HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/21/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Deferment for 2 weeks of Item 7-C - Surplus Property -
Drive -Up Banking Facility.
2. FACo report on Governor's proposed tax package.
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Special Meeting of 12/4/91
B. Regular Meeting of 12/10/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Proclamation Designating Mentally Handicapped Week
B. Release of County Assessment Liens
( memorandum dated January 9, 1992 )
C. Surplus Property - Drive -Up Banking Facility
( memorandum dated January 15, 1992 )
D. I.R.C. Courthouse Project / Addendum to Architect's
Contract - Increased Fees
(memorandum dated January 14, 1992)
E. Release of Easement Request by John & Rhonda Malec,
Regarding. Lot 8, Replat of Porpoise Point S/D
( memorandum dated January 10, 1992 )
GOOK !�� F1.i;�; •,��
L_ JAN 211,992 j
J � z i P BOOK Sb� p,,; _�� %,
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd) :
F. Seasonal Golf Cart Lease
( memorandum dated January 13, 1992 )
G. Update of Standard Building Code; Request to set
Public Hearing
( memorandum dated January 6, 1992 )
H. Proposed Amendment to Computer Consultant Contract
( memorandum dated January 15, 1992 )
I. Anti -Drug Grant - Budget Amendment 010
( memorandum dated January 15, 1992 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
I.R.C. Courthouse Project
( memorandum dated January 13, 1992 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS -
Property Exchange / Town of Indian River Shores
( memorandum dated January 14, 1992 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Revised Emergency Medical Services
Billing Procedures; Amendment of Contract with
Treas. Coast Collections, Inc.; and Revised Fee
Schedule
( memorandum dated January 8, 1992 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd) :
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Petition Paving Projects on 1st St. SW, 26th
and 33rd Street
( memorandum dated January 10, 1992 )
2. Florida Dept. of Transportation Request Commit-
ment of County Funds / Indian River County
Closed Loop System
( memorandum dated January 14, 1992 )
H. UTILITIES
1. North Beach Wells - Final Change Order and Pay
Request
(memorandum dated January 13, 1992)
2. 90th Ave. and 8th St. Water Main Extension
( memorandum dated January 8, 1992 )
3. Roseland Road Water Main
( memorandum dated January 3, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Connection of Countryside Mobile Home Park to County
Wastewater System
( memorandum dated January 8, 1992 )
( deferred from January 7, 1992 meeting)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
I
BOOK 8 i, Fut • ) tic.
,SAN � . AV BOOK
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 11/19/91
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 12/3/91
3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting 12/10/91
4. Approval of Minutes - Meeting 1/7/92
S. Annual Report / Full Cost Accounting
- ( memorandum dated January 3, 1992 )
6. Bid Award: IRC 92-45 / Elevated Scraper
( memorandum dated January 2, 1992 )
7. Hazardous Waste Collection Center Grant
Program
( memorandum dated January 6, 1992 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
F° GE j14
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.
� � r
January 21, 1992
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, January 21,
1992, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn R. Eggert,
Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Don
C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E.
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 Commissioner
Bird led the -Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAIEMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested the deferment for two weeks
of Item 7-C - Surplus Property - Drive -Up Banking Facility.
Commissioner Wheeler requested the addition under his items of
a FACo report on the Governor's proposed tax package.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the deferment and addition as requested.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Eggert asked if there- were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 4,
1991. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 12/4/91, as
written.
Chairman Eggert asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 10,
1991. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 12/10/91, as written.
BOOK
ROOK 85 I'HUE
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Proclamation Designating Mentally Handicapped Week
PROCLAMATION
PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING
MARCH 5 THROUGH MARCH 7, 1992 AS
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus, Vero Reach Council
5629, will be conducting its annual Tootsie Poll Drive to help
the handicapped and mentally retarded citizens, on March 5
through March 7, 1992; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the donations will be used by
the Knights of Columbus for local programs and activities such as
the mentally retarded workshop and special Olympics program; and
WHEREAS, on a nationwide basis, the Knights of Columbus
Councils will be conducting similar events during the same time
span; and
WHEREAS, with the help of many friends and local
organizations who have volunteered to assist the Knights of
Columbus in this year's endeavor, it is anticipated that the
proceeds generated will be far in excess of last year's total;
and
WHEREAS, it is altogether fitting and proper to
officially recognize this worthy cause, and to help create a
public awareness and appreciation for all those who will be
"aproned and canistered" on March 5 through March 7, 1992 and
most of all,,for all those who will contribute what they can from
their hearts and pockets to assist the mentally handicapped;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that March 5
through March 7, 1992 be officially observed as
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
in Indian River County, and that special recognition be given to
the dates of March S through March 7, 1992 in support of this
worthwhile endeavor.
Adopted this 28th day of January, 1992.•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
CAROLY K. EDGE ,IiAIRMAN —
2 `
B. Release of County Assessment Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/9/92:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nancy H. Mossali - County Attorney's Office LiLk 0L_
DATE: January 9, 1992
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF COUNTY ASSESSMENT LIEN
I have prepared the following routine release of assessment lien forms
in connection with paving and drainage improvements to 87th Street in
Vero Lake Estates from 102nd Avenue to CR -510 (Project No. 8226),
and request that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute same:
(1) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0080-00001.0
Lot 1, Block H, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the names of: HENRY LEONHISER and STELLA
LEONHISER, c/o ALBERT WORTHINGTON
(2) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00004-0030-00007.0
Lot 7, Block C, Vero Lake Estates, Unit A
In the name of: JOHN M. PICKERILL
(3) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0090-00012.0
Lot 12, Block I, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the names of: ROBERT PATTERSON and
BARBARA PATTERSON
(4) Tax I.D. Nos. 27-31-38-00006-0170-00006.0
and 27-31-38-00006-0170-00007.0
Lots 6 and 7, Block Q, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
In the names of: MARTIN HANSEN and LINDA
HANSEN
Back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment Liens as listed in the
above staff recommendation.
RELEASES OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
�- • _Z
3
E�OOK F'AG- •.317
JAN 21 199
JAN 21L' `
BOOK 8b r'm J1
C. Surplus Property --Drive-Un Banking Facility
(item deferred for two weeks)
D. IRC Courthouse - Addendum to Architect's Contract Increased
Fees
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/92:
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER .
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
ADDENDUM TO ARCHITECT,,S CONTRACT - INCREASED FEES
BACKGROUND:
At the regular meeting on September 24, 1991, the Board of County
Commissioners approved expansion of the proposed courthouse, from
approximately 103,487 square feet to 118,577 square feet. This was
approved based on a recommendation from the Courthouse Committee and
staff.
With expansion of the scope of work, the architect, Pierce, Goodwin,
Alexander, and Linville were entitled to increased fees based on the
contract. Staff and our Construction Manager met with the architect
and negotiated a increase of $90,000 dollars. The contract is
amended to be total lump sum rather than a percentage of the
construction. Everything is included in this cost.
ANALYSIS:
The new total cost is increased from $903,465 to $993,465 or a net
increase of 9.96%. This is compared to a increase of 14.58% in size
of project. Along with this increased size of the building is the
additional work involved in cost of printing, interior design, and
program work.
The project budget was amended at the time the size of the building
was increased, and the $90,000 increase is well within that budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the contract amendment be approved and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 2 to the architect's agreement with Pierce,
Goodwin.3Alexander & Linville for the IRC Courthouse.
AMENDMENT NO. 2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Release of Easement - John & Rhonda Malec - Porpoise Point
Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/10/92:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert -it Rea,tilil, Al
Community Develomenn�tl irector
THROUGH:
Roland M. DeBlois��;/AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM:
Charles W. Heath
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE:
January 10, 1992
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
John & Rhonda Malec, Regarding
Lot S. Replat of Porpoise Point Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented by given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of January 21, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by John & Rhonda Malec, the owners
of the subject property, for the release of the northerly five (5)
foot utility easement (except the west 50 feet of said easement) of
Lot 8, Replat of Porpoise Point Subdivision. It is the
petitioners' intention to combine said Lot 8 (except the north 115
feet of the west 50 feet, which has been conveyed to the Porpoise
Point Property Owners Association) and a portion of Lot 11, Bonita
Beach Subdivision, to allow a swimming pool to remain as
constructed with an approved building permit in 1983 on the
combined parcel (the easement was inadvertently overlooked at that
time).
The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is
L-1, allowing up to three (3) units per acre.
5
BOOK ob�'r1�E�ll
JAW 211992
99 -
BOCK 65 F'',,E''2Ci�
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
City of Vero Beach Electric and Sewer & Water Departments, United
Artists Cable Corporation and the Indian River County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it was
determined that there would be no adverse impact to the supply of
utilities to the subject property by the release of the easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a
resolution, the release of the northerly five (5) foot utility
easement (except the west 50 feet of said easement) of Lot 8,
Replat of Porpoise Point Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 3,
Page 57, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation and adopted Resolution 92-10, abandoning
certain easements on Lot 8, replat of Porpoise Point
Subdivision, Plat Book 3, Page 57, Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-10
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING
CERTAIN EASEMENTS ON LOT 8, REPLAT OF PORPOISE POINT
SUBDIVISION, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 57, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has utility easements as
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
6
RESOLUTION NO. 9 2=1 0 _
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River
County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
32960, Grantor, to John & Rhonda Malec, their successors in
interest, heirs. and assigns, whose mailing address is 2136 Porpoise
Point Lane, Vero Beach, FL. 32963 Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title,
and interest that it may have in the following described easements:
The northerly five (5) foot utility easement (except the west
50 feet of said easement) of Lot 8, Replat of Porpoise Point
Subdivision, Plat Book 3, Page 57, Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner Bird , and
adopted on the 21 day of January , 1992, by the following
vote:
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert _Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 21
, day of January , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By �-,�� /C .
Carotin K. Eggf.. ,
Chairman r//
Attest By"f__r_d:yr-b_X
on
7
E�UCiK �� F'; GE•.a��
JAN 11992
BOOK i A",L
F. Sandridge Golf Club - Seasonal Golf Cart Lease
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/13/92:
TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
DATE: January 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Seasonal Golf Cart
FROM: Bob Komarinetz 1
Director of Goltz
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The last three years the Board of County Commissioners have
approved the seasonal lease of five additional golf carts to be
used for rental purposes at Sandridge Golf Club. The lease is
with Islander Golf Car's of Vero Beach. Again staff is
requesting the Board's approval on a lease for 1992. This lease
will be for three months starting January 21, 1992 and the lease
price for the five golf carts will be $700.00 per month.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval on this lease.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
seasonal lease of five additional golf carts with
Islander Golf Cars Leasing, Inc., as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
LEASE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
G. Schedu ing of Public Hearin to Ado t New Editions of Standard
Building Code
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/6/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney 1�
DATE: January 6, 1992
RE: UPDATE OF STANDARD BUILDING CODE
The County has adopted by reference standard technical codes. These
codes are updated from time to time. The Building Code Board of
Adjustments and Appeals and the Building Division have recommended
the adoption of the new editions. To this end,' the attached proposed
ordinance has been prepared.
Staff recommends a public hearing date of February 18, 1992.
8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously scheduled
a public hearing for Tuesday, February 18, 1992, at 9:05
o'clock A.M. to consider an ordinance adopting the new
editions of the Standard Building Code, as recommended by
staff.
H. PrOROsed Amendment to ComRuter Consultant Contract - Tindale
Oliver & Associates. Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP tfAl/<
Community Development Director
DATE: January 15, 1992
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMPUTER CONSULTANT
CONTRACT
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 21, 1992.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
In March of 1990, the County entered into a contract with Tindale -
Oliver & Associates, Inc. to develop an automated development
review/building permitting/concurrency management system. For the
next year, Community Development Department staff worked with the
consultant to develop the system. After final adjustments and
interim usage, the system was implemented in May of 1991. Since
that time, the system has been used by Community Development
Department staff with links to Engineering, Traffic Engineering,
Utility, and Environmental Health staffs.
During system development, provisions were made to provide links to
the City of Vero Beach and the Town. of Indian River Shores. In
fact, both municipalities agreed to financially participate in
system development costs. As of this time, these links have not
been fully implemented. However, because the County issues
building permits for the City of Vero Beach, the system has
captured applicable Vero Beach data since system installation.
Recently, county and city staff finalized procedures for providing
city staff access to the system. It is anticipated that access
provisions will soon be finalized with the Town.
In developing the automated development review and concurrency
management system, staff realized that participation by the City of
Sebastian would also be beneficial. Not only would such
participation provide for the capture of information necessary to
maintain an accurate database for concurrency management functions,
but participation would also enhance city/county coordination on
growth management issues generally. Accordingly, county staff
coordinated with City of Sebastian staff regarding system
participation.
9
JAN dUBOOK
199
Fr-
� AN 2 11992
Subsequently, City of Sebastian staff requested and the Sebastian
City Council approved sufficient funding for the City to access the
County's automated system. The costs involved with implementing
this access primarily relate to programming services to be provided
by the consultant. Besides the programming activity, the
consultant will also provide training to the City of Sebastian
staff.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Both County staff and City of Sebastian staff agree that
facilitating access and use of the County's automated system will
provide benefits to each jurisdiction. To effect this access, both
staffs have worked together to provide for the necessary
programming modifications.
Based upon negotiations between the City of Sebastian and the
County's consultant (Tindale/Oliver), a price of $18,000 has been
established for the programming and training costs involved with
this project. While the City has agreed to pay the total project
cost, all parties (county staff, city staff and consultant) agree
that the most efficient and economical manner to administer this
project is to amend the County's existing contract with the
consultant and to structure the contract amendment as a three party
agreement with the City of Sebastian having the sole obligation to
pay the consultant.
County staff have drafted a proposed amendment to the consultant's
contract and have attached a copy of the proposed amendment to this
agenda item. As proposed, the amendment would entail no County
cost. The County, however, would participate in the project
through contract administration, technical assistance, and
additional training for the City staff.
Staff feels that the proposed project to provide the City of
Sebastian with access to the County's automated development
review/concurrency management system will enhance data collection,
concurrency management, intergovernmental coordination, and growth
management. -
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
amendment 4 to the Indian River County/Tindale Oliver contract and
authorize the chairman to execute the amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement for Computer Programming
Consultant Services with Tindale, Oliver & Associates, as
recommended by staff.
AMENDMENT NO. 4 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
L�
10
I. Anti -Drug Grant - Budget Amendment 010
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/15/92:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 15, 1991
SUBJECT: ANTI-DRUG GRANT - BUDGET AMENDMENT 010
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for the Anti -Drug Grant in the
amount of $187,219. County match funds in the amount of $46,805 were transferred in
from the Sheriffs Confiscated Law Enforcement Trust Fund and $9,660 was budgeted from
Cash Forward Revenue for old year grant expenses which were incurred in the new
year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 010, as recommended by OMB Director
Baird.
11
JA 1992 �orK P��"
JAN A 1992
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
moo. 5 PAGE •.
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 010
DATE: January 15. 1992
Budget Amendment: 010_
Page . I of
Ewla
ARCHITECT'S PRESENTATION OF COURTHOUSE DESIGN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/13/92:
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1992
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI S
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
The new Courthouse Planning Committee along with staff, the Architect
and Program Manager have completed the planning stage of the subject
project. The schematic plans along with the elevations are ready for
submittal to the Board of County Commissioners. A presentation will
be made to the Board on January 21, 1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The committee, in unison, recommends approval of this project as
submitted, and request permission to proceed with the drawings and
documents for bidding purposes.
General Services Director Sonny Dean introduced Michael F.
Thomas, president of Justice Planning Associates, Inc. and the
following architects from The Office of Pierce) Goodwin-, Alexander &
Linville of Tampa, Florida: Eugene Aubry, Director of Design;
James L. Musgraves, Director of Architecture; and Randy A. Park,
AIA.
Mr. Aubry advised that the presentation would begin with an
overall description of the plan, followed by charts of the floor
plans and elevations, slidefilms of the design, and finally the
unveiling of the scale model.
13
Y P C, a tl l
BOOK
JAN 1 I
JAN 211 12
BOOK 85
Mu
Tam
al
Ve"=far
1.1 V ER C!O�UHTlym._.,"'_r
CIAI .-COMFLEX-";-"--
BEACH. FLORIDA:
M M
Mr. Aubry noted that the 3 -story courthouse will be facing
west, bounded by 15th and 16th Avenues and 20th and 21st Streets.
A 400 -space, three-level parking garage with a matching facade will
be built 'across the street from the front of the courthouse.
People will cross the street from the parking garage and walk along
a covered walkway leading to the front entrance.
Describing the aesthetics, Mr. Aubry explained that the
attempt was to drop the scale of the building down to harmonize
with the buildings in the area. The idea was to avoid the look of
a slick new building, and they have designed this to look like a
brand-new old building that always has been here. Small window
panes, rather than huge sheets of glass will help achieve that
goal. It will be a stucco building with a stone base, the colors
of which have not been selected as yet.
FLOOR PLANS
15
z-
Co -
JAN 1 199
BOOK
s
.,.±-^n aR•- n" µc xz --#.�`,e' e.•e
�,h 4 Nt.i`Y•�mu"`i' .�'�" � ,4 -a_ ..tea%:_ '�v_.
� �.:+.:.:.._,.ya •...:...i.-.. ^"tet
.1
7._� � •..'- " � Ef-r— � eaoa7 y,i���
'w +
=I
�i
"_ ,1---}. )---• 1m� m' .�,.o.'y�' . '. i� �._��L:� � -v+a+' �aa• m: kav -e..at r. ...
� arr.7 •iry �OT1�L•'QTf+ w�� . _ �j'L.v iN'J'7L` �i �7y{j.JUy7L1L ' i . r •
6__1__S.• -phi,' 'ti.;� _ _ — _.
— — dT +T'" ray - I "► rro raF V? . —•
ww _
. _
w
L .rws '�"tY'��, qat:+-z.w� � <?*��4�' t^':f "�r�^•r• aaa �' ._,.a ,+c+?,.3 a.��"•�.,�3'a" k'n � "�"Y.���w�`7" _`�".�''�Q 3,�, ... �,. ��
dz`�" ��`�;•. ,` -- L $�, :3'"` -•' ,,,� � e ,�, .,,- ..,,.e,.o. ,,�. p . �„ �' +. -rs �.°� ,s" . ti THIRD FLOOR PIAN ,
;k. ..i. a'.+"' "t'ySM �_¢ "`.'"•.c'3".'."Eea.''�g..w `� ���F�, '"fi •.a. i` 'z -:a• "...i �%8'=p� :'
�V
Y -
lND1A=N' RIVElr; COUtiTY it Ri t s y
UD'JCIAL:CDMPLE7CP s5i a * II
V H —
BEAC ,."F10JtlJ?A r� s
16
First Floor
Mr. Aubry pointed out that the circulation plan of the
building is very simple. There is a public zone, a court zone, a
judicial zone and a secured zone for prisoner circulation. The
prisoners will be brought in from the secured sallyport on the
ground level and brought up in secured elevators between the pairs
of courtrooms. Entering from the vestibule, you come into the
rotunda area, off of which are Recording, the Jury Assembly Room,
Circuit/County/Civil, Family Relations, the Law Library overlooking
a courtyard, Felony, Traffic, and Bookkeeping/Cashier.
Michael Thomas added that when you come through the rotunda,
you go through a security check point. There is no public entrance
from any side doors. The building is 100 percent securable, which
is very important in this day and age.
Second Floor -
Michael Thomas advised that the second floor contains a public
circulation zone, Courtrooms 1, 2 and 31 Probate/Juvenile, Public
Defender's Office, Warrants/Civil Process, and the Clerk's
Administration Office. This floor has been designed so that some
areas can be converted to courtrooms and judges' chambers when
needed in the future. With seven courtrooms and judges' suites
plus one for a visiting judge, the building is planned to house the
County's needs through 2010. Obviously, the building will be
needed for much longer than that so they have programmed all of
that area to have the flexibility to expand into 3 additional
courtrooms as it becomes necessary in the future. He anticipated
very strongly that the county will have to do some remodeling in 15
years or so.
Third Floor
Continuing, Mr. Thomas advised that the third floor contains
a public circulation zone, courtrooms 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the State
Attorney's Office, which can be made into a courtroom in the future
when a separate facility is constructed for the State Attorney.
Sallyport
The sallyport is located on the corner of 15th Avenue and 21st
Street. It has been designed so that when a prisoner bus enters,
the doors shut behind it making it a secure area. After the
passengers are led into the building, the exit door is opened and
the bus can go out. So, you are 100% secure in that location.
17
J'192UE�()bK. FAGE • Q
JAN' 21 199
BOOK 8 5 PA'UE 3
Three-story Garage
s
jlc...rlm"ilr`.*a •14{ 1 �•,.�
TT14"I�i.Y-moi_ v.a+' ba -t p' ' Y {.+a -f'1 .y} •.-z }(_' -
d , � ' � � � �+ }yrs" "'�-'` n"`� �, .��'_� ' � 1,<k� � �:•� � �� � '� r F�
LL 14
I
2ND FLOOR PIAN • GARAGE 3RD FLOOR PLAN - 14Z COM GARAGE
.. :..... - 'FSZ "M
EAST EIEVAnoN 7n6'wi•c
� ��--� •C.• �-. ' i _ � 4 � _-+-`.• � �"�....A s � o-3
az 7 st o Z.
~'�1 • ��l�J"���:s i is6�r'iq"■+a`r"■ moi■
s�r^r �P.M.t i t
�`'•. ."' Fit -.moi. -.T ! -7 :4:'i'`� .. .:� X=,." '� ''"" N�LiH ELEVAIION 7176`=Y0'.
T x l4 't''1 v -. •- x Off^ 'n t �� 4 .
ri T "LeOUND FLOOR PIAN CARAC E �4 i"rA E� 'i u s N-4
{"
ksr
''Ezya. `'n^ .*�-�'.<�,.f ,z;. '""a.* �.'"•'y�"t',g-° 3+-i ....ra ; `,s,..{ r� -'.., ';�•
satq w ��.:�.7tl� ,'1t:+tuse �n,."t.".•s, ;� -a. i ra"�'� t''�•.'.' "-...:.�w�+�"M1.. i.a:.:v--y,,-. -asi. .x`,r,��� .-s.'��`,+. �,r ..: �2 � 'k- •°`-
`.R'I V E R -..0 O UNa
r
v }UDICIA7.' COMP -LER
vIRO BEACH FLORIDA d > '
�' - yam." - ...=s-.,.�.,.._.
The parking garage has grade level plus two levels which
provide parking space for 400 cars. The third level is rooftop
parking, and when it becomes necessary, another floor can be added
to provide an additional 140 parking spaces.
is
- W M
1009
ZR, T 9 M, dr(
6T
o .11 -H
via
-L un o a.. 43 A-, Ny,
Oil -
ZZ
4L
4 T'
EF
F.
-Y-7.!44,
1 v i orifi nr-
HVI N
.N o a
tT
--- !pr,-
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.y y
YQ Oli
V'31 "OVIA
Q n f
SKOLLYARrIa
JAN
BOOK 6b
U1 -J
SLIDE FILMS
...showing trees and walkway along 16th Street.
...showing how the landscaping ties in with the landscaping of the
garage.
...showing that with the rotunda facing west, it will give very
nice illumination in the courthouse, picking up slivers of light
that change as the day goes by.
...showing that the handicapped access is designed to be as
gracious as the access for others walking into the building.
... showing the indentations of the judges' offices on the east side
of the building, making it look like there are three
buildings when viewed from the downtown area.
SCALE MODEL
Messrs. Thomas, Aubry, Musgraves and Park unveiled the scale
model and said they would be glad to answer any questions.
20
Commissioner Bird asked whether we could provide a covered
walkway from the garage across the street so that people could
enter the courthouse on rainy days without getting wet. He felt we
might be criticized for not providing cover.
Architect Randy Park explained that they had talked about
providing cover over the street, but it really came down to money.
Mr. Aubry noted that it is a very short distance to cross the
street from the parking garage to reach the covered walkway leading
to the front entrance of the courthouse.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he has been an advocate of
having a larger footprint for the judicial complex rather than a
smaller one, because once we build this facility, it is going to be
the anchor for the downtown area and we are hoping that significant {
new activity will occur. In looking at the general design of this
complex, he is concerned about the out parcel facing 20th Street
between 16th- and 17th Avenues. He was concerned about the cost
effectiveness of allowing that out parcel to exist without county
control, both as to the view of the building and to making some
adjustments in the ingress and egress. Commissioner Scurlock
realized that it is difficult to sell these long-range plans to the
public, especially when you put a dollar sign to them and acquiring
that property might be a fair cost, but he honestly thought we
ought to seriously consider how much it would take to acquire that
out parcel. When you consider we will be occupying this courthouse
for a very long time, he would advocate a larger footprint.
Chairman Eggert agreed with Commissioner Scurlock on that
point. She had to confess, however, that she had been very
disappointed that the courthouse was turned to face 16th Avenue
instead of north facing the library, but she felt it is a lovely
design and she is reassured on hearing that the window panes are
much larger than they appear on the model.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested,the City of Vero Beach belly
up to the bar to see if there couldn't be some joint participation
in the cost of acquiring this out parcel. He noted that not one
City Councilman is here this morning, although Kevin Doty did
telephone this morning to say that he would like to see the
building facing east towards the downtown area. He emphasized that
the voters did pass a 1 -cent optional sales tax to fund the
construction of this facility and it would be nice to see the City
step forward after our spending over $20 -million in the downtown
area to see if there could be some joint participation in the
acquisition of the out parcel.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the building is aesthetically
pleasing from all 4 sides, but stressed that the emphasis must be
21
a0OK 6",
J A V 3 '119, H'`
p�
�I
BOOK 85 rtAwc • 136
on the functional ability of the building. Some people think it
would be nice to have the front of the courthouse facing 20th
street for people to see as they drive by, but it needs to face
west so that it can be readily accessed from the parking garage.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to take a minute to make a couple
of statements about the progression of the courthouse. The County
Commission and the Courthouse Planning Committee, of which he
chairs, have been working on this project for 5 years and we all
went out and worked hard to educate the voting populace that a new
courthouse would be funded by a 1 -cent optional sales tax and not
with ad valorem taxes. The voters passed the referendum, and we
came in under budget on the amounts to purchase the property
needed. He wished to commend the county staff, particularly County
Administrator Jim Chandler, General Services Director Sonny Dean
and OMB Director Joe Baird for doing an outstanding job and, for
the most part, making this a pleasant endeavor. He also wished to
thank the Public Defenders' Office, the State Attorney's Office,
the Bar Association, the Sheriff's Office, and Clerk of the Court
Jeff Barton, who was very active through the whole process.
Special thanks and commendation go to Judge Vocelle and Judge Wild
for their cooperation and participation in this from the very
beginning. Obviously, our efforts have resulted in avoiding some
of the pitfalls other counties have encountered in planning their
new courthouses. Indian River County will have a courthouse that
is very functional, efficient and economical, and one which is
directly attributable to the people who have served on the
committee over these past years. Commissioner Wheeler felt the
architects have done a wonderful job, and greatly appreciated Mike
Thomas's input. He, personally, is very pleased with the whole
operation and just wanted to publicly thank everyone for their
efforts and interest.
Commissioner Bird returned to the matter of acquiring the out
parcel that Commissioner Scurlock was talking about. He agreed
that we should acquire that parcel so that we can have control over
that parcel that could either be an enhancement or a distraction to
the rest of the area.
Commissioner Bowman noted that the trees are an integral part
of this design and hoped that enough space has been left so that
there is no paving out to the drip line of the tree. Otherwise,
the trees will not survive. She questioned the advisability of
using all oaks and palm trees, because with only a single species
of trees you could lose it all if they were hit by a disease. She
suggested a little diversity.
22
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board accept the
recommendation of the Courthouse Planning Committee and
approve the project as submitted and authorize the County
Administrator to proceed with the acquisition of that
particular out parcel, reserving the right to move ahead
with it or not when those prices and some finer details
are brought back to the Board.
Under discussion, Administrator Chandler asked for
authorization, if that is the intent of the Commission' to go
ahead and get appraisals, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that the
Motion is to do whatever is necessary to proceed with the
acquisition in a timely fashion.
Commissioner Bird asked if Commissioner Scurlock's Motion had
anything in it regarding a request to the City to participate in
the funding of the acquisition of the out parcel, but Commissioner
Scurlock felt that would be a separate motion to maybe authorize
the Chairman to contact the Mayor to see if there could be a joint
participation. He really felt it is time for the City to step
forward and participate in the funding. They wouldn't have to pay
for the whole thing, but a good faith effort would be appreciated.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to announce that the Bar
Association has offered to financially participate in the Law
Library lounge area.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the type of eating facilities
that have been planned, and Architect Randy Park advised that they
have provided adequate square feet that could be used for a vending
machine snack area or something similar to what is in this building
that could be run as a concession.
Attorney Vitunac asked if it would affect the architect's
recommendation in any way for placing the building on that site if
we were to acquire the out parcel and have two full blocks.
Mr. Park stated that they did consider plans for that parcel
if it were acquired, but it would not change the design one iota.
They would recommend that the out parcel become the future home for
the Public Defender's Office and the State Attorney's Office. As
a low-rise office building, it would complete the judicial campus.
Commissioner Scurlock interjected that his Motion on the floor
is to accept the design of the building as submitted, not turning
it or changing it.
Commissioner Bowman asked about possible expansion of the
parking garage, and it was explained that people will be parking on
23
AAS 1992,
JAN 21^
BOOK
the roof now and that one level can be added in the future
providing additional space for 140 cars.
Judge Vocelle commended Commissioner Wheeler's effort to
expand the committee to bring in everyone involved in this facility
and thank the Bar Association and everyone who has had an input
with the architects on the design of the building. While they have
had to compromise on various matters such as having the Public
Defender and the State Attorney in the building, he felt upon
reflection that this probably is a better way to do it. He also
wished to comment on the input of Mike Thomas, who is a former
court administrator. As part of their agreement, the architects
will design a mock courtroom where we can go in and see where
everyone will sit and function.
Judge Vocelle recommended that the Board approve the design as
submitted, and agreed that the out parcel should be acquired now
instead of later.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird asked where the construction headquarters
would be based during construction, and Pat Adams of Syntex Reed
Construction Management advised that they are considering using the
area between the out parcel and the garage since the construction
of the garage will begin sometime well after the beginning of the
courthouse.
Commissioner Bird felt it would be very helpful if we could
acquire that out parcel now so as to provide a larger -area for the
construction base.
PROPERTY EXCHANGE/TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/92:
24
TO: Board 'of County CommissionersDATE: January 14, 1992 FILE:
' Property Exchange /
SUBJECT: Town of I.R. Shores
FROM' ames E. Chandler
County Administrator REFERENCES:
In accordance with the Commission direction at the November 5, 1991 meeting, l
pursued further negotiations with Town Manager Joe Dorsky concerning the
potential sale and/or trade of the 5.39 'acre parcel adjacent to Tracking Station
Park.
Based on the $575,000 appraised value .of the 38.96 acre Gifford Park compared
to the $700,000 value of the 5.39 acres, a direct exchange predicated on per
acre value would result in 4.42 acres transmitted to the Town in exchange for
title to Gifford Park. The .97 acre balance adjacent to Tracking Station Park
would remain in county ownership.
Joe Dorsky has indicated the eastern portion of the 5.39 acres should have a
higher value because of the close proximity to the beach. As a result, he
proposes that 4.79 acres be exchanged for Gifford Park and the County retain
.6 acres. He also requested that the County take into consideration the fact the
Town donated 2 acres for the Gifford Community Center and entered into the
long term lease for the park. He advised that if the Town were to acquire all -
or a portion of the 5.39 acres -he would recommend to the Town Council
restricting the use for public purpose. If a future decision were made to the
contrary, the County would have first right of refusal.
The acreage that would be retained by the County, whether it be .97 or .6
acres, is east of the coastal construction set back line. As a result, any
improvements on that acreage would require an application to and approval by
the State. Although a need has not been projected, the Park could be expanded
into this area to include additional facilities such as picnic shelters and a dune
crossover. It is anticipated the State would approve such facilities. Additional
parking could potentially be expanded into the area. However, because of the
property configuration and dune relationship, the number of spaces would be
limited and State approval highly questionable.
If the County is to consider retaining a portion of the acreage, it is my opinion
that 97 acres is needed if the intent is for future park expansion. Considering
the dune and the coastal construction setback line, the benefit of retaining the
acreage for park expansion that would be permissible is, in my opinion, minimal.
Of the alternatives considered, I believe the County derives more benefit from
the original proposal. That proposal provided for the exchange of title of the
5.39 acres for Gifford Park plus a payment of $125,000 to the County. The
Town Manager would also recommend the provisions relating to restricting the
use for public purpose and first right of refusal.
25
J ! �'t�ool< Ai
N924
JAM 211992
4
Plat Map 20
�Y.J IVV IYV I I I V 1 1.90 1L ! •� r•
uy 143.42' too' too' loo' loo' O 19 �1��') O
14 IS X16 I7 18 0 1
19 i w 417.7 e' V t0
402.76 Q
a, too' too' loo' 100' loo' g ' 2 ) v N ^
PEBBLE LANE 419.96' o nl i
391.66' � D
143.42' loo' loo' loo' 100' '
r, 5. (:H) `` 2J 386.61' i
d• 26 2S 24 23 22 - 379.61'
too* 100' too' loo' loo' 32 32•..
141142' too' too' loo' loo' 331. 0' •:,:. �•
27 28 29 30 31 326.46
;66 1 'a t '' 1 23) 6,1) (30) 631 0
a3
t` 100' 100' 100' t00' low 32 .66' \
1ND 1 ` SURF LANE
All t 143.42 too' 100' 121.66' O 4 (3-9
I •� - ---� - 3 a. o9•
49.
AS e� , 38 - 38 37 36 - : S ,
1.. t� . loo' loo' too' 121.66' Io o 3!S` \
y, 344.28'ccc �y .37 AC
. °
10 p Ac SUB ECT Ac .60 AC.�
l,• ' �'1 A1s; n -PRO ERT o° 1 �'`
u'.� 0 At
SO, 80.
wC G. L. 10 G. L.Oct
lb - 694.26• •'� I
Is
01. 8 210' 48 206• >
cl
o
82 m l 7),15� ., o a m o f J
t� � • w0• �b ' o . y..210' 48 1 208' °
138.87 t oillic Llr..11 VI 1C.+ \
I, 92' �GAt1�? 286'
Ac.
6 op .l
176.08
2n � f0 � �bo ; e 1- - - ' 0✓'
0
i
/
14
4 81 20
�� ..Ing �a✓���
L
3.6 311 ((��1 : +
�KEE W ®
RUG
t •� �'
ti 22r 64' ;11
a1 8p'tt/w lu.tt.l,.
26
�ACKI#e 9-13 'jff
TATION ;I
PARK
\ i
I
Administrator Chandler felt it is a close call either way, but
it is his opinion that the County would derive more benefit from
the original proposal, which provided for the exchange of title of
the 5.39 acres for Gifford Park plus a payment of $125,000 to the
County. The Town Manager also would recommend the provisions
relating to restricting the use for public purpose and first right
of refusal. Administrator Chandler suggested the money be used for
future park acquisitions.
Commissioner Bird noted that we already have a fund for park
acquisition. He felt the ability to acquire additional oceanfront
property to back up that frontage outweighs the $125,000. He would
support the trade based on the .97 acres, taking it back to the
coastal construction setback line.
Chairman Eggert was concerned about what we would have to go
through with the State in order to use this parcel at all, and
would tend to favor the 5.39 acres and the $125,000. While we may
gain a little bit there, she felt it would be very difficult to do
anything with it.
Administrator Chandler didn't feel it would be difficult to
obtain permits to construct a couple of picnic shelters or things
of that type, but did feel we would run into difficulty with the
State with regard to parking spaces.
Commissioner Bowman didn't feel it should be developed at all,
and would like to see us keep the .97 acres to use as a passive
park.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to accept staff's recommendation,
which is to trade 5.39 acres for Gifford Park plus
payment of $125,000.
Commissioner Bowman argued that the County wouldn't be able to
buy beachfront property for $125,000 anywhere in Indian River
County, and Commissioner Bird felt that keeping some of that land
would give the County more flexibility.
Joe Dorsky, town manager of Indian River Shores, explained
that after prior discussions on per acre value, it occurred to him
that the frontage didn't seem likely to have the same per acre
value that the AIA frontage had. After learning that an appraisal
of the property that the County wanted to retain would cost $800,
he asked Ed Schlitt for an approximation of the value. Mr. Schlitt
came up with an approximate worth of $125,000 for the .66 acres.
Mr. Dorsky stated that his feeling is that he could not
27
JAN1 l
BOOK Ci�
L-
r
JAN 21
BOOK 6 1ki -i 342
conscientiously recommend to the Town or even to the County that
they trade land except on an equitable basis, and that would be the
.66 acres. He would take this back to the Town Council, but his
feeling from the Council when this discussion came up was that they
would like to make an even trade.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners
Bowman and Bird dissenting.
Chairman Eggert asked Mr. Dorsky to relay the Commission's
vote and message, and we will proceed with that.
APPROVAL OF REVISED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BILLING PROCEDURES•
AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT WITH TREASURE COAST COLLECTIONS INC.: AND
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/8/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James C. Chandler
County AdmiIR,113tror
FROM: Doug Wrightl, irector
Emergency Services
DATE: January 8, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of Revised Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Billing Procedures; Amendment of Contract with Treasure
Coast Collections, Inc.; and Revised Fee Schedule
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
When Indian River County assumed responsibility for providing Emergency
Medical Services Advanced Life Support in February, 1989, the county
opted to bill patients only for the amount of insurance coverage. This
included both primary and secondary insurance coverage. Any balance
remaining after the insurer paid, or if there was no insurance, was then
written off. A large portion of the funds collected since billing was
initiated has been from Medicare.
The county has a contract with Treasure Coast Collections, Inc., a
subsidary of Indian River Memorial Hospital, to perform EMS billing.
Recently, staff from Treasure Coast Collections attended a Medicare Part
B seminar in Fort Lauderdale. It was conveyed in the meeting that
Medicare is now requiring and is enforcing providers who accept
assignment to make an effort to collect the deductible and/or co -payment
amount of the charges for EMS treatment or transport. In this vein, the
county cannot routinely waive the deductible and co -payment any longer.
28
Compliance with the Medicare rules now being enforced can be achieved by
amending the current policy of sending a letter to the patient advising
them of the unpaid balance of the charges. Rather than sending a
notice, the proposed process will include sending an actual stateme` of
charges. Then a follow-up phone call will occur if the bil
deductible, or co -payment is not received by Treasure Coast Collections.
No citizen will be harrassed in any form in the proposed new process and
if the balance is not paid by the patient after the above actions are
taken, the bill will be written off. This process would be followed in
all cases when treatment or transport is provided to a patient whether
they have insurance coverage or not.
Treasure Coast Collections has informed staff that if the new procedures
are followed, an additional position would be needed to accomplish the
added billing functions. Currently, Treasure Coast Collections
compensation for providing the billing service is the greater of 7% of
collections or $2,000.00 per month. During negotations with the
collections agency recently as authorized by the County Administrator,
staff now recommends that Article #15 of the existing contract as
related to compensation be amended to state "TCC's compensation for
billing services provided shall be the greater of 10% of collections per
month or $2,000.00 per month." This compensation level is acceptable
to the collections agency, although a greater percentage was desirable.
The billing service is proving to be successful since in excess of 60%
of billings are collected. If approved, the additional compensation for
the agency would come from actual collections and no tax revenue will be
utilized.
Since assuming responsibility for the EMS ALS service in February, 1989,
the county has not increased the fee schedule for the service. The same
fee schedule has been followed for transport, equipment, and expendable
supplies. For comparison purposes, staff has reviewed base fee rate
information for EMS ALS service from seventeen (17) other Florida
counties and recommends the charges be amended or changed as proposed
below. Of the fifty-six (56) proposed charges listed for comparison and
consideration, there are fine (5) price increases; twenty-nine (29)
pr%e decreases; three (3) new prices being established; and ninteen
(19) have no increase or decrease.
SERVICE FEES
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CHANGE
ALS rate (Medicare allows
BLS
$224.65)
165.00
220.00
55.00
rate (Medicare allows
Standby coverage hour
$141.35)
100.00
140.00
40.00
per
(min 2 hours)
50.00
50.00
-0-
MILEAGE FEES
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CHANGE
Per mile charge (Medicare
allows $5.20)
5.00
5.00
-0-
I.V. AND MEDICATION FEES
Activated Charcoal
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CHANGE
Adenocard 6 mg
Aminopylline 500 mg
8.00
24.50
5.00
8.50
(3.00)
(16.00)3.80
Atropine 1 mg
3.80
-p-
Benadryl 50 mg
16.65
3.25
6.65
(10.00)
Bretylol 500 mg
Calcium Chloride 10%, 1
42. 50
3.25
10.50
-p-
(32.00)
gm
Decadron 20 mg
17.5 0
5.00
(12.6
2.6 0)
Dextrose 50% - 25 gm
Epinephrine 1:1,000 1 mg
3.50
23.00
3.50
5.00
(18.00)
Epinephrine 1:10,000 1 mg
1.50
18.00
3.50
3.00
2.00
Inderal 1 mg
Intropin 200 mg
3.80
5.00
(15.00)
1.20
Ipecac, Syrup of
14.00
5.00
9.0
(9.0 0)
Isuprel 1 mg
2.80
2.80
Lasix 100 mg
4.50
4.50
-0-
2.50
5.00
2.50
29
BOOK.
JAN 1 199
,, . , �
J A 2 � Y3
BOOK
�,,
5 PAGE •.�41
Jidocaine Jelly 2%
Lidocaine 1
5.50
5.00
(.50)
gm
Lidocaine 2% - 100 mg
20.00
4.00
(16.00)
Morphine Sulfate 10 mg
13.75
3.00
5.00
(8.75)
Narcan 2 mg
Nitrostat 1/150
33.50
3.00
10.00
-0-
(23.50)
gr
Phenergan 25 gm
1.00
1.00
-0-
Procardia 10mg
1'25
1'25
-0-
Proventil Inhalant 2.5 m
1.00
00
1.00
-0-
Sodium Bicarbonate 50 meq 24
Solumedrol 125
50
5.00
00
-.-
(19.50)
mg
Thiamine 100 mg
18.00
10.00
(8.00)
Valium l0mg
4.00
4.00
-0-
Verapamil 5 mg
8.60
3.00
(5.60)
25.00
3.00
(22.00)
INTRAVENOUS SOLUTIONS/SETUP
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CHANGE
I.V., drip sets, needles, jelcos
53.55
25.00
(28.55)
SUPPLY FEES
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CHANGE
Oxygen (includes mask, cannula, tubing)
Nebulizer
27.73
25.00
2.73
( )
O.B. Kit
6.50
6.50
-0-
Bandaging
77.75
22.50
(55.25)
Blood Sample
15.00
15.00
-0-
Disposable Bag Mask
15.00
15.00
-0-
EOA/EGTA
0.00
28.00
28.00
Endotracheal Intubation
35.00
25.00
(10.00)
MAST Suit (only if inflated )
40.00
0.00
25.00
(15.00)
Spinal Immobilization
25.00
25.00
Suction Use
.75
10.00
10.00
Sterile Water
6
6.75
5.00
(1.75)
Burn Sheet
6.00
5.00
(1.00)
11.00
5.00
(6.00)
Sterile/un-sterile Gloves
Intraosseous Needle
1.00
1.00
-0-
Electrodes
20.00
20.00
-0-
Defibrillator Pads
1.61
1.00
(.61)
17.50
5.00
(12.50)
EQUIPMENT FEES
CURRENT
PROPOSED
CIIANGE
Cardiac Monitor/defibrillator
Pulse Oximeter
45.00
15.00_
(30.00)
Glucose Monitor
15.00
5.00
(10.00)
Pacemaker with Pads
7.00
7.00
-0-
105.00
55.00
(50.00)
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Compliance with Medicare Part B compels Indian River County to make an
effort to collect the deductible and/or co -payment amounts, as
applicable. As stated above, this requirement does not mean that our
citizens should be harrassed and staff has no intention of that
occurring. The only other alternative would be to not accept Medicare
assignment which would mean the monies paid would go directly to the
patient and they would be responsible for paying the county. Staff does
not recommend this approach inasmuch as this a
substantially reduce the monthly receivables. approach would
If the Board approves the recommendation and bills and collects
deductibles/balances from Medicare receipents, staff feels that those
participants with private insurance and non insureds should be included
in the collection process so that fairness and consistency will be
_ achieved for all citizens and visitors.
30
710 117 on"
Staff does not recommend that the county go into the billing or
collection business in terms of emergency medical services. The current
arrangement with Treasure Collections and its affiliation with the
Indian River Memorial Hospital for patient record and information has
enhanced the level of collections which otherwise would not have been
realized. In fiscal year 1990-91, staff projected that $509,600.00 in
revenue would be received. Actual collections were $657,576.87 or
$147,976.87 above that projected which averages $54,798.07 per month in
actual revenue after the costs for billing and collections are deducted.
Staff feels the additional incease is justified given the other proposed
functions which will be accomplished if approved by the Board.
RECON MENDATIOE
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take the
following action:
1. Approve the revised emergency medical services (EMS) billing
procedures=
2. Approve the proposed amendment to the existing contract with
Treasure Coast Collections increasing compensation from the
greater of 7% of collections or $2,000.00 to the greater of 10%
of collections per month or $21,000.00 and authorize the Chairman
to execute the revised contract, and
3. Approve the revised billing fee schedule as proposed above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
BILLING SERVICE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERIC TO
THE BOARD
PETITION PAVING PROJECTS ON IST STREET., SW 26TH AND 33RD STREETS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/10/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James, W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director V
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Petition Paving Projects on 1st Street SW, 26th and 33rd
Street
DATE: January 10, 1992
31
nor
JAW 21 � �
�'1 m 191192,
BOOK��4 9
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Engineering Division has been over the past few months
conducting meetings with the property owners and sending option
contracts for the acquisition of the right-of-way for the following
projects:
1) 1st Street SW (aka R. D. Carter Road) from 58th Avenue to 66th
Avenue
2) 26th Street (aka Walker Avenue) from 66th Avenue to Village
Green
3) 33rd Street (aka Cherry Lane) from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue
Attached to this Agenda Item is a chart showing a summary of the
property owners response to selling needed right-of-way and to the
projects in general. We have a completed set of plans on all three
of these projects and a St. Johns River Water Management District
Permit, and all other permits necessary. Utilities have been
coordinated and we are in fact ready to construct upon successful
acquisition of the right-of-way.
The Engineering Division has essentially reached a point where we
need authorization from the Board of County Commissioners to pursue
final execution of right-of-way purchase contracts and the actual
acquisition of the property. Owners are understandably reluctant
to sell right-of-way when no definite commitment to the project has
been made. In addition the Board of County Commissioners must
determine if the county should continue to pursue these projects
with all means available to it and construct these projects given
the fact that there are only a few owners opposed to these
projects, as shown on the charts. If the Board does not feel that
we should proceed, the Engineering Division will not actively
pursue these projects further, until such time as the ownership
changes on those parcels where the owner has expressed an
opposition to selling, or an opposition to the project.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 That the Board direct county staff to proceed
with right-of-way acquisition and public hearings, including a
commitment to obtain the right-of-way by all legal means. All
right-of-way acquisition costs shall be included in'the cost of the
project and divided on the same basis as construction costs (50%
county - 50% property owners) pursuant to our current -policy. The
County Attorney's office should assist in further contacts with the
owners who have not responded or who have made a negative response
to our offer to purchase. Public hearings for the Special
Assessment projects shall be scheduled once right-of-way
acquisition is complete.
Alternative No. 2 To place the paving of 1st Street SW and 26th
Street in the in -active category and not pursue acquisition of
right-of-way unless there is a change in ownership. Staff would
proceed with right-of-way acquisition along 33rd Street since 100$
of the property owners are consenting.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
The Department of Public Works recommends Alternative No. 1,
whereby staff is authorized to acquire the right-of-way by whatever
legal means is necessary, especially for 33rd Street which does not
have opposition to this project as far as our contacts reveal.
Funding to be from Petition Paving Account No. 173-214-541-034.97.
�Y
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve Alternative
No. 1 authorizing staff to acquire the right-of-way by
whatever legal means is necessary, as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler asked if we have any
right-of-way going from 66th Avenue further west, and Director
Davis replied that we do. All of these streets are part of the
Sub -Lateral Canal platted road right-of-way with 30 feet to the
north of the quarter section line and 30 feet of the canal right-
of-way to the south. It is cut all the way through west of I-95 to
102nd Avenue.
Commissioner Wheeler understood then that there is 30 feet of
right-of-way all the way past I-95 and that all three of the roads
to be paved are secondary collector roads.
Engineer Roger Cain explained that we have an 80 -ft. right-of-
way requirement for collector roads, but at some point earlier in
the history of these projects, it was decided that we could not
acquire the 80 feet but could meet a local road design and get it
permitted with a 60 -ft. right-of-way. If we ever have to improve
these roads further, it is most probable that we would have to get
additional right-of-way.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this will be a major
improvement that will enable approximately 2000 people living in
Village Green and Indian River Estates to access Ryanwood Shopping
Center without getting out on SR -60.
Mr. Cain wished to point out that 26th Street will not be
paved all the way to 58th Avenue at this time, but it does go
through to 58th Avenue.
CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
FDOT'S REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS COUNTY PHASE I
CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/92:
33
JAN 211992
nr#
JAS
TO: James E. Chandler,,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Direct o
4
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.
County Traffic Engineer g� d
SUBJECT: Florida Department of Transportation Request
Commitment of County Funds
Indian River County Closed Loop System
DATE: January 14, 1992
DESCRIPTION -AND CONDITIONS
The Design Phase for the Closed Loop System has now entered
the final phase since a thorough review of the 60% Design
Package prepared by F. R. Aleman and Associates, Inc. has
been completed as of December 16, 1991.
"Phase I" of an overall Countywide System will tie 41
intersections together under a Centralized Computer Control
to be located in the County Traffic Engineer's office.
Given County Staff's experience and specialized training,
this will be the first "Closed Loop System" of any size,
installed in the State which will give the ability for local
control of all signal timing, phasing, etc., once the
initial System is installed.
The System will allow us to be much more responsive to local
traffic conditions than any system now in service.
Final Design completion is scheduled for March of 1992 with
a Construction Contract "Letting" scheduled for July 1992.
Actual "construction" of the System should, begin in
November/December 1992. The bulk of the "construction" will
consist of installing new controllers, communication
equipment and interconnect conduit and cable. All- current
progress indicates that this schedule is being adhered to.
Of the 41 intersections involved, all but four are at
locations which are eligible for 100% Federal and/or State
Funding. Two of these intersections are County owned,
namely 8th Street and Old Dixie Highway and 8th Street and
6th Avenue.
The total projected costs for the project are as follows:
Prorated Local Share
1) Construction $704,400 ($17,700 - City of V.B.)
($17,700 - Indian River Co.)
2) Const. Engineering
and Inspection (Consultant) $317,000
3) Construction Engineering 98,400
TOTAL ESTIMATE $1,119,800
34
($ 8,000 - City of V.B.)
($ 8,000 - Indian River Co.)
($ 3,500 - City of V.B.)
($ 3,500 - Indian River Co.)
($29,200 - City of V.B.)
($29,200 - Indian River Co.)
In order to ensure that the two County intersections will be
included in the Phase I System, the County must commit to the
allocation of the above local share of $29,200. (Since this is
only an estimate based on 60% Design Plans, it is recommended
that we allocate $33,000 which will include .$3,800 for
contingencies.)
With the inclusion of these two locations in the System, we will
have the ability to monitor intersection performance and make
automatic adjustments, from the County Traffic Engineer's office,
to help expedite traffic flow efficiency. These two
intersections are strategic to promoting efficient flow along
both Old Dixie Highway and 6th Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative #1
Board of County Commissioners approve commitment of a
maximum of $33,000 or approximately 3% of the total project,
to include the 8th Street and 6th Avenue and 8th Street and
Old Dixie Highway intersections in the "Phase I Closed Loop"
construction. This action would allow the project to move
ahead -as presently being designed and give maximum
flexibility and control over all signals between 4th Street
and 37th Street along the Indian River Boulevard, US 1, 6th
Avenue, Old Dixie Highway and the eastern SR 60 corridor.
(41 locations)
Alternative #2
Board of County Commissioners not approve commitment of
requested funds. This would result in the two intersections
under discussion not being included in the Phase I project.
This would remove two strategically located intersections
from direct control within the "Phase I Closed Loop System."
For the County to add these locations into the Closed Loop
System in the future would cost approximately double the
$33,000 requested.
Staff therefore recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the Florida Department of Transportation's request for a
maximum of $33,000 to complete the "Phase I Closed Loop System"
as a 41 intersection group as presently being designed.
Since this funding requirement has just surfaced, the $33,000 has
not been specifically allocated in the current Traffic
Improvement Program.
Funding is from fund 109 Secondary Road Trust Fund (Local Option
Gas Tax Revenue).
35
JAN 21
BOOK FAli ��`$
JAN 21
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
DOT's request for a maximum of $33,000 to complete the
Phase I Closed Loop System; funding from Fund 109
Secondary Road Trust Fund, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
NORTH BEACH WELLS - FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAYMENT REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/13/92:
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER -
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE:
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F MCCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL JECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEP AR ILITY SERVICES
JANUARY 13, 1992
SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH WELLS - FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY
REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -10 -DC
BACKGROUND
Construction of this project began in January 1990 by Diversified
Drilling Corporation at an awarded amount of $183,242.00. Two
previous change orders were brought to the Board of County
Commissioners and approved for a total contract increase of
$14,443.00. These items were necessitated due to difficulties
encountered during drilling of Well No. 3 (see attached agenda items
and minutes dated May 21, 1991 and September 3, 1991). The
completion of these contract changes have resulted in the successful
drilling of a supply well for the North Beach R.O. facility. As was
mentioned in previous agenda items, if this well was successful
(i.e., relatively low chlorides and flow in excess of 475 GPM), we*
would be able to blend water from Well No. 3 with the lesser quality
water of Well No. 2 and eliminate the necessity of abandoning Well
No. 2. Due to the above senario, we no longer need to drill a
replacement well for Well No. 2. This has occurred, and we are,
therefore, bringing a final change order for a contract deduct of
$82,436.95.
ANALYSIS
The contract amount with Change Orders No. 1 and 2 was $197,685.00.
The final contract amount is to be $115,248.05, netting a savings of
$82,436.95. For a detailed breakdown of deducts, please see the
attached *"Final Reconciliation for Change Order No. 3." Also
attached are three original change orders for the Commission's
execution. Release of lien has been secured, and we wish to make
final payment to the contractor in the amount of $14,350.81.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order No.
3 and the final pay request in the amount of $14,350.81 to
Diversified Drilling Corporation.
3 6'
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the total production in
chlorides now and the total of dissolved solids.
Bill McCain, capital projects engineer, advised that the TDs
are just a little below 2000 and the production level is up in
excess of 475 gallons a minute with an acceptable draw down rate.
Chlorides are running right around 800 parts per million, which is
in line with the good well that we currently have on site.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 3 and final payment in the amount of
$14,350.81 to Diversified Drilling Corporation, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAYMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
90TH AVENUE AND 8TH STREET WATER MAIN EXTENSION - BID NO. 91-126
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/8/92:
DATE:
JANUARY 8, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI RVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MkPAAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROOAENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT FILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 90TH AVENUE AND STH STREET WATER MAIN EXTENSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -17 -DS
Bi D N®. cjl-)a.Ca
BACKGROUND
On September 4, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
in-house design, permitting, and bidding of the 90th Avenue and 8th
Street water main project. (See attached agenda item and minutes.)
As was stated in the attached agenda item, this water line follows
our Master Plan (see attached Figure 1) and will complete a loop
from Heron Cay on 90th Avenue south to 8th Street, east on 8th
Street to an existing water main. The construction of this line is
called for under short-range improvements; i.e., 1988-1991 in our
current Master Plan. Due to the lower development in this area than
in the Master Plan, we have downsized the proposed line on 8th
Street from 16 inches to 10 inches. This 10 -inch line has been
determined to be sufficient; however, if a larger line is needed,
the one-half mile portion of the line on 8th Street presently
proposed as a 10 -inch line can easily be paralleled in the future if
need be.
37
JAN 2 � �
AN 91 199'Z -
ANALYSIS Z
BOOK
K
ANALYSIS
The three lowest responsive bills for this job are as follows:
1) Derrico Construction $79,643.00
2) G. E. French 81,693.15
3) AOB Underground 81,761.50
All bids for this project were reviewed, checked for correctness,
and ranked (see attached copies of bids). We now wish to award this
contract to Derrico Construction in the amount of $79,643.00. We
are also requesting that the contract (on file in the Commission
chambers) be approved for execution by the Commission chairman.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the award of Bid No. 91-126 to
Derrico Construction and authorize the chairman to execute the
contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
award of Bid 91-126 to Derrico Construction, as
recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
ROSELAND ROAD WATER MAIN - AGREEMENT WITH MASTELLER & MOLER
INC.FOR SURVEYING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/3/92:
DATE: JANUARY 3, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ROSELAND ROAD WATER MAIN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW92-05-DS
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
agreement with Riverwalk Shopping Center to phase out its private
franchise in the County. It, together with many other reserve
capacities in the e_rea, necessitates laying this water main
immediately.
38
The in-house design to extend the water main from the intersection of
South Winter Beach Road (65th Street) and C.R. 505A (Kings Highway) to
C.R. 512 through C.R. 510 supplying North County Middle and High
Schools is 90% complete.
The proposed water main will be extended from the water main for the
middle and high schools at the intersection of C.R. 510 and C.R. 512
through Roseland Road to the Roseland area.
ANALYSIS
The project will be divided into the following two phases:
Phase I: Interconnecting water main from River's Edge Subdivision
to Riverwalk Shopping Center in the southeastern corner of
the intersection of Roseland Road with U. S. #1. Also,
extension of the water main from Riverwalk Shopping Center
to Humana Hospital to the north and Roseland Plaza to the
east. This phase is proposed as an in-house design.
Phase II: Extending the water main at the intersection of C.R. 510
and C.R. 512; to be connected to the water main of Phase I
at River's Edge Subdivision. This phase also is proposed
as an in-house design. -
The preliminary estimated cost for each phase is as follows:
Phase I $ 510,270.00
Phase II $ 953,320.00
Total $1,463,590.00
*See attachment A
Five proposals for surveying were submitted and listed as follows:
Masteller and Moler included included 10,400.00
Note: All submitted proposals are available for public review.
This project will be funded from water impact fees.
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J), in their water master
plan, has sized the water tower capacity based on fire flow
requirements for the area. They also have located the best site for
the tower based on the ground elevation, direction of flight, etc.
Also, the staff has asked the Planning and Zoning Department for their
opinion of the requirements and feasibility for several possible sites
in the Roseland area. Based on the opinion of the Planning and Zoning
Department and the recommendation of PBS&J, the staff will select the
site for the water tower.
39
JAN 211992 GOOK FI,c 9�3
Phase I & III
Phase II
Total
Kimball/Lloyd and Assoc.
$12,420.00
$18,740.00
$31,160.00
H. F. Lenz
3,333.00
8,667.00
12,000.00
Carter & Assoc.
5,880.00
8,232.00
14,112.00
Kimley-Horn
18,750.00
18,750.00
37,500.00
Masteller and Moler included included 10,400.00
Note: All submitted proposals are available for public review.
This project will be funded from water impact fees.
Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J), in their water master
plan, has sized the water tower capacity based on fire flow
requirements for the area. They also have located the best site for
the tower based on the ground elevation, direction of flight, etc.
Also, the staff has asked the Planning and Zoning Department for their
opinion of the requirements and feasibility for several possible sites
in the Roseland area. Based on the opinion of the Planning and Zoning
Department and the recommendation of PBS&J, the staff will select the
site for the water tower.
39
JAN 211992 GOOK FI,c 9�3
_I
2 1L�c� FAGE 354
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the following:
1. Proceeding with in-house design, permitting and bidding to
construct Phase I and II of the project.
2. Authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute the attached agreement with Masteller and Moler, Inc., for
surveying.
3. Authorizing the staff to select and negotiate cost for the
Roseland water tower site.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is ample capacity, and
Utilities Director Terry Pinto confirmed that there is ample
capacity in the water plant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the 3 items as set out in the above staff recommendation.
SURVEY AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CONNECTION OF COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK TO COUNTY WASTEWATER
SYSTEM (Deferred from January 7 1992 Meeting)
TO:, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
e ",Pu,,
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 8, 1992
RE: CONNECTION OF COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK
TO COUNTY WASTEWATER SYSTEM
For some time now the County has been trying to get Countryside
Mobile Home Park to connect to the County wastewater system pursuant
to the terms of a 1985 agreement which requires that the Park connect
when the County brings the system to the Park.
Several months ago the Board authorized the County Attorney's Office
to effect the connection by legal action if necessary. Negotiations since
that date have resulted in the attached amendments under which the
Park would connect immediately.
The amended agreement requires the County to use some $143,000 from
a former escrow account to pay for the costs of connection. The
escrow amount was given to the County by the former owner of the
Park as partial consideration for the County's entering into the
1985 agreement. Staff position is that since the money came from the
original developer it would be appropriate to use the money for the
benefit of the Park.
40
� � r
The second change extends the time for full payment of all sewer impact
fees from the developer for an additional seven years, to June 5, 2002,
and restricts the County from forcing a water connection of the Park
until the same date. This is also a seven-year extension.
The agreement takes no position on whether the developer has the legal
right to pass-through impact fees to tenants.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the amendment to the
1985 agreement.
Attorney Vitunac presented staff's recommendation for the
adoption of the amendment to the 1985 agreement. He explained that
in addition to the $142,967, Administrator Chandler has about
$6,900 of extra money which was earned by interest and other
accounting methods that is really related to that $142,967. Staff
has proposed that we put all that into the cost of connecting the
park. That way, the money that came from the original developer in
1985 will be used for the development to get them connected and not
for the benefit of anyone in particular. The other changes of this
agreement relate to extending the deadlines for final payment of
all the ERUs until 2002. In addition, the County would not require
water connection before 2002. Attorney Vitunac believed these two
provisions are essential to a new owner of the park taking over.
With that, he recommended approval.
Commissioner Scurlock had two concerns on the issue. The
first is that approval is subject to final audit to make sure that
the $142,967 figure and the $6,900 figure are correct numbers. He
felt they are, but subject to that, he wanted to make it clear that
those amounts will not go to any park owner, that it will go
towards any cost of hooking up the system. He also wanted to make
it clear that we take no position, again, that the park owner has
any rights to pass or not pass anything through to the residents of
the park. He felt that would hold everyone harmless on that issue.
At least we don It make it worse or better; it stays the same.
Subject to that, he'would move staff's recommendation.
Attorney Vitunac noted that Commissioner Scurlock has talked
with the residents and they have reviewed this. They are here this
morning, but he believed they have no problem with it.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation to approve the Modification of Agreement
Relating to the Provision of Wastewater Treatment Service
to Village Green Phase SIV (West) by Indian River County,
Florida.
41
JAN 2 11'
BOOK FAUC
Under discussion, Ed Nelson of Countryside advised that they
have no question to the 7 -year extension, but they feel the
approval should be contingent on further study of the monetary
amount, because $28,500 had been put into the R&R fund (Renewal and
Replacement Fund) by the original developer. They want to study
those figure6, if they may, before that is finally agreed upon. He
explained that the developer was to pay $500 a month for a total of
$30,000. They had the park for 57 months and records do show that
$28,500 was paid into that R&R fund. Since the plant did not need
repair by the County during that period or since, it appears that
there should be another amount in there. They would appreciate
being able to study those figures before the final agreement is
made.
Commissioner Bird asked how that would affect Commissioner
Scurlock's Motion, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that his
Motion is for approval, but he wants the Administrator to take
another look to make sure that the $142,967 and $6,900 are the
right figures. In fact, he would expect those figures would be
changing on a minute to minute basis if that money is in an
interest-bearing account.
Under discussion, Administrator Chandler advised that the
$142,967 and $6,900 does not include the R&R or those other funds
which were to continue forward, but we can look at that part
further if the Board wishes. He just wanted it to be clear that
what we identified as one of the questions in the study we did last
spring was that amount and the intended potential use of that
amount in the future.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously, with Commissioner
Bird remaining silent. (Silence is considered a vote in
favor of the Motion.)
Commissioner Bird still was confused about whether we think
the R&R should be applied, because if it should be applied, then we
probably need to know what the figure is. If it should not be
applied, then there is no use going through the exercise.
Attorney Vitunac felt the only money going in is the $142,967
plus the $6,900 and any interest accrued in the last few weeks.
That will solve the whole issue, no matter how much there was in
the R&R fund.
Administrator Chandler didn't believe it should include the
R&R, because the figure that was discussed last spring was that
amount that had been paid by the original developer and turned over
4'2
to the County at the time of settlement. There was a question on
whether that should be continued in the impact fund for the
general, county -wide utility system or oriented to the park, and
what we have recommended here is to orient it towards the park.
Chairman Eggert recalled that was what the Board said when
they voted on this some time ago.
Commissioner Bird said that all he was trying to do is make
sure the Administrator had some clear direction as to whether the
R&R would apply, but Administrator Chandler interjected that he did
not think it should be applied.
Mr. Nelson asked if the $28,500 could be addressed at a later
date since the water plant will remain in operation and those R&R
funds were for both water and sewer.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that to be consistent
with all the other franchises, the R&R fund always reverts to the
County's R&R -funds at which point the money is used for renewal and
replacement throughout the system.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the point Mr. Nelson is trying to
make is that if they have some deficiency and have to renew
something and replace something, they have $28,500 in an account to
do that.
Director Pinto further explained that the R&R fund hasn't
anything to do with the existing water plant under the franchise
they are operating under. That stays. They have R&R requirements
to take care of that, maintain it and operate it. The R&R fund
that we are talking about here simply goes into the County just as
everyone pays into a R&R fund.
Mr. Nelson maintained that the money was paid into R&R for
both water and sewer.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to clarify that his Motion was to
authorize the agreement to be signed subject to auditing the
$142,967 and the $6,900 and subject to the understanding that this
does not go back to the developer. If another motion is needed to
authorize the County Administrator to go ahead and investigate with
Mr. Nelson the monies that were placed in escrow for R&R in a
combined account, he would make another motion.
Administrator Chandler stated that was all spelled out last
spring, but quite frankly he just didn't recall that aspect. He
knew there were different elements that were to be tracked, and
those were tracked all the way through and the dollars are there.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the fair thing to do is investigate
the $28,500. They may not have segregated water and sewer, but it
would be reasonable to think that monies were put into there to
make necessary repairs. If we are only taking over half of the
43
A W � 1J
BOOK F
JAN 211.1;IIPW
-I
system, the wastewater, and they continue with their water
operation, it is reasonable to think that some dollars should be
associated with the potential failure of the system and necessary
repairs and replacement. He felt it would be unfair to do anything
other than that, because taking all the money and leaving them at
risk if something goes wrong in the next 10 years is wrong. It was
put in there for a purpose and it should be used for that purpose.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Administrator to investigate with Mr. Nelson
the $28,500 in theR&R fund.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FACOs REPORT ON THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED TAX PACKAGE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/14/92:
JAN 14 '93 15:31 FLA ASSN OF CC,
rjzg.j
- FcoRr
ASSOCIATI .. P.D. Box 5�i9 /Tallahassee, Florida 32302
QF COVi:%r 4 i:,; Pham. 9W224-3748 FIX: 9W -P22-3839
TO: County Commission Chairs
County Administrators
FROM: James C. Shipman
Executive Director
DATE: 7anuary,14, 1992
C.;._ 4
RES Governor's tax package
--------------------------------------------------------------
in his State of the State Address today, Gov. Chiles proposed a
menu of revenue options for city and county governments. The menu
includes many revenue enhancing proposals the FAC has advanced in
recent months, such as partial year assessment and expansion of the
Small County Kicker.
44
Strong support from the local level is needed if these proposals
are to be adopted by the Legislature. Included with this memo is a
brief explanation of the proposals and why they are important to
counties. This information will be useful in answering any
questions the media may have for you about the proposed budget and
these proposals.
more importantly, county officials should go on record supporting
these proposals. Support can be demonstrated through the issuing
of statements at commission meetings, resolutions, or press
releases.
If you have any questions about the proposals, please contact Alma
Gonzalez-Neimeiser of our office at (904) 224-3148.
Thank you.
JCS/CC/AGN
JAMES G sMAWM % DAVEMUM NAVOT FENN AL4nW YOUNG ANNE t.00DNXW ED XENAWY
EXECUTIVE MUMS PRESENT IsrVICE 2ND Y= no VICE JA 4fEDM7F
SAWA ROM PRESMFNr PROIDfM PRESIDENT PAST /RESIDENT
I$Y. LUCIE I PDLX COLLIE RRDWARO
SUMMARY GOVERNOR'S LOCAL GOVERNIMENT TAX AND REVENUE
FLEXIBILITY INITIATIVE
January 13, 1992
Partial Year Assessment: Currently, improvements to real property are placed on
the ad valorem tax roll on January 1 if "substantially complete." If an
improvement is substantially completed on or after January 1, the improvement
escapes ad valorem taxation for the entire year. This proposal would require all
property to be placed on a partial year ad valorem tax roll as it becomes
substantially complete so that it pays its share of taxes. The tax would be
collected in the succeeding fiscal year based on the amount of time during the year
it was substantially complete. It is estimated that if the partial -year assessment
were in effect on 1/1/93 county governments would gain about $34 million in FY
93-94. Tangible personal property would be exempt. However, if this exemption
is found unconstitutional it would be severed.
Small County Kicker: The small county kicker would be increased from $5.5
million to $19.5 million- $15 million for emergency distributions; $2 million in
crisis distribution to those small counties which do not qualify for an emergency
distribution; and $2.5 million for a supplemental distribution to counties with
25,000 or fewer person and an operating millage rate of at least 9 mills in the
previous year.
Occupational License Tax: Currently, there is a cap in the amount local
governments can charge for local occupational license taxes. This proposal would
substantially revise provisions pertaining to local occupational license taxes to
.45
JAN 21 u,-9-2
JAM ,,
BOOK ��r
F,gi;t,y
permit increases under specified conditions. It is estimated that if all counties
currently levying these taxes increase their rates to the maximum allowed about
$8 million would be raised in FY 92-93. '
Public Service Tax: Currently, only ciders and charter counties are authorized to
impose public service taxes. This proposal would permit all counties to levy a tax
in unincorporated areas on electricity, certain telecommunications, metered or
bottled gas and water service, cable television, sewerage service, and fuel
adjustment charges by electric utilities. It is estimated that if all counties levied
the tax at the average effective rates now levied by cities about $516 million could
be raised in FY 92-93.
Local Option Sales Tax: This proposal would repeal the 1992 sunset date. It
would expand the tax base to include motor fuels and would apply to any sales
amount above the current limit of $5,000. The tax could be levied without a
referendum by a majority plus one vote of the BOCC, if an interlocal agreement
for distributing the proceeds was reached between the county and the cities
representing a majority of the municipal population in the county. The proceeds
of the tax could be used for any valid public purpose if the county's
comprehensive plan is in compliance. It is estimated that if all counties currently
levying the tax increased their rates to the maximum, the base expansion would
result in county governments receiving an additional $280 million in FY 92-93.
County Voted Gas Tax: This proposal would expand the tax base to include
aviation fuel and adds mass transportation systems to the list of allowable uses.
The tax could be levied without a referendum by a majority plus one vote, of the
BOCC, if an interlocal agreement for distributing the proceeds -was reached
between the counties and cities representing a majority of the municipal population
in the county. It is estimated that all counties currently levying this tax would gain
about $8.1 million in FY 92-93 due to the base expansion.
Local Option Gas Tax: This proposal would expand the tax base to include
aviation fuel and would permit the tax proceeds to be used for non -transportation
purposes if the county's transportation needs were otherwise met pursuant to the
capital improvements element of the local comprehensive plan. It is estimated that
all counties currently levying this tax would gain about $48 million in FY 921--93
due to the base expansion. Cities would receive some of this increase.
NOTE: Please keep in mind that each of these proposals is purely local option.
You may wish to focus your discussion on those items which would be most
attractive in your area.
46
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to add this item because he would
like to see the Board adopt a resolution opposing these taxes and
sent to the Legislature and to FACo.
Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Bird felt it might be a
little premature at this time and preferred to wait until more
information is available.
Commissioner Scurlock had a real strong feeling about the
issue. Governor Chiles has cut social programs and popular
programs and not cut the programs that should be cut, which is the
bureaucracy on the State level. Due to the social programs being
cut, there is a mass out there wanting education and health
funding. So, the idea is that this is a slick way to get a tax
passed. The Governor would be better off making cuts at the top
level before proposing a tax increase, but he has yet to do so.
Commissioner Wheeler had a problem with the entire package as
proposed, and it concerns him that FACo has taken a stance to
support this based on what they know. He didn't know how much they
know other than what they have put in this letter and what the
media has covered. He expected this to be a political thing that
is going to be addressed in the Legislature, and if the Commission
doesn't wish to adopt a resolution today, he, as an individual,
would write letters objecting to the tax package.
Commissioner Bowman felt we should approach each one of the
proposed taxes as it is happening, and Chairman Eggert and
Commission felt they did not have enough information at this point
to take a stand.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed
to take no position at this time.
Chairman Eggert felt that the Commissioners could pursue this
individually.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
Chairman -Eggert announced that immediately upon adjournment
the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
47
� V r 6-1
BOOK D FAGr
aoaK 8 5 `-'62FA.E -J
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:00 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
C:2�
l�
Je y K. Barton, Clerk Carol . Egger hairman
48