, to the fact that the number of students per classroom at the private school is significantly lower than the number of students per classroom in typical public schools. All of the methods, results, and conclusions of the study were approved by the County Traffic Engineer. By way of approval of the site plan application, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the reduction in spaces indicated by the approved parking study. 9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, subject to the issuance of a cut and fill waiver being granted by the Board of County Commissioners. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Chapter 926, including a "Type C" buffer along the north and south property lines. 11. Utilities: The project is currently serviced by City of Vero Beach Utilities Department. The City will continue to serve this project. 12. Environmental Concerns: Presently, there is a variety of exotic nuisance vegetation growing on the site. There is a stand of Australian Pines along the south property line and Brazilian Peppers growing along the Indian River. Pursuant to 929.08, the applicant is required to remove all exotic nuisance vegetation. The eastern portion of the project has some remnant native upland vegetation. This native upland area covers approximately 1.39 acres. The applicant will place 10% of that area in a conservation easement pursuant to 929.05. This arrangement has been approved by the County's Environmental Planning section and will meet the requirements of 929.05. 13. Dedications and Improvements: none are applicable. 14. Concurrency: A concurrency certificate for this project was issued June 25, 1991. Therefore, all applicable concurrency requirements have been met. 15. Specific Land Use Criteria: a. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local residential streets in residential subdivision. Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating adjacent to major arterial roadways. b. For the type of facility proposed, the minimum spatial requirements for the site shall be similar to standards utilized by the Indian River County school board and the State of Florida. C. No main or accessory building shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any property line not adjacent to a street or roadway. No main or accessory building shall 32 be located within fifty (50) feet of any property line abutting a local road right-of-way that serves a single family area. d. The applicant shall submit a description of anticipated service area and projected enrollment, by stages if appropriate, and relate the same to a development plan explaining: 1. Area to be developed by construction phase. 2. Adequacy of site to accommodate anticipated facilities, enrollment, recreation area, off-street parking, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation on site including loading, unloading and queuing of school bus traffic. 3. Safety features of the development plan. e. No rooms within the school shall be regularly used for the housing of students when located in a Single -Family Residential District. f. The facilities shall have a Type "C" buffer in the A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3 and RS -6 Districts. g. The facilities shall have a Type "D" buffer in all other . residential districts nollisted in #6 above. The proposed improvements meet all applicable specific land use criteria. 16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Sandrift Subdivision/RS-3 South: Moorings Golf Course/RS-3 East: Residential Subdivisions/RS-3 West: Indian River/RS-3 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends: 1. That the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use, with the following conditions: a. that prior to site plan release a cut and fill waiver granted by the Board of County Commissioners shall be obtained by the applicant; b. that prior to site plan release the applicant shall grant a conservation easement in a form acceptable to the County Attorney's Office, for the conservation area depicted on the site plan; and C. that prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) all exotic nuisance vegetation shall be removed from the project site. Director Boling informed the Board that several things that did not meet approval before have been brought up to standard. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing. 33 FOOK 6 �,'J..ILLILI =a SEP 24 1991_ Bou 4 415 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted Special Exception Approval to St. Edward's Upper School for a library expansion and associated improvements with the conditions recommended by staff and set out above. ORDINANCES ESTABLISHINGT I ERRA- LINDA, _ WALKER'S GLEN 6 FLORALTON BEACH SUBDIVISION STREETLIGHTING DISTRICTS The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being • 4 a In the matter of In the - Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the Issues of n Gi Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and thaf the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 0. , Sworn to atid;�ubscribed before me this day 19 9` to .i ,) V (Business Manager) .`1 ' • `(Clerk-of-thefireuiE6ourt; Indian River Couhty, Florida)-- . (SEAL) i 34 The Board of CountyuC NOTICE River County, Florida, ill conduct public Hearing of Tuesdayy, September 24, 1991 at 9:o5 a.m. the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the adoption of ordinance entltled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE TIERRA UNDA STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which Lbe made at this meeting va71 need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN Aug. 26, Sept. 2, 9, 16, 1991 826748 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being � a ,1�,�/ i In the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Irttlian River County, Florida, will conduct a Public Hearin on Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. M the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the adoption of ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE WALKER'S GLEN STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. In the Court, was pub- Anyone who may wish to appeal any declaim which Rbe made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. h includes testimony and evidence upon whI& lished in said newspaper in the issues of the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN r Aug. 26, Sept. 2, 9,16,1991 62674E Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for,aparibd of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advert iseme f), and affiant further'says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm . or corpor4tion any discount, rebdte" commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertis int for pyblication in the staid newspaper. Sworn band sulDsgribed before me Oil day - 19 ,(Bu e s Managpi f.. c, J rr :J ' {61eck of bite Eirsuit Gourt-, Indian River County, Florida}- (SEAL) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL I Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr.'wtio on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter In the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of l Affiant further, says that•t�,e said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, ins .(J)dd,' * River�Go►�nty, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continua kk I publisJ4,ed in s50t,'lndian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as s�nd class it matter a e post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida„toi a periorj�p o',bVgr nex eceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisent�t; and at f �r says t& t he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corpora%n any ascount, r te, cq(,p fission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for pft�$ n f 61 he saw ewspaper. Sworn to andqubscriber-olp re me thiel° � r'day o ' 19 t�2 �� \!�.y �6 8 L W ; (Business Manager)' (Clerke€-the-Gireuit-Gourt, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) 35 FP 24191 LR00F PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. in the Comrrdssion Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the adoption of ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE FLORALTON BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which maybe made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN Aug. 26, Sept. 2.9,16, 1991 — 826741 I SEP 2,4 1991_ k00K�� F',�cE 1 : G7 Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following: TO: James E. Chandler, _ County Administrator _ FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Ordinance Establishing the Street -Lighting Districts for 1) Tierra Linda Subdivision _2) Walker's Glen Subdivision 3) Floralton Beach Subdivilsion DATE: August 12, 1991 FILO: msbuord.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In the past few years. street lights were installed for three subdivisions prior to the establishment of Municipal Service Benefiting Units. The Board_ established funds to handle the deficit each year. Attached is a copy of each yearly budget. Listed below is a history of each subdivision receiving street lights before establishing a MSBU District: Floralton Beach In 1987, the City of Vero Beach furnished street lights to both Floralton Beach Subdivision and the Moorings Subdivision prior to the County entering into any type of street lighting agreement. In August, .1989, Indian River County received a letter from the City indicating they would begin billing the County for both subdivision street lights effective October 1989. Neither subdivision had been budgeted to offset the cost. In January 1990, the Office of Budget and Management recommended that the cost be paid from Traffic Engineering funds. In May 1991 the County Attorney's office was directed to draft an ordinance establishing the Floralton Beach Street Lighting District. (attached) Tierra Linda In February 1987, the developer of Tierra Linda requested that the County have street lighting installed thereby he would dedicate all streets and right-of-ways to the County. A street lighting fund was established and in 1990 the County Attorney's office was directed to draft an ordinance establishing a -street lighting district.(attached) Walker's Glen In March 1990, the developers of Walker's Glen requested that a street lighting district be established. Again the Board authorized the County Attorney's staff to develop all documents necessary.(attached) The County Public Works staff requested the lights be installed in June of 1990, the City did not start charging the County for these lights until June 1991. A copy of each Ordinance creating Street Lighting Districts for each subdivision was sent to the Press Journal for advertisement for four consecutive weeks in August and September. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Subject to comments by the public at the Public Hearing, staff recommends approval of the Floralton Beach Subdivision Street Lighting District, Tierra Linda Subdivision Street Lighting District, and Walker's Glen Subdivision Street Lighting District. The first non -ad valorem assessment shall be levied for the tax year 1992-1993. 36 I I Commissioner Scurlock noted that at the recent Budget hearings we had some question raised as to legality in terms of the benefiting area, and he asked the County Attorney if he has reviewed these proposed districts to be consistent with what may be our new found policy or retaining our old policy. Attorney Vitunac advised that these are all under the old policy, but we have no problem with this because the subdivisions are very consistent in size and shape. We are studying a poss- ible new policy, but it is a long way off and quite complicated. Commissioner Scurlock wondered, since there has become such a proliferation of streetlighting districts, whether staff is giving any thought to looking at a different vehicle for accom- plishing this purpose, i.e., possibly street lighting as a utility. Administrator Chandler confirmed that is one of the alterna- tives we are looking at, and he would hope to have something back to the Commission about this by the end of the month. He pointed out that if a change in the formula were to be recommended, that would need to be done by January 1st. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to any of the three proposed streetlighting districts. There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing on same. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner- Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted the following Ordinances: #91-41 - Creating Tierra Linda Streetlighting District #91-42 - " Walker's Glen " " " #91-43 - " Floralton Beach, If " " 37 SEP 2 4 1991 I SEP 2 b 1991 eooK F ;u� ORDINANCE 91- 41 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE TIERRA LINDA STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the residents of Tierra Linda Subdivision have _requested that the County establish a mechanism for providing street lighting service at crucial locations throughout the subdivision; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the creation of a municipal service benefit unit to raise funds through the equitable assessment of property owners throughout the subdivision is the best available means of accomplishing the desired goal; and WHEREAS, the provision of street lighting in the area will further the safety, health and well-being of all those residing and owning property within the boundaries of the district, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: ORDINANCE 91- 42 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE WALKER'S GLEN STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the residents of ' Walker's Glen Subdivision have requested that the County establish a mechanism for providing street lighting service at crucial locations throughout the subdivision; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the creation of a municipal service benefit unit to raise funds through the equitable assessment of property owners throughout the subdivision is the best available means of accomplishing the desired goal; and WHEREAS, the provision of street lighting in the area will further the safety, health and well-being of all those residing and owning property within the boundaries of the district, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: SECTION 1. Creation of Municipal Service Benefit. Unit. There is hereby established in Indian River County the Walker's Glen Municipal Service Benefit Unit under the authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the Constitution of the State of Florida, Sections 125.01(q) and 125.01(r) of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 200 of the Indian River County Code County. The real property Included within the boundaries of this municipal service benefit unit is described as follows: Walkers Glen, according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 13, Page, 28 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. 38 ORDINANCE 91- gU AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE FLORALTON BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the residents of Floralton Beach: Subdivision have requested that the County establish a mechanism for providing street lighting service at crucial locations throughout the subdivision; WHEREAS, the Board finds that the creation of a municipal service benefit unit to raise funds through the equitable assessment of property owners throughout the subdivision is the best available means of accomplishing the desired goal; and WHEREAS, the provision of street lighting in the area will further the safety, health and well-being of all those residing and owning property within the boundaries of the district, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: SECTION 1. Creation of Municipal Service Benefit Unit. There is hereby established in Indian River County the Floralton Beach Municipal Service Benefit Unit under the authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the Constitution of the State of Florida, Sections 125.01(q) and 125.01(r) pf the Florida Statutes and Chapter 200 of the Indian River County Code County. Thp real property included within the boundaries of this municipal service benefit unit 1s described as follows: Floralton Beach, according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 20, and the replat of part of the plat of Floralton Beach, recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 7 of Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Lying in Indian River Countv. Florida. ORDINANCES 91-41, 91-42 and 91-43 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 1N THEIR ENTIRETY. o� 39 SEP 2 1991 'It- P2411�� -r BOOK 8 F'Wir- 4L ANITA PARK - 38TH PLACE WATER SERVICE PROJECT The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being -hl.,, a in the matter of G�`fjJ / in the Court, was pub- 1 lished in said newspaper in the issues G' Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River. Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day o ' /'19•r9/ ` (Busin ss Maqq,@er)w (SEAL) NOTICE The Board of Canty Commissiorws of trtdiart .River County, Florida, hereby Provides notice of PUBUC HEARWG sdreduled for 9:05 A.M. on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1991, to ftc Ltss a Proposed resolution relating to a SPECIAL AS. SESSMENT PROJECT in Indian River Coumy for the installation of a WATERUNE IN ANITA PARK (38TH PLACE), and providing for special assess- ment liens to be made of record on the properties to be served. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to enswe that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which indudes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Sept. 9,16, 1991 830611 James Chastain, Manager of Assessment Projects, made the staff presentation, as follows: 40 W DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS*TY PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES SUBJECT: ANITA PARK - 38TH PLACE WATER SERVICE PROJECT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UWP 91 -05 -DS PUBLIC HEARING, RESOLUTION NO. III BACKGROUND On September 30 1991, the Indian River County Board, of County Commissioners approved Resolution I (91-103), which contained the preliminary assessment roll describing the project and cost, and Resolution II (91-104), setting the date of the public hearing for the subject project. Propertyowners have been notified of the - public hearing by certified mail. Resolution 91-103 was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on September 9, 1991. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.) ANALYSIS Design of the water distribution system is complete. Approval of the attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary assessment. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The project will serve the 30 lots bordering on 38th Place from Kings Highway/58th Avenue, east to 56th Avenue. The petition for this service was signed by owners of 20, or 67%, of the lots. All of the lots in. this project are substandard or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan, and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, which require that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum of 1/2 acre. If served by a public water system, the lot may. be reduced to .1/4 acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized lots." j The total estimated cost to be assessed of $27,430.00..has been up- dated, and the new. -amount is $27,388.12. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms the preliminary assessment on the subject project. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the square footage assessment, and Mr. Chastain advised that there was a slight modification and he believed it is about 11.51 per sq. ft. Commissioner Scurlock felt that was slightly on the upper side, and Mr. Chastain noted that we have some slightly higher and some a bit lower. This, however, is a preliminary assess- ment and just an estimate until we actually put it out to bid. Chairman Bird asked if anyone wished to be heard. 41 l s' SEP 2 1991 � Roo� `y � r . SEP X24 pool F'a.�L Matthew Good, 7220 16th Street, informed the Board that he initiated the petitions for this project, and one of the reasons he took this project on is because the square footage of the house he is currently constructing requires that he hook on to a county system. He discussed this with all his neighbors and traveled as far as Miami and Jacksonville to get these petitions signed. Everyone has really helped him with this, and he really appreciates it so that he and family, including a 7 week old baby, will be able to move into their new home. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-149 confirming special assessments for waterline extension in Anita Park (38th Place). RESOLUTION NO. 91- 149 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN ANITA PARK (38th PLACE) AND PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 91-103, adopted September ..3, -1991, determined to make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a waterline extension of the County located in the area of Anita Park (38th Place); and WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed Resolution No. 91-104, on September 3, 1991, which set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the RESOLUTION 91-149 W/ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 42 REQUEST FOR DETENTION FACILITY EQUIPMENT - SHERIFF The Board reviewed memo from Doug Wright, Jail Project Manager: TO: Jim Chandler - County A 'nis ation FROM: Doug Wright, Project Manager Phase III, Indian River County Jail DATE: September 13, 1991 - SUBJECT: Sheriff's Department Request for Detention Facility Equipment 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 Staff from the Sheriff's Department has requested the following equipment or items for operational use in Phase III of the Indian _ River County Jail: 1. One 15" Buffer w/Perm-A-Grip and Bassine 'Scrub Brush $765.00. 2. One Triple SSS -59 Wet Vacuum $459.00. 3. One Food Warming Equipment (FWE) Prisoner Tray Server, Model PTS -6090 - $2,920. 4. One Blodgett Convection Oven, DFG Series, Model DFG 100-3 $6,000 plus $200.00 uncrating and hookup - Total $6,200. S. Five Hundred (500) feet of Concertina Razor Wire for perimeter fence as quoted by Betlar; Inc:, Fence Sales of Vero Beach $2,131. _ Grand Total $12.475.00 The equipment identified above is related to Phase III operations wherein additional inmates are now incarcerated under secure conditions at the facility. - ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS If approved by the Board, funding for the items is available in the equipment account established for the purchase of furnishings and associated equipment for Phase III of the Indian River County Jail: Inmates are now being housed in the Phase III addition and it has been determined by detention staff that purchase of the equipment is necessary to secure, provide warm food to the inmates, and maintain the facility. RECOMMENDATION Staff from the Sheriff's Department Corrections Bureau will be available at the Commission meeting to answer questions or provide justification for the equipment as necessary. 43 'SEP 2 419T SEP 2 411991 LOOK 8 4 P,1UE 4 %'J ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the items requested for operational use in Phase III of the County Jail as listed above. RELEASE RETAINAGE TO SOVRAN CONSTR. (JAIL PHASE III) The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Emergency Services: TO: James Chandler County Admi istr for FROM: Doug Wright Director Emergency Services DATE: September 17, 199 1 SUBJECT: Release of Retainage to Sovran Construction Company, Inc., for Phase III - Indian River County Jail 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 Sovran Construction has completed construction of Phase III of the Indian River County Jail per approved contract documents. The company is now requesting release of the $25,000.00 in retainage which is being held by Indian River County. ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS The final punch list has been completed and Sovran has satisfied the Construction Manager and the Project Manager in this regard. There will be some additional work performed by Sovran at the facility in terms of warranty as necessary during specified warranty time frames. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to release the $25,000.00 retainage to Sovran Construction Company, Inc., based on completion of the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to release the $25,000 retainage to Sovran Construction Company, Inc., based on completion of the contract, as recommended by staff. 44 COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT General Services Director "Sonny" Dean came before the Board to review the following: DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1991, TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT BACKGROUND: During presentations by firms participating in the architect selection process for the subject project, it was noted by each firm competing, that a possible problem existed with the 1988 Courthouse Space Needs Study Architects Design Group (ADG) did for Indian River County. Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander, and Linville, the firm hired, included a consultant on their team that specialized in courthouse planning. This consultant, Justice Planning Associates, Inc., immediately started analyzing the ADG Study in an effort to ascertain the accuracy of the report. Attached is a copy of Justice Planning's report and major problems associated with the ADG's 1988 study. Staff and the Master Planner had used the ADG study as a guide to formulate budgets, land requirements, and all other major decisions that would ensure a successful project. Errors in the 1988 ADG study discovered during the "up -dating" process indicate a shortage in required space which effects the budget allocated to this project. These errors have been confirmed by a courts consultant retained by our Construction Management firm, Centex Rooney. Michael Thomas, President of Justice Planning Associates, Inc., along with in -put from the Courthouse Planning Committee, has come up with three options that can be used to correct the problems alluded to above. Until a decision is made as to what option is to be pursued, this project cannot proceed and the projected schedule will be pushed back in proportion. OPTION I Construct a 118,000 Square Feet Courthouse on the new site that would house the courts, clerk, state attorney and public defender along with their associated staff. The concept of "being under one roof" is consistent with what was originally recommended and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Included is a parking garage that would accommodate all the required parking spaces. The estimated budget for this option is $22,048,515. This is an increase of $2,772,009 over the original budget for the 104,000 square foot courthouse which ADG indicated in their study and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Another advantage to this option is that it would accommodate all the needs until at least the year 2010. ADG indicated 104,000 square feet would suffice until the year 2000 and then we would need an additional 29,000 square feet to meet our needs until the year 2010. In analyzing cash flow from the dedicated sales tax, based on the worst case scenario, staff estimates there.probably will be a deficit in May of 1993. Should this take place then some type interim financing would.be required. 45 00EP 21 41 (L BOOK 2 OPTION II Construct a 104,000 square feet courthouse and move the public defender's office into the building where the state attorney is presently located. This would allow the state attorney's offices to be included in the new building until the year 2000 and then relocate his in another facility. If our present scheduled is maintained, we should move into the new courthouse in January 1994. This means the state attorney would have to be relocated in approximately six years. There is no provisions in this option for space to be used in the relocation. Staff anticipates Option II could be accomplished for the original budget. However, consideration should be given to a plan for relocation of the state attorney including monies for a facility and other expenses to maintain the old building .for public defender use. An estimate of the anticipated costs are: Old Building Estimated Cost Maintenance until 2010 ----------------- $ 56,000 Capital Expenditures ------------------ - 50,000 Utilities ------------------------------ 195,000' New State's Attorney Building in 2000 Land Acquisition (Estimate)------------- $ 500,000 Construction (9,277 S.F. @ $75)-------- 700,000 - Maintenance 2000 - 2010 ---------------- 24,044 Utilities 2000-2010--------------------- 185.540 SUBTOTAL ---------------- $ 11710,584 New Courthouse (104,000 S.F.)----------- $19.276,506 GRAND TOTAL ---------------------------- $20,987,090 Not included in the expenses for this option is cost associated with moving the state attorney the second time. OPTION III Construct a 100,000 square feet courthouse, renovate the annex building for use by the state attorney, and move the public defender into the building presently being occupied by the state attorney. This option would meet the needs until the year 2010. An estimate of the anticipated cost are: ANNEX BUILDING Renovation -----------------------------$ 600,000 Maintenance 1994-2010 ------------------ 98,000 Capital Expense ------------------------ 125,000 Utility Cost --------------------------- 460,224 OLD STATE ATTORNEY BUILDING Maintenance 1994-2010 ------------------ 56,000 Capital Expenditures ------------------- 50,000 Utilities ------------------------------ 195.000 SUBTOTAL -------------------------------$ 1,584,224 New Courthouse (100,000 S.F.)----------- 18.776.506 GRAND TOTAL ----------------------------$20,360,730 46 0 W W It should be noted that any option involving the use of the annex and/or old state attorney building, maintenance, capital, and utilities is estimated based on current historic data. These buildings will be another sixteen years old in 2010 and some major renovations could be required within or at the end of that time frame. The Board has authorized the hiring of a consultant to study all space needs in the County other than the judicial system. Every County owned building was included in this study and a recommendation for use. Any option for the courthouse which would involve use of the annex or old state attorney building would have an impact on the recommendations of this study. It was anticipated these buildings and others not in use would be sold and the dollars generated be used to fund other needed facilities. RECOMMENDATION The original concept to house all branches of the judicial system under one roof was previously discussed, recommended, and adopted by the Board earlier this year. Due to errors found in the 1988 ADG study, *it has been determined that a larger building along with approximately an additional 2.8 million dollars will be required to. accomplish this concept. -Staff still feels this is the proper way to proceed and recommends that Option I be adopted. Director Dean introduced Michael Thomas, president of Justice Planning Associates. Mr. Thomas briefly described the methodology they used to develop their conclusions which were different from the 188 space study, noting that they started with exhaustive analytical forecasts based on all the elements of the County's judicial system. These elements included population growth, case load growth, and the historical funding patterns'for judgeships and personnel. He then made a presentation to the Board as set out in his letter of September 6, 1991, particularly referring to Table 6 comparing the two different planning strategies: 47 PUUK. 8a, i F'PU �1".1b SEP 90 4 1'� SEP 2 4 1991 ' BOOK. F'�1GE ' 'Justice Planning • Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 2843 - Columbia. South Carolina 29202 • (803) 779-4474 September 6, 1991 H.T. "Sonny" Dean -Director of General Services Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Sonny, You have asked me to clarify the differences in total space requirements between the 1988 ADG report and the space program presented in August of 1991 by Justice Planning Associates, Inc. and Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander, and Linville. There are two major differences. One of them works in the County's favor, and one does not. First, several of the'individual component space assignments were overstated in the 1988 report. Based on analytical forecasts of long-term personnel growth, and the use of uniform space standards for all of the components of the judicial system, we have developed a list of individual space needs which is smaller than that reported in 1988. Those individual spaces may be characterized as net areas. Offsetting the.overstatement of individual space needs, however, is a considerable understatement of total building needs. This understatement of the building support elements and grossing factors required to convert a .collection of individual spaces (rooms) into an efficiently functioning building, is the second major difference between the two reports, and one which works to the County's disadvantage in terms of minimum space needs. Without going into a very detailed explanation of courthouse grossing factors, I will try to provide a concise explanation. ( I am attaching a paper of definitions of net spaces and grossing factors which may help.) Netspaces, unobstructed interior spaces, are typically separated by interior walls or partitions and connected by interior or "departmental" corridors. Thus the State Attorney's Office may consist of ten individual offices plus some open work areas, file rooms, and so on, all connected with internal circulation. Although the estimate of departmental area required to connect those net finition of terms and methodology, both the spaces may vary slightly depending on de 1988 report and the 1991 report use the same factor —1.35 times the individual net areas. Unfortunately, the 1988 report stops at that point, and much more is required to enable that departmental space to function in a building. Large mechanical spaces have to be identified for heating and air conditioning equipment. The earlier report estimated about 5 percent of the departmental building area (departmental area = all nets x 1.35) which is about right. However, a number of additional areas are required which are not accounted for in any way by the 1988 report. • Those areas include a public lobby, a small snack bar, building storage areas, public and staff toilets, elevators and elevator lobbies, fire stairs, private judicial/juror corridors, main public corridors connecting department on a flodr, and a factor for the exterior skin of the building. (As a note, a 12 inch thick masonry wall, standard for a building of this type, accounts for between 2 and 4 percent of the total building area.) We typically identify the individual spaces that can be programmed, such as audio recording or security rooms, entrance lobby, and snack bar, and capture the areas which can only be identified through the design process with an additional grossing factor called the building grossing factor. In this case, we have estimated the building grossing factor as 1.2 x the total of departmental areas. Without this final grossing factor 48 _ M M there would be no building or shared functional areas supporting the individual departmental spaces. As a final thought on the current report, I should also emphasize our recommendation that the County strive to achieve a 2010 solution to its judicial facility needs. Assuming facility occupancy in late 1993 or early 1994, a building constructed to serve only until 2000 would provide too short a period of useful occupancy prior to substantial expansion. I recognize that this represents a departure from the planning of the mid- to late 1980's, but I believe that the County will be best served by the longer scenario. The impact of the differences between the 1988 report and our -conclusions is a building about 14,000 square feet larger than was originally anticipated. If there is good news in that increase, it is that 118,000 square feet will serve the County's needs to the year 2010. The earlier report stated a year 2000 need of only 104,000 square feet with growth to 133,000 by the year 2010. (The 1988• overstatement of- net areas got larger as the planning period was extended from 2000 to 2010.) - I hope that this brief explanation helps 'to clarify area differences between the earlier report and the work which we have done. I look forward to answering any questions which the Board may have at the meeting currently scheduled for September 24th. Meanwhile, please let me know if I may provide any additional clarification or assistance. ;Since el�y, Michael F. Thomas President Notes: (1) The ADC Scenarios did not include net spaces for Facility Support Functions such as lobby, loading dock, janitorial areas, central vending. (-2) The ADC Scenarios did not include building grossing factor to account for the exterior skin, public and staff restrooms, public circulation, vertical circulation, fire stairs. (*3) These spaces would be constructed -to accommodate the 2010 space need. Personnel, furniture, and equipment would be added on an as -needed basis. 49 SEP 4v' �y�j%. L/�(�"{�� IQrI' A ®'/ a �� ! •y. r o, a (yµ, �� dB L Table6. COMPARISON OF ADG AND PGAUJPA PLANNING STRATEGIES (Option #1) Indian Riaer County Florida ADC STRATEGY PGAL l /PA STRATEGY PHASE I PHASE H PHASE I PHASE If Section component Build to 2000 Renovate to 2010 Build to 2000 Renovate to 2010 1.000 CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS 4Z359 (7 Courts) 48,991 (8 Courts) 29,538 (6 Courts) 34,182 C Courts) 2.000 CLERK OF COURT - Administration 1,269 1,458 1,3M -3 1,364 CLERK OF COURT - Finance 6,669 9,450 Admin. Bldg. (4,074) Admin. Bldg. (4,776) CLERK OF COURT -Data Processing Admin. Bldg. Admin. Bldg. Admin. Bldg. (2,471) Admin Bldg. (,708) 3.000 CLERK OF COURT - Courthouse 23,260 31,232 26,854 -3 26,854 4.000 LAWLIBRARY 2,410 3,085 3,295 -3 3,295 5.000 PUBLIC DEFENDER 6,669 9,261 4,979 -3 4,979 6.000 COURT SECURITY/ CENTRAL HOLDING 4,001 6,320 1,961 -3 1,961 WARRANTS / CIVIL PROCESS DIVISION 0 0 2,222 -3 2,222 7.000 STATEATTORNEY 7,486 11,239 9,439 -3 9,439 _ 8.000 COURTSUPPORTFUNCTIONS 4,355 5,976 2,565 •-3 2,565 9.000 FACILITY SUPPORT FMC17ONS 0 -1 0 11 6,360 -3 6,360 DEPARTME ML GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 98,477 127.012 88,577 93,221 MECHANICAL / ELECTRICAL 4,924 6% of DGSF) 6,351 5,315 (6%- of DGSF) S S93 DGSFSUBTOTAL 103,401 133,363 93,892 98,814 BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE (120 Factod 124,081 -2 '.: 160,D35 2112 670 118 577 Notes: (1) The ADC Scenarios did not include net spaces for Facility Support Functions such as lobby, loading dock, janitorial areas, central vending. (-2) The ADC Scenarios did not include building grossing factor to account for the exterior skin, public and staff restrooms, public circulation, vertical circulation, fire stairs. (*3) These spaces would be constructed -to accommodate the 2010 space need. Personnel, furniture, and equipment would be added on an as -needed basis. 49 SEP 4v' �y�j%. L/�(�"{�� IQrI' A ®'/ a �� ! •y. r o, a (yµ, �� dB L _I POOK 84 P,1GE 3 Mr. Thomas particularly stressed the need to plan to the year 2010. He pointed out that when this study originally started, the year 2000 seemed a long way away, but before this complex is actually completed and occupied, it will be 1994, which only leaves 6 years. Their recommendation, therefore, is Option #1 for an 118,000 sq. ft. courthouse to house everyone on one site. Chairman Bird wished to know how the proposed parking garage fits in with all the 3 options. Director Dean advised that he has talked with the City of Vero Beach, and the parking garage needed to accommodate an 118,000 sq. ft. facility would not increase so significantly that we could not put it where originally planned. Chairman Bird then asked if there is an additional cost associated with enlarging the parking garage outside of the difference in cost that we are looking at for the Courthouse facility. Administrator Chandler reported that one of the first things addressed was did we have to increase the size of that garage and acquire additional property, and the architects I-ooked at it and stated that we did not have to increase that square footage or acquire additional property. Chairman Bird -wished to be sure that this held true for all three options, and this was confirmed by the Administrator. Commissioner Scurlock personally concurred with staff's recommendation to do it right and move ahead, but wanted to -be absolutely sure that the parking garage will be sufficient and we are not skimping on the parking. Director Dean assured him that we will have sufficient parking, and the budget figures in the agenda item takes this into consideration. Commissioner Wheeler noted that when we originally did the parking study, it was concurred that what we planned for was extremely liberal and we actually would have parking over and above what that building would require. Mr. Thomas also confirmed that the parking exceeds any of the three option requirements. Commissioner Scurlock wondered if this is all a mistake that the consultants are responsible for. He realized it is hard to project 20/30 years into the future as things do change, but if there are basic design flaws in their study, we should be thinking about that. Administrator Chandler believed there is no question that there are basic flaws in that they did not take into account walls, corridors, equipment rooms, etc., and all of our project, 50 including land acquirement needs were predicated on that study. Although we are considering all this, he believed it would be very difficult to pursue from a legal standpoint. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the cost of this reanalysis of their numbers, and Director Dean informed the Board that $20,000 was included in the original contract for a restudy. Administrator Chandler confirmed that because of the time lag, it was anticipated there would be some need for additional analysis, and, therefore, additional funding was included in the original contract for that purpose. Commissioner Scurlock asked do we at least write and put them on notice about their error, or just let this go. Administrator Chandler believed there certainly will be additional communication with them. Actually, it is very frustrating because everything we have done has been predicated on that 1988 study, and if we now go the proposed route, the additional expense will be 2.7 million. This is being funded through the Optional Sales Tax, and up until this problem arose, our cash flow studies indicated that we had the ability to fund this project without having to resort to other type financing. Although it is to early to tell for sure at this point because the economy may change, it appears in all likelihood that we will be in a shortfall situation by May of 193 when we probably would have to resort to a short term note or interfund borrowing. There is no doubt that these errors have created -a number of problems for us. Chairman Bird felt in all fairness, they do deserve to be contacted since questions have been raised about the validity of their original study, and we now are'assuming the people making the presentation today are correct. Administrator Chandler advised that as an'additional back- stop to this, our construction management firm has a courthouse _ expert as part of their package, and they have reviewed the findings of the firm doing the reanalysis and concur totally with their findings. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he looked at the 3 options, and he personally supports staff's recommendation. He believed_ that if we are going to build this facility,.we better do it right, and he felt strongly that. we should not fragment but should have everyone under one roof. I MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to approve Option I as recommended by staff and proceed to construct an 118,000 sq. ft. 51 ri00r.i� F„�•F ��ri SEP 2�1. jqq� BOOK 8 4 F'°' .. q,), 5� YI.��C .����� Courthouse to house all the court system and related staff, plus the parking garage, at an increase of 2.7 million over the original budget. Chairman Bird was not ready to vote to make this unanimous. He wished to discuss the other options presented whereby we would save 2. million by putting the State Attorney and Public Defender in other buildings. Those options make use of the Annex and State Attorney's building, both of which he believed are still very functional, and he didn't know what else we will do with them. He knew that everyone wants to be in a nice bright, shiny new building and that there would be some element of convenience for the public, but he wondered if these officials really have been talked to to.determine if this is their preference or if they would prefer to be in a campus slightly removed with their own separate identity -maintained. Commissioner.Eggert believed that at their last hearing, they indicated they wished to be all in the one building, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that the Public Defender, the State's Attorney, the Judges, etc., all recommended being under one roof. Commissioner Wheeler agreed that was the case and consistent with what was indicated in earlier meetings. Chairman Bird inquired about .what was planned for the two other buildings, and Administrator Chandler advised that what we looked at when we recommended a consultant do a long range space needs study for our administrative needs for the County was that since there -would no longer be a functional need for not only the State Attorney's office, but the Annex, the old Health Department building, and the old main library, that they be disposed of and the funds to be derived from those properties would then go back in to assist in the overall funding for meeting the future needs of an administrative complex - either renovation of this facility or a new building. That study is nearing completion., and you will see a projection in there on the dollars to be derived from those properties. Commissioner Eggert reminded everyone that the dollars to be derived from the sale of the old library were to go to the new main library, and Administrator Chandler agreed. Chairman Bird indicated at this point that he would give up his argument and go along with the majority. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 52 r� COURTHOUSE LAND ACQUISITION - HUBBARD PROPERTY Administrator Chandler reviewed the following: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney9/2, DATE: September 16, 1991 RE: COURTHOUSE LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM - S.R. HUBBARD PROPERTY Mr. Hubbard, through his agent, has asked to appear before you to discuss the sale of his property which is within the area being acquired for the new courthouse complex. This appearance is scheduled for September 24, 1991. The Hubbard property was the subject of two appraisals, the low bid being $167,000.00 and the high bid being $250,000.00. The County staff offered Mr. Hubbard $312,500.00 which was rejected. Mr. Hubbard is requesting $350,000.00. The above appraisals are now stale; therefore, the staff has ordered an updated appraisal of the high appraisal. This appraisal has been promised by September 23, 1991 and It should, therefore, be available for consideration at the September 24, 1991 meeting. On September 12, 1991 the County filed its petition in eminent domain on the Hubbard property. On September 13, 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard were served. Administrator Chandler advised that we have received the updated appraisal from Armfield-Wagner, and it is as follows: ARMFIELD-WAGNER APPRAISAL & RESEARCH, INC. PETER D. ARMFIELD. MAI, SRPA RICHARD L. WAGNER. MAI DANIEL D. FULLER. MAI, SRPA September 23, 1991 Board of County Commissioners C/O Mr. Donald Finney 1840 25Th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Finney: 1940 1 OTH AVENUE. P.O. BOX 791 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32961-0791 TELEPHONE (407) 562.0532 FAX 407-778-1121 As requested, we have inspected the Hubbard property which is an office building located at 1500 20th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. This is for the purpose of providing you with an appraisal of the Full Compensation based on the Market Value of the fee simple interest to this property as of September 13, _ 1991. The subject property is physically described in a full narrative appraisal report which explains the analysis of data upon which our value estimate is based. This appraisal report is in SEP 24 191 53 'R0oQ 8 .4,341 SEP 2 4 M1 R00r 8 F°,uc process of being completed and will be delivered to you this week. The opinions expressed in this report and the value conclusion reported below are subject to the general and special limiting conditions attached. Three approaches to value were used: The Cost Approach, Income Approach, and the Sales Comparison Approach. Value indications from the approaches used are: ` Cost Approach $240,000 Income Approach $235,000 Sales Comparison Approach $230,000 Based on the analyses presented in this report, it is our opinion that the Full Compensation for the fee simple interest to the property appraised, on September 13, 1991 is: TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND -DOLLARS ($240,000) We believe the report to be complete, but any questions you may have are welcomed. Sincerely j , •tib Danie A. Nelson #0 2098 Peter rm i.e d, MAI, #0154980 Administrator Chandler felt from staff's respect that our offer of $312,500, which is 25% about our high appraisals, is as high as we should go. On the properties we have acquired, the average has been 9% above high when you exclude the last two which were at 250, and he believed 40% over, which is what the property owner is asking, is too much. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there are any unique characteristics of this particular site that make it substan- tially different from the surrounding properties, and Adminis- trator Chandler stated that as far as we are concerned, no, because all of•the appraisals on all of the properties have gone into consideration of each of the individual properties. In fact, our latest appraisal indicated a value of $240,000 rather than $250.000. The Administrator noted that in going to condemnation, $240,000 is what would be filed with the court rather than the amount of our prior offer. Commissioner Scurlock had questions about the amount to be escrowed and whether we pay legal expenses if the jury comes in about that amount but not if they come in below it. We have already offered them $312,000 but apparently that is not the amount we would escrow. Asst. County Attorney Will Collins explained that we would escrow the amount of the appraised value. The offer that we make 54 sets a target whereby they will or will not get attorneys' fees if they come in lower after jury trial. Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, the offer of $312,500 is based on anticipation of not litigating. Bill Stegkemper, Realtor and state certified appraiser, came before the Board representing Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard and presented the following chart of properties he has sold in the downtown area: ERA® - NICHOLS PROPERTIES BILL F yTEG,ICEMPER, REALTOR°, CRS, GRI member Million $ Sales Club stale Certified Appraiser 0124997 Sales, Listing, Buyers Brokerage Offite 40x569 — • FAX: 40F569.8660 • Eves: 407-569-3458 2012 281H AVE• • vERO BEACH. FL 32960 m�.r►..r.r.r., flrA�WL6iAE s I • s I t i3 rr i 1I t� & I I • W, ,• SEE ENLAA II • , , 1 " • I -: L W ua� • Yi 1 _ • ao •" - • , I • —J V4: n r,�I •. i�,�i�j�j �� I , , -. —n14- '"� t U SE V/4 SECTION, _ GED V4 SECTION GITY OF 1i15i EiEfi.WH—ORIGINAL TOWN! SCALE,/• Mr. Stegkemper noted that the Schlitt property which the County purchased came in at $28 sq. ft; Limberis came in at $30 sq. ft.; and he believed it was 27% over appraisal. The Hubbard• property is in the same block and in between those two prop- erties, and if you come in with that at $29, you are looking at $360,000. The appraisers contend that the Hubbard building is smaller and that the land is fro.nt is excess land and is not utilized, but Mr. Stegkemper claimed that is a fallacy - that 'land has been utilized for Christmas pageants and all type of attractions for that particular piece of property. That building is very suitable for professional office spaces, and it would have a superb parking area right there on Route 60. Also, contrary to what Mr. Chandler says, from a real estate•.point of 55 ID SEP 24 1-991 MR b;,:A. FAUE 1'-�U SEP 24 1,91 BOOK G 4 PA,c 4' view; this is what is known as a "long corner;" you have time to plan your entrance into it; it has excellent access; and it is a superior parcel to those just mentioned. All 3 parcels are 12,000 sq. ft. The Schlitt parcel has a 6,688 sq. ft. building 33 years ohd, and Mr. Stegkemper claimed that taking the building value away, the site was worth $106,000 or $8.52 a square. foot. Taking the building value away from the sales price of the Limberis property, you have a land value of $162,750 or $13.02, and you paid 53% more for that site than for the Schlitt piece. Mr. Stegkemper continued to review his figures and calculations at length, and stated that he does think they could go to court and ask for $361,000 and get that figure, but Mr. Hubbard has indicated he would sell at $350,000. Administrator. Chandler clarified that the Schlitt building was appraised at $355,000, and we acquired it at $353,000, or slightly below appraisal. Qn the Limberis property, our highest appraisal was $300,000, and we acquired it at $380,000. That was the highest of all the properties we acquired in terms of percent, being 25.7% above our high appraisal. The second highest was the Moore property which was 24.9% over. Chairman Bird wished to know the size of the Hubbard building and what it would lease for per year. Mr. Stegkemper advised that it is 2,500 sq. ft. and has been leased at an annual income of $37,.300 for some years, but Chairman Bird believed that was to Mr. Hubbard's son and he was not sure it was an arm's length lease. Mr. Stegkemper continued to discuss properties in the area which rent at $13 per sq. ft. Chairman Bird felt somewhere in the $8/10 range would be an average figure. Discussion continued re comparison of figures, and Chairman Bird recapped that we have a current appraisal at $240,000, an offer from the County of $312,500, and the seller wants $350,000. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he personally has met with Mr. Stegkemper to discuss this, and he believed other Commis- sioners have also. He frankly has to side with staff as he believed they have done a great deal of analysis. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed staff to remain with our offer of $312,500 for the Hubbard property. 56 1992 LIBRARY STATE AID APPLICATION The Board reviewed memo from Library Director Mary Powell: DATE: 9-23-91 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT 0e* GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: 1992 STATE AID APPLICATION FROM: MARY D. POWELL, DIRECTOR, MA3'1vv o?lY BACKGROUND: EACH YEAR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPLIES TO THE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES FOR THE STATE AID GRANT WHICH IS BASED ON TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS EXPENDED CENTRALLY FOR THE OPE=RATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES. ANALYSIS: THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ON THE STATE AID APPLICATION (ATTACHED). RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE ITS CHAIRMAN 70 SIGN THE GRANT APPLICATION AND RETURN TO THE MAIN LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE LIBRARY STAFF. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the 1992 State Aid Application for the Library. 57 SEP 4` , C -> SEP 2 4 1991 CC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES 1992 STATEA/D APPLICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MAIN LIBRARY the political subdivision that has been designated by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY as the single library administrative unit, hereby applies to the Division of Library.and Information Services of the Florida Department of State for an operating grant for public library service as authorized under Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1991, and ending September 30, 1992. CERTIFICATION OF FISCAL YEAR 1990 LOCAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES We certify that the following amounts of local funds were expended centrally during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990 for the operation and maintenance of a library under the conditions outlined in Chapter 257, Florida Statutes. We further certify that those local funds reported do not include any of the following: A Funds received from the federal government • Funds received from the state government Funds used for "fixed capital outlay" as defined in Chapter 216,. Florida Statutes, as meaning: real property (land, buildings, including appurtenances, fixtures and fixed equipment, structures, etc.], including additions, replacements, major repairs, and renovations to real property which materially extend its useful life or materially improve or change its function use and including operating capital outlay necessary to furnish and operate a new or improved facility. Total local funds expended centrally for the operation and maintenance of a library between October 1, 1989 and September 30, 1990: $907,175.00 COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT The applicant agrees to expend any grant awarded pursuant to this Application in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1 B-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to county free public • :. libraries and the State Library, which Chapters are incorporated by reference as part of the Application and attached hereto. Cele of thrm e�ourt / Chaian Q ,►;'� ,1 I 1 I /� �,��, .�v�► , (� Richard N . B i r.d 9/24/91' i Indian River' County Date i,.1 , Board of County',Co6issioners' Governing Authority/Political ,,',• Subdivision ' • •� 58 The Chairman recessed the meeting at 10:00 A.M. and reconvened at 10:15 A.M. with all members present. AUTOMATED TEE TIME SYSTEM The Board reviewed memo from Golf Director Bob Komarinetz: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 16, 1991 SUBJECT: • Automated Tee Time System FROM: Bob Komarinetz Director of Golf iTkl 04 BACKGROUND As a public facility, Sandridge _Golf Club's mission is to provide the highest quality recreational facility to the taxpayers of Indian River County and the general public. In order to accomplish our goal we continually attempt to address concerns voiced by our customers. One such concern which has been brought to our attention is how difficult reserving tee times becomes during our busy winter season. This problem of booking tee times is quite understandable since during the calendar year of 1990 some 81,000 people enjoyed a round of golf at Sandridge. In an effort to address our public's discontent with our current manual method of making tee times, staff has researched this issue and formulated a solution. - Installing an automated tee time reservation system will provide our customers state of the art service by allowing them to make tee time reservations 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at their convenience. The benefits of the automated tee time reservation system include maximizing the use of the golf course by tracking and eliminating no shows, 'matching up players creating foursomes for each tee time, establishing detail player profiles for future marketing programs and most important of all It will relieve the pro shop personnel form constantly answering the phone allowing them to better serve the public. ALTERNATIVES Staff has been researching a telephone voice response system for the past eighteen months. By using this system, a person can reserve a tee time 24 hours a day, seven days a week using A touch tone telephone. This type of system has been installed in various locations around the Country. Managers of busy golf clubs and resorts have stated this type of system not only has saved them time, but has provided their patrons with better service. By employing this type of tee time system we can also achieve the following: 1) Be available to the public 24 hours a day, T days a week. 2) Handle a minimum of 4 calls simultaneously. 3) Search backward and forward for the nearest available tee time. 4) Allow chances and/or cancellations of tee times. 59 SEP 2 1991 SEP . 2 4 1991441 BOOK 4 P,�GE 5) Permit player to Inquire acfainst existinct tee time reservations. 6) Ability to record messages from players or allow players to talk directly to pro shop personnel 7) Obtain current information such as directions to course, weather, specials, etc via a voice bulletin board. 8) Utilize flexible starting time intervals. 9) Block times for tournaments and special events. 10) Handle both #1 and #10 tee for starting time reservations. 11) Support transactions for two (2) 18 hole golf courses. 12) Golfer/player credit card charging by entering card number on a touch tone phone. Automated credit card verification. 13) are suspended. 14) Limit callers to (any limit we choose) reservations per day. 15) Establish variable parameters such as rate structure, tee time _intervals and restrict number of days in advance a Player can make a reservation. 16) Reserve either 9 or 18 holes starting times. 17) Print daily starting sheets for both first and tenth tees. 18) Print green fee/cart tickets (optional). 19) Bias player reservations based upon card holder or noncardholder status. 20) Print daily no-show report. 21) Allow in person golfers to make a tee time and pro sho Personnel shall have the ability to enter reservations via the keyboard. 22) View, geographically on the screen, a calendar with*up to one month open and reserve tee times for both courses. ' 23) System immediately writes tee time reservation to hard disk for security. 24) Hardware configuration includes an uninterrupted power supply 25) Utilize a multiple keyboard entry password system for security. 26) Voice response allowing processing of player's request through the telephone. Staff has interviewed on a first hand basis the following Golf Courses that have this system in operation. North Palm Beach Country Club --North Palm Beach, F1., Oriole Golf and Tennis Club --Margate, Fl., Delray Beach Golf Course --Delray, Fl. Doral Country Club and Resort --Miami, Fl., Sebastian Municipal Golf Club has recently installed a voice response tee time system. In each of these installations a very positive response from staff 60 was noted and in most cases, after the system had been in place for a period of time the response from the consumer has also been favorable. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RESPONSE On July 23, 1991 Sandridge Golf Club requested through RFP 92-21 available vendors to respond with a proposal for a "Automatic Tee Time System" to fit the needs of Sandridge Golf Club. The committee that reviewed the RFP's were Hank Vroman--Pro Shop Manager, Mark Cammarene--Asst. Pro, Lee Reisman --Asst. Pro and Bob Komarinetz--Director of Golf. The committee evaluated all the submittals using the formula set forth in the RFP. Staff j rankings where: (1) GATTS Golfers, Automatic Tee Time System of Stuart, Fla., (2) Computer Golf Software of Boca Raton. Staff then scheduled formal presentation for both companies. After reviewing both systems, staff feels the the (GAITS) Golfer Automatic Tee Time System best fits the needs of the Sandridge Golf Club. Furthermore, the GATTS System was the lowest priced; bid of $14,667.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the purchase of the GATTS Golfers Automatic Tee Time System for Sandridge Golf Club. FUNDS AVAInABLE - Budgeted funds for Tee Time -System Computer --$20,000.00 418-236-572-035.12 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to approve the purchase of the GATTS Golfers Automatic Tee Time System as recommended by staff. Commissioner Eggert inquired above the on-going operating expenses of such a system, and Mr. Komarinetz advised that it will require two additional phone lines. We would also have an annual review and possibly update some software. Administrator Chandler believed that the expenses would add up -to less than $1,.000 a year. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he has seen one such system and talked to the people using it, who say that it saved them significant dollars in staff time. Chairman Bird advised that he asked this be researched thor- oughly because he was skeptical about it. Staff has traveled around state contacting those using this system, and Director Komarinetz now has convinced him that the system is very beneficial. Mr. Komarinetz stressed that this system will be eased into the operation until the public becomes familiar with it. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 61 BOOK ,),s.! H SEP 2 199 SEP 2 4 1991 RESOLUTIONS - WATER 8 SEWER BONDS FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that these bonds were sold yesterday; the proposed Bond Resolutions were just delivered; and he hasn't read them, but Art Ziev, of Raymond James & Associates, the underwriter, and our OMB Director Joe Baird have reviewed these documents. Director Baird reported that we sold the $9,205,000 bond issue to finance the septage, sludge and grease facility, as well as to take out the North Beach Water notes. Of this issue, approximately 6.2 million was for the sludge, septage and grease facility, and 3 million was for the North Beach Water Notes. The average coupon was 6.450; the true interest cost was 6.6968. It is a 25 year insured bond issue with a AAA rating. The long. bond out to 2016 had a yield of 6.72%. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-150, amending former Resolutions and providing for terms and conditions upon which the county may issue water and sewer revenue bonds, ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-151 awarding the $9,205,000 Water & Sewer Bond issue to Raymond James & Associates and approving the Bond Purchase Agreement. 62 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 91 -LU A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 91-81 AND RESOLUTION NO. 89-19, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THIS COUNTY MAY ISSUE WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS AND PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT AND SECURITY THEREOF. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. Authority for Resolution. This resolution amending and supplementing Resolution No. 91-81 and Resolution No. 89-19,, as amended and supplemented, of the County is adopted pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes (1990), as amended, and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. Findings. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared that: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 151 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE AND AWARD OF $9,205,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AT PRIVATE SALE BY NEGOTIATION, TO THE PURCHASERS THEREOF; AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING CERTAIN TERMS _OF SAID BONDS; RATIFYING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARKETING OF SAID BONDS; AUTHORIZING OTHER APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF SAID BONDS; APPOINTING A PAYING AGENT AND BOND REGISTRAR FOR SAID BONDS; AND SPECIFYING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (the "Board" and the "County", respectively), by Resolution No. 91-81, duly adopted on July 23, 1991, heretofore authorized the issuance of Water and Sewer'Revenue Bonds, Series 1991, of the County in an. aggregate principal amount not to exceed $11,175,000 (the "Bonds"); and RESOLUTIONS 91-150 AND 91-151 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 63 P *2 4 1991 SEP 24 1991 1 � r 4 F, CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT The Board reviewed memo from Risk Manager Beth Jordan: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator TBRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manage DATE: 12 September 1991 SUBJECT: Agenda Request; Claims Administration Agreement Please consider the attached annual Service Agreement between the County and Insurance Servicing & Adjusting Company at the September 241 1991, Board meeting. Background Following a request for proposals developed and evaluated by Siver Insurance. Management Consultants, the County entered into an agreement with Insurance Servicing & Adjusting Company (ISAC) effective November 1, 1989. The agreement has been renewed in each successive year. Analysis To date, the contractual relationship with ISAC has been most beneficial to the County. As third party claims administrator, ISAC has efficiently and equitably adjusted workers' compensation, automobile liability and general liability claims. Communication with County Risk Management staff has been outstanding. The proposed renewal's terms and conditions are identical to the previous Service Agreement. Charges for workers' compensation services remain two and one-half percent (2.5%) of earned standard premium. Annual costs are projected at $46,620.00. General liability fees remain $210.00 per claim, or $2,730.00 projected annually, and automobile liability fees remain $236.00 per claim, or $2,832.00 projected annually. -Total projected costs are $52,180.00 or $2,223.00 less than 1990-91 due to a reduction in the number of liability claims which has occurred during this year and which, with continued risk control techniques, we plan to -maintain. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board approve and the Chairman execute the annual Service Agreement with ISAC at an estimated annual cost of - $52,180.00. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the annual Service Agreement with Insurance Servicing & Adjusting Company (ISAC) at an estimated annual cost of $52,180 as recommended by staff. 64 SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into this October 1. 1991 , by and between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners as party of the first part, hereinafter referred to as THE COUNTY and Insurance Servicing & Adjusting Company with its principal place of business at 9690 Doral Blvd. (N.W. 41st Street) Miami, Florida 33178 as party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as Service Agent. THE COUNTY wishes to retain the services of Insurance Servicing & Adjusting Company to provide claims management services for its Automobile Liability, General Liability and Workers' Compensation risks and desires to have Insurance Servicing & Adjusting Company provide specific services in connection with such claims programs. TERM THE COUNTY does hereby employ the Service Agent for a period of One ( 1 ) year(s) from October 1. 1991 through September 30, 1992 , and shall remain in full force and effect except as amended or terminated 'as hereinafter provided. The Service Agent does hereby accept such employment and agrees to render the service and faithfully perform its duties hereinafter related. SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH ISAC IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO _ THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. _ 65 S F P 1991 8 Fr,:uC 44' SEP X991. DEEP WELL EFFLUENT_ DISPOSAL_ SYSTEM The Board reviewed Utilities staff memo, as follows: DATE: AUGUST 23, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRUT-SERVICES FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF LTTIL STAFFED AND PREPARED BY: ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E.o ,vJ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER Vv" DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: DEEP WELL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEM ENGINEERING AGREEMENT AND WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 IRC PROJECT NO. US -91 -01 -ED BACKGROUND: On May 7, 1991, the Board of County Commissionersauthorized the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations and to proceed with an agreement with the first choice firm (CH2M Hill), based upon the outcome of the negotiations, or proceed with negotiations with the second, then the third, firm if negotiations failed (see attachment). ANALYSIS: Negotiations with CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc., for the subject services are concluded. The agreement, with its first work authorization consisting of Tasks 1 through 41 was submitted to the County for approval. Task 1 - Preliminary design technical memorandum Task2 - Design and permitting -of deep injection well effluent disposal system Task 3 - Services during construction and resident observation of the deep injection well and monitor wells Task 4 - Preparation of engineering report,*operations, and maintenance manual, and operating permit application for the deep injection well system See attached work authorization for details of each task. The preliminary estimation of the construction cost is $3,100,000.00. This estimation is based on the cost to construct a 24" inside diameter, Municipal Class 1, deep injection well effluent disposal system. Upgrading to Industrial Class I deep injection well disposal system to accommodate greater leachate flow and other flows, such as brine discharge, will cost an additional $1,500,000.00. It can be performed at a later date, when its necessity is justified. 66 M The estimated lump sum consultant fee to provide services addressed in Tasks 1 through 4 will be as follows: Task 1 is based on negotiation $ 43,9.03.00 Task 2 is based on negotiation 49,644.00 Task 3 is based upon an average 212,890.00 of 10 hours per day of resident services during construction Task 4 is based on negotiation 42,200.00 Total consulting fee: $348,637.00 Percentage of the construction cost is: +/— 11.25% RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the agreement and Work Authorization No. 1 to proceed with study, design, permitting, and services during construction of the deep injection well effluent disposal system, and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement. Attorney Vitunac referred the Board to the proposed agreement with CH2M Hill Southeast and advised that under Article 6 he would like to delete entirely Paragraph E, which is titled Limitation of Liability; and also under Article 6, he would like to delete Paragraph K, Legal Action, to replace it to say that "The Statute of Limitations shall be as provided by Florida law." Commissioner Eggert asked that Utilities Director Pinto address the reasons for not doing an industrial deep injection well right away. Director Pinto noted this has not been an easy project to bring to the Board. It is one that is a matter of great importance to the County, and it has been given a considerable amount of thought over the years in looking at alternatives and in looking at needs for this well other than just wastewater treatment. The deep well does fit into the master plan for reuse, and it also plays a part in the master plan for solid waste. There is a deep well located at the Hercules plant, which is in the vicinity where we want to build this one, and early on we talked to the Hercules people about the possibility of eliminating their well and connecting into ours or making some use of theirs. As to the issue of an industrial well rather than municipal, this has been tossed around quite a bit, and we are becoming more and more convinced that the industrial well is going to be needed and that it i•s just a matter of when. This then becomes a matter of economics. As stated in staff's memo, upgrading to an industrial well would cost an additional $1,500,000 but that would include all appurtenances that would be connected to treatment plant, pump stations, lines, etc. For just the well itself, we would estimate $700,000 as the difference between an industrial and municipal well. There would SEP 24 1,991 r SEP 24 N 8 4: C be no additional design costs, but inspection costs would be approximately another $7,000 only because you are adding on another 2 weeks of inspection time. Director Pinto went on to explain the difference between an industrial -and municipal well, noting. that the municipal well is built with a casing, and if you are going.to do an industrial well, you put another casing inside of it and put protection between those 2 casings to further prevent any possible leaks. Actually, you are building a double liner. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the extra casing does reduce the diameter significantly, and Director Pinto concurred that when you design the municipal well, if you are anticipating a conversion to an industrial well, then you have to design with that in mind, i.e,, the municipal well would be 24" and with a casing, it would be around 20".. This will be looked at much closer in design, What we want to decide today is whether to make this an industrial well immediately, and Director Pinto felt confident an industrial well will be needed in the future. Chairman Bird inquired what the determining factor is as to whether you go municipal or industrial. Commissioner Scurlock advised that it simply is what you put down it. For instance, if it is brine or leachate discharge in certain concentrations, it triggers an industrial well. He personally felt there is no question we should go ahead with preparation for industrial, especially with the extra protection it offers, and Director Pinto advised tha.t the thinking on the environmental side is that all wells should be built to the industrial grade. Commissioner Eggert asked about projections if you did the second phase - how many years from this might you do it and what effect would that have on construction costs. Director Pinto felt the driving force as to whether this well should be industrial is not a wastewater issue; it•becomes a landfill issue and a water issue. Later in the agenda we are talking about some expansion of our water plant, and it would greatly enhance our permitting capabilities for the water plant if we could just say we are taking it to a deep well. Fie noted that getting discharge permits now is very difficult, and even if we were to start today, it will be two years down the line for either a municipal or industrial well. Director Pinto at this point recommended that if we felt we wanted to spend the money, we should put the industrial well in without any pipe lines to the water plant because we can do that when needed. He advised that the important part in the permitting issue that is directly reflected in the engineering 68 M cost is the amount and time of inspection that is placed on this project by the EPA. Discussion continued regarding the advantages of going to an industrial well in the beginning, and Commissioner Scurlock wished to know, if additional observation was going to be required, is it the intent that would not be done internally. Director Pinto advised that if there is observation during drilling that requires a specialty, that would be outside - if it is just watchdogging to see nobody climbs on the rig or something of that nature, that would be internal, and Commissioner Scurlock noted, that in other words, nothing technically important would be done internally. This was confirmed by Director Pinto, who stressed how important this was in order to limit our liability, and it was his recommendation that we proceed with the contract with the changes recommended based on the fee structure at the upset limit. Commissioner Scurlock commented that he had asked that this item be delayed because he had some questions about the diameter of the well, liability, percent, etc., and those questions now have been answered. The other and most significant question he had related to constructing a municipal or industrial well, and he now feels there is no question that we should do the indus- trial well at this time, especially when construction costs are down. He noted --that he would like to propose at this time that we proceed with staff's recommendation to approve the agreement with the modifications suggested by the County Attorney and that we proceed with an industrial well. but in addition to the recommended contract, there is an attached Work Authorization, and he had a question relating to -a couple of the items listed in it - for instance the Hercules Meeting shown on Table 1 at $5;886. If Hercules says they are not interested, he didn't want our people to do an analysis and start the clock running on that amount of money. Director Pinto reported that he has discussed this with the consultant. It is a coordinated effort, and we will take the authority to stop at any point if we see we should not expend the funds because it is not needed. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the other element is the study of leachate management, and he wanted to be sure if it is going to be done that it is funded out of Solid Waste. Director Pinto confirmed that one of the things that they will come back to the Board with is the proportion of the cost of this project that should be funded through the Solid Waste District and through the Landfill. 69 SEP 24 1991nu SEP 2 4 1991 � r BOOK Commissioner Scurlock asked if the pipeline route analysis is to be'removed, and Director Pinto said that it is not. Com- missioner Scurlock mainly wanted to be sure the Work Authoriza- tion is not to be considered a go on the Hercules analysis. Director Pinto pointed out that one of the basic things we want to look at with Hercules is whether there is a possibility to eliminate that well and take it out of service at some point. Chairman Bird asked if we have looked at the possible use of their well on a joint basis, and Director Pinto noted that Hercules has their own capacity limitations and he really felt, from our preliminary talks, that they may well need expanded use for themselves. Commissioner Scurlock further explained that the well in question is a small well; it was 12" and they had to line it, and they are down to 611. MOTION WAS MADE'by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by COMMISSIONER Eggert, to proceed with staff's recommenda- ti.on to approve the agreement with the modifications suggested by the County Attorney to eliminate the one provision re Limitation of Liability and change the other provision re Legal Action to track the statutes; to approve the Work Authorization; and that we proceed with an industrial well at this time. Commissioner Bowman had questions about diameter and capacity, and Director Pinto advised that you are very limited as to what you can put down these wells. He further noted that the master plan shows additional municipal wells, but he was not sure we will ever want to build them. Commissioner Bowman stated that although she is philosophic- ally opposed to deep well injection, she will vote for this since she understands there is an urgency. She hoped, however, the County eventually will consider buying or creating marsh land. Director Pinto noted that we are looking very closely at wetlands and marshlands and will be coming back with further ideas. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. SAID AGREEMENT AND WORK AUTHORIZATION WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. (AGREEMENT AND WORK AUTHORIZATION NOW RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) 70 Commissioner Scurlock requested that we jump ahead on the Agenda at this point to Items 12A and 13D, both relating to the Town of Indian River Shores as Town officials were present. Board members had no objection. CONSENT TO JOHN'S ISLAND WATER_ MANAGEMENT/INDIAN_RIVER SHORES AGREEMENT FOR NON -POTABLE WATER County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitun-ac, County Attorney DATE: September 18, 1991 HE: CONSENT TO JOHN'S ISLAND WATER MANAGEMENT, INC. - TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AGREEMENT FOR NON -POTABLE WATER A 'private not-for-profit corporation called John's Island Water Management, Inc. (JIWM) has obtained a franchise from the Town of Indian .River Shores to provide non -potable water for part of the John's Island Club area. JIWM would like the County to acknowledge that the system it will provide will not be subject to County control. Chapter 367, Florida Statutes, exempts Indian River County from the control of the Public Service Commission and states that "Each county which is excluded from the provisions of this chapter 'shall regulate the rates of all utilities in that county which . would. otherwise be subject to regulation by the [Public Service] Commission." Those utilities which are not subject to PSC jurisdiction -and thus are not under county jurisdiction include "...systems owned, operated, - managed, or controlled by governmental authorities . " [ 367.022 (2) , F . S . ] 'r Changes recommended by me to JIWM included having the Town of Indian River Shores sign the Agreement acknowledging that it does control the JIWM system such that the exemptions of Section 367.022, F. S. would apply. The Town has agreed to make that acknowledgment, and the result is that the County's execution of the attached agreement would acknowledge what the law requires anyway, i.e., that the County does not control the rates of a franchise controlled by Indian River Shores within the town limits of Indian River Shores. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement in triplicate. _ Attorney Vitunac noted that Commissioner Eggert had a question as to whether this affects rights of the County in regard to R/W, and he advised her that it does not, but to make that clear, he would suggest the following language be added as Section 1.2 D: 71�U�K. ::uc s _ SEP 2 l.s � t 4: 1991 SEP 2 4 1H "This agreement shall not affect in any way the power of the County to require right of way or other permits for activities of JIWM within the unincorporated area." Attorney Vitunac reported that he has read this language to Mr. Rose of JIWM, and both Mr. Rose and Town Manager Dorsky indicated they have no problem with it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, -the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the above described agreement with JIWM and the Town of Indian -River Shores. SAID AGREEMENT IS -ON FILE IN -THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD ANNEXATION - INDIAN RIVER SHORES The Board reviewed the following letter from the Town Attorney Chester Clem: CLEM, POLACKWICH. & VOCELLE F'�� .•� '�=1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW F`t!C(�:: 3031 j A PARTNERSRIP Oa:es SMTE 601 ------ — . 1 QS 1 U+it' PRoresslONAL AssocIATIONs: UNIvEsT BUIMINo h 1pCPFill,! 2770 INDIAN Rhes Bovtt4"v�an'teli CHESTER CLEII, P.A. �, �� %99 y 011 t - - ALAN S. POLACSWICit, SR., P.A. VERO BsACR, FroRIaA 92960.4278 Louis B_Vomms, JR.; P.A. ."+/' /'pCo�e��© tp , •. JAxes A TAYLOR, III sioy'�y _ FR,► (407) 662-8111 Rosim GOLDENtf� L r FAX (407) 662-2870 ... OF COUNUL 9r *&nnCxxwwIsQYmTam Puma August 28, 1991 _ Commissioner Richard N. Bird Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: I am writing at the request of the Town Council of the Town of Indian River Shores to inform the County of the Town's intent to request a special act of the legislature. The Town is seeking to annex into the Town certain enclaves that exist in the north part of the Town. I am enclosing a map that identifies the enclave areas. As you can see, they are completely surrounded by the Town of Indian River Shores and it makes a great deal of sense to incorporate them within the Town since they are isolated parcels at the present time. The Town of - course, would provide services for the enclaves once they are brought into the Town. One of the enclaves is a 70 foot•strip of land owned by the County that serves as a beach accessway. We would haves to bring this strip of land into the Town assuming the 72 County has no objection. The other County accessway to the south of the enclave was brought into the Town by a special act of the legislature in 1981. Once the proposed annexation is complete, the limits of the Town will be better defined and will be drawn on a more logical basis. As you know, it is the policy of the Department of Community Affairs and I believe, a stated policy of both the County and the Town of Indian River Shores to eliminate enclaves that are completely surrounded by a municipality. There has.also been some recent discussion between my office .and that of the county attorney relating to whether the tracking station at the south town limit line is in the Town or out of the Town. The information enclosed with this letter reflects that both the county owned part and the FIT property are outside of the Town limits. The area is therefore, a county enclave lying between the city limits of *the City of Vero Beach and the Town of -Indian River Shores. It may that the County would desire.to have the park included within the Town limits in order to provide law enforcement in that area. If the County has any interest in having the county park and the tracking station included in this special act, please inform the Town at your earliest convenience. It would be our intent to not include the county park at the tracking station area unless requested by the County. Your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Ches Clem, Town Attorney fool'. b rrl.-.JE .655 SEP 2 4 1991 Joe Dorsky, Town Manager, spoke of the difficulties in determining boundaries between the incorporated and unincorpo- rated area along Jungle Trail and the problems associated with law enforcement. He also noted that the Town's services from the point of view of medical care and transportation have been required in those enclaves as they are closer than the County services. For those reasons, they felt the enclaves should be part of the Town. This was brought up some years previously, but some of the owners were opposed and it was dropped. Now, with the new Growth Management Act and with each entity having developed their own Comprehensive Plan, the Town Council feels it should be pursued. Commissioner Scurlock requested that Mr. Dorsky identify -an enclave, and Mr. Dorsky stated that it would be a county unincorporated area surrounded -by an incorporated area. - Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, it would not be contiguous, and he felt the area along Jungle Trail is contiguous to the County. It is a finger. Mr. Dorsky stated that it is surrounded by the municipality. Commissioner Scurlock then brought up Bobby--Hiers' property and did not think that was surrounded. Mr. Dorsky advised those in the enclaves are the Michaels property - the Jones property - and Morningside Drive Subdivision. Commissioner Scurlock noted that they then are not trying to annex Bobby Hiers' property, and Mr. Dorsky stated that he.had never heard of Mr. Hiers. In further discussion it was noted that Mr. Hiers is a lot owner, and he is saying the residents in the area don't want to be annexed. Mir. Dorsky stated that they have letters from some residents who wish to be annexed. He then cited the policy in the County Comprehensive Plan which states the County would coordinate and help the municipalities with annexations. He felt that everyone agrees, from the standpoint of administrating your local and county government, that enclaves shouldn't be there. Mr. Dorsky continued that they don't like to bring these in if they don't want to come in, and probably they will be more of a problem than a benefit to the Town, but it seems for the orderliness of the government, they ought to be in there. The Town Council, therefore, passed a Motion to ask the Legislative Delegation to put forth an Act to provide for the annexation of the enclaves. He believed some of the property owners in the Morningside Drive area, who are not residents of the Town, are hesitant about being 74 annexed because they feel an ordinance could be passed by the Town that would prevent them from developing their small lots. Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss boundaries and asked if the Town is pursuing the annexation based on the normal referendum process or going directly to the State Legislature. Mr. Dorsky advised that they are going directly to the State because they know the two citrus owners do not want to be part of the Town. Commissioner Scurlock noted that was exactly the point he was driving at. Mr. Dorsky believed the citrus growers feel more comfortable being a part of the County because all the other citrus growers are in the county and it is because of a kind of group protec- tion. He did not feel this is warranted and felt the point is whether the government is going to pursue their commitment to improve this situation. Commissioner Scurlock wished to be sure that the properties in question actually are enclaves - that they are totally cut off and not contiguous to the unincorporated area to the north or any part of the unincorporated area, and it was confirmed that they are totally cut off. Discussion followed as to the Tracking Station Park not being included in the annexation but the beach access is. Commissioner Wheeler asked why not include -the park, and Mr. Dorsky informed the Board that the Town would be -willing to annex the Park if the County wishes but they don't want to have a fight about it. He pointed out that the Tracking Station Park is bounded on one side by the City of Vero -Beach. Commissioner Eggert noted that while she very much would like to fulfill our Comprehensive -Plan policies, she also would like the citizens in those enclaves to be able'to vote to confirm that they do want to be annexed. Commissioner Scurlock felt if this annexation were properly explained and the people's fears set aside, the residents very well may vote for it. Chairman Bird believed they can appear before the Legislative Delegation. Mr. Dorsky advised that they have talked a great deal with the citrus people and have provided an AG zone in the Town so that they could come in as an agricultural area. Commissioner Scurlock felt their concern is that they would be the only agriculturally significant area in the Town and could be out voted by the general public on items that affect them. Mr. Dorsky noted that the Town just wanted to have the County's support, and Commissioner Scurlock believed the Town has L_ SEP 721 4 1991 75 r SEP 2 4 1991 BOOK . 4 5 df the Con -mission's support but he personally preferred this be done by referendum. Mir. Dorsky felt if it goes to referendum, it won't happen. While it is true'that each citrus owner only has one vote, a referendum --is based on the land percentage represented. Chairman Bird commented that he has no problem with them annexing our 70' beach access. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he is not ready to vote on this today but would like to talk to some more property owners. -He is not only concerned about the large property owners as it is possible some of the smaller owners, don't want this either, and he would like there to be an opportunity for those people to express their views to us in some way, a Mr. Dorsky believed that this is coming before the Legislative Delegation on October 17th. Commissioner Eggert continued to emphasize that while she has no problem with the annexation, her problem is how it is being done, and she felt the people should be able to speak. Chairman Bird asked if we can't take a position that we don't oppose the.annexation as such but our preference would be a referendum approach. Commissioner Bowman felt that was a "cop-out," and that it is wrong to ram this down people's throats. Mr. Dorsky asked if the Board would go along with the County's Comprehensive Plan policy if the vote goes against the annexation. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that our policy is just to provide technical data and help - not to sponsor Bills. Chairman Bird favored trying the referendum route first. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board, understanding that we do have an enclave problem, unanimously requested that the Town of Indian River Shores try the referendum approach to the proposed annexation, and if the referendum fails, then this could be brought back for reconsideration. WEST/CENTRAL REGION REUSE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Engineer Wisemen: 76 DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI TY RVICES PREPARED ROBERT O. WISH'MEN, P.E Rod AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WEST/CENTRAL REGION REUSE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN IRC PROJECT NO. US -91 -12 -ED BACKGROUND On June 18, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved to - advertise a Request for Proposal for selection of, and provided timing is right, negotiation with, an engineering consultant for the above -referenced project. (See Attachment No. lam) ANALYSIS The present average daijy flow to the West Regional Wastewater Plant is 0.527 MGD; with peak flow at 0.764 MGD. The West Region Wastewater Treatment Plant will receive an instant 0.244 MGD additional sewer flow as a result of Heritage Village and possible Countryside North Mobile Home Park connections to the County system. This will bring the peak flow requirements to 1.008 MGD. This will necessitate starting the construction of the 1 MGD expansion of the plant. The permitted effluent disposal capacity at the County sod farm is 0.58 MGD. The percolation ponds and citrus groves are disposing 0.19 MGD. This situation will result in a 0.24 MGD deficit, which we must dispose of somewhere else. The present D.E.R. permitted capacity against the plant is 1.25 MGD (1.37 MGD with the permitting of Countryside North Mobile Home Park). An additional .298 MGD (1,190 ERUs) is reserved but not permitted against the plant. The total permitted and reserved capacity is 1.668 MGD. The ongoing negotiation with the grove owners nearby the plant is very slow in progressing. It is caused by the grove owners' skepticism about the possibility of adverse impact to their product marketability. As a result of this situation, and the immediate need for additional effluent disposal, the Department has reviewed the Effluent Master Plan for alternative recommendations. On Page 6-20, the master plan did not recommend the 11 miles interconnection of both regions. However, the Effluent Master Plan recognized that sufficient grove irrigation might not develop on a timely basis and recommends a secondary option. The recommended secondary option is to bring the reuse water to the State Road 60 area (see Attachment No. 2, Page 6-18). This line is called "an optional interconnect line". Jo Ann Jackson, P.E., with Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., stated in her letter dated March 27, 1991, "As with all master plans, it was prepared to be flexible to accommodate changing conditions in the County." - The Master Plan also recommends bringing reuse water from the Central Region Wastewater Treatment Plant serving Bent Pine Golf Course as part I of Phase I piping and continuing with the recommendation of serving _ groves along 66th Avenue as Phase II transmission main. This pipe it would then interconnect with the pipe from West Region at the intersection of 66th Avenue and 33rd Street. The Central Region alternate effluent disposal, Indian River County Project No. US -90 -23 -ED, Phase I, soil investigation, as part of the reclaimed water recovery disposal (REWARD) project, indicates that Bent Pine Golf Course has a 0.588 MGD disposal capacity. The disposal capacity on.32 acres rapid infiltration basin (RIB) is 0.4 MGD with possibility for an increase to 1.2 MGD with the well extraction method. 77 S F P 11 SEP 2 4 1991 BOOK 84 NAUE 5LI It will be studied further in the pilot study stage of Phase II of the same project. For the wet weather storage, the same site is able to hold 12 to 15 MG of reuse water. This interconnection is essential for - the following reasons: 1. The interconnection will reduce the requirement of having deep well as a back-up system at every plant's site. 2. The interconnection provides an immediate solution for the - effluent disposal problem in the West Region area until the - Department can develop its required permanent disposal system. 3. The interconnection provides an instant collection system along the route with some simple modification, providing the proposed permanent disposal system in the west regional area is in normal operating condition. Thiswill conclude that timing toI design and construct this interconnect line is right. On August 29, 1991, the selection committee interviewed the six (6) firms and, as a result of the interviews, ranked the top three (3) firms as follows: - - 1. McQueen and Associates, Inc. 2. Kimball/Lloyd and Associates, Inc. - 3. Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. The scope of engineering services shall be reviewed carefully in terms of size determination. It shall be related to the timing of growth development in the County. RECOMMENDATION. The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations and proceed with an agreement with the first choice firm of McQueen and Associates, Inc., based upon the outcome of the negotiations. The Department also requests approval to proceed with negotiations with the second and third firms if negotiations with the first choice firm fail. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the Department of Utility Services to negotiate and proceed with an agreement with the first choice firm of McQueen 8 Associates and to proceed on with the second and third choice firms if the negotiations with McQueen 8 Associates fail. ENGINEERING SERV. - PHASE II EXPANSION SOUTH COUNTY R.U. PLANT The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer William McCain: 78 s � � DATE: AUGUST 20, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI4/ SERVICES PREPARED WILLI M q .gAIN AND STAFFED CAPCTS ENGINEER BY: DEP Q;;g T OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PHASE II EXPANSION OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS (R.O.) PLANT BACKGROUND As part of the current Phase I expansion of the South County R.O. Plant, we have installed 3 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) of new low pressure process membranes. One of the conditions placed on the County as part of the permitting process for this plant was treatment of the brine stream from the R.O. process prior to discharge into Florida waters. Preliminary design and testing of a brine treatment system is now complete, and we must now proceed with bidding and construction of this facility. Also, to maintain the current permitted production level at the South County Plant, and due to the pressing need for expansion (i.e., the Comprehensive Plan), we must evaluate replacement of existing old membranes or expansion (see attached memo to Harry Asher dated 9/j/91). We have already begun the expansion process by initiating the expansion of our well field at this site. A Work Authorization was approved with Vost, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., on May 21, 1991 by the Board of County Commissioners to design and permit a well field expansion (see attached agenda items). We now wish to proceed with design and permitting of a second expansion of the South County R.O. Plant treatment capacity. The two Alternatives currently available to the County are as follows: Alternative A: The replacement of the existing.high pressure 2 MGD original duPont skids with 3 MGD of "low-pressure membranes. Alternative B: The replacement of 75% of the failing duPont membranes in the existing skids. We are proposing to replace the existing 2 MGD of capacity (four original .5- MGD high pressurd duPont skids; Alternative A --see attached spreadsheet) with two 1.5 MGD skids (low pressure softening membranes). This project will accomplish several things: first, it will replace our existing 2 MGD high pressure membranes with low pressure/softening membranes; secondly, it will raise our capacity by 1 MGD and substantially lower the plant's operation and maintenance costs. In reviewing these Alternatives, it must be realized that Option B at the very least must be done to maintain existing plant capacity, along with the additional minor improvements outlined in the Work Authorization and spreadsheet. ANALYSIS Attached is a copy of a spreadsheet prepared and Indian River County staff relative to available to the County. As demonstrated by by Camp Dresser & McKee the two alternatives this analysis, the cost SEP 2.41 N91 79 R0CK. a F:' 'TUU r- FF - SEP 24- 1W 46.E of water produced is reduced by approximately $0.12 per thousand gallons with the installation of new skids. Based on 1990 production records, approximately one billion gallons of water were _produced, equating to a savings of approximately $120,000.00 per year. This saving obviously will increase as our production increases. If the construction cost of Alternative A is equated to Alternative B, the difference in construction_ cost (construction cost A = $2,400.000.00 versus construction cost B = $1,052,700.00) will be paid for within 11 years .(at existing flow rate), through the aforementioned production cost savings, also increasing the plant capacity by 1 MGD. To determine the feasibility of Alternate A over B, several comparisons between A & B were done (see the attached spreadsheet). The present worth analysis is as follows: The total present worth (per MGD) of both alternatives is also addressed in this comparison, Alternative A being $1,311,369.00 and Alternative B being $1,672,566.00. The present worth of O&M costs over a ten-year period for Alternatives A and B, respectively, are $1,054,107.00 and $2,081,892.00. From the present worth analysis alone, Alternative A (expansion and replacement of the original skids) - is the most desirable choice. The attached Work Authorization with Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) was negotiated within the Farmers Home engineering curve guidelines and is well within acceptable limits for this type of project. The firm of Camp Dresser & McKee has previously been selected for all R.O: water treatment plant work in Indian River County through the CCNA selection process. The Work Authorization with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., is set up with four primary tasks. They are as -- follows: Task 100: Preliminary Design Task 200: Final Design, Bidding Services and General Services during construction (@ 7% of construction cost) Task 300: Resident Project Representative (@ 2.8% of construction cost) Task 400: Permitting assistance outside of construction permit (Final Industrial Waste Discharge Permit for concentrate discharge) TOTAL $38,489.00 16-8,000.00 68,000.00 26,500.00 $300,989.00 For details of this Work Authorization, see attached proposal from Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. Funding for this project will come from the Impact Fee Fund. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the replacement of the existing high pressure skids (Alternative A), final design, and construction of the plant's brine treatment system, and the execution of the attached Work Authorization with CDM in the amount of $300,989.00. This Work Authorization covers preliminary engineering, final design, and general services during construction, construction inspection, and permitting assistance (see attached Work Authorization). 80 � s � ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the replacement of skids, final design and construction of a brine treatment system at the South County RO Plant, and also authorized the Chairman to execute Work Authorization with CDM for engineering services in the amount of $300,989, all as recommended by staff. ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION DATE: /G' - /S —9/WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. Ito FOR CONSULTING SERVICES COUNTY NO. CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. CDM PROJECT NO. (CONSULTANT) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Indian'River County Phase II Expansion of the South County RO Plant This expansion will replace the existing 2.0 mgd high pressure DuPont system with 3.0 mgd of low pressure softening membranes. This, combined with the Phase I system and 1.0 mgd of well water blend will give the County 7.0 mgd of water treatment capacity at the South County RO Plant. II. SCOPE -OF SERVICES The Engineer will prepare the preliminary design report; final plans and specifications; bidding services, permitting assistance; general services during construction; and resident inspection for the Phase II Expansion of the South County RO Plant. III. CONSULTING ENGINEER INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS A. Workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with Florida Statutes. B. Comprehensive and Automotive Liability with a minimum coverage of $100,000/$300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or accidental death. C. Comprehensive General Liability with a minimum limit of $100,000/$300,000 covering property damage. D. Liability for Property Damage, while operating motor vehicle, with minimum limits of $100,000 per occurrence. E. Contractual Liability including limits established for Items IIIB, C, and D above. F. Umbrella coverage, excess liability with minimum limits of $100,000 per occurrence. IV. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES Task 100 Preliminary Engineering Task 200 Final Design, Bidding Services, General Services During Construction Task 300 Resident Project Representation Task 400 Permitting Services 81 SEP ?44 19,91 $ 38,489 ( lump sum) $168,000 (7.0% of Construction Costs) $ 68,000 (2.8% of Construction Costs) $ 26,500 (lump sum) 8)r ,C', SEP 14 iW 8 0 0 K.84 PA.Gc 450' A. Lump Sum Cost Elements For Task 100 and 400, the basic services will be performed for a lump sum fee and Indian River county (IRC) agrees to pay Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) partial payments to be made on a monthly basis in proportion to the percentage of work completed. B. Percent of Construction Costs For•.Tasks 200 and 300, the basic services will be performed for a lump sum fee based on a percentage of the construction cost for the project. The percentages are in accordance with FmHA guidelines. IRC agrees to pay CDM partial payments on a monthly basis in proportion to the percentage of work completed. SUBMITTED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. (Consultant) By E. Lawrence Adams, Jr. Vice President DATE: APPROVED BY: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Rilthard N. Bir Chairman c DATE: lo - /J `7I NORTH BEACHES A1A WATER LINE ASSESSMENT (FINAL ROLL RESOLUTION) The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utilities: DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN O DIRECTOR OF UT T SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS E GINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTI �TY SERVICES a SUBJECT: NORTH BEACHES A -1-A WATER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO. 4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -12 -DS On April 16, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project. The Utilities Department has completed the construction of the project. We are now ready to begin customer connections and request the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll. (See attached minutes and Resolution No. 3.) ANALYSIS The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project cost of $235,864.00, which equates to + $0.0464 per square foot of property owned. The final assessment (see attachment Resolution No. 4 and the accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $156,136.21, which 82 equates to a cost of + $0.026904177 per square foot of property. This new total reflects a decrease in project cost of approximately 40%. The reason for such a large decrease is mainly attributable to the economy at the time of the bid for this job. The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution No. 4 and the recording of the attached assessment roll. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-152 certifying "As -Built" costs for the North Beach A1A water line assessment project. ' RESOLUTION NO. 91- 152 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER' COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN -A-1-A FROM THE NORTHERN END OF JUNGLE TRAIL TO THE McLARTY MUSEUM, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT #UW -89 -12 -DS AND OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH - --PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT 'WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, ' the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County*_ determined that the improvements for the property located within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 1991, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before fhe 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. 91-46, 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 83 BO rK e r.r �� � 1 SEP. 24 199 a 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. 91-46, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. Resolution No. 91-46 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 9-3/4% per annum mdy be made In ten 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. 3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 91-46 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 91-46, 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 .Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commipsioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this _2_ day of q p P -t p m h e r , 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B Y _ (2 Richard N. Bird Chairman RESOLUTION 91-152 W/ATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. 84 NORTH BEACHES A1A WATER LINE PROJ - CHANGE ORDER #1 8 FINAL PAY The Board reviewed memo from Engineer McCain, as follows: DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN DIRECTOR OF UTILIT E CES PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS GINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: NORTH BEACHES A -1-A WATER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89=12 -DS BACKGROUND . On April 16, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved the aforementioned project (Resolution No. 3), at a total assessed cost of $235,864.00. The contract was awarded to G. E. French Construction on May.7, 1991, in the amount of $138,715.50. The project is now complete and we are requesting approval of a final quantity adjustment change order and approval of their final pay request. ANALYSIS The original contract amount with G. E. French Construction was $138,715.50. Due ._to some minor changes in field conditions (i.e., additional driveways, new swales, etc.), we had to make various changes in the project design during construction, which have necessitated a change order (see the attached Change Order No. 1). The total increase in the contract amount is $4,920.71, which equates to a 3.5% increase, or a new total construction cost of $143,636.21, which we feel is acceptable. The entire project came in + 4'0% under the preliminary assessment amount. This reduction was primarily due to poor economic conditions at the time of bid. Attached please find the contractor's final pay request in the amount of $34,400.87 and the above -referenced change order for the Board of County Commissioners' approval. The staff of the Department of- Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order No. 1 and the contractor's final pay request. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 1 wi.th G. E. French Construction for an increase of $4,920.71 and also approved the contractor's final pay request in the amount of $34,400.87. 85 ROOK ` Fk",-L dbb SEP 2 4 1991 L B(i0K``r 7PAGE 40 1 _ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $138,715.50 DATE REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $143,636.21 JOB NAME INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO UW -89 -12 -DS POTABLE. WATER_ . - OWNER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The Contract total including this Change Order will be: .One hundred and.forty-three!thousand, six hundred thirty-six and 2111C0 (written amount) Dollars ( • 143.636.21 ) . The Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be (PFFMIFFp) ( IAqFTAqI PP ( UNCHANGED) t Days. This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. rAAAweAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAArrrrArArwrrA�ArAAAAAAAAArrAAAAAArArrAAAAAArAr CONTRACTOR: DATE, ,/3 -2I G. E. French Construction ENGINEER:��-��' DATE �l t73r Indian River County Utilities Department OWNER: '/ / ��GL�C�' DATEt Indian River County, Board of County Commissioners Richard N. Bird, Chairman 86 ORIG. REVISED UNIT ORIG. TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTIOtf PRICE UNITS PRICE CHANGE CHANGE PRICE 2, 1 10" PVC 1 9.40 1 5760 1 54,144.00 1+ 113 1+1062.20 1 55,206.20 3. 81, PVC 7.80 2560 19,968.00 �- (343) k-2675.40) 17,292.60 4. 6" PVC 5.00 1825 9,.125.00 �- ( 41) �- 205.00) 8,920.00 7. 1 Short Single Ser. 1 200.00 1 44 1 8,800.00 1+ 2 1+ 400.00 1 9,200.00 I 15. Paved Road 6.00 160 LF 1 960.00 1+ 15 1+ 90.00 1 1,050.00 16.1 I Paved Drive 1 7.50 I 1 425 LF 1 1 1 3,187.50 1- (42) I 1- 315.00) 1 I( I 2,872.50 17.1 Nonpaved 1 3.00 1 310 LF 1 930.00 1+ 622 1+1866.00 1 2,796.00 1 1 I I i I I 19. Sod .50 500 250.00,1- (60) �(- 30.00) 1 220.00 22.1 Long Services AIA 1 1300.00 1 2 1 2,600.00 1+ 1 1+1300.00 1 3,900.00 I 23.1 I 10" Retainers 1 62.17 1 1 0 1 ( I 0 1+ 23 1 1+1429.91 1 1 I 1,429.91 24. 1 8" Retainers 1 31.00 1 0 I 0 1+ 8 1+ 248.00 1 248.00 1 1 I I I 1 1 25. 1 6" Retainers 1 31.25 1 0 1 0,1+ 56.1+1750.00 1 1,750.00 I 1 ( 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 TOTA4 I NET INCREASF 1 1 I 14920.71 1 I 1 I ( I AAAAr•AAArrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAArAAr1AAAAAAArr.��A�(I��Ar7�'>A•A11AAA♦www The amount of the Contract will be (DECREASED)(INCREASED)(UNCHANGED) by the sum oft Four thousand nine hundred and twenty dollars and 71/100 (written amount) Dollars (8 4.920.71 The Contract total including this Change Order will be: .One hundred and.forty-three!thousand, six hundred thirty-six and 2111C0 (written amount) Dollars ( • 143.636.21 ) . The Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be (PFFMIFFp) ( IAqFTAqI PP ( UNCHANGED) t Days. This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto. rAAAweAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAArrrrArArwrrA�ArAAAAAAAAArrAAAAAArArrAAAAAArAr CONTRACTOR: DATE, ,/3 -2I G. E. French Construction ENGINEER:��-��' DATE �l t73r Indian River County Utilities Department OWNER: '/ / ��GL�C�' DATEt Indian River County, Board of County Commissioners Richard N. Bird, Chairman 86 Bid #91-119 - SLUDGE FACILITY The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Boynton: DATE: September 18, 1991 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H; -T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Servi FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager } SUBJECT: IRC Bid #91-119/Sludge Facility Utilities Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: _ Bid Opening Date: August 28, 1991 Specifications mailed to: Seventeen (17) Vendors Replies: • Eleven (11) Vendors ' BID TAB TOTAL LUMP SUM BID TAB TOTAL LUMP SUM 1. Poole & Kent $4,600,000.00 7.Danis Ind. $4,924,000.00 Miami Orlando 2. Wharton -Smith -_$4,818,000.00 8.Inscho-Kirlin $4,989,400.00 Lake Monroe Jupiter 3. Klobar Const. $4,840,000.00 9.IR Industrial $5,137,694.00 Gainesville Jacksonville 4. Widell Assoc $4,842,000.00 10.Proj. Integration $5,171,000.00. Ft Lauderdale North Palm Beach 5. Elkins Const. $4,889,000.00 ll.Milmir Const. $5,274,000.00 Jacksonville Jacksonville 0. Adams -Robinson $4,917,000.00 Orlando TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: ,$4,600,000.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Work In Process Sludge Facility Disposal Account EPA #C 120 502 070 BUDGETED AMOUNT: $5,182,200.00 I, I RECOMMENDATION: - Staff recommends that the bid bteritatively awarded to Poole and Kent_ as referenced by the Department s recommendation as the --lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See attached memos) 8/ %' 1 J' K �' r h FPa lggl SEP 2 bA 1991 TOOKl 8 4FACE S ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded _ Bid #91-119 for.the Regional Sludge Facility to the low bidder, The Poole 8 Kent Company, in the amount of $4,600,000, as recommended.by staff and adopted Resolution 91-153 confirming said award subject to approval by regulatory agencies. RESOLUTION NO. 91-153 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TENTATIVELY ANARDING THE BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE -REGIONAL SLUDGE FACILITY TO THE POOLE AND KENT COMPANY, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY REGULATORY AGENCIES WHEREAS, The Poole and Kent Company has submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid for the Regional Sludge Facility, EPA No. C 120 502 070 and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida finds that said bid is in the best interests of Indian River County, Florida: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, does hereby tentatively award a contract for the Regional Sludge Facility to the Poole and Rent Company in the sum of $4,600,000 subject to approval by the necessary regulatory agencies. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Sc ur]ocl and seconded by Commissioner Bow a.n and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler --Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ay e Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye The chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 24 day of September . 1991. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Richard N. Bir Chairman 88 CITRUS UTILITIES AGREEMENT TO CONNECT The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: August 29, .1991 RE: CITRUS UTILITIES AGREEMENT TO CONNECT Indian River County entered into a franchise in 1983 with Citrus Utilities, Inc., which provides utility services to Reflections on the River. Section XVI of that agreement calls for the utility to connect to a County wastewater system if the County within certain time frames provides a public wastewater system. The County has provided the North County wastewater system and has requested that Citrus Utilities connect to the County system and dissolve the Citrus Utilities franchise. After much discussion and negotiation, Citrus Utilities and the Utilities Department have agreed on the connection of Citrus Utilities into the County system under the terms and conditions shown on the attached agreement. The agreement is acceptable to the Utilities staff, and the County staff recommends execution of the agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Execute attached agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Agreement with Citrus Utilities, Inc., and authorized the Chairman to execute same. 89 S E P 2, 41991 SEP 24 `NT �,� BOOK G F'�g�E d AGREEMENT between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ and CITRUS UTILITIES, INC. -� Re: Water and Wastewater System Franchise THIS AGREEMENT, made this 24 day of September 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 -(hereafter COUNTY) and CITRUS UTILITIES, INC.; a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida, the address of which is (hereafter CITRUS) WITNES SETH THAT : For and .in consideration of the mutual covenants and other good and valuable consideration, the COUNTY and CITRUS agree as follows: 1. CITRUS will transfer all on-site water and sewer facilities to the COUNTY pursuant to appropriate dic miaTies approved by County Attorney's Office. 2. CITRUS will release all funds that are in the impact fee escrow. -account to COUNTY. 3. CITRUS will convey all off-site lines (water ' and sewer) to COUNTY, pursuant to appropriate documentation approved by the County Attorney's Office and payment by COUNTY as follows: Cost of off-site facilities $160,863 Less depreciation (45,000) (, .Payment for off-site lines $115,8?3 4. CITRUS will assign all of its water capacity in the GDU water plant to COUNTY upon payment by COUNTY of $170,800 representing 70,000 gallons per day capacity at GDU current rates. CITRUS will pay $150,112 balance due for impact fees to COUNTY minus 1 any accrued interest, due to Citrus. CITRUS will be free to utilize its reserve sewer capacity in the GDU plants in any legal manner it deems appropriate. 7. COUNTY will accept the wastewater line for maintenance and ownership, which is located underneath a covered parking area of Condo VIII, and 90 M CITRUS shall have no further responsibility for the sewer line. In return, CITRUS will release any and all rights it may have to funds currently available within the renewal and replacement fund; such funds to be used by COUNTY as deemed appropriate. COUNTY shall provide Reflections on the River, Inc. with a utility sign -off relating to two Certificates of • Occupancy for Condo VIII involved in the sewer line dispute. 8. CITRUS shall cs.use to be granted to COUNTY, to the extent it can, easements to tie the COUNTY's water and sewer system to abutting properties at such locations and such specifications as to be agreed upon between the parties. 9. Upon completion of the transaction, CITRUS's franchise will terminate. COUNTY shall provide continuous service to the development, and COUNTY's Utility Ordinance would apply to all future connections. IN WITNESS WHEREOF COUNTY and CITRUS have entered into this agreement on the date first above written. Attest: Jeffrey K. Barton, C�1 k 1 - 1 l' Attest l' )Secretary ar J. Grave , Jr. SEP 2 4 1,991 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Richard N. Bird Chairman ( SEAL) CITRUS UTILITIES, INC., a _ Flgridii , corporation \` } By Thomas W .bockwoo President _ 91 (SEAL) SEP 2 4. 1991 4 /0 DISCUSS CONTRACTING_ FOR TOURIST STUDY Cormnissioner Wheeler reviewed the following and asked that Asst. County Collins address this: TO: The Board - of County Commissioners FROM: William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: September 18, 1991 SUBACT: Tour=ist Study On September 12, 1991 the Tourist Development Council met to review and recommend a proposed scope of services for the tourism study which the Board approved for funding with tourist tax revenues. The Tourist Development Council was presented with proposed criteria for the tourist study as developed by Sonny Dean of the. General Services Department, and as developed by Regional Resource Associates, a consultant proposed to be utilized by Save Our Shores, the applicant for the tourist tax revenues. The Tourist Development Council felt that the criteria put forth in both proposals was generally similar and directed me to meld the two proposals into one scope of services, with any input provided by the Chamber of Commerce. I have revised the scope of services to a form which I believe is acceptable to either the County staff or Save Our Shores. The Tourist Development Council also recommended by a 5 -to -3 vote that Save Our Shores be allowed to contract directly for the tourist study so long as it included all the criteria required by the Tourist Development Council and the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES: ,, . 1. Accept the Tourist Development Council recommendation that the applicant, Save Our Shores, be allowed to contract directly for the ;? tourist study with Regional Research Associates, so long as the contract "' includes all the criteria required by the' Tourist Development Council and Board of County Commissioners. 2. Direct staff to go out for bid under an RFP containing the scope of services attached as Exhibit "A". 92 M M M EXHIBIT -"All I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The study will contain the following elements: 1. Determine the annual number of tourists who visit Indian River County, by: - geographic origin; - purpose of visit; and - time of year. Also include a detailing of their expenditures as to: - lodging; - restaurant /bar-, - gifts/shopping; - entertainment/ recreation; - local travel; side trips; and miscellaneous. 2. Prepare a profile of activities these visitors engage in during their - stay in Indian River County. Include the attractions, programs, and types of events attended, including but not limited to:. - athletic events, such as Dodgers Spring Training, high school sports, bicycle races, golf tournaments, fishing tournaments. - recreational activities such as golf, tennis, shuffleboard, . hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, scuba diving. - entertainment or cultural events such as theatre, musicals or band performances, road shows, art shows, arts and crafts. - other types of activities such as 14th & Bourbon, Summer Fest, antique car show, boat show, shopping, business, restaurants, visit friends. ` 3. The total number of annual tourists who stay in hotels/motels in Indian River County by: - geographic origin - characteristics of party size - length of stay 4. Determine the annual number of visitors not staying in hotels and motels and indicate type of lodging used, e.g., camping, visiting friends • or relatives, leases and rentals of less than six months, etc. 5. Prepare a profile showing monthly variations in occupancy and room rates, which profile shall also include a study of annual hotel/motel capacity. SES' - 1991 93 A SEP 2 A 19 I RiJ�'K I1h.JE �y 6. Determine the annual direct and indirect impact of tourism on the economy of Indian River County, including contribution made by tourists to the economy in terms of spending, employment and payrolls. Include a determination of the contribution made by natural attractions, as well as "special events" to the County tax base, including property, sales, gasoline and other taxes. 7. Determine the economic impact beaches have on tourism in. Indian River County. The economic analysis shall include the impacts of beaches on tourism, and to the extent possible, be in a format which could be converted and utilized to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 161.29 of Florida Statutes, which requires any final plan of improvements for beach and shore preservation for the entire county to be subjected to an economic analysis of the proposed program, determining the nature and extent of benefits expected to accrue from the program and allocating these benefits to their proper recipients by categories or zones of comparable I benefits, and placing in the same zone areas of equal benefit. Attorney Collins noted that the memo sets up two alterna- tives. If the County is going to be a party to the contract, then it has to follows its purchasing procedures, which says you go out for bid unless the County declares an emergency and sole sources it. The other option is to accept the Tourist Development Council (TDC) recommendation to allow the applicant to contract directly with the consultant of their choice to do a study including all the criteria required by the TDC and this Board. They then would be responsible for delivering a work product from those funds, but the County wouldn't necessarily have to be party to the contract. Commissioner Eggert thought we had gone beyond that in our original meeting in that we understood what Save Our Shores had presented, and they presented it as a County administrated study. We expanded it into a county study so that we could end up with something that would satisfy the needs of everyone without associating itwith any particular group, and it would be something that would be good for any group in town to use in applying for grants, information, permits, etc. This necessi- tated going through our regular procedure with an RFP, and she believed if we have the RFP ready, this person could be signed up and ready to start in the heavy tourist season. Commissioner Eggert had a strong feeling there is an added objectivity in going through the RFP process in choosing someone to do the study, and she thought we were at that point. Attorney Collins noted the Tourist Development Council by their 5 to 3 vote apparently felt there was something to be gained by getting a jump on the tourist season. 94 M M M Commissioner Eggert felt, at the latest, this still would work out by early December. She continued to emphasize that she wants something that the Arts can use; the Chamber can use; the Indian River Festival can use; that baseball and bike races can use. Commissioner Scurlock stated that his concern is that we follow our.normal procedure, and then if it checks out that the recommended firm is the best firm, they will be selected; if not, they won't. Chairman Bird announced for the record that we have received three letters on this issue - one from Frank Zorc, protesting the proposed.study and especially Save Our Shores having any connection with it, and one from Attorney Bruce Barkett representing Save Our Shores and another from George Bunnell speaking as a member of the Tourist Development Council, both favoring the study and award of the contract to Regional Research Associates. Frank Zorc, 2044 DeLeon Avenue, came before the Board and read 'the following statement: 113Telephone: (407) 563-4646 !407)567.1314 REAIIOR FRANK LEO ZORC Realtor - Developer - Builder - Storage AT W..Ro AIRPORT SIM: Srt)RAGE & TRAnti C wnit 2501 271h Ave.. Suite A9 • Vero Beach. Florida 32960 September 24, 1991 T0: Vice~ Chaip'tman'County Commission, Mr. Gary Wheeler RE: Agenda item 13..B, of this date. Tourist Study Dear Commissioner Wheeler: Please read into and make part of the minutes the following: _ As a 30+ year resident taxpayer of this county, one who is very much aware -of the taxpayers sentiments about our beaches and shores, one who was instrumental in acquiring over 4000 petitions protesting the use of tax dollars for a sand pumping project, I feel: SEP 2 4 1991 ROOK. 84 FACE � 1. It would be ludicrous at best to consider allowing the well known special interest group portraid as SOS for Save our Shores, (which most know promotes Save Our Buildings) to contract directly with anyone for a considered tourist study with our tax dollars. I object to any such action:.. 2. IF the commission considers -the study (which I hope it does not) alternative 2. in the Sept. 18, 91, office memo, or some other impartial method should be used. It must be totally out of the hands of SOS (SOB) which intends to use .the study in any way possible to foster again sand pumping to save their buildings at the expense of the taxpayers. 3. I believe the proposed studies scope is mostly a frivolous activity to gather information we already kuow about, again with an ulterior motive to support beach restoration at taxpayers expense.' 4. Again, IF, you consider the study. , I suggest you have determined by the study, of those questioned, how many would still visit/move to Indian River County, with the present beach availability we now have,(which is eve and much more than adequate in my nion.) i Respectfully d F)an L. orc 'l4044 De Leon Ave:, Mr. Zorc referred to #7 under. the scope of services set out in Exhibit "A" which refers to the plan required by Chapter 161.29 of Florida Statutes and wanted to know what we need this study for if we have another improvement plan on record. Attorney Collins explained that what the Statute requires is a plan for the entire county, and to the extent that there is not one for the City of Vero Beach, we do not have one for the entire county. Mr. Zorc continued to stress that we don't need another study. Attorney Bruce Barkett next came before the Board representing Save Our Shores. He believed Mr. Zorc was addressing whether to spend the money or not, and that already has been addressed. Attorney Barkett then made the following presentation as set out in his letter dated September 19th: 96 M Whim, Brown 1k Caldwell CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW Hon. Richard Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 PLEASE REPLY TQ POST OFFICE BOX 9698 VERO BEACH• FLORIDA 92884 DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works Community Dev. — Utilities Finance 77- Other i,er ifa ,1 Rea Report on Tourism in Indian River County Dear Commissioner Bird: kV rI f! 1//1Ar On September 12, 1991, the Tourist Development Council approved a performance scope on a tourism study in Indian River County, and voted to grant the application of Save Our Shores to award the contract to Regional Research Associates. Every member of the Tourist Development Council agreed that Regional Research Associates was absolutely qualified to perform this work, and that the scope of services submitted by the applicant essentially included those elements submitted by the county staff. The Council therefore recommended that the county staff merge the two scopes, receive input from the Chamber of Commerce, and adopt that product as the scope of services. The two issues primarily debated by the Tourist Development Council involved (1) whether Regional Research Associates could be awarded the contract without letting the project out to the bidding process, and (2) whether the resulting study would carry credibil- ity if Indian River County were not the contracting party. Regarding the first issue, the Council adopted the position, after hearing the advice of counsel, that the fund grant could go to Save Our Shores for the purpose of executing a specific contract with Regional Research Associates. The contract would control the study, and the county would control the funds. In this manner, the RFP process, and its inherent delays and pitfalls, could be avoided. Also, the study could begin almost immediately, taking advantage of the 1991-92 tourist season, which most assuredly would be lost if the -RFP (bidding) process were involved. Finally, this process would be consistent with the other Tourist Council grants: they are not required to go to bid,_ either. On the second issue, the quality and credibility of the study does not depend on whether Indian River County or the applicant signs the contract. Regional Research Associates' credentials and performance standards will be the same, regardless. Certain members of the Council were concerned that the study itself might be viewed as less credible in the eyes of the public if the county were not the contracting party. Certainly that is a concern; however, history does not support the inference that a study contracted by the county is held in any higher esteem than one contracted for by a private entity. The Cubit Engineering study was not held in any higher esteem merely because the county signed the contract. A study will stand or fall on its own merits and quality, regardless of whether the county is the contracting party. It is submitted that the unique qualifications of Regional Research Associates warrant approval of the Tourist Development Council's recommendation. I have enclosed samples of work done by Regional.Research Associates in the form of the Monthly Report on Tourism in Palm Beach County for July, 1991, as well as the Annual Report on Tourism in Palm Beach County, Fiscal Year 1989-1990, for your review, inspection, and analysis. Very truly yours, Bruce Barkett For the Firm 744 BEACHLAND ` ` (r�,lVERO BRUCE D. BARKETT h�`�� BEACH. FLOROIA 332963 DROWN CALVIN MWILLIAM SEP 1991 v 407-231 4343 W LOCA WELL OEOROE a COIAINS..m.• ^ RECEIVED r..� FAX ! 407.234•S213 STEPHMMADLSV W R0LLY i7RADLEY vet R089WAY ! BOARD COUNTY / mmmISSIONERS OR CCUN EL 46CHAEL A GARAVAOLU September 19, 1991 •BOARD CERTWMD REAL ESTATE LAW VER Hon. Richard Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 PLEASE REPLY TQ POST OFFICE BOX 9698 VERO BEACH• FLORIDA 92884 DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works Community Dev. — Utilities Finance 77- Other i,er ifa ,1 Rea Report on Tourism in Indian River County Dear Commissioner Bird: kV rI f! 1//1Ar On September 12, 1991, the Tourist Development Council approved a performance scope on a tourism study in Indian River County, and voted to grant the application of Save Our Shores to award the contract to Regional Research Associates. Every member of the Tourist Development Council agreed that Regional Research Associates was absolutely qualified to perform this work, and that the scope of services submitted by the applicant essentially included those elements submitted by the county staff. The Council therefore recommended that the county staff merge the two scopes, receive input from the Chamber of Commerce, and adopt that product as the scope of services. The two issues primarily debated by the Tourist Development Council involved (1) whether Regional Research Associates could be awarded the contract without letting the project out to the bidding process, and (2) whether the resulting study would carry credibil- ity if Indian River County were not the contracting party. Regarding the first issue, the Council adopted the position, after hearing the advice of counsel, that the fund grant could go to Save Our Shores for the purpose of executing a specific contract with Regional Research Associates. The contract would control the study, and the county would control the funds. In this manner, the RFP process, and its inherent delays and pitfalls, could be avoided. Also, the study could begin almost immediately, taking advantage of the 1991-92 tourist season, which most assuredly would be lost if the -RFP (bidding) process were involved. Finally, this process would be consistent with the other Tourist Council grants: they are not required to go to bid,_ either. On the second issue, the quality and credibility of the study does not depend on whether Indian River County or the applicant signs the contract. Regional Research Associates' credentials and performance standards will be the same, regardless. Certain members of the Council were concerned that the study itself might be viewed as less credible in the eyes of the public if the county were not the contracting party. Certainly that is a concern; however, history does not support the inference that a study contracted by the county is held in any higher esteem than one contracted for by a private entity. The Cubit Engineering study was not held in any higher esteem merely because the county signed the contract. A study will stand or fall on its own merits and quality, regardless of whether the county is the contracting party. It is submitted that the unique qualifications of Regional Research Associates warrant approval of the Tourist Development Council's recommendation. I have enclosed samples of work done by Regional.Research Associates in the form of the Monthly Report on Tourism in Palm Beach County for July, 1991, as well as the Annual Report on Tourism in Palm Beach County, Fiscal Year 1989-1990, for your review, inspection, and analysis. Very truly yours, Bruce Barkett For the Firm r - � 4,F 70 R`1CK... F'��� Attorney Barkett argued that no other grant approved by the TDC and subsequently approved by the Board requires a bid process. He stated that normal procedure, as with the Riverside _.: facility, is to grant the application so the applicant can go out and contract for the services. Mr. Barkett stressed that the important thing is who does the study and what is in the scope of services, not who hires them. He then presented detailed infor- mation about the qualifications of Regional Research Associates and reviewed some of the research they have done. Commissioner Scurlock felt if they are that good, they will be selected through the selection process. Mr. Barkett continued to contend that the Board can just do what they do for any other applicant and award the bid for $50,000 knowing that it is going to go to this specific contract with this scope of services done by this group, which is eminently qualified to do it, and we can begin in November and cover one whole year without splitting up tourist seasons. Attorney Vitunac agreed that state law does not require that we go out for bid in this case, and county ordinance does not require it. The County, however, has adopted a policy of going out for bid which does require this, and to change that policy just requires a simple vote of the Board to ignore it. Commissioner Scurlock believed if we voted to ignore it, then we are saying the policy is not worth much, and Commissioner Bowman felt that would set a precedent. Chairman Bird did feel that there is a question of the. urgency of the timing as to when the study will start. He asked if staff is comfortable with the proposed scope of services and if that scope is what we would use if we went out with RFPs. Administrator Chandler confirmed we prepared the RFP, which has basically the same scope, and he felt we could go through the entire process with RFPs and bring a contract back to the Commission by about the first of December. Chairman Bird noted that the question then becomes is whether starting the study in December is adequate to fulfill our needs. Commissioner Wheeler advised that this was discussed at length at the Tourist Development Council level, and according to each group, it varied when the study should be started. It was also pointed out, however, that the study runs 12 months and will cover the whole year no matter when you start; so, he did not know how crucial it is to start in a certain month. He did believe that we want to start it as soon as practical. Attorney Barkett asked that Dr. Strong of Regional Research Associates be allowed to address this point. 98 Dr. William Strong, president of Regional Research Associates, came before the Board specifically to address what value there is to getting started as soon as possible. He advised that they typically divide the year into 3 parts - summer, winter, and shoulder seasons in between. Other counties focus on these "shoulder seasons" as the main thrust of their marketing efforts; they don't really want to attract more tourists in the peak seasons. The summer tourist season is a family based Florida resident type, and it is usually measured by when school gets out and restarts. The next shoulder season begins after school starts. The thrust of marketing is to expand the winte.r season rather than get more to come during the height of that season. You can't really extend the summer season. Dr. Strong noted that the people who want to get the study started as soon as possible were anxious to study the kinds of people who come prior to Thanksgiving, and he would not recommend using data from the following shoulder season as much. Dr. Strong continued to discuss the differences in the seasons and the factors that change. Chairman Bird asked if Dr. Strong felt the items covered in the proposed scope of services would be broad based enough in nature to address all the concerns and questions of the arts, the beach, sports, merchants, etc., as Commissioner Eggert brought up earlier. He noted that to get down to brass tacks, the problem is that Save Our Shores gives the impression to -some that they are only interested in saving the beach, and since they are the ones hiring Regional Research Associates, this is how the study would be slanted. Chairman Bird just wanted to*be sure that the study is as broad based as we want it to be. _ Dr. Strong stated that the intent is to cover comprehen- sively everything about the tourist industry. 'That scope of service is drawn up in looking at what other counties do in doing their tourism research. Whoever does this work will need to - interface with the Chamber of Commerce, the Arts Council, and all the varous organizations who request these funds. Commissioner Eggert expressed concern about the validity of the study in a time of depressed economy. Dr. Strong believed the numbers will ad.just for that, and he felt what you are after are the -characteristics of people who come in certain seasons. Commissioner Eggert felt that by getting only those who can afford to come, possibly we are missing a certain strata. She noted that in looking through all this, she still feels some lack of addressing the cultural aspect. She believed, in talking to 99 r%r y% UJB• fir. uC SEP. ?4 19 91 Facr48 1 Dr. Strong earlier, he had indicated there was another scope that was more into arts, theater, sports, etc. Dr. Strong explained that in Palm Beach County they divide their tourism funds into two halves. Certain funds go to the Arts Council and certain funds to an -organization which they work for called "Discover Palm Beach County." That organization administers funds that are advertising, marketing, and industry related, and the report they produce for them is slanted towards that interest. The Arts Council in Palm Beach County administer funds that go out to arts groups, and they are currently working for the Arts Council in Palm Beach helping them develop their comprehensive plan for the arts. Commissioner Eggert was just concerned that everyone gets their due share. . At this point,.Mr. Zorc interjected that he wished to make it clear that the cru.x.of his comments and letter is to express that his viewpoint is totally opposite that presented by Attorney Barkett, who says that it is not relevant who hires this group. Mr. Zorc emphasized that he would like his elected officials to do this, not a special interest group. William Kool.age, interested citizen and county resident, wished to make some comments based on his experience in business where he dealt with many consultants. With all due respect to consultants, Mr. Koolage contended that the man who hires the consultant controls the consultant.. He, therefore, would like the Tourist group to select three consultants and leave the. choice to the County Commission. Commissioner Wheeler explained our usual procedure in hiring consultants where by we pick a committee to sit down and go through the responses to the RFPs and shortlist them, at which time they come back to the Commission. He has some ideas on a committee if we go that direction. Commissioner Eggert asked that there be one addition in the proposed scope of services - that Air Shows be added under "other types of activities such as.." There were no objections. Chairman Bird asked if Regional Research Associates -were not the firm recommended to do this study by the Tourist Development Council, and Commissioner Wheeler, chairman of the Tourist Development Council, confirmed that they were. Chairman Bird asked Attorney Vitunac if the County Commission then wouldn't have the option of hiring them directly if we wish and not have Save Our Shores involved in the contract at all, and Attorney Vitunac agreed the County could hire them directly and avoid the Save Our Shores connection. 100 Commissioner Scurlock continued to favor determining who is best qualified and will do the study for the best price and having a backup to go to if you are not satisfied with number one. Chairman Bird wished to know what the shortest time frame would be if we go back for an RFP, and Administrator Chandler felt the quickest would be the early part of December. Attorney Barkett stressed that the reason the Tourist Council recommended approval of the contract was because of expediency. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, Chairman Bird voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote directed staff to follow our normal procedure and send out RFPs for a consultant to do the proposed study. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Chairman Bird announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene sitting as the District Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:01 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: I I vw_�, V7 101 _,e41 ��7 __ .... 2 0,5 ? Chairman