The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/26/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1991 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock, Jr. * * * * * * * * * * * * 9:00 A.M. James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1... CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION - None r • 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles 'P. Vitunac 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Addition of Proclamation for Drunk and Drugged Driver Awareness. Week as Item H, Conaeent Agenda. 2. 'Deletion of Item 11G (1) -- Request for Extension of Land Development Permit - Oak Terrace S/D 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Received and placed on file in the office of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, month of Oct., 1991 B. Appointment of Mayor Joseph P. Brooks, Sr. to Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, replacing Councilman Mraz (letter dated Nov. 15, 1991) C. Councilwoman Renee Herrera appointment to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (letter dated Nov. 15, 1991) D. Release of utility liens (memorandum dated Nov. 15, 1991) E. Automatic Doors for Main Library Agreement with contractor (memorandum dated Nov. 18, 1991) NOV 2 6 1991 00OK NOV 26 199! 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd): F. Salary Budget Amendment 007 (memorandum dated Nov. 20, 1991) G. Tourist Development Contract (memorandum dated Nov. 18, 1991) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Diocese of Palm Beach's Request for Special Exception Approval for a Residential Center to be Known as the Samaritan Center (memorandum dated Nov. 15, 1991) 80OK 2. Suncoast Primary School's Request for Con- ceptual Site Plan & Special Exception Use Approval for a Pre -School 8 Primary School (memorandum dated Nov. 20, 1991) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None ,,.,. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS L A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Recognition -Acknowledgment Petition for Vero Beach Firefighters Assoc., Local 2201, IAFF, as the Exclusive Bargaining Unit for, Emergency Medical Services Paramedics (memorandum dated Nov. 19, 1991) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None _r E'A E ti 1 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd): G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Request for Extension of Oak Terrace S/D Land Development Permit No. 058 (memorandum dated Nov. 18, 1991) 2. 1991 Street Light Requests (memorandum dated Nov. 18, 1991) 3. I.R. Blvd. Phase III, Change Order #5 (memorandum dated Nov. 20, 1991) 4. Grand Harbor Golf Course Maintenance Facility Land Development Permit Extension (memorandum dated Nov. 20, 1991) H. UTILITIES Gifford Tower Refurbishment, Change Order #1 (memorandum dated Nov. 18, 1991) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD NOV 20 1101 B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. NOV E+OOK 84 PAGE 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT None 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. Tuesday, November 26, 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, November 26, 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 Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, 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 Chairman Bird requested the addition to the Consent Agenda as Item H a Proclamation designating the week of December 7-13, 1991 as Drunk and Drugged Driver Awareness Week. Administrator Chandler advised that the applicant is requesting that Item 11G (1) - Request for Extension of Oak Terrace S/D Land Development Permit - be deleted from today's Agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert. SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added to and deleted from the Agenda the above described items. CONSENT AGENDA A. Reports The following report was received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, month of October, 1991. BOOK 84 f,.GE NOV 2 6 1991 11 O‘, 26 99 BOOK 84 PAGE B. Appointment of Land Acquisition Advisory Committee The Board reviewed letter from Deborah Krages, City Clerk of__ the City of Fellsmere: CITY CLERKS PHONE 571 %\ 141516; Its c:9 'p '`aG r' co 019.e.:6 < CE VS t 1 a f November 15, 1991 Q.itj of lfcrlifintrrr INDIAN RIVER COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 38 FELLSMERE, FLORIDA - 32948 Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Commissioner Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Dear Commissioner Scurlock: POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE 571-1360 OTSTR1BtJTEON UST C... ,nissioners . 'Sr , Acim:nistrator Attorney Personnel Public Works Community Dev. Utilities Finance Other As a result of your letter advising the City of Councilman Mraz's lack of attendance at the Land Acquisition Committee meetings. The City Council of the City of Fellsmere appointed Mayor Joseph P. Brooks, Sr. to serve on the committee. All pertinent informa- tion can be forwarded to the City Hall, at the above address. Thank you for allowing our city to be a part of this important committee and we will do our best to assist the county in any way that we can. Should you have any questions or require any additional informa- tion please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Deborah C. Rrages City Clerk ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the appointment of Mayor Joseph P. Brooks, Sr., to serve on the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee in the place of Fellsmere Councilman Mraz. 2 C. Appointment to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council The Board reviewed letter from the Office of City Clerk, City of Fellsmere, as follows: November 15, 1991 City of ifrilsmpre INDIAN RIVER COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 38 FELLSMERE, FLORIDA - 32948 The Honorable Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Dear Chairman Bird: DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners 1/ Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works POLICE DEPARTMENT Community Dev. PHONE 571-1360 Utilities Finance Other Just for the record, the City Council of the City of Fellsmere, during their Regular Council Meeting, November 14, 1991, appoint- ed Councilwoman Renee Herrera to serve as the City of Fellsmere representative to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Please forward all pertinent information on the meetings to Ms. Herrera at her home address of 105 N. Oleander Street, Fellsmere FL 32948, her business phone number is 407-571-1881. Should you have any questions or require any additional informa- tion please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 3444 - Deborah C. Krages City Clerk ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the appointment of Councilwoman Renee Herrera to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as the representative from the City of Fellsmere. 3 NOV 26 1991 KCiK FALL iJ NOV 2 6 1991 D. Release of County Utility Liens BOOK i PACE ;3 The Board reviewed the following memo from Lea Keller; CLA: TO: • Board of County Commissioners FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: November 15, 1991 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 11/26/91 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: GALE MAYO TYSON/RANA - 2. Release of Special Assessment Liens from CITRUS GARDENS PROJECT in the names of: HERBERT BOWMAN WARD 3. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from A -1-A (North Beaches) PROJECT in the names of: McLEAN SMITH/POST GREGORY 4. Release of Special Assessment Lien from STATE ROAD 60 SEWER PROJECT in the name of: COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH (Lot 80) 5. Releases of Special Assessment Lien from ROCK RIDGE SEWER PROJECT in the names of: TAYLOR LANCASTER 6. Release of Special Assessment Lien from 12TH STREET PROJECT in the name of: MARGRANDER McPHERSON 7. Release of Special Assessment Lien from SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of: THOMPSON ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Releases of Special Assessment Liens and Satisfaction of Impact Fee Extension Liens listed above. COPIES OF SAID INSTRUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 4 E. Contract Agreement/Automatic Doors for Main Library The Board reviewed memo from "Sonny" Dean, Director of General Services: DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 18 1991 HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVCES AUTOMATIC. DOORS FOR MAIN LIBRARY AGREEMENTWITH CONTRACTOR BACKGROUND: At the regular 'meeting on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the bid to Automatic Entrances of Fort Lauderdale, to construct and install automatic doors at the Main Library. RECOMMENDATIONS: Attached is the originals of a contract that was prepared by our legal staff and executed by Automatic Entrances. Staff recommends approval of the contract and requests permission for the Board Chairman to execute the documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Contract with Automatic Entrances, Inc., for the installation of automatic doors at the Main Library as recommended by staff. CONTRACT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 5 NOV 6 4 F'.iUL i332 cv e 1991 1300r 84 FACE F. Salary Budget Amendment #007 The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird: 419 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: Members of the Board of County Commissioners November 20, 1991 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 - CONSENT AGENDA Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for the 1991/92 salary raises as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #007 as recommended by the OMB Director. 6 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 GENERAL FUND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Executive Salaries Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Regular Salaries Other Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid RECREATION Regular Salaries Other Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid MAIN LIBRARY Regular Salaries Other Salaries Temporaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY Regular Salaries Other Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 'NOV 2'6 1991 001-101-511-011-11 -011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 • 001-102-514-011-12 -011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 001-108-572-011-12 -011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 INCREASE DECREASE 3,340 175 437 14 22 41 12,440 9,458 1,358 3,721 54 172 318 11,587 566 755 2,065 56 956 176 001-109-571-011-12 17,032 -011-13 -011-19 2,034 -012-11 885 -012-12 2,416 -012-13 55 -012-14 163 -012-17 210 001-112-571-011-12 -011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 7 14,019 880 924 2,531 64 116 216 520 4,861 PAdE 1 r NOV 2e i1994 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR.1991/92 SOIL CONSERVATION Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid LAW LIBRARY Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid GENERAL SERVICES Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid PERSONNEL Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid VETERAN'S SERVICES Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid 001-118-537-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 001-119-516-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 001-201-512 -011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 001-202-513 -011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 001-203-513 -011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 001-206-553-011-12 _ -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 -012-17 BOO 64 FAGE INCREASE DECREASE 2,622 163 445 12 20 38 1,158 72 197 5 9 17 5,033 312 856 26 40 73 4,895 304 832 21 38 71 7,526 467 1,279 33 59 109 6,214 386 1,056 27 48 90 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 PAGE 2 8 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Regular Salaries Social Security .. Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid PARKS Regular Salaries Other wages Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid WELFARE Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid AG EXTENSION Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Worker's Compensation Medicaid YOUTH GUIDANCE Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid PURCHASING Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 991 001-208-525 -011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 001-210-572 -011-12 - 011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 001-211-564 -011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 001-212-537 -011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 - 012-14 - 012-17 001-213-523 -011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 -012-13 -012-14 - 012-17 001-216-513-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 9 INCREASE DECREASE 6,829 423 1,160 29 53 99 16,817 181 1,053 2,888 74 1,337 246 3,224 200 548 14 25 47 3,470 215 590 15 27 50 5,545 344 942 26 43 80 [300K 8 233 15 40 2 4 • PAGE 3 r NOV 2 t99' SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 BUILDING AND GROUNDS Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid 001-220-519-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid ANIMAL CONTROL Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid GENERAL SERVICES Regular Salaries Other Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid SHERIFF Law Enforcement Detention Center SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 001-229-513 -011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 001-250-562 -011-12 -012-11 -012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 - 012-17 001-251-519-011-12 -011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 001-253-526 -011-12 - 012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 BOOK 84 F'A6EcJ3 d INCREASE DECREASE 18,524 1,148 3,148 82 1,850 268 7,447 462 1,265 32 58 108 6,693 415 1,137 29 610 97 1,263 756 125 343 8 16 29 =-65,661 4,071 11,155 285- 4,669 953 001-600-586 -099-04 197,459 -099-14 142,987 10 PAGE 4 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 CIRCUIT COURT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid PROBATION Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Reserve for Contingencies 001-901-516-011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 - 012-17 001-908-523 -011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 001-199-581-099-88 - 099-91 MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (M.S.T.U.) NORTH COUNTY RECREATION Regular Salaries Other Wages Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid COUNTY PLANNING Regular Salaries Other Wages Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid • SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 NOV 26 1991 004-108-572 -011-12 -011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 004-204-515 -011-12 - 012-11 - 012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 004-205-515 -011-12 -011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 11 INCREASE DECREASE 875 54 149 4 7 13 7,135 442 1,212 31 56 103 2,235 525 171 469 10 205 40 3,581 222 608 15 28 52 8,546 9981 1,149 3,148 82 144 268 646,515 1,447 rmor 84 L. PAGE 5 NOV 26 1991 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 CODE ENFORCEMENT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Reserve for Contingencies HOUSING AUTHORITY Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries RENTAL ASSISTANCE Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Rental Assistant Payment SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 004-207-524 -011-12 -012-11 -012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 -012-17 004-234-537 -011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 004-199-581-099-88 -099-91 107-226-554-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 - 012-17 107-226-554 -099-88 108-222-564 -011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 -012-13 - 012-14. -012-17 108-222-564 -099-88 -036-73 12 ._ BOOK 84 f`AGE INCREASE DECREASE 6,257 388 1,063 27 111 91 1,325 82 225 6 10 19 1,303: 3,506 217 596 19 27 51 2,614 163 444 13 20 38 42,386 4,416 3,055 237 PAGE 6 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 TRANSPORATION FUND ROAD AND BRIDGE Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid PUBLIC WORKS Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid ENGINEERING Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries • Reserve for Contingencies 111-214-541-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 111-243-519-011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 - 012-17 111-244-541-011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 -012-13 - 012-14 -012-17 111-245-541-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 111-199-581 -099-88 - 099-91 SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Regular Salaries Other Wages Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Cash Forward SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 NOV 261991 114-120-522-011-12 - 011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 114-120-522-099-88 114-000-389-040-00 13 INCREASE DECREASE 68,986 4,278 11,720 298 7,981 1,000 10,197 632 1,732 44 80 148 25,573 1,586 4,345 112 456 371 15,347 952 2,608 70 274 223 200,245 939 12,474 51,494 872 14,305 2,918 157,958 1,055 390,482 107,235 or PAGE 7 NOV 26 1991 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Reserve for Contingencies PETITION PAVING Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid • Reserve for Salaries Other Operating Supplies 115-104-522-011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 - 012-14 - 012-17 115-104-522 -099-88 -099-91 173-214-541-011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 -012-17 173-214-541-099-88 -035-29 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT REFUSE Regular Salaries Social Security Rlrtirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid LANDFILL Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid RECYCLING Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid .. SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 411-209-534-011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 -012-17 411-217-534-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 411-255-534 -011-12 -012-11 - 012-12 - 012-13 -012-I4 - 012-17 14 1 ,, €ooK 84 [AGE J41 INCREASE DECREASE 39,949 2,477 10,719 173 2,841 580 9,921 615 1,686 43 1,148 144 10,763 667 1,829 46 2,678 156 23,139 1,435 3,931 . 100 2,617 336 17,846 1,106 3,032 78 1,783 259 54,862 1,877 12,696 861 PAGE 8 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 Reserve for Salaries Reserve for Salaries Reserve for Salaries Cash Forward GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS Regular Salaries Other Wages Temporaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid FOOD AND BEVERAGE Regular Salaries Other Wages Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid SRO SHOP Regular Salaries Other Wages Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Cash Forward SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 NOV 26 1991 L 411-209-534-099-88 411-217-534 -099-88 411-255-534 -099-88 411-217-534 -099-92 INCREASE DECREASE 2,565 418-221-572 -011-12 12,821 - 011-13 -011-17 441 - 012-11 795 -012-12 2,178 - 012-13 55 - 012-14 1,009 -012-17 186 418-232-572 -011-12 - 011-13 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 418-236-572 -011-12 -011-13 - 012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 418-221-572 -099-88 -099-92 15 3,023 355 209 574 17 266 49 9,383 1,440 671 1,839 48 852 157 894 9,415 36,543 28,408 441 36,821 PAGE 9 forx`199 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 BUILDING DIVISION Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Cash Forward UTILITIES WATER Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid SEWER • Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid • GENERAL Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation ' Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Cash Forward SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 441-233-524-011-12 —012-11 —012-12 —012-13 —012-14 —012-17 441-233-581-099-88 —099-92 471-218-536 —011-12 —012-11 —012-12 —012-13 —012-14 —012-17 471-219-536 —011-12 — 012-11 —012-12 — 012-13 —012-14 — 012-17 471-235-536-011-12 —012-11 —012-12 —012-13 —012-14 — 012-17 471-235-581-099-88 471-219-536 —099-92 16 Boor 84 ME XTh 43 INCREASE DECREASE 20,687 1,283 3,515 91 368 300 4,558 18,736 1,162 3,183 82 1,247 272 60,208 3,732 10,230 264 4,016 874 42,740 2,650 7,262 186 1,610 620 30,802 152,661 6,413 PAGE 10 SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 FLEET MANAGEMENT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Gas/Diesel RISK MANAGEMENT Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Medicaid Reserve for Salaries Insurance Claims SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT 007 NOV 26 1991 501-242-591-011-12 -012-11 -012-12 -012-13 -012-14 -012-17 501-242-581-099-88 501-242-591-035-53 502-246-513 -011-12 - 012-11 -012-12 - 012-13 -012-14 -012-17 502-246-581 -099-88 502-246-513-034-58 17 INCREASE DECREASE 10,962 680 1,863 48 1,084 159 5,862 3,971 246 675 17 31 58 20,658 3,470 1,528 PAGE 11 om4 PAGE 544 4ov 19� 1 80001( ci- PAH G. Tourist DevelopmentContract The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac: • TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS es?Q,a0(1)-- FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: November 18, 1991 RE: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT Joe Baird, Bruce Barkett, Richard Bireley, Jim Merrill, William B. Stronge, Ph.D., Ralph Sexton, and I met on Tuesday afternoon, November 19, in the County Attorney's Office to agree on terms of a contract hiring Regional Research Associates, Inc. as the County's consultant to prepare a tourist development study, as requested by the County's RFP. The compensation for the study will be $50,000, payable in 12 equal monthly payments as the reports under the study are accepted by the County. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Contract with Regional Research Associates, Inc., to do a Tourism Study as recommended by staff. CONTRACT FOR TOURISM STUDY IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 18 H. Proclamation - Drunk and Drugged Driver Awareness Week PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 7 - 13, 1991 AS DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVER AWARENESS WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, driving under the influence (DTII) of alcohol or controlled substances resulted in 1,365 fatalities and 32,811 ti.njuries on Florida's highways in 1990; and WIIEREAS, it is estimated that one-half of. all Florida boating 'fatalities resulted from people operating boats while under the influence of alcohol and drugs (OUI); and WIIEREAS, the Indian River County Sheriff's Office, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Marine Patrol, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida Office of. Motor Carrier Compliance, and local police departments throughout the state have exhibited leadership in protecting the public from the DUI and OUI problem; and WIIEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation, Safety Office, is providing assistance in the development of community- based traffic safety programs with DUI emphasis; and WIIEREAS, citizen advocacy groups are increasing their efforts to reduce the incidence of driving under the influence and operating under the influence in Florida; and WIIEREAS, the use of alcohol and controlled substances while operating motor vehicles and boats can best be combatted by local communities and an informed citizenry that understands the perils of operating motor vehicles and boats while impaired and the penalties that are imposed by Florida's DUI and OUI Statutes: NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of December 7-13, 1991, shall be designated as DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING AWARENESS WEEK in Indian River'Eotinty, and all citizens are urged to become more cognizant of: the dangers associated with intoxicated drivers and boat operators and to support the fight against driving while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs on our highways and waterways. Dated this 26 day of November, 1991 NOV 26 199` BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA RICIARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN 19 Y Poo 84 FiF J46 MM! 2'699' BOOK $ FA E J4 PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL CENTER TO BE KNOWN AS THE SAMARITAN CENTER The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised, as follows: 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 . ktrVj Pp • In the matter of co) 0t?1'.1P ( )002Li72 in the U,�,1 Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of % /LSV €l(,L,, ( Cv /9 9 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 `y day of //C)L '.4 A(.D. I. {SEAL) l f• IBtisiness Manager) ' r Novny Fnbitt •"i• r f n"ricin • My Commission Erpires Jt:::a 2?, 1? . h ST 3 r • a '1.4 11 N ,Q• t RM -1O. Q )1 t iCL NC Subject Site ' 04 IA i11 a IL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the granting of v. - dal exception approval for a residential center. The subect property is presently owned by the Diocese of Palm Beach. and is located in Section 27, Town- ship 32 St and Range 39 E. See the above map for A public hearing at whtch parties In Interest and citizens shad have the opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. in the County Commis- sion Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor- ida on Tuesday, November 26, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any derision • 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 BY -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman Nov. 6, 1991 847643 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/15/91: 20 807 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: obert M. Keats , A Community Devel pmen irector THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM:- John W. McCoy, AICP Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: November 15, 1991 -SUBJECT: DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL CENTER TO BE KNOWN AS THE SAMARITAN CENTER It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 26, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: John Dean Architect and Associates Inc. has submitted an application for major site plan and special exception approval on behalf of the Diocese of Palm Beach to construct a residential center at 3650 41st Street. The residential center will house homeless people for a period of less than 90 days while the people try to get "back on their feet". The proposed residential center will accommodate 24 people, including the resident manager. The subject site is located within the RM -10 zoning district, a district which requires special exception use approval for a residential center. The Board of County Commissioners is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the Land Development Regulations, 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 October 24, 1991 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended unanimously (5-0) that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the Samaritan Center with the conditionsoutlined in the recommendation section of this report. The major site plan associated with this project 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 approval will be in effect. ANALYSIS: 1. Total parcel size: 8.35 acres or 363,778 sq. ft. Size of Development Area: 1.56 acres or 68,200 sq. ft. 1 21 NOVNJOK .48 26 1991 � J NOV 2 1991 UOK PACE z.14 I 2. Zoning Classification: RM -10 Residential Multi -family (up to 10 units per acre) 3. Land Use Designation: M-2 Medium Density 2 (up to 10 units per acre) 4. Building Area: 5,181 sq. ft Total Floor Area: 6,484 sq. ft. (includes 2nd floor area) 5. Total Impervious Area: 21,460 sq. ft. 6. Open Space Required: 30% Provided: 68% 7. Traffic Circulation The project will access 41st Street by means of a paved 22' wide two-way driveway. 8. Off -Street Parking Required: 11 spaces Provided: 16 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 of the LDRs. 11:--Utilitiesi 'The project will utilize county water and sewer services. These utility provisions have been approved by the county's Department of Utility Services. 12. Dedication and Improvements: The comprehensive sidewalk and bikeway plan requires that a 5' public sidewalk be provided along the project's 41st Street frontage. Due to the short length of 41st Street frontage on the subject property, the applicant has indicated the improvement will be escrowed for, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This escrowing provision satisfies Land Development Regulation requirements and is acceptable to staff. The County's Thoroughfare Plan classifies 41st Street as a Minor Arterial, a roadway type which requires 100' of right- of-way. Since there is a canal on the south side of 41st Street, any additional right-of-way needed for 41st Street must come from the north side. Presently there is only 30' of right-of-way existing for 41st Street. That means that there is a 70' right-of-way deficiency for the road, and the applicant will be required to dedicate an additional 30' of property without compensation to bring 41st Street up to the 60' minimum local road standard. Besides the 30' referenced above, an additional 40' of property will need to be dedicated by the applicant to bring 41st Street up to the 100' minor arterial standard. The dedication of the 40' will be subject to compensation, at the time of dedication. According to the Public Works Department, the entire amount of right-of-way needs to be dedicated in conjunction with this application, including the compensable 40' strip. 13. Concurrency: The concurrency certificate for this project has been issued. Thus, all concurrency requirements have been satisfied. 14. Specific Land Use Criteria: a. The use shall satisfy all applicable regulations of the State of Florida and Indian River County as currently exist. 2 22 b. The approving body shall determine that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of intensity of land use. As a measure of land use intensity, the expected number of persons per acre of the proposed use is equivalent to the number of persons per acre allowed within the respective zoning district. The number of persons per acre within the zoning district can be derived by multiplying the density (d.u./acre) by household size estimates for that structure type. For the purposes of this section, the following household size estimates shall apply: single family homes, 2.5 person per dwelling unit; multiple family, 2.0 persons per dwelling unit. The persons per acre intensity of the group home shall not exceed one and one-half times the intensity of adjacent residential zoning district(s). c. To avoid unsafe or unhealthy conditions that may be produced by the overcrowding of persons living in these facilities, a minimum floor area per person shall be required. Floor area requirements shall be measured from interior walls of all rooms including closet space. 1. Total interior living space. A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet of interior living space shall be provided per facility resident. Interior living space shall include sleeping space and all other interior space accessible on a regular basis to all facility residents. 2... Minimum sleeping areas.. A minimum of eighty (80) square feet shall be provided in each sleeping space for single occupancy. A minimum of sixty (60) square feet of sleeping space shall be provided for each bed in a sleeping space for multiple occupancy. 3. Bathroom facilities. A full bathroom with toilet, sink and tub or shower shall be provided for each five (5) residents. d. To avoid an undue concentration of group care facilities in one area, all such facilities shall be located at least one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet apart, measured from property line to property line. e. If located in a single-family area, the home shall have the appearance of a single-family home. Structural alterations or designs shall be of such a nature as to preserve the residential character of the building. f. The facility shall satisfy all applicable off-street parking requirements of Chapter 954. The facility shall meet or exceed all open space requirements for the respective zoning district. g. The maximum capacity of such facilities shall not exceed the applicable number permitted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. h. Group home permits are transferable. If the type of resident/client changes or the resident capacity increases to such and extent that it would raise the facility to a higher level group home as distinguished by the definition, the facility must be reevaluated for an administrative permit or special exception approval. All of the applicable above specific land use criteria have been satisfied by this application. 3 23 NOV 26 1991 MOK NOV 26 199 15. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: BOOK FAC Vacant/RM-10 Headstart, Economic Opportunity Council/RM-10 Single Family Homes, Vacant/RM-10 Vacant/RM-10 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval with the following conditions: 1. that prior to site plan release, the applicant dedicate 70' of additional right-of-way for 41st Street; 2. that prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall escrow funds for the required sidewalk segment; Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. John Dean, architect and agent representing Catholic Charities, noted that Joyce Wild of Catholic Charities is here today to answer any specific questions about the use of Samaritan House. This is a community project, and, to date, 20 churches have contributed to the cost of the construction of this building. In addition, there has been tremendous support by local businesses and individuals. He felt the project speaks for itself and that the community is responding in a powerful way. To date, over $383,000 of the $595,000 estimated completion cost has been contributed to this project. There is a possibility that another foundation will join in the support of the project, but public support is still needed. Hopefully, construction will start at the end of January, 1992. He wished to convey Catholic Charities' thanks to this community for the strong support it has given. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Eggert felt this facility will be a tremendous asset to the community, especially with the philosophy of having people there temporarily, counseling them, getting them back on their feet and back to work. 211 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted special exception use approval for the Samaritan House with the conditions as set out in the above staff recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING - SUNCOAST PRIMARY SCHOOL'S REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SITE --PLAN & SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR A PRE-SCHOOL & PRIMARY SCHOOL The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that -this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as follows: COUNTY Or INDIA VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL ' Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida VER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being In the matter of'��,Oall/Z%%%'G7i t /a ;2 • In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ts7a 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 i r (SEAL) firl/ day of/i,//xr. faair(�� 19 9/ ti 4-1211.4731% Os; • C,(i3lisiness' Manager) i tar • :r•. Gorr Goers• ubject Site 1 Courtesy. need hearing Public Hearing granting of special exception a�approvalto consider the or Suncoast Primary School. The )ect roperty Is presently unFarrell, contract ad stoe located Meantion and Maxine and Range39 E. See the abovefor locatpion. S. map far locatlor►. A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, was ou continued the Board of Cmtey Corof Indian River County, Florida, at its Tuesday, November 19, 1991 meeting. The pudic hearing has been continue to Tues- day, NIn 26, 1991 at 9:05 a.m. and will be da Iki Commission Chambers at the County administration building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. wh ch may one who at this wish meeapped anyl decision sure that a verbatim record of tide proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners • B :: s-Rtdrard N. Btrd, Chairman, Nov.21,1991 652336. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/20/91: 25 NOV 26 1991 NOV 26 199 BOOK 84 [ALE TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVIJON HEAD CONCURRENCE: 44.( ertM. Keat ng, AICP// Community Develop nt rector THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP /W� DATE: Senior Planner, Current Development November 20, 1991 SUBJECT: SunCoast Primary School's Request for Conceptual Site Plan and Special Exception Use Approval for a Pre -School and Primary School SP -MA -91-10-61 #91080129 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 26, 1991. [Note: this request was tabled from the November 19th Board meeting and continued to the November 26th meeting.] DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: John Dean Architect and Associates, Inc. has submitted a conceptual site plan and special exception application on behalf of SunCoast Primary School to construct a pre-school (ages 3 & 4) and primary school (grades K - 7th) at 2301 43rd Avenue. The subject property is zoned RS -6 which requires special exception use approval for a school. The subject site is located on the westside of 43rd Avenue about 500' south of 26th Street, and is approximately 2500' feet off of runway 4/22 lying just to the southeast of the extended centerline of the runway. The proposed development is to take place in two phases: the first phase will accommodate 100 students, and the second phase will provide for another 100 students fora total of 200 students. If the concept plan and proposed use are approved by the county, then the applicant will submit a final site plan(s) for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Board of County Commissioners is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the land development regulations (LDRs), 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 October 10, 1991 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended 4 to 1 that the Board of County Commissioners deny special exception use approval for the preschool and primary school. The Planning and Zoning Commission based its 1 26 recommendation to deny on airport -related safety concerns expressed at the meeting by the City Airport Director. Please see the attached draft Planning and Zoning Commission minutes (attachment #4 )• It should be noted that since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the applicant has revised the proposed site plan. As revised, the site plan depicts all buildings and activity areas relocated to portions of the property which will be impacted less by airport activities. This staff report addresses the safety issue in more detail under "Airport Concerns" in the analysis section. ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Development Area: 4.34 acres 2. Zoning Classifications: RS -6, Residential Single Family District (up to 6 units/acre) 3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per acre) 4. • Building Area: - Phase I : Phase II: 5,520 sq. ft. 10,420 sq. ft. Total: 15,940 sq. ft. 5. Total Impervious Area: --Phase I: - --.15,940-sq. ft. Phase II: 30,085 sq. ft. Total: 46,025 sq. ft. 6. Open Space Required: 40% Provided: 76% (after phase II) 7. Traffic Circulation: The applicant is proposing to use a 20' wide, two lane, one-way looped driveway to access the site. This design has been approved by the County Traffic Engineer. The County Traffic Engineer has -reviewed the conceptual plan and has indicated that Phase II may require construction of a north bound left -turn lane on 43rd Avenue to accommodate site related traffic. An approvable, detailed traffic study will need to, be submitted in conjunction with the phase II final site plan application to determine if a left -turn lane is required. If the approved study indicates that a left -turn lane is required, then a left -turn lane will need to be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for the phase II facilities. 8. Off -Street Parking Required: 24 spaces (phase I) Provided: 24 spaces (phase I) Additional parking spaces will be provided in phase II, and the conceptual plan accommodates the anticipated required additional spaces. The required number could vary based on the final number of staff at the facility. At the time of phase II approval, the applicant will have the opportunity to submit a parking study in accordance with section 954.08(3) of the LDRs to try to justify a reduction in parking space requirements. Any reduction will have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission via approval of a subsequent final site- plan. 2 27 NOV 26 1991 & MK 84 f' -,,,C r NOV 26 i99 1 BOOK 84 F GE 9. Stormwater Management: A conceptual stormwater •management plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Landscape Plan: The applicant has noted on the conceptual plan that a landscape plan meeting the criteria of chapter 926 will be submitted with the final site plans(s). The conceptual plan indicates that a 30' buffer strip of existing native vegetation (predominantly palmetto) will remain undisturbed along the west and north property lines. These natural buffers will exceed the minimum criteria for a type "C" buffer which is required to be placed between the proposed use and the adjacent single family residences. In addition, all structures are set back at least 100' from the west property line, with the parking lot set back 80' from the west property line. Furthermore, the fenced playground area is to be located approximately 170' from the west property line. The phase II additional outdoor play area must be set back 50' from the west property line, and 30' from the south property line. These buffers and setbacks are required to buffer surrounding residences from proposed buildings, parking areas, and outdoor recreation areas. 11. Utilities: The project will connect to City water and sewer services. The applicant has indicated services are available to the • site; the concurrency review has verified that capacity is available.. _ 12. Dedication and Improvements: The comprehensive bikeway and sidewalk plan requires that a 5' wide public sidewalk be constructed along the project's 43rd Avenue frontage. The applicant has indicated that the sidewalk will be provided with phase I. The Thoroughfare Plan classifies 43rd Avenue as a minor arterial which requires 100' of right-of-way. Presently 70' of right-of-way exists for 43rd Avenue. The applicant will need to dedicate 15' of property for 43rd Avenue right-of-way subject to compensation. The property will need to be dedicated prior to release of the approved final site plan. 13. Concurrency: A conditional concurrency application has been approved for the proposed development. 14. Airport Concerns: At the October 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the planning staff recommended approval of this request, even though planning staff was aware that the airport director had concerns about the proposed use in relation to noise generated from the nearby airport. In telephone conversations and in meetings, the airport staff had indicated that the proposed use would need to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 150, Appendix A standards. These standards deal primarily with how airport noise will affect surrounding uses. In planning staff's opinion, CFR part 150 did not prohibit the proposed use at this location, but did indicate that extra noise attenuation building construction measures would need to be taken by the applicant to accommodate the users of the proposed school. During the site plan review process, the applicant indicated that she was willing to take such building construction measures and was also willing to execute an "avigation easement." Such an easement protects the airport from possible lawsuits by having the prospective owner of the subject property acknowledge that she is aware of the airport - generated noise. Also, the easement essentially waives the property owner's rights to bring legal action against the "airport in relation to noise and any perceived nuisances generated by airport operations. 3 28 t At the October 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the city airport director (Bill Sherry) not only raised the noise compatibility issue, but he also raised a safety issue in his verbal presentation and in a letter distributed at the meeting. These written comments were based upon correspondence which the airport director had received from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). In these comments, airport staff strongly objected to the location of the proposed use based primarily on the grounds of safety, and secondarily on the effect of aircraft noise on the school. After the October 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the planning staff met again with airport staff to better understand the basis of the airport staff's position. The airport staff, through studies and expert opinion, were able to show that a definable safety concern should be addressed in relation to the proposed use. This safety concern is based upon the following three findings. 1. There is a clear and definable overflight zone, at the end of active runways, within which the potential for accidents -is significantly greater than in other areas around the airport. The location .of these overflight zones has been identified by the FAA, FDOT, and city airport consultants es extending in width 300' on either side of the centerline of active runways and extending 5,000' from the end of these runways. 2. The conceptual plan design reviewed at the Technical Review Committee and. Planning and . Zoning Commission meetings showed buildings and play areas to be located within the overflight zone as defined in #1, above. 3. Experts contacted by City airport staff, including the FAA, FDOT and airport consultants, all agreed that uses which concentrate or congregate people, such as the proposed school use, should not be permitted within the overflight zone due to a greater potential for a major catastrophe in the event of an accident. These findings are described in detail in attachments #7 and #8. Planning staff's conclusion is that the conceptual plan design reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission would congregate people in the overflight zone. Therefore, in planning staff's opinion, the "old" concept plan design reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission should not be approved for the proposed school use. Subsequent to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and the denial recommendation, the applicant applied the criteria in item #1 above to determine the location of the overflight zone with respect to the subject property. As shown in attachment #2, the overflight zone encompasses most of the north half of the site. Since various accessory uses associated with the proposed use (particularly parking, stormwater management and buffering) do not involve congregations of people, the applicant proceeded to redesign the project to use the overflight zone area for non -congregation uses and to limit assembly areas (buildings and playgrounds) to the portion of the site outside of the overflight zone. On November 12, 1991, the applicant submitted to staff a redesigned conceptual plan which shows all buildings out of the overflight zone, while maintaining the same types of perimeter buffers shown on the "old" plan. The revised plan proposes some parking, buffering and stormwater management 4 29 NOV 26 199i 6. ROOK fPtuL e?ZUc NOV A i991 POUF tdb areas within the overflight zone, uses which the staff feels are appropriate for this area. In staff's opinion, however, no school accessory uses which would allow for the congregation of people (such as playgrounds) should be permitted within the overflight zone. The use of the school's property within the overflight zone should be restricted to uses such as parking, buffering, open space and stormwater retention areas. At a November 12th meeting between planning staff, airport staff, and the applicant, all parties agreed that the revised conceptual plan would be acceptable if it were redesigned further to prohibit all uses which congregate people within the overflight zone part of the site. However, airport staff noted that agreement on the site design would be subject to concurrence by FAA and FDOT. In a November 15, 1991 conversation with the airport staff, the planning staff was advised that the FDOT and/or FAA may still respond negatively to the redesigned conceptual plan. If either of these agencies responds negatively, the airport staff would probably "mirror" those responses due to grant and funding responsibilities. However, no response from either agency has been received at the time of this report. Absent an official position in writing from the airport staff, the FAA, :and the FDOT regarding the revised conceptual plan, planning staff is applying the proposed overflight guidelines to form a recommendation on the safety issue. As of the writing of this -report, -the staff_has completed a preliminary review _of the revised _conceptual plan. Based upon this review, staff determined that all structures and assembly uses are now to be kept out of the overflight zone and all site plan and specific land use criteria will be met. In staff's opinion, the revisedconceptual plan is.approvable subject to conditions, including a detailed review of the revised conceptual plan by the TRC. 15. Airport Zoning: During the past six months, county planning staff have been working with the airport authority staff, City of Vero Beach planning staff, City of Sebastian planning staff, and the FDOT to develop an airport zoning ordinance as required by State statute. As drafted, the proposed ordinance focussed on noise and height issues. Until the Suncoast application submittal, no reference to, or regulations for, overflight zones were included in the draft ordinance despite close coordination with and review of the ordinance by FDOT. Because of concerns raised relating to the Suncoast application, staff intends to incorporate overflight zone requirements into the proposed ordinance. It is anticipated that the proposed airport zoning ordinance will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in several months as an LDR amendment. 16. The following specific land use criteria are applicable to primary schools: a. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local residential streets in residential subdivisions. Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating adjacent to major arterial roadways. [Note: 43rd Avenue is not a major arterial roadway.] 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. [Note: the proposed student to site size ratio falls within the school board guideline for elementary school site size.] 5 30 1 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 be located within fifty (50) feet of any property line abutting a local road right-of-way that serves a single family area. [Note: these setbacks are satisfied or exceeded by the design.] 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. fNote:-•this information: has -been provided.] e., No rooms -within the school shall be regularly s.•-• -_used for• the housing.sof •students •when. located in a ,Single -Family ...Residential District. [Note: no student housing is proposed.] 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. [Note: the Type "C"• buffers, or better, have been . provided. ] - . g. The facilities shall have a Type "D" buffer in all other residential districts not listed in #6 above. [Note: not applicable.] All of the above criteria have been met by the conceptual plan, with the additional recommendation that all playground area be set back at least 50' from the west property line. 17. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Single Family Homes/RS-6 South: Single Family Homes/RS-6 East: Dodgertown G.C./City of Vero Beach West: Single Family Homes/RS-6 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Based on the analysis performed, the staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant the special exception use approval with the following conditions. A. That the applicant submit revised plans and obtain approval of the Technical Review Committee of a concept plan that: NOV 261991 1. provides all of the buffering previously described in this report; 2. demonstrates that all structures and accessory assembly uses accommodating congregations of people are located outside the overflight zone (as described in item 14 of this report); and 6 31 ElOOK. 84 FAa 3c), NOV 2 6 199 RUCiK L4`4 FA, Llejp 1 3. demonstrates that all specific land use criteria are met and that all applicable site plan regulations are met, including the establishment of a 50' set back from the west property line for the playground. B. That prior to final site plan release for phase I the applicant shall dedicate 15' of property for 43rd Avenue right-of-way subject to compensation. C. That the applicant submit an approvable traffic study update in conjunction with the final site plan application for phase II to determine if a left -turn lane is required. If the approved traffic study update indicates that a left -turn lane is required, then the left -turn lane shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the phase II facilities. D. That prior to final site plan release, the applicant shall execute and record an avigation easement acceptable to the County attorney's Office. E. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of "--- the building official that all proposed building -construction will comply with the standards set -forth in CFR part 150. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Conceptual Site Plan Review By TRC 4. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 5. Revised Conceptual Site Plan 6. Airport letter of 10/10/91 7. Staff letter 8. Airport letter of 11/6/91 APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: FOR: 7/ BY: f\u\c\j\sun.pz 32 t tin 49TH AVE -NUE MANOR UNIT NOV � jo BOOK 4 F'AGE Planning Director Stan Boling pointed out the proposed site on an aerial view of the area with the overflight zone marked in red. He reviewed the three main areas of concern discussed at . the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission who voted 4-1 that the Board of County Commissioners deny special exception use approval for the preschool and primary school. After revision of the site plan to place the buildings just outside the overflight zone, staff is recommending that the Board grant special exception use approval with certain conditions as outlined in staff's recommendation. Director Boling advised that the three main areas of concern with the project were traffic, compatibility with the neighbor- hood, and an airport located in the vicinity. Commissioner Scurlock questioned the dedication and compensation for only 15 feet of right-of-way for this project, after taking 70 feet without compensation in the previous agenda item. Director Keating explained that on the previous item, we were looking at the possibility of there being a Murphy Act deed on the property along 41st Street, which would give the County an easement or, essentially, right-of-way of that area. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to be sure in his own mind that we are being consistent in either paying for all right-of-way or not paying for all right-of-way. Director Boling stated that we are doing that. With the possibility that there is a Murphy Act deed covering the site along 41st Street (essentially, there is a road easement there already), we asked the applicant to go ahead and make that right-of-way dedication as opposed to an easement. In that particular case, they agreed to do that. With regard to traffic concerns, Commissioner Scurlock noted that the intersection of SR -60 and 43rd Avenue and the nearby bridge would have been greatly impacted by the traffic that would have been generated by the proposed DeBartolo mall. In addition to that, there is the congestion along 43rd Avenue when the L.A. Dodgers are here in the spring. 43rd Avenue also seems to be the major access point to our correctional facilities. He was concerned about all of that traffic at peak hours. County Engineer Mike Dudeck explained that staff projected trip generations from a survey done by the applicant and architect on the present facility, and those projections came out less than typical Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) projections. However, to be on the safe side, staff used ITE 34 projections for Phase I and Phase II. It was difficult to determine whether a lefthand turn lane would be required under our new I_DRs, but the numbers do not come anywhere near that at the present time. A lot depends on where the children are coming from, and based on the traffic analysis on the present facility, we went with the assumption that 70% of the trips would come from the south and 30% from the north. If that continues, there should be no real problem. We are looking at peak trips of 40 with both Phases 1 and II, which would occur at 7:00-8:00 a.m. and 2:00-3:00 p.m. Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about the children's safety during the drop-off and pickup times and matching that up to events at Dodgertown and Holman Stadium. He was concerned about mixing those two activities when there are other sites available. It is a special exception, so we are supposed to consider traffic and traditional traffic counts. Mr. Dudeck advised that improvements due to begin soon at the intersection of 43rd and 26th Street (Walker Ave.), include a full traffic signal, which will help considerably to control traffic during peak hours. One condition in looking at Phase II development is whether or not that lefthand turn lane should go in there to expedite traffic in the area and to avoid congestion. Traffic has almost doubled out there since 1987, going from 4900 trips to 6500 trips, and that is a concern we had with the mall going in west of 58th because traffic would have been using Walker Avenue to access the mall from the backway. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that at some point DeBartolo's property west of 58th Avenue will be used in some sort of commercial activity which certainly will impact the intersection at 43rd and 26th Street. Commissioner Wheeler didn't know how fair it is to consider the impact of traffic on 43rd Avenue from the property out west when there isn't even anything on the drawing board yet. He didn't feel that future impact should be considered over and above what is being proposed for this property. Commissioner Scurlock also had a problem with special exceptions for schools, churches, etc., and wondered why we don't zone upfront for these facilities because sometimes these facilities are not compatible with the surrounding uses. His point is that a special exception is just that - special, not normal. His suggestion would be to designate neighborhood nodes that would allow these type of activities. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. 35 WO 26 1991 07415 NOV26 Mt ROOK 84 PAGES j Bill Sherry, Director of the Vero Beach Municipal Airport, read into the record the following comments regarding their objection to a school being allowed within 2000 feet from a runway Members of the County Commission you have a very difficult decision before you today. I do not envy your having to make that decision. I wish I could help make this decision easier for you, but I can not. You will hear today the opinions of quite a few people, so I will try to keep my comments brief and to the point. Essentially, you must decide what is safe and what is not. The decision is whether or not to allow a school to be con- structed approximately 2000' off the extended centerline of a major runway at Vero Beach Municipal Airport; a runway which ac- commodates both large and small aircraft, many of which are stu- dent pilots training. These aircraft will pass overhead at approximately 150' under normal conditions. It is estimated that this will occur approximately 400 times per day while the runway is in use. Furthermore, since runway use is largely de- termined by weather conditions, Runway 4, the runway in ques- tion, is primarily used during the winter season (November -March) when large corporate and private jets are down for the winter. These jets will also pass overhead at 150 feet. After hearing from all sides, the I.R.C. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended against the construction of this school. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Florida Department of Transportation after studying the proposal recommends against the project. And I also recommend you deny this re- quest. Why? First, let me say that there is nothing personal in our recom- mendations. As a matter of fact, after dealing with the indi- viduals involved, I am convinced they are very fine, caring people. They are just having a difficult time understanding the aviation issues involved. These issues center around two con- cerns - noise and safety, and more specifically, the accident potential in the vicinity of the approach end of a runway. Prob- ably everyone here knows that aviation -i.s one of the safest forms of transportation available today. But accidents happen, and one of the greatest risk areas for an aircraft accident is in or around the ali=3aroach end of a runway. For this reason, FAA, FDOT, I.R.C. P & Z, and airport staff recommend the place- ment of 200 school children someplace other than in an approach zone of a runway. As you heard from Stan Boling, FAA and FDOT have not, as of yet, established objective criteria in the form of regulations or recommendations pertaining to this type of situation - as it relates to safety. Therefore, this makes your decision that much more difficult. Is the risk sufficiently lowered if the school structure is located 320'off the extended centerline rather than 280'? This would be a very small margin for an aircraft in dif- ficulty. 36 .n the backup presented to you by staff, you have the ..letters and recommendations of aviation experts. Furthermore, I have with me today Mr. Laddie Irion with Greiner, Inc.,. one of the worlds largest aviation consulting firms and also the consultant for Vero Beach Municipal Airport. Mr. Irion has been an expert witness in courts of law with reference to aircraft noise and safety. If you wish, he can go over FAR Part 150 and accident statistics which might help you understand the concerns ex- pressed by aviation experts regarding the construction of a school at the location_ proposed. Mr. Sherry advised that because of the noise and safety factors, he would favor the school being built on a site further north on 43rd Avenue1:. Following a lengthy discussion regarding highly technical airport flight data, Commissioner Wheeler read into the record the following letter received from FAA dated 10/9/91: US Deportment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration OCT 091991 1111.Al•tix.1 .f".!!'11'. . 01•I'I(' 01.77 tri r t )r! i'i.Oi:itA 1•Ir. William F. Sherry. A.A.E. Airport lii.rector, City of Vero Beach P.O. 13:►x 139 Vero Beach. 1.1. 32961-136e) Dear Mr. Sherry: We have reviewed your FAX transmittal dated (cLoi.,i_.t. J. 199l. reference to the proposed ConStluction of a private v choral in the vicinity of the Vero. Beach Municipal Airport. Although the proposed one-story school is unit. as an obstruction Under any standard of redora.l Aviation Regulation& 'FAR.) Part 77. Subpart C. and would not be a hazard to air navigation. the proposed location i s incompatible with normal aircraft operation,. recommend that that this school not be built on the Runway 4 een tot 1 inn extended. .•.e appreciate the op Should you have any ft urtheryuestioto mm.`nplease do not t in this t�T host. tai te. to call us. Sincerely. erely. .ilia A. Quinones Airports Plans & Programs Manager NOV 26 991 37 { ' 13 1 MOP( Frur. NOV 26 1991 FAG BOOK. 84 _ a E JL i Being a pilot himself, Commissioner Wheeler disputed the safety hazard because he feels the danger here probably is considerably less than a trip to school by the students. He• doesn't buy the FAA's concerns that the school is incompatible with aircraft operations, and doesn't feel the FAA would recommend anything to be built there that would be compatible with aviation other than a hangar. Ben Gross, Vero Beach assistant city attorney, stressed that the airport's main concern about the school being located on the proposed site is its incompatibility with airport activities. Single family residential development also would be incompatible; however, the FAA would not be involved in the consideration of a single-family residence. Laddie Trion of Greiner, Inc., consultant for Vero Beach Municipal Airport, reported that in 1988 they did an environmental impact study on the effect of Runway 4, and, for noise and safety reasons, would recommend that another site be found for this school. Commissioner Scurlock understood that their recommendation would be for that property to be used at the lowest possible density, and Mr. Trion confirmed they would prefer to see it used for something other than residential, light office perhaps. John Dean, architect and agent representing the SunCoast Primary School, introduced Candy Manwaring and Glenn Baldwin, trustees of the school as it presently exists. He pointed out that special exception approval is needed in these situations for the simple reason that no one wants a church or a school next to them. This is not a final site plan. They are asking the Board for conceptual approval, after which they will iron out any bugs in the plan. He emphasized that the school's plans were proceeding through the system without a hitch until the airport concerns suddenly came to light. He felt itzis kind of arbitrary to drop all of this on them since other buildings are in overflight zones too, including the County Jail. Before fears of airplane crashes cropped up, the school was proposing to build their new facility in the overflight zone, but to be reasonable, the plans were revised so that the buildings are just outside the zone. The parking lot and stormwater retention areas are within the zone. Mr. Dean noted that several SunCoast students are here today to observe government at work as it relates to site plan approval. Commissioner Wheeler emphasized that Runway 11-L was expanded in 1987 after the County Jail was built. Mrs. Manwaring, administrator of the school, advised that the SunCoast School is a small, non-sectarian, non-profit and tax 38 exempt private school founded in 1984. The number of students has grown from 13 to 60 and has been housed at Asbury Methodist Church since its inception. The children begin school at age 3 and go through grade 7 and their first two graduates have gone on to junior high school this year. Mr. Dean explained Phase 1 and Phase 11 and noted that the maximum number of children under Phase 11 would be 200 students. 'The open space required is 40 percent, and they have allocated 67 percent.. They would like to be good neighbors and have gone to great lengths to isolate the buildings from the neighborhood. Glen Baldwin, trustee, wished to comment on the children's good behavior at the school and that there has never been a problem during the drop-off and pickup hours. Mr. Dean read into the. record the following two letters received from people who live adjacent to the existing facility on 43rd Avenue, south of SR -60: "To whom it may concern: • This is to let you know that SunCoast Primary School has been what I would call a very good neighbor. The children have been kept under control at any time that they have been within the sight of my home and they are also quiet. I enjoy seeing the children as they do their exercises outside.. Sincerely, Branch Bridwell 1746 43rd Ave., Vero Beach." "To whom it may concern: I have lived next door to the SunCoast Primary School at 1746 42nd Ave. for a year. We were never bothered by the school in any way. Even in the evening when they have their after-school programs, the noise level from the school was not noticeable. Please allow the school to go ahead with their expansion and the school is an asset to the area. Thank you. Connie J. Quinn." 39 NOV 26 1991 uO01( 8 4 PAGE JOC V 26 199 BOOK 84 f E b } Marie Martin, realtor, related the difficulty over the past two years in finding a suitable site for the school due to traffic levels and ingress and egress concerns on various major - roads. They are happy to finally have located this site which answers all criteria. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the limitation of 200 students, and Attorney Vitunac stated that the site plan is designed to accommodate 200 students, but in order to expand, they would need the Board's approval of a modification to site plan. Commissioner Eggert asked if the buildings could be moved further south, and Mr. Dean admitted that they could be moved a bit more, but they feel satisfied with the location where it is. Mr. Dean proceeded to rebut the argument that the site would not be a safe place to build a school, and concluded by emphasizing that the final site plan does come up at a public, hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission level. Lisa Miller, David Scoville, and Erin Manwaring, students of SunCoast School, urged the Board to allow the site to be used for the site of their new school. Peter Corpellia, pilot and resident of the area, felt the overflight zone is a very arbitrary measurement. He urged the Board to give special exception approval for this site. Bob Lange, president of the ARCA Homeowners Association, read the following memo into the record: TO Vero Beach County Commission FROM Bob Lange President of ARGA Homeowners Assoc. DATE November 26, 1991 ARGA Homeowner's Position on Proposed Sun Coast School Site Our Homeowners Association, which includes Healthland, Albrecht, Executive Manor, Golf -Acres, Redstone Manor, and Stuart subdivisions, supported by the Safari Pines and Walker's Glen developments, opposes the proposed Sun Coast school site. We consider the proposed school location to be in a dangerous area which would place the students' safety in grave jeopardy. Vero Beach Municipal Airport Flight Path Because the proposed school location is on the flight path of Airport Runway 4 the • Airport Director, FAA and FDOT recommended disapproval of the proposed site based on their concern for the safety of the 200 students and their teachers. ,Exhibits 1.2 and 3 state their positions. • Planning and Zoning Board rejected the proposed site of the plan on October 10th. 40 Currently, a proposed airport zoning ordinance is being staffed. This ordinance proposes the establishment of an area 300 feet from either side of the runway center- line, extending out from the threshold to 5000 feet — as a safety zone. Exhibit 4. As a consequence of this proposed action, the school site plan has been revised to confine the complex to the southern section of the site. This rearrangement places the school buildings just outside the arbitrary redefined safety boundaries. We consider this action purely an exercise in manipulation. The fact remains that nothing has changed in terms of actually improving safety conditions. The unanimous conclusions and recommendations by the Airport Director, FDOT and FAA that the site is incompatible with aircraft operations, both from the stand- point of safety and noise, remain valid. Precise safety zones cannot be defined. I believe the Airport Director can validate this statement. From first-hand daily experience, the homeowners can attest to the fact that aircraft approaches and takeoffs on Runway 4 vary widely and overfly both the northern and southern sections of the site. Furthermore, FDOT has stated most of runway 11R/29L VFR traffic will also overfly the site. To demonstrate the significant danger involved, I call your attention to $xhibit 5 and Q. Exhibit 5 shows actual plotted accident site distribution within a specified safety area of a hypothetical runway. You will note, that if you reverse the direction of landing to reflect Runway 4 orientation, ( , Exhibit 6) the heaviest accident concentration would be within the area of the proposed school site. It is interesting to note that the accident study data shows that 85% of accidents occur on the active runway or its overrunlunderrun area and clear zones. I would also like to point out that the airport director has offered to lease the school an alternate site which is free of overflight and noise conditions. Heavy Traffic On 43 Avenue The proposed school site is also a dangerous area due to heavy volume of vehicular traffic along the 43rd Avenue. The existing traffic on this two lane roadway creates a very serious safety hazard for the students as well as their parents. • 43rd Avenue – major artery for • North/south automotive traffic • Trucks from groves, UPS, Federal Express, etc. • Emergency vehicles from the sheriff's station and fire and rescue station. • Daily drop-off and pick-up of 200 students will significantly increase traffic congestion on an already heavily travelled two lane artery. • Lack of turning lanes on 43rd Avenue at school location means that traffic will be stalled in both directions during heavy early morning and evening travel times while parents turn into and out of the school site. We can expect a significant increase in the accident rate. • Proximity of the school to Holman Stadium with heavy traffic and parking congestion along 43rd Avenue during spring training and other sporting or amusement events constitutes yet another hazard to safety for students. • History of high motor vehicle accident rate shown in Exhibit 7 from the Sheriffs department records indicates that a significant number of accidents have occurred on 43rd Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed school site. A Petition In closing, I would like to present a petition signed by 138 homeowners who are deeply concerned for safety of these young students. It would be difficult to live with our consciences if a disasterous accident occurred and we had not spoken out. SAID PETITIONS WERE NEVER RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 41 NOV 2 6 19 1 r err , !Aug04 F;GEiOv NOV BOOK 4-4 FA a Bud Baxter, 2296 44th Avenue, owner of property that would butt up to the proposed school facility, didn't feel it is fair to plant in the minds of these children that the residents of this area are cantankerous, cranky old people who don't want a school to be built in their neighborhood. That is untrue, because this neighborhood is composed of people of all ages. He urged the children not to pre -judge them as a bunch of ogres. He emphasized the unfairness of the verbal abuse that was given to the people in opposition to the site after the P&Z meeting. Mr. Baxter also wished to ask how the new "gag rule" would affect the public's accessibility to the Commissioners when they are not in session. Commissioner Wheeler emphasized the open door policy this present Board has had and their willingness to hear people. Allen Stadnick, 2249 44th Avenue, didn't feel that the traffic impact on their neighborhood has been fully addressed. Getting out onto 43rd Avenue in the early morning hours is extremely difficult as it is now, and if Piper comes back into operation and employs a large work force, that will make it even worse. If the school is located here, their neighborhood will be impacted substantially by the increased traffic. He couldn't see how the Board can justify approving the special exception because of the traffic impact, and urged the Board to deny this request. Betty Leckner, resident of 21st Lane, didn't feel that her home is safe being under the overflight zone. She complained of the present noise from the airport and the steady drone of cars on 43rd Avenue which she felt is just a speedway. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Scurlock felt the weight in this decision has to be with the current property owners because the buyers have other options. For the reasons of increasedtraffic levels and safety concerns, he would propose denial of the request for special exception approval. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board deny the request by SunCoast Primary School for special exception approval. Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert stated she would not vote for the Motion because this does meet all the criteria for 42 special exception approval and because none of these buildings are under the overflight zone. Commissioner Bowman felt that the Commission has been remiss in not delineating all of these areas surrounding the airport. She didn't feel there is a compatibility problem, but did feel there is a big problem with safety. She doesn't want to see it. Commissioner Wheeler felt the concerns of the FAA are subjective to what we have in our ordinances. He felt the danger here is considerably less than the trip to the school by car. He has consistently supported the rights of residential centers, and feels that schools and churches are compatible with residential neighborhoods. Chairman Bird feIt the site plan meets the two main criteria of compatibility and safety, and planned to vote against the Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Bird, Wheeler and Eggert dissenting. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board grant special exception use approval with the conditions set out under staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler commented how difficult it is to make decisions in these situations, and Commissioner Scurlock interjected that is why he feels we should have a zoning classification where they would be allowed. It seemed to him that a better approach would be to look at that and designate them as we do our commercial nodes and medical nodes. Chairman Bird noted that the churches and schools need to be where the people are, and he really didn't think it was that big of a problem because after one of these difficult decisions has been made and the project has been built, it has worked out and they have been compatible with the neighborhood. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Bowman and Scurlock dissenting. 43 NOV 26 199 13001. tj NOV 26 1991 • BOOK RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC., LOCAL 2201, INTERNATIONAL ASSOC. OF FIREFIGHTERS AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE IRC EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/19/91: TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: James Chandler County Administrator11 FROM: Doug Wright rector Emergency Services DATE: November 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Recognition -Acknowledgment Petition for Vero Beach Firefighters Association, Local 2201, IAFF, as the Exclusive Bargaining Unit for Emergency Medical Services Paramedics 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 On November 4, 1991, the Director of Emergency Services received a Recognition -Acknowledgement Petition from Matt Mierzwa of the law offices of Kaplan & Bloom, P.A., through Wilbour Tripp, President of Local 2201. Along with the Petition, thirty-six Application for Membership cards were received. Of the thirty-six (36) cards received, four (4) were not filled in by employees, however, there was a sufficient number in terms of majority status to proceed with the process of consideration of the Recognition -Acknowledgment Petition. On November 6, 1991, staff met and determined that one position was not appropriate to the proposed bargaining unit as relates to the Equipment Mechanic II. Staff contacted the law firm and the President of Local 2201 regarding excluding this Equipment Mechanic II position and agreement was reached in this regard. On November 7, 1991, staff received a revised Recognition -Acknowledgement Petition from the law firm which reflects the Equipment Mechanic II position from the "included" to the "excluded" class. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On November 13, 1991, the Personnel Director verified the employee signatures on the Application for Membership cards by comparing signatures on file with the signatures on the referenced cards. As stated above, out of thirty-six (36) initial cards received, one was changed to the excluded status (Equipment Mechanic II); four (4) were not filled in by employees; and thirty-one (31) were found to be valid and appropriate to the proposed bargaining unit for a majority status to be reached. Itis staff's opinion and conclusion that PERC would approve the petition, even if the county took exception and formally opposed it. If the Board approves the staff recommendation and authorizes the Chairman to sign the petition, the documents will be returned to the Petitioner Representative (Kaplan & Bloom, P.A.) for submission to PERC. If approved by PERC, the county would, if requested, negotiate a separate contract for EMS members. It would be the goal of 44 Management to negotiate the separate contract only for the period of time remaining on the existing three year contract with the firefighters. The issue of an effective date for the separate contract is an issue to be bargained at the table. Although staff is informally utilizing the position titles referenced in the Emergency Services Rules and Regulations which were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 8, 1991, the positions will not be formalized, funded, or effective until October 1, 1992. Therefore, the position titles/classification as authorized in the position control listing are reflected in the petition rather than the informal titles being utilized by staff at this time for operational purposes only. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Recognition -Acknowledgment Petition and the accompanying resolution authorizing the Chairman to execute the referenced documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Recognition -Acknowledgment Petition, as recommended by staff, and adopted Resolution 91-176, recognizing the Vero Beach. Firefighters Association, Local 2201, International Association of Firefighters as the Collective Bargaining Representative for certain employees of the County in the Division of Emergency Medical Services. RECOGNITION -ACKNOWLEDGMENT PETITION WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED RESOLUTION NO. 91- 176. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING THE VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2201, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS AS. THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTA- TIVE FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY INTHE DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, Indian River County has created a special district dependent to the Board of County Commissioners which provides firefighting services for certain portions of Indian • River County; and 45 NOV 26 1991 f. jK F'F.„L s NOV 461991 ROOK F ,E . WHEREAS, the firefighters in that district are represented by Vero Beach Firefighters Association, Local 2201, IAFF; and WHEREAS, the emergency medical services personnel have petitioned to be represented in a union by the same Vero Beach Firefighters Association; and WHEREAS, the State of Florida Public Employees Relations Commission recognition -acknowledgment petition has been served on the County and requires that the County state its intention regarding the organization petition; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, the County feels that an objection would not be warranted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County recognizes the Vero Beach Firefighters Association, Local 2201, IAFF, as the collective bargaining representative for the employees of the Division of Emergency Medical Services who are to be included within the union, pursuant to the petition. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner R n w m a n put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert and, upon being Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 26 day of November , 1991. Jef = i " arto , Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER 'COUNTY, FLORIDA By 146 Richard. N. Bird Chairman 'n an n.ve• ca Acvevett ,Date Admin. i Cd 11-.Zc.)-`rU, I1 24 /•2.7'1, Legal Budget ; fr. P:, Dept. �� ' II -Lo -i/ Risk Mgr. A(/j} 4 1991 STREETLIGHT REQUESTS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/18/91: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,- Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1991 Street Light Requests REF. MEMO: Michael Dudeck to James Davis dated 11-14-91 DATE: November 18, 1991 FILE: stretlt.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff has received four (4) requests for County funded street lights at four major intersections located at 1) 1st Street SW and 27th Avenue; 2) CR510 and 85th Place; 3) CR510 and 87th Street; and 4) CR512 and 101st Avenue. At the current time, the County funds 40± streetlights at roadway intersections along collector roads, not including those along major arterial corridors such as SR60, US1 or A1A . ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff has performed streetlight warrant analysis for all four of the intersections. Based on a minimum warrant score of 56.25, two intersections scored above the minimum warrant as follows: CR510/85th Place CR512/101st Avenue 110.0 Pts 73.4 Pts The remaining two scored very close to the minimum warrant as follows: CR510/87th Street 1st St SW/27th Avenue 55.2 Pts. 54.5 Pts It is staff's opinion that the last two intersections will meet minimum warrants due to increased traffic projections this year. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that all four intersections be included for street lighting in the FY92/93 budget beginning Oct. 1, 1992. Funding in the amount of $480 will be included in the Traffic Engineering Budget for FY92/93. 47 NOV 26 1991 MOF 84 F 974. Qv 2 BOOK• 4 FACE MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board approve the street lighting for the four intersections, as set out in staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler reported that he has received complaints recently about the poor lighting along Indian River Boulevard in the unincorporated area of the county and would like to see us address that problem. Commissioner Bowman suggested some pavement guards for that area also. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, PHASE III -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/20/91: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,--<1 Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard, Phase III Change Order No. 5 DATE: November 20, 1991 FILE: co5.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Contractor for Indian River Boulevard, Sheltra & Son Construction Co., has encountered cap rock while digging a ditch that will run along the west side of the Boulevard right-of-way between SR 60 and the Main Canal Bridge. Sheltra & Son has also encountered unsuitable organic materials within the Boulevard right-of-way between the North Bridge and the Main Canal Bridge. Soil borings were taken during the design of this project by two different geotechnical firms. There was no indication of rock in any of the soil borings and a unit price for rock removal was not included in the bid proposal. The quantity of unsuitable organic soils indicated by the soil borings and included in the bid proposal is considerably less than what is being found during construction. The contract specifications call for the organic soils to be stock -piled for use at a later time as top soil in dressing the embank- ment slopes. The original 13,188 cubic yards of sub -soil excavation provided the Contractor with slightly more material than what was needed for top soil. The additional unsuitable material that is excavated must be loaded and hauled to a disposal area within the project site. 48 The most recent soil borings were performed in November 1980. Since these borings were taken over ten years ago, there may be no legal recourse against the geotechnical firm for providing the County with misleading data. Staff intends to pursue this matter further. The remainder of the items on this Change Order deal with drainage improvements on the south end of the project. These improvements are needed to insure proper drainage of the residential area to the west of the Boulevard. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Authorize Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $136,807. This would result in a revised contract amount of $2,876,888.55. Alternative No. 2 Deny authorization of the Change Order and re -negotiate. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that Change Order No. 5 be approved. Funding is from Account 309 -214 -541 -066.51 -Indian River Boulevard, Phase III, Construction in Progress. Commissioner Scurlock asked why this work would not be part of the contract, and Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that some of these areas have a much deeper section of this muck and the engineer did not anticipate this. Administrator Chandler further explained that this is based on soil borings done in 1980 and 1981 by Universal of Orlando. This is outside the scope of work. Chairman Bird asked if we could recover some damages if the soil borings were erroneous, and Administrator Chandler reported that we have not made a final determination on the negligibility of Universal. Commissioner Scurlock noted that this bidder was low by $600,000, but Chairman Bird felt that we seem to be always taking it on the chin. He understood, however, that the main issue here is to remove the muck. Commissioner Bowman suspected that perhaps the engineer missed the rock because they didn't take enough soil borings. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 5, as set out in the above staff recommendation. CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 49 OV 26 1991 f0(fr E%VC NOV 20 BOOK 1 FA.,E li e SECOND EXTENSION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - GRAND HARBOR GOLF & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FACILITY The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/20/91: TO: , James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo and Roger D. Cain, P.E County Engineer FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.C. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Second Extension of Grand Harbor Golf & Grounds Maintenance Facility - Land Development Permit• Number 085 REFERENCE: PRD -88-06-08 DATE: November 20, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The first extension of L.D.P. No. 085 was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 18, 1990, for Fleming of Vero - River Harbor, Inc. to construct a 4.01 acre golf and grounds maintenance facility. The site is located approximately i mile south of 53rd Street adjacent to the east side of the Phase IV Indian River Boulevard Right -of -Way. McQueen & Associates has submitted the attached written request, dated September 25, 1991, for a second extension of the permit. Condition No. 1 of the approval letter, dated September 24, 1990, for the first extension specifically allowed for consideration by the Board of a second extension if needed. Construction has not begun and the first extension expired on September 18, 1991. Grand Harbor Associates, the new owners of the project, have requested three minor revisions to the approved plans with the request for the permit extension. These revisions have been. reviewed by staff and the Planning Division and the Department of Utility Services have recommended the following conditions be included if a second permit extension is granted: 1) All applicable conditions attached to the original permit. 2) Prior to preliminary PRD plan release and commencement of construction, an administrative approval shall be obtained by the developer to update the approved preliminary PRD plan sets with the development proposed on the new land development permit drawings. 3) A conservation easement shall be provided for the 35 ft. buffer along the north and west property lines. 4) An Environmental Health burn permit be obtained, if burning of clearing debris is proposed. 50 Page 2 Grand Harbor November 20, 1991 5) As soon as sewer and water services become available to the site, a County utility construction permit will be required, and the site will connect. The septic tank will be abandoned in accordance with- HRS rules once the sewer connection is completed. GHA - Grand Harbor, in accordance with the development order, is responsible for: a. Extension of the 16 -inch diameter water main along Indian River Boulevard. Will design, construct, and convey to the County at such time as construction can be accomplished during Indian River Boulevard construction. b. Construction of a small lift station and force main. Will design, construct, and convey to the County at such time as construction can be accomplished along with sewer in Pod I, Grand Harbor. c. Prior to C.O., the engineers/owners shall submit plans for above water and sewer design and have same approved by Indian River County Department of Utility Services and the Department of Environmental Regulation. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Planning Division staff has indicated that the existing preliminary P.R.D. plan approval depends on the project receiving the second extension of the Land Development Permit to remain valid.... -:4._ .._...._ __ .._. . The alternatives include: Alternative No. 1 - Grant extension of the Land Development Permit for. 18 months, whether or not construction is completeor for 180 days if no construction has begun. Alternative No. 2 - Deny the extension and require the applicant to submit a new preliminary P.R.D. plan for review based on the current County Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting of the second Land Development Permit extension with the conditions listed in the description and conditions paragraph. 51 gpfK 4 f <;,L s NOV 26 1991 NOV 2 1 1 a BOOK 8 F',AG[ ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted the second extension of the Land Development Permit for the Grand Harbor Golf & Grounds Maintenance Facility, with the conditions set out in the above staff recommendation. (DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD) GIFFORD TOWER REFURBISHMENT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/18/91: DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI VICE PREPARED NOEL J. McMAHON AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALI,B�T BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: GIFFORD TOWER REFURBISHMENT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -09 -UW BACKGROUND The Board of County Commissioners, on October 19, 1991, approved the awarding of the bid for Gifford Tower Refurbishment to Hi -Line Contractors. The amount of bid was $47,500.00. The amount budgeted for this project was $72,000.00. The refurbishment covered the cleaning, blasting and painting of the water tower; no repairs were included. This water tower was last inspected on July 20, 1989, and the only repairs recommended at that time were sandblasting and painting. Due to unexpected accelerated corrosion and weathering, additional repairs are now required. ANALYSIS Hi -Line Contractors moved onto the site a ► November 7, 1991, and started work. An inspection was made of the- water tower on November 12, 1991, by the contractor and one of Howie Green's inspectors. Howie Green is under contract with the County to inspect the Gifford Tower Refurbishment for the County. As a result of this inspection, it was determined that additional extensive repairs are required. These repairs include replacing the top set of six needle rods, replacing the top vent and screen, and repairs to the ladder and catwalk around_the tank, as set forth in the attached bid. The ladder and most of the catwalk are unsafe to use at this time. The cost of these repairs is $21,900.00. (See attached change order.) The contractor has sandblasted and installed the first coat of paint to the inside of the tank. The second and third coats of paint must be applied within 14 days of the application of the first coat. If the repairs to the catwalk and vent can be completed before the 14 day window is closed, the damage to the interior first coat can be repaired on a time and material basis plus 10%, not to exceed $2,500.00. This would make the total increase of the change order $24,400.00. 52 If the repairs are not completed before the 14 -day window closes, additional costs will be incurred. If the second and third coats are not applied within the 14 days, the complete first coat will have to be reblasted before recoating. If the second and third coats are applied` before the repairs are done, additional sandblasting and all three coats of paint will need to be applied in the area of the repairs. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached change order. Commissioner Bowman wondered why the inspection of the catwalk wasn't made before the contractor started the paint job, and Noel McMahon of Utilities assured her that the repairs can be completed within the 14 -day window. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 1 with Hi -Line Contractors for the Gifford Water Tower Refurbishment, as recommended by staff. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:10 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Je frey K. Barton, Clerk NOV 26 '99 Richard N. Bird, Chairman 53 POOK 8� F,.a i9.