Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/18/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 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. I. CALL TO ORDER James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 2. INVOCATION - Reverend Russell Burns - Retired 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS a. Co.Adm.Chandler req.addn of Item 11.B.2, regarding Emerg.Serv.Comnun. System b. Atty. Vitunac req.deletion of Item 9.B.3, regarding Update of Study. Standard Building Code. S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of 1/7/92 B. Regular Meeting of 1/14/92 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Occupational Licenses Taxes Collected During the Month of January, 1992 ( memorandum dated February 7, 1992 ) B. I.R.C. / St. Johns River Water Management District Data Exchange - Memorandum of Understanding ( memorandum dated February 12, 1992 ) C. Release of Easement Request By: David F. Cynthia Robbins, Lots 21 8 22 , Blk J, Oslo Park S/D ( memorandum dated January 31, 1992 ) D. Payment of Tax on Documents ( Doc Stamps) ( memorandum dated January 31, 1992 ) E. Agreement: I.R.C. & Mr. Thomas H. Carmody, Jr. Temporary Water Service ( memorandum dated February 11, 1992 ) BOOK c�c� 8. 9:05 a. m. 9. 10. 11. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS BOOK , 1. Windsor Properties Inc.'s Request for Special Exception Approval to Amend the Existing Windsor Planned Residential Development ( PRD) Conceptual Plan ( memorandum dated February 6, 1992 ) 2. 1. R. C. Dept. of Utility Services Request for Special Exception Approval to Construct an Effluent Disposal Site ( memorandum dated January 14, 1992 ) 3. Update of Standard Building Code ( memorandum dated February 5, 1992 ) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS City Easement Request ( memorandum dated February 12, 1992 ) DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Administrative Rezonings ( memorandum dated February 11, 1992 ) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Approval of FY 91-92 EMS Grant Modification to Pur- chase Additional Equipment with Surplus Funds and Budget Amendment No. 015 ( memorandum dated February 10, 1992 ) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. MacWllliam Park Boat Ramp Improvements ( memorandum dated February 10, 1992 ) 2. Request from Mrs. Elinor Carnill to Access Beach at Wabasso Beach Park ( memorandum dated February 12, 1992 ) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd): G. PUBLIC WORKS (cont'd): 3: So. Co. Regional Pk., Change Order No. 1 ( memorandum dated February 11, 1992 ) 4. So. Co. Regional Pk., Change Order No. 2 ( memorandum dated February 11, 1992 ) 5. Award of Bid / Sandridge Golf Club Second 1118" ( memorandum dated February 12, 1992 ) (deferred from 2/11/92 BCC meeting) H. UTILITIES 1. North County Sewer "Reflections Lift Station" Connection to County System ( memorandum dated February 10, 1992 ) 2. Eighth 'St. Water Main Extension Final Assessment Roll & Resolution No. IV ( memorandum dated February 7, 1992) - - 3. Petition for Water Service in Glendale Lakes S/D ( North of 8th St. to 10th Street) ( memorandum dated January 29, 1992 ) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 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 ,�.. �. BOOK �e� F'•:�r"". � F E E IS 19,92 R©riF F; t�� 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT None 1S. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. Tuesday, February 18, 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, February 18, 1992, at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Carolyn R. Eggert, Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Vice Chairman, Richard N. Bird, Gary C. Wheeler, and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS County Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item 11.B.2, regarding Emergency Services Communications System study. Later in the meeting Attorney Vitunac requested deletion of Item 9.B.3, regarding Update of Standard Building Code. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and deleted the above items to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 7, 1992. There - were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 7, 1992 as written. BOOKS r;',�c. ODD FEB i 1" 4 , B _ BOOKS The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 14, 1992. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 14, 1992 as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. Occupational License Taxes Collected in January, 1992 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted the Report of Occupational License Taxes collected during the month of January, 1992 as follows: MF.MOgANDDM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: February 7, 1992 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $6,302.92 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of January, representing the issuance of 253 licenses. B. Indian River County/St Johns River Water Management District Data Exchange --Memorandum of Understanding The Board reviewed memo from Community Development Director Robert Keating dated February 12, 1992: 2 TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP 644 Community Development Director DATE: February 12, 1992 SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DATA EXCHANGE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING It is requested that the formal consideration by the regular meeting of February DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: information contained herein be given Board of County Commissioners at their 18, 1992. Recently, county staff have been in contact with the St. Johns River Water Management District staff regarding county access to some of the Water Management District's data. At the present time, the county staff has a need to obtain certain digitized data regarding land use and land cover in Indian River County. Because of the amount and type of data which the District collects and maintains, however, there is no question that the County will have even more need to access St. Johns data in the future. The St. Johns River Water Management District is amenable to sharing its data resources with local governments. District policy, however, requires that the District and any interested local government enter into an interlocal agreement regarding data exchange prior to the district providing data at no cost to that local government. Structured as a memorandum of understanding between the District and the local government, the required interlocal agreement primarily commits the district and the local government to share information and establishes the general parameters for the data exchange. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: A copy of the proposed St. Johns River Water Management District/Indian River County memorandum of understanding is attached to this item. As structured, this memorandum of understanding provides the general parameters for data exchange and commits both parties to share data. The memorandum of understanding will not entail any costs to the county. As provided for within the memorandum, there will be no cost for general data exchange. If more detailed or costly data (such as development of custom report forms) is requested, the memorandum of understanding provides that the District and the County may enter into a written reimbursement agreement. It is staff's position that execution of the attached memorandum of understanding will provide benefits to both the County and the District with no cost to either party. 3 �� 1r P00r, CLd� tr �C r r 18 E FED 18 M`9`2 BOOK v 0 I II.I� c a l � RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the chairman to execute the attached Indian River County/St. Johns River Water Management District memorandum of understanding. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between Indian River County and St. Johns River Water Management District establishing the general parameters for data exchange, as recommended by staff. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD C. Release of Easement Request by David and Cynthia Robbins Oslo Park Subdivision The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Charles Heath dated January 31, 1992: 4 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Rea#ing, CP Community Develop t Director , THROUGH: Roland M. DeBloisCP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement FROM: Charles W. Heath o GJ/V Code Enforcement Officer DATE: January 31, 1992 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY: David & Cynthia Robbins Lots 21 & 22, Block J, Oslo Park Subdivision It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 18, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS.- The ONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by David & Cynthia Robbins, owners of the subject property, for the release of the common two and one- half (2 1/2) foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots, 21 & 22, Block J, Oslo Park Subdivision. It is the petitioners' intention to construct a single family residence on the subject property. The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -61 Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is L- 2, allowing up to six (6) units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company, Florida Power & Light Company, United Artists Cable Corporation, the Indian River County Utilities Department, and the Road and Bridge and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it has been determined that there would be no adverse impact to utilities being supplied to the subject property by the release of the easements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolution, the release of the common two'and one-half (2 1/2) foot side lot utility and drainage easements, of Lots 21 and 22, being the southerly two and one-half (2 1/2) feet of Lot 21, and the northerly two and one-half (2 1/2) feet of Lot 22, Block J, Oslo Park Subdivision, Section 24, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; as recorded in Plat Book 31 Page 96 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. 5 FEB i S 1992 800K L")3 ­ i• 7C �1� y FEB i �p�;�' H + 1 �sY h . i and 8Qor �'5 Fa,sE 551 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-34 abandoning certain easements in the Oslo Park Subdivision, Lots 21 and 22, Block J, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO.92-34 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION LOTS 21 & 22, BLOCK J, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 96, OF THE.'P.UBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below, WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public purpose, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Grantor, to David & Cynthia Robbins their successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 6144, Vero Beach, Florida 32961-6144 Grantee, as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it'may have in the following described easements: the common two and one-half (2 1/2) foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 21 & 22, Block J, Oslo Park Subdivision, being the southerly two and one-half (2 1/2) feet of Lot 21, and the northerly two and one-half ( 2 1/2) feet of Lot 22, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 96 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida Tax Parcel Control No. 24-33-39-00001-0010-0021.0 This RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock Wheeler seconded by Commissioner and adopted on the 18 day of February , 1992 by the follow -ng vote: 6 if tV Q'1 Ql C7 ko N rrii Q Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 18 , day of 7 February , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By [J /f CarolypjK. EggextX a.i Xmil v D. Payment of Tax on Documents (Doc Stamps) The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien dated January 31, 1992: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney C v- j DATE: January 31, 1992 SUBJECT: PAYMENT OF TAX ON DOCUMENTS (DOC STAMPS), Under Section 201.24, Florida Statutes, if the County acquires property from a private party the private party is required to pay the "doc stamps" on recording the deed. This can often make a recalcitrant seller or donor more so. Accordingly, this office asked the Attorney General for an opinion on the requirements of Section 201.24, F. S. The Attorney General in Opinion 92-7 opined, in part, as follows: Therefore, I am of the opinion that the private party is liable for the payment of the excise tax on documents. The county, however, if it determines that such payment serves an identifiable county purpose, may pay, on behalf of the private party, such taxes on real property it acquires by donation, purchase, or settlement of an eminent domain proceeding. The determination of whether such payment constitutes a county purpose in any given instance is one which must be made the county commission. In view of the foregoing, the staff requests authority to pay the "doc stamps" from County funds whenever property is acquired by donation, for easement, by dedication, or by forced acquisition. 7 FEB 18 1992 FF - FEB iS OZ ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized payment of "doc stamps" whenever property is acquired by donation, for easement, by dedication or by forced acquisition, as recommended by staff. F�'JC E. Acireement with Thomas H. Carmody. Jr. for Temporary Water Service The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated February 11, 1992: DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: AGREEMENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MR. THOMAS H. CARMODY, JR. TEMPORARY WATER SERV /�C�E PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA AND MANAGER OF ASSE PROJECTS STAFFED BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES BACKGROUND Mr. Thomas H. Carmody, Jr. has requested that temporary service be installed from the water line on 2nd Street to service his property at 205 13th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32962, prior to the installation of a water main on 13th Avenue. ANALYSIS The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary water service to Mr. Thomas H. Carmody, Jr. until such time that a water line is constructed on 13th Avenue by assessment. He agrees to pay all fees required to make this connection. He further agrees to participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line as required by IRCDUS. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. Thomas H. Carmody, Jr. on the Consent Agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement with Thomas H. Carmody, Jr., for temporary water service, as recommended by staff. COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 8 � s o PUBLIC HEARINGS WINDSOR PROPERTIES INC. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL TO AMEND THE EXISTING WINDSOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) CONCEPTUAL PLAN The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oatfi says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a " in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of_ L4 " Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid or promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund f the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this t / dayi� =r '� ,�•'Z! A.D. 19 rusiness Manager) _ SUBJECT i� �» SITE , OF w r t oac,eo+ WINDSOR POLO CLUB NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING Notice of how" to oder the granting of s of e%cP approval t known the as expansion of e lltlaatatt d Windsor. The sub- nc., and Is btedpr Sectio 15, Towrwhtp the 31 S. and Range 39 E. See the above nap for the bca- A public hcark,g at which parties In Interest and citizen shall have an to be heard, will be holdby the e�rd �Commisslorm of IndlartChambers ,F Florida, in the Camty Commls- sim Admhdstratbn Build - Ing. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Flor- Mta on Tuesday, February 18, 1992 at 9.05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to en- sure that a verbatim record of the proc eedh 9 Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon MW the appeal Is based. MAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS B ism 24,1Y992Cm r. Eggert, Chaimm 870032 Planning Director Stan Boling commented from the following memo dated February 6, 1992: 9 FED' +uC TO: James E. Chandler - County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Ego Obert K. Rea in , AIMV Community Development -director THROUGH: Stan Boling SAICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP�wP& Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: February 6, 1992 SUBJECT: Windsor Properties Inc.'s Request for Special Exception Approval to Amend the Existing Windsor Planned Residential Development (PRD) Conceptual Plan It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 18, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: McQueen and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Windsor Properties, Inc., has submitted an application for special exception approval to modify the Windsor project's conceptual plan to add approximately 3.5 acres of oceanside property to the overall PRD. Along with this request, the applicant has also submitted a preliminary PRD plan that proposes the creation of single family lots on the 3.5 acre addition, as well as reconfiguration of some lots in an adjacent portion of the existing PRD. Since PRDs are special exception uses in all zoning districts, special exception approval must be obtained to expand the boundaries of the existing PRD. The applicant is requesting approval to add the 3.5 acres to the existing development. Although the proposed changes would add property to the PRD, the proposed PRD plan would not increase the total number of units (400) approved for the entire, existing project. Furthermore, no additional waivers are proposed with these requests; the waivers approved with the existing PRD would apply to the 3.5 acre addition. The preliminary PRD plan includes 8.9 acres, 3.5 acres of which is the new property being added to the overall PRD project, and 5.4 acres which are presently included in the overall PRD. The property within the approved PRD has previously received final plat approval and has a home constructed on one of the lots, and includes other common facilities including a dune walkover and recreation tract. The preliminary PRD will reconfigure the lots that were previously approved, essentially replatting a portion of a previously platted area. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested special exception use based on the submitted conceptual site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or deny the special exception use. 10 The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. At its January .23, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval, and granted preliminary PRD plan approval subject to the Board's approval of the special exception use request. If the Board of County Commissioners grants special exception use approval, then the preliminary PRD plat approval will become effective. ANALYSIS: 1. Overall Project Size of Development: 412.01/acres approved in conceptual PRD plan 3.50/acres proposed in addition 415.51/acres pr000sed in concentuel 05n nlmr 2. Preliminary PRD plan Size of Development: 8.9 acres (includes the 3.5 acre addition and modification to 5.4 acres within existing PRD) 3. Zoning Classifications: Overall Project RM -31 Residential Single Family District (up to 3 units/ acre) RM -61 Residential Multifamily District (up to 6 units/ acre) RS -6, Residential Single Family District (up to 6 units/ acre) Preliminary PRD Plan Area RM -61 Residential Multifamily District (up to 6 units/ acre) 4. Land Use Designation: L-11 Low Density (up to 3 units/acre) L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units/acre) 5. Previously Approved Dwelling Units: 400 units (conceptual plan) New units proposed: 0 units (no change to conceptual) Note: The revised conceptual PRD plan will actually decrease the number of lots now proposed for this portion of the project; however, the developer wants to maintain the overall number of units approved for the overall project at 400 units. 6. Density previously approved: 0.99 units/acre (overall conceptual plan) Density with proposed Addition: 0.97 units/acre (overall conceptual plan) Density proposed within the preliminary PRD plan: 0.56 units/acre it FEB 18 199? y^ , I tis r.� FEB io BOOK 7. Openspace Required: 50% (overall PRD project) Previously Approved: 75% (overall PRD project) Proposed: 75% (overall PRD project) Proposed within the preliminary PRD plan: 50% 8. Traffic Circulation: The addition will have no effect on the overall project's traffic circulation plan. The area covered by the proposed preliminary plat' will be accessed by an existing project entrance on S.R. A.1.A. The interior project road will be extended to the north to access the proposed lots to be contained within the 3.5 acre addition. 9. Stormwater Management: The revised conceptual stormwater plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department will perform a detailed drainage review when the land development permit for the proposed preliminary PRD plan is reviewed. The land development permit process will ensure that the proposed addition has an adequate stormwater system that is integrated into the overall PRD project stormwater system. 10. Dedication and Improvements: The applicant has agreed to the following dedication and improvements: (A) The comprehensive sidewalk and bikeway plan requires that a 5' public sidewalk be constructed along the S.R. A -1-A. frontage of the 3.5 acre addition. This sidewalk improvement is to be treated as a required subdivision improvement, and will have to be either constructed or bonded -out in accordance with applicable subdivision ordinance provisions. (B) The County's thoroughfare plan classifies S.R. A -1-A as a principal arterial roadway requiring 120' of right-of- way. Presently 100' of right-of-way exists for S.R. A -1- A, requiring the dedication of an additional 10' from the 3.5 acre addition, which has been depicted on the Preliminary PRD plan. 11. Recreation Area Required: 4.8 acres (based on total number of project units: no change) Provided: 215.8 (provided with previously approved conceptual plan, no change) 12. Environmental Concerns: Since the overall project is greater than 5 acres in size, the project is subject to the native upland set aside requirement. Pursuant to section 929.05, 15% of the native upland habitat on the site must be set aside in a conservation easement. The conservation easement indicated on the preliminary plat exceeds the 15% requirement. Prior to approval of the final plat covering the area of the addition, or on the final plat, a conservation easement meeting the requirements of LDR section 929.05 must be dedicated to the county. 13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant/RM-6 South: Windsor, County Park, Town of Orchid/RM-6 West: Windsor, Indian River/RS-3, RS -6, N/A East: Atlantic Ocean/N/A 14. Concurrency: The conditional concurrency certificate application submitted in conjunction with the preliminary PRD plan has been issued. 12 15. The proposed preliminary PRD plan conforms to the proposed conceptual PRD plan revision. Thus, the preliminary PRD plan is dependent upon approval of the special exception request and corresponding conceptual PRD plan revisions. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed1staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception request to add 3.5 acres to the Windsor PRD and approve the revised conceptual PRD plan with the following conditions: 1. that a conservation easement meeting the requirements of LDR section 929.05 be dedicated to the county prior to final plat approval or via the final plat, and 2. that prior to or via the final plat, 10' of additional right- of-way shall be dedicated for S.R. A.l.A. right-of-way as indicated on the proposed plans. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the special exception request to add 3.5 acres to the Windsor PRD and approved the revised conceptual PRD plan with the above stated conditions, as recommended by staff. DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SITE The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: 13 FEB H 1992 FEB 18 `: 2 _I BOOK C.� FA.;E bib- E:., VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida hw COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA ntM .` Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath A� I Subject says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper publisheds0'F Site at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being NO In the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of/• "" 6 Z.� n A "14 i. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first pthbiication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of f A.D. 19 $; Business Manager) N I i rblkof hearing to x G0ftdGrth9WWftV0fW caller! eex�� cI approval for a limited eutnatltyy huse(p` Iran Rlverproperty is W CCoounntty, Seed i TToevpns" 32 S, er,d Range 39 E. Sea the abo A public the h locationat which parties in Interest eT citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, v o of county W Bull hhg, located at 1840 28th Street, Vero Beaoh, FIC Ids an Tuesday. Felxuery 18,1882 at 9:08 am. Anyone who may wish t0any declsk YVhhICh may be mha� et thle mea W19 need to P- ears that a verbatim record of the proceedings made, which Uxl,xles testimony and evidence upc which the appeal Is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BB -s -Caro" Canty of . Eggot Chairman Jan. 24, 1982 87003 Planning Director Stan Boling commented from the following memo dated January 14, 1992: 14 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 7 Robert M. Rea ing ICP Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: January 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Indian River County Department of Utility Services Request for Special Exception Approval to Construct an Effluent Disposal Site It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 18, 1992. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION: Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. has submitted a special exception site plan application on behalf of the Indian River County Department of Utility Services to construct an unmanned effluent disposal (percolation) facility on the former Bent Pine utilities site. The subject property is located south of, and adjacent to, the Bent Pine development at the northwest corner of the North Relief canal and the Lateral G canal. The proposed facility constitutes a limited utilities use. Formerly used, in part, as a percolation pond site for the Bent Pine project, the subject site is zoned RM -4. In the RM -4 district, a limited utility use requires special exception approval. Along with a special exception use request, the applicant has submitted an administrative approval site plan application which has been approved by the Technical Review Committee subject to special exception use approval by the Board of County Commissioners. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the special exception use request, the site plan approval will then become effective. It is county policy to dispose of treated effluent through irrigation reuse projects. Such projects are planned or in-place at golf courses such as Grand Harbor, Hawks Nest, Bent Pine and Sandridge. According to Department of Environmental Regulation requirements, all entities using effluent reuse irrigation systems must have a secondary disposal site. This secondary disposal site serves to dispose of the treated effluent (through percolation) during periods of heavy rainfall when the golf courses cannot accept any additional irrigation water. The subject site will serve as a county -wide effluent disposal site for all county wastewater treatment plants. This site will handle only treated effluent and will be used only when the sites using the effluent for irrigation cannot accept the effluent. 15 wi3 k'(' ` a phi FEE 1'9 92 BOOK Fr1Ul C!' The effluent disposal facilities proposed on site will consist of large percolation basins which will be totally bermed. For most of the year, these percolation basins will look much like large, bermed and landscaped dry retention areas. During certain periods of heavy rainfall, however, irrigation -quality effluent will be conveyed into the basins for percolation. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County - Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or deny the special exception use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. At its January 23, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval. ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Development Area: 34.1 acres 2. Zoning Classification: RM -4, Residential Multi -family (up to 4 units per acre) 3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units per acre) 4. Building Area: 380 sq. ft. (unmanned, water distribution structure) 5. Total Impervious Area: 29,620 sq. ft. (on-site, stabilized roadway) 6. Open Space Required: 40% Provided: 98% 7. Traffic Circulation: A portion of 57th Street (Storm Grove Road) will be constructed from 58th Avenue to the project location in order to provide access to the subject site. This roadway construction is an off-site improvement which is not part of this project; however, the improvement must be completed before the facility can begin operation. To provide on-site circulation, a stabilized internal loop roadway will be constructed so that each effluent disposal basin area can be accessed for periodic maintenance. 8. Off -Street Parking: As an unmanned facility and an infrequently used site, the project will be visited usually by a single vehicle for inspection and maintenance (mowing) of the facility. As an infrequent use, no paved parking is required; adequate, stabilized parking and driveway areas are proposed. By approval of this site plan, the unpaved, stabilized parking provisions will be approved. 9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has been approved by the Public Works Department. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Chapter 926 requirements as well as applicable buffering requirements required via specific land use criteria (see item #15, this report). 11. Utilities: No utilities services are required. 12. Dedications and Improvements: None are required. 16 M 13. Concurrency: No concurrency certificate is project since no intensification of site use would impact traffic, drainage, parks, utilities facilities. required for this is proposed that solid waste, or 14. Environmental Concerns: The project site consists of a total of 34.1 acres with 27.9 acres comprised of native upland vegetation. As required pursuant to section 929.05, 15% of the 27.9 acres must be set aside as preserved native upland habitat. Based upon that requirement, a minimum of 4.2 acres must be set aside. The applicant, however, will preserve approximately 10.9 acres or 39% of the existing upland habitat. Since the county cannot grant a conservation easement to itself, the site plan will depict the limits of land clearing and the area to be preserved. Thus, the site plan will become the controlling document for conservation/preservation purposes; no clearing or tree removal will be allowed within the preservation area. 15. Specific Land Use Criteria: A. Between all above -ground facilities (except distribution and collection facilities) and adjacent property having a residential land use designation a Type "B" buffer (reduce to Type "C" where abutting a local roadway, reduce to "D" buffer where abutting a thoroughfare plan roadway) (with six-foot opaque screening) as specified in Chapter 926, Landscaping, shall be provided; B. All below -ground high voltage cables within a utility right-of-way shall be made known to the public through the use of signs posted therein; C. In all zoning districts except the industrial districts, all equipment, machinery and facilities which cannot by their size or nature be located within an enclosed building shall be separated from adjacent properties having a residential land use designation by a Type "D" buffer (with six-foot opaque screening) as specified in Chapter 926, Landscaping; D. All buildings and loading areas shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any lot line adjacent to a residentially designated property; E. Driveways located in close proximity to adjacent properties having a residential land use designation shall provide a six-foot opaque screening between the driveway and adjacent property. An eight -foot opaque screen may be required if deemed necessary to mitigate noise and visual impacts. All of the above specific land use criteria have been satisfied by the site plan proposal. 16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: 57th Street Right -of -Way, Bent Pine project/RM-4 South: North Relief Canal, Vacant/A-1 East: Hawks Nest project/RM-4 West: Vacant/RM-4 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff County Commissioners grant special construct the effluent reuse disposal conditions: 17 recommends that the Board of exception use approval to Project, with the following �- B�OK r, Gr. s FEE H IM21 BOOK 1. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the facility the access road from 58th Avenue to the subject site shall be constructed as approved by the Public Works Department; and 2. that the area designated on the approved plan as preserved native upland plant community shall remain undisturbed; no clearing or tree removal shall be allowed within the preservation area. Commissioner Scurlock questioned the use of a prime piece of property for this purpose. He mentioned that property in the nearby subdivisions was priced at $40,000 to $50,000 per lot. He felt we should have considered disposing of this valuable land and bought cheaper property elsewhere for the effluent disposal site. Community Development Director Keating stated staff looked at the application for special exception to determine whether the use would fit on the property and did not look at the value of the site. Chairman Eggert noted, and Commissioner Wheeler concurred, that we are not changing the value of other property out there by using this site for effluent disposal. Commissioner Scurlock felt that was the wrong attitude. He said this wastewater treatment plant originally was placed on the least desirable piece. At that time the County was not in the utilities business and out of necessity the subdivision had to handle their own waste. Now, however, if we can use the site for something better, we should. Commissioner Scurlock admitted the project is too far along to change it now. He felt we should have considered the impact of this facility on the adjacent property as well as the value of this property versus locating another site. Commissioner Wheeler asked what portion of the site was used in the past,,and Director Pinto estimated 12 acres with additional wells for the reward system. Commissioner Wheeler asked how much it might cost to move the site somewhere else and to run piping to the golf course to get rid of the effluent, in relation to the difference in value between that piece of property versus another piece of property. Director Pinto said land fills and wastewater treatment plants were located on undevelopable ground. Now we must look at the highest and driest when we are locating this type of system. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out this is not next to the wastewater treatment plant, and Director Pinto pointed out this is located strategically between the two golf courses that we are irrigating. Commissioner Scurlock said we could locate a site closer to the actual treatment plant where the effluent is created and pipe it to the places where it will be used for irrigation. 18 M Director Pinto pointed out that on this 34 acres you can get rid of as much effluent as you could get rid of on the 150 acres at the sod farm in the south county. He further said the site has all the advantages: two golf courses, deep wells to help maintain the mound so we do not overmound the water, and the deep canal nearby to handle the overflow. Commissioner Wheeler asked how much we have invested in this site, and Director Pinto said we have about $100,000 in permitting and probably $250,000 in the whole project. Commissioner Wheeler agreed we should have looked at this site originally and considered other property but it is too late. Director Pinto said he will do whatever the Board directs. Commissioner Bird was concerned about this site for effluent disposal because of the proximity to development in the area. He asked whether there might be an odor problem. Utility Services Director Pinto explained it is the same effluent which would be irrigating the golf courses. By eliminating the wastewater treatment plant that was previously located on this site we have eliminated a possible odor problem as well as a pollution problem on the site. This site was chosen because it was the Bent Pine wastewater treatment plant and is a permitted disposal site. The County took over the treatment plant before the construction of the County wastewater treatment system in that area. As far as the value of the property, and whether it should be changed for another cheaper site, that would be a matter of County policy. This site is located strategically for irrigation of our golf courses and will serve as a bypass system. When we are not irrigating the golf courses, it goes into the percolation pond. There is no reason to be concerned about the condition of the water because it is good enough to irrigate the golf course. Commissioner Scurlock said the only possible problem would be mounding of water which would raise the water table in that area, and Director Pinto said the nearby canal would take care of any possible mounding. Commissioner Bird also was concerned about the access road to the site from Kings Highway. He said right now there is a heavily wooded buffer between the main road coming into the Bent Pines subdivision and the neighboring property owned by Ciba-Geigy, and he felt the creation of the road would eliminate that buffer. Planning Director Stan Boling said that issue comes up with any new right-of-way or road extension in terms of vegetation, and direction can certainly be given in terms of accommodating that, but he agreed the buffer is within the right-of-way. 19 BOOK a r' FEB 18 1992 �;. L_ ,ti BOOK S P,' -E Commissioner Bird felt we would upset the neighborhood if we clear the right-of-way wall to wall on both sides and put in swales and ditches and pave a road. He could see the site is geographically good in relation to the golf courses but asked if we could look to buy something else to avoid potential negative effects to the residential community around it. Director Pinto said this project has been worked on for two years and the project has been before the Board. He agreed there is always another site, but we have gone through the permitting on this site and spent literally thousands of dollars on engineering. He assured the Board that the appearance is going to be better than what has been there up to now. The access road is on the master plan as a road, so there is no special road being created. He consulted the public works department and the planning department about access to the project, and those departments have indicated their intention is that road will become a major road. Commissioner Bird agreed that the master plan indicates that eventually a road will be part of that area, but he felt there is a difference between creating a road to move traffic and building an access road to a facility that the neighbors do not want in the first place. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we could continue using the access road and defer building on the road until later, and Director Pinto explained that the Utilities Department needs a road to do the construction but will follow whatever Planning and Public Works allows. Utilities certainly does not wish to spend money to build roads. Commissioner Bird asked if staff is making it a requirement that the road be constructed to the site as part of the site plan approval, and Planning Director Stan Boling advised they only need access because this is an unmanned facility. Paved parking is not required. Any kind of access to a site like this would be acceptable because it is an existing situation and they are not increasing the traffic. Commissioner Bird felt if we could hold off on construction of that road, it would prevent antagonizing the residents in the neighborhood. Commissioner Bird asked about the possibility of discharging the effluent into the canal. He understands we do not want to convey water into the river, but during times of rainfall we put millions of gallons of water into the river a day, and how much more are we going to damage the river if we add another million or two per day during an emergency type situation. 20 Director Pinto explained that the disposal permit allows for irrigation first, with percolation as an alternative, and overflow as the second alternative. We cannot get a permit that allows irrigation with overflow as the first alternative. Commissioner Scurlock said there would be a mound, a berm, not flat land. He suggested they should go out to the west county wastewater plant to see that mounded area. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that this is the edge of the sand ridge, which is why it is well drained and has excellent percolation conditions. However, she felt this pond would be dry during droughts in the summer with the demand from the golf courses for irrigation. Director Pinto acknowledged irrigation will be the primary disposal, so if we are talking about a drought and we are pushing everything possible to irrigation, then it possibly could be dry. Commissioner Scurlock said we will use that site to the maximum because it is very expensive to go out and acquire land for another site. Once we expand our wastewater treatment plants we will put as much as we can into this disposal site. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the change in personnel with Professional Engineering Corporation which is handling this project along with the reward system and Blue Cypress Lake. Director Pinto assured him that the same project engineer has worked on this project from the beginning. Dave Refling was the principal of the company and Dave's counterpart, Mr. Kelly, has taken over the project. We are satisfied with the personnel and we will pay close attention to this situation. Commissioner Bird asked about maintenance of the pond to avoid infestation of cattails and other unwanted growth. Director Pinto advised we do some of the maintenance ourselves and we have a contract out for aquatic control, and Commissioner Scurlock added that it is maintained continuously. Sometimes it is dredged and the base is reestablished. Commissioner Scurlock asked what kind of notice the residents of Bent Pines received, and Planning Director Stan Boling advised that notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet. There were responses and staff talked to several people. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone -_ wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. 21 FEB 181992a00K.r ;tom �k FF- FEE mu 85 utu ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the request by Utility Services Department for special exception use to construct an effluent disposal site with conditions as recommended by staff. CITY EASEMENT REQUEST County Administrator Jim Chandler made the following presentation: TO: Board of County CommissionerspATE: February 12, 1992 FILE: THRU: James E. Chandler �� County" Administrato SUBJECT: CITY EASEMENT REQUEST Randy Dowling FROM: Asst. to Co. Admin. REFERENCES: BACKGROUND The City of Vero Beach Electric Department has requested from the county a 60 foot easement along the east and south property lines of the former county landfill site located west of Old Dixie Highway. The purpose of this easement is for the City to construct a 138 KV overhead transmission line from their south substation to the south county line where it will interconnect with the City of Fort Pierce Utilities and FPL ( see Attachment A) . The former landfill site is also the subject of a proposed land exchange between the County and the State whereby the County will restrict 30.1 acres of the landfill site to perpetual recreational use and, in turn, the State will lift the current recreation restriction on 18.18 acres at Hobart Park so the County can give the Hobart Park acreage to the Winter Beach Cemetery Association for cemetery expansion. In light of the land exchange application, the County asked the City to explore alternative routes for the transmission lines. The City completed an analysis' of alternative routes and believes the original route along the east and south property lines of the former county landfill is the most desired. ( See Attachment B) . 22 CURRENT M After speaking with State officials concerning granting the easement request to the City and how the easement would affect the current land exchange application, the State officials stated that the 60 by 2,400 foot or 3.31 acre requested easement would have to be excluded from the former landfill site. Since both the landfill site and the Hobart Park site have to be of equal value, the Hobart Park acreage would have to be reduced accordingly. Therefore, new boundary surveys and another amended conversion application would have to be submitted to the State. The estimated affect on the land exchange application would be that the current 30.1 acres valued at $200,000 at the landfill site would be reduced to 26.79 acres and $178,007. In turn, the 18.18 acres at Hobart Park valued at $200,000 would be reduced to 16.19 acres and $178,007. The land exchange application is currently being re-evaluated by the National Park Service Washington, D.C. headquarters to determine if a former landfill is a suitable site for recreation. The NPS determination is expected within 2-4 weeks. The NPS and the State's Department of Natural Resources are also reconsidering a portion of the recently acquired 300 acre Oslo Road property as an alternative site to the former landfill site. This determination is also expected within 2-4 weeks. The Solid Waste Disposal District has reviewed this easement request and had several concerns regarding vegetation removal which have been satisfactorily addressed by the City. The City will only clear enough land for the poles and pole accesses, therefore, minimally affecting the site's vegetation and buffer zone between the landfill and neighboring residences. (See Attachment C). RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends that the Board approve the City's easement request and authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached deed of easement. City representatives will be present at the Board meeting to answer any questions. Commissioner Bird asked for clarification on the easement. County Attorney Vitunac advised that it will be a deeded right for the City of Vero Beach to use that easement, although the County will have fee simple title. The easement right is a property interest which we cannot take away. Commissioner Scurlock recalled that when we granted an easement to Florida Gas for transmission lines there was a fee involved. Public Works Director Jim Davis confirmed there was a fee for the use of County right-of-way from the Florida Gas line to the plant. He believed it was $500 per mile. Attorney Vitunac understood that the Florida Gas situation was use of a right-of-way, whereas this is providing them an easement over property we own. PX FEBHE' 1992 I Commissioner Scurlock thought if a precedent has been set by charging a fee to Florida Gas, we should be consistent. County Administrator Chandler noted that if we follow the precedent in terms of charging a reasonable fee, it would help in the trade-off of recreation lands. Commissioner Scurlock was not opposed to the City"s electrical line, but felt that since we would be giving up 60 feet to an enterprise fund and there would be a cost to the County to acquire more property to trade, at least that portion should be covered. Commissioner Bird inquired if we still have the ability to use that land given for easement for something related to recreation if we develop that as a recreational site, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the easement just gives them certain rights, and we can use the land for anything that does not interfere with the easement rights. Commissioner Bird asked why it would not count as acreage in an exchange of land if we can use the land for recreational purposes, and Attorney Vitunac explained that because this is a 69 KV line there is probably nothing you would want to do under it. Commissioner Bowman could not understand why they have to run it through sand scrub as opposed to another route. Commissioner Scurlock said their consultants had analyzed the situation and found it to be the best, most cost-effective solution. Commissioner Bowman was not sure it was best. Mark Johnson, representing Black & Veach in Orlando, came before the Board and enumerated the reasons for choosing this route, which were explained by Mr. Chandler in his presentation. Administrator Chandler recounted that originally staff rejected the application because of the vegetation and buffers. After discussion with the applicant and getting more details on the actual placement of the poles, staff determined it would not substantially affect the buffer or the vegetation. Mr. Johnson said the poles would be about 350 feet apart and approximately 25 feet west of the east right-of-way, which leaves a 20 -foot buffer between the adjacent property and the poles. They will selectively clear the vegetation for the pole sites, and vegetation would be left between the poles so habitat could continue between the poles under the lines. Commissioner Bird supported exploring the question of our entitlement to compensation for giving up this amount of property. 24 n MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to grant the Deed Of Easement to the City of Vero Beach, contingent upon Mr. Chandler working out financial terms consistent with our existing policy regarding compensation for easements. Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the sand scrub and led discussion regarding how much area would be cleared under this line. Mr. Johnson responded it would be a trail just wide enough to get a truck through there, and 20 feet would be untouched. Commissioner Scurlock clarified, and Mr. Johnson confirmed they have a commitment to do as little to disturb the site as possible. Commissioner Bowman was concerned about a contractor just coming in and bulldozing the area. Mr. Johnson assured the Board the resident engineer from the City of Vero Beach would be there for the construction, and specifications would clearly indicate what is necessary. Commissioner Bowman commented that the Board showed concerned for the people of Bent Pine, and should show concern for the residents who are close to this 20 -foot buffer. Administrator Chandler reported application was rejected for that reason until staff had more facts and received assurance that the buffer to those residents to the east of this site would not be disturbed, and Mr. Johnson confirmed they would clear a minimal amount to place the poles and then allow the vegetation to regrow. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4-1, Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition. DEED OF EASEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS Community Development Director Robert Keating commented from the following memo dated February 11, 1992: 25 )7,G BOOK J , , . a ; FF - �0OK F'M IJ 5b TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPANK Community Development Director DATE: February 11, 1992 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 18, 1992. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 not only requires that each local government in the state prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; it also mandates that within one year of submission of its plan each jurisdiction must "adopt or amend and enforce land development regulations that are consistent with and implement their adopted comprehensive plan". By adopting its land development regulations on September 11, 1990, Indian River County achieved substantial compliance with the Act's implementation requirement. One aspect of making the land development regulations consistent, however, was not undertaken at that time. That involves the administrative rezoning of property to make the zoning designation of each parcel in the County consistent with its land use plan designation. The reason that the rezoning issue was not addressed when the land development regulations were prepared relates to the status of the County's comprehensive plan. Although the plan was adopted in February, 1990, the plan was not found in compliance by the state until August, 1991. During the period between adoption and compliance, the staff realized that substantial changes in. the adopted plan would probably be required to achieve compliance. In fact, major land use changes were made as part of the compliance process. With the knowledge that plan amendments to achieve compliance would result in major changes, the staff opted not to initiate the administrative rezoning process until the plan had been found in compliance. Now that the plan is in compliance, the County must undertake the administrative rezoning process. Once the comprehensive plan was found in compliance, the staff undertook an analysis to determine the magnitude of the administrative rezoning process. This analysis involved a comparison of the adopted future land use map with the County's official zoning atlas. In so doing, the staff compared the zoning designation to the land use designation for every parcel in the County. Through this process, the staff not only determined the number of parcels and amount of acreage to be affected by the administrative rezonings, but the staff also identified each affected parcel by tax parcel identification number as well as by current and proposed zoning designations. 26 u _I Based upon the analysis, staff has determined that 1,924 parcels will need to be administratively rezoned. While that represents only about two percent of all parcels in the County, the acreage amount is more. -substantial. Staff estimates that approximately 210,364 of the County's 318,000 acres will be affected by the administrative rezonings. Most of the acreage and slightly more than half of the parcels involved are situated west of I-95. This occurred because the County's adopted land use plan assigns almost all land west of I-95 to designations with densities of either 1 unit per 10 acres, 1 unit per 20 acres, or no density (conservation areas owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District), whereas the lowest density residential zoning district applied to these areas has been 1 unit per five acres. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The County has no alternative except to rezone those properties where the current zoning and land use plan designations are inconsistent. This is required by state law. The County does, however, have alternatives as to the administrative rezoning procedure. Specifically, the County has discretion in the manner in which it notifies affected property owners and the public about these rezonings. According to Florida Statutes Section 125.66 and the County's land development regulations, rezonings which involve more than 5 percent of the land area in the County may be undertaken without individual notification to each affected land owner and surrounding land owner. This option requires quarter page newspaper advertisements with a map, as well as two evening (after 5:00 p.m.) public hearings by the Board of County Commissioners. Alternatively, general rezoning requirements entail newspaper legal advertisements as well as notification, by certified mail, of all landowners and surrounding landowners affected by the rezoning. These requirements would apply to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners hearings. Besides the two alternatives referenced above, the County could opt to do the former, but also provide courtesy notification to landowners. This, in essence, provides a compromise between the two extremes. It is staff's position that the third alternative would be the best. The "hard" cost of that alternative would be $2,753.88. That represents the cost of the required newspaper advertisements as well as the postage (non -certified) to notify landowners. It does not include staff time to compile names, addresses, mailing labels, and letters. While the first alternative would be less expensive, only involving the newspaper advertisement expense, it would provide no notification to owners - an issue which has been raised in the past. However, any notice given to owners may well be moot, since the Board is obligated to rezone properties to be consistent with the adopted plan. The second alternative would be considerably more expensive. Just certified mail notification costs for owners for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board public hearings would total $13,217.88. If surrounding property owners were also notified by certified mail, the cost would increase substantially. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners direct the staff to initiate the administrative rezoning process, utilize the 5 percent exemption criteria, and provide courtesy notification to affected property owners. 27 800K � , FEB, 18 1992 BOOK MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, directing staff to initiate the administrative rezoning process, utilize the 5% exemption criteria and provide courtesy notification to affected property owners, as recommended by staff. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird predicted that citizens who are notified will show up at a public hearing and will be upset because they have no input. Director Keating agreed that it is an unusual situation and legal staff advised it would be appropriate to develop a separate notice which would inform the affected property owners of the fact that this is mandated and we have no latitude. Commissioner Bowman urged that staff make that point very clear in the notices. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FY 91-92 EMS GRANT MODIFICATION TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT WITH SURPLUS FUNDS AND BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 015 The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Medical Services Chief Jim Judge dated February 10, 1992: 28 r ® � TO: Board -of County Commissioners THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director`= Department of Emergd cy Services FROM: Jim Judge, Chief Emergency Medical �rvices DATE: February 10, 1992 SUBJECT: Approval of FY 91-92 EMS Grant Modification to Purchase Additional Equipment with Surplus Funds and Budget Amendment No. 015 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 The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), is authorized by Chapter 401, part II, Florida Statutes, to distribute county awards funds •in the form of a grant to counties. In fiscal year 91-92, Indian River County received $29,103.16 in grant funds and on September 17, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved certain items for purchase utilizing these funds to improve and expand the EMS service. Due to competitive bidding,not purchasing some items, and other factors, most of the equipment authorized by the Board was purchased and placed into service at a price less than anticipated. This resulted in a reserve or surplus of funds in the amount of $2,135.00. Authority is now being sought to purchase the below listed additional medical/operational equipment to enhance the emergency pre -hospital medical service. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO EXPENDITURE PLAN GRANTEE/RECIPIENT LINE UNIT TOTAL LINE ITEM --------------------------------------------------- ITEM PRICE QUANTITY COST Respiratory/Suction Test Equipment EMS Station Decoder 1 $550.00 1 $550.00 1 $1,585.00 1 $1.585.00 MODIFICATION GRAND TOTAL GRAND TOTAL OF EMS GRANT INCLUDING MODIFICATION ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS $2,135.00 $29,103.16 Approval of the purchase of the suction equipment will provide the EMS staff with the ability to daily test the various functions of the equipment to prevent potential failure due to improper flow levels. It would also provide a mechanism wherein daily confirmation of the suction equipment's.ability to function in an emergency environment as well as meet the minimum standard required by the state. 29 FEB H 1992 moK fs L FEE 116 r `i�T' TO: FROM: BOOK �;�b FrE 5' r) The decoder would be used at Station No. 2 for the alerting of emergency staff to a response or assignment by the E911 system. This emergency services station does not have a decoder available at this time. * In order to obtain the above equipment, the 800MHz mobile radio for $1,700.00 and the vehicle mounted battery chargers for $800.00 will not be purchased as originally identified in the grant application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the expenditure of remaining grant funds for the purchase of state EMS approved respiratory and suction test equipment in order to maintain this equipment within mandated guidelines. In addition, staff recommends the purchase of a station decoder to alert the EMS staff of response assignments and approval of budget amendment number 015. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved expenditure of grant funds for Respiratory/ Suction Test Equipment, purchase of EMS Station Decoder, and budget amendment No. 015 as follows: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 015 DATE: February 12, 1992 PARTIALLY SIGNED COPY OF GRANT CHANGE REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 30 APPROVAL OF 800MHz PUBLIC SAFETY TRUNKING RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM CONSULTANT AND FUNDING FOR PRELIMINARY STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION TO PRECLUDE LOSS OF FCC CHANNEL ALLOCATION Emergency Services Director Doug Wright commented from the following memo dated February 16, 1992: TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Chandler County Administrator FROM:- Doug Wright, Director Emergency Services DATE: February 16, 1992 SUBJECT: Approval of 800MHz Public Safety Trunking Radio Communications System Consultant and Funding For Preliminary Study and Recommendation to Preclude Loss of FCC Channel Allocation It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be considered on an emergency basis by the Board of County Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 16, 1990, the Federal Communications Commission approved the "Florida - Region 9 Plan for Public Safety Radio Communications" which contains the allocations for radio channels in the 821-824/866- 869 MHz band. The allocation for the Indian River County area is as follows: The eligible parties stated above understand that the frequencies contained in the plan are not necessarily a permanent allocation to the public safety entity or category. The concept the FCC adopted is _s.— .......... v.,�oyL,yrpO WXUU tine new uriiizatlon plan. With eleven (11) channels allocated, the system in this county would have to commit to eleven hundred (1,100) units in service or operation in five (5) years (one hundred per station or channel), to retain the allocation after May 7. 1992. 31 FEB BOOK U zi ` ':: r, t� irC 3.Jtl.. ALLOTMENT BENCHMARK NO. OF CHANNEL JURISDICTION TYPE DATE CHANNELS NUMBERS IR County Pooled 5/7/92 5 604 626 (all eligibles) 779,801, 821 IR County Dedicated 5/7/92 5 606,631F Sheriff 653,798, 818 Sebastian Dedicated 5/7/92 1 602 Public Works The eligible parties stated above understand that the frequencies contained in the plan are not necessarily a permanent allocation to the public safety entity or category. The concept the FCC adopted is _s.— .......... v.,�oyL,yrpO WXUU tine new uriiizatlon plan. With eleven (11) channels allocated, the system in this county would have to commit to eleven hundred (1,100) units in service or operation in five (5) years (one hundred per station or channel), to retain the allocation after May 7. 1992. 31 FEB BOOK U zi ` ':: r, t� irC 3.Jtl.. noK �"5 F„rE 5 5 a, With only eleven channels, the county area is in a position wherein additional allocations will be needed since there is in excess of eighteen hundred (1,800) units (VHF, UHF, and 800MHz conventional trunking - not public safety trunking) existing in the area now. If the agencies in the county area utilize the 800MHz Public Safety Trunking radio system, relinquishment of the lower frequencies within a certain time frame after issuance of the 800MHz license is required. It should be noted that Indian River County currently has five (5) public safety trunking radio frequencies which are being used in a conventional mode with conventional 800MHz communications equipment. The urgency of the matter is that Indian River County received Amendment #4 to the Florida Region 9 Plan dated December 11, 1991, which compressed the deadline for filing an FCC application to May 7, 1992. This put the county on notice that if the application for the allotment is not filed by that date, the channels will be subject to reallotment to other,agencies. Failure to file the application submits the county to the possibility that no channels will be available for allocation since other counties already have applications filed seeking additional channels after the May 7, 1992, window or deadline passes. Staff has been meeting with municipality and agency representatives since December 13, 1991s, to address this issue and determine the feasibility for submitting an application. The committee has taken the approach that it would be more beneficial for all to pool the available charnels wherein each could maintain their own autonomy, but still be able to talk to any or all entities included in the system. Several agencies, including county entities, indicated severe problems with interference, dead spots, limited portable radio capability, and skips in the current VHF and UHF spectrum being utilized. The committee members are all in need of additional information beforea recommendation can be made to their respective governing body. Based on the above information, the County Administrator authorized the Director of Emergency Services to issue a Request For Proposals to seek a consultant to do a preliminary study of the existing communications system and the potential benefit of an 800MHz Public Safety Trunked'radio system. The study is needed to provide staff and the Board with sufficient information to determine if an application should be filed and if funding should be committed over the next five years for the county's pro rata share of the system. There is obviously a short time frame in which the study would have to be completed. The RFP's were issued on February 3, 1992, and returned on February 14, 1992, with five consultants or firms submitting a response as follows: CONSULTANT/FIRk STUDY COST Frederick G. Griffin, PC Lynchburg, Va. Henkels & McCoy, Inc. Orlando, F1 Omnicom, Inc. Tallahassee, F1 Lockard & White, Inc. Houston, Tx Ram Communications Consultants, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona 32 $13,070.00 $7,672.00 $16,113.14 Project cost not stated $56,708.00 � r � The RFP 's have been examined in depth and staff recommends Henkels & McCoy, Inc., of Orlando, Florida, be awarded a contract for the study at a cost not to exceed $7,672.00. The completion date for the preliminary study is March 20, 1992. This would provide a short time frame for the information to be conveyed to the Board in order for a determination to be made as to the merit of filing the FCC application to secure the channels allocated to the county area. If approved, the application would have to be completed by April 8, 1992, to leave some small window of time in case during review by APCO, DIVCOM, and the Regional Committee, modifications have to be made to the very technical application for formal submission by May 7, 1992. - It should be noted that Brevard County has just come on line with their 800MHz Public Safety Trunking radio system. Osceola County is moving rapidly to bring their system on line and St. Lucie County is in the process of preparing to go to bid for their system. Given this scenario, our county would be the only jurisdiction in the four county area with the old VHF and UHF system. That is not to say that Indian River County should arbitrarily do what other counties are doing. It is cause for concern, however, due to transmitter buffer zones specified in the plan and Indian River County's inability to talk with surrounding counties without spending some funds to minimally interface communications systems. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Trunked radio :is relatively new technology that has enormous capabilities. A trunked radio system gets its name from the "trunk" line used in commercial telephone communications. Simply put, a "trunk" is a communications path between two or more points, typically between the telephone company central office and one or more users. The trunk line is time shared by several different users, but each user of the telephone service is not aware of this sharing of lines. One party places a call to another party and the call is completed; the working of the telephone system is not readily apparent to the user. Radio communication over a trunked system is similar to the telephone system. The transmitting and receiving radio units can be thought of as the calling and receiving parties, and the transmitting equipment can be thought of as the telephone company equipment. Instead of telephone lines, the radio system uses radio channels to place calls. As with the telephone system, the radio users are not aware of which radio channel they are communicating over. All that is apparent, is that a communication path has been established between the radio and user. It is simply a more efficient way of getting the most out of a limited number of radio channels. It can provide technology and a method for transmission of data over the radio system as opposed to analog voice information from utility pumping or treatment plants for the utility facilities/departments in the county. It has the capability to provide traffic engineering departments to control signaling devices at intersections at locations throughout the county from a single control point. Utility meter readers in the field could transmit data 'immediately to enhance operations and billing processes. There are many other applications which could be used in the public safety and law enforcement environments which could potentially reduce staff resources in terms of communications or modify the system size. 33 c' E B 18 1992 Boa FEB 1'6- �91�`,_, RECON MMMAT I ON ER o0 Staff does not have the expertise in house to complete this very technical preliminary communications system evaluation and recommendation. Absent the data and configuration/design as relates to improving the existing system or filing the application for the current channel allocation for a new system, staff does not have sufficient information to formulate a recommendation for the Board. Therefore, staff recommends the Board approve and authorize a consulting contract with Henkels & McCoy, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $7,672.00 to conduct a preliminary study as stated in the Request for Proposals relating to communications systems in the area with funding from the contingency fund. Staff anticipates a presentation by the consultant will be made to the Board by March 24, 1992, for a determination in this matter. County Administrator Chandler stated we need a better estimate on cost of equipment in order to make a recommendation as to whether we should apply to retain the allocation of 11 channels after May 7, 1992. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve and authorize a contract with Henkels & McCoy, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $7,672.00, to conduct a preliminary study relating to communications systems, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Wheeler commended Emergency Services Director Wright Is efforts to educate the people in this field. He felt this 800MHz Public Safety Trunking Radio Communications System is the state of the art and will do a great job, but was not in favor of spending an estimated $2 to $5 million on this new system. He reported that the Sheriff's Department and the Vero Beach Police Department have new VHF equipment and Sebastian Police Department plans to put in new VHF equipment. Commissioner Scurlock understood that the request is to have professional consultants make a study because we do not have in- house ability to evaluate our needs. Commissioner Eggert was in favor of the study so that an informed decision could be made and we would have the information available for future use. Administrator Chandler stressed we need this information to make a decision whether we are going to submit an application by May 7, 1992 Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is an estimate of the cost to implement this program, and Director Wright responded the range would be anywhere from $1.5 to $2 million. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS MOTION 34 Director Wright explained that it would not be totally the County's responsibility. There would be other agencies involved. Right now Utilities has a microwave system to transmit data and traffic engineering is going to a system which will require a large number of telephone lines to be active 24 hours a day. Those could be eliminated with this system. Director Wright emphasized he is not trying to sell the system but to investigate our needs so that we have sufficient communication channels for our purposes in the future. There are only about 2300 VHF channels in the entire United States and, as these allocated channels are being turned back in, they are being reallocated to the private sector. The situation is going to get worse, not better. Commissioner Eggert asked if the study would cover all these other aspects, and Director Wright responded the study would tell us the benefits versus the cost. County Attorney Vitunac asked what happens if we do not use the channels that are allocated to us, and Director Wright advised they are pooled and reallocated, and there are other communities that want additional channels now. He stressed the need for this preliminary study. Commissioner Wheeler could not see any negatives to the 800 system but disliked spending $7,000 for the study because he believed the cost was more than we can afford. Our current VHF system has been used for decades by cities like Miami and New York even with the minor problems that exist. Commissioner Wheeler thought it is more efficient and economical to live with what we have rather than overdesign a system. Commissioner Scurlock noticed a wide range in the amounts of the bids for the study, and Director Wright explained that some of the bidders misunderstood the Request for Proposals. Henkels & McCoy has studied the systems in surrounding communities and are familiar with the area. In addition, staff has accumulated data which the consultant would use which would lower the cost. Administrator Chandler further clarified that this is a preliminary study of our requirements without engineering specifications, which keeps the cost low. It is a study to get a more accurate estimate of our needs and the cost of equipment to cover those needs. Commissioner Scurlock asked what other agencies might be - interested in participating in this system, and Director Wright stated the possibilities would include everyone except state agencies. He stressed we would have a 5 -year period in which to implement the system and do not have to commit to the total cost at 35 FEB 18 092 r:,� 'n BOOK 8 5 PAGE b 51 one time, but we need some cost estimates to be able to discuss participation with other agencies. Director Wright indicated that there is a bill in the House right now trying to get an addition to traffic citations to pay for the system and he felt there will be other funding alternatives in the next couple years. MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Chairman Eggert, to approve staff's request for a preliminary study of the communications system, failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Bird, Scurlock and Wheeler voting in opposition. The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:05 A. M. and the Board reconvened at 10:15 A. M. with all members present. MacWILLIAM PARK BOAT RAMP IMPROVEMENTS The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated February 10, 1992: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., `7 Public Works Director SUBJECT: MacWilliam Park Boat Ramp Improvements DATE: February 10, 1992 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS City of Vero Beach is requesting grant assistance with an ongoing program for improvements to the boat ramps in MacWilliam Park. Last fiscal year, the City replaced the western most ramp at a cost of $25,000 and will be replacing a second ramp this fiscal year for $25,000. The Parks and Recreation Committee have no objections to this funding. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The Public Works Department recommends allocation of $25,000 to the City of Vero Beach. Funding will be from the Florida Boating Improvement Fund which has an unobligated balance of $76,783.05. 36 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously allocated $25,000 to the City of Vero Beach for replacing a boat ramp at MacWilliam Park, as recommended by staff. REQUEST FROM MRS. ELINOR CARNILL TO ACCESS BEACH AT WABASSO BEACH PARR The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated February 12, 1992: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request from Mrs. Elinor Carnill to Access Beach at Wabasso Beach Park REF. LETTER: Elinor Carnill to Jim Davis dated Feb. 4, 1992 DATE: February 12, 1992 FILE: - cornill.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Ms. Elinor Carnill, the property owner immediately north of the Wabasso Beach park, is requesting permission to access the beach over the County's dune at Wabasso Beach Park for the purpose of placing sand and restoring the dune fronting her residence. During the past year, there has been considerable erosion along the dune in the Wabasso area. Ms. Carnill has received permits from the Florida DNR and County. In the past, the County and Ms. Carnill have restored the dune by transporting sand through a dune break at the north end of the park property. Timing is of consideration since the sea turtle nesting season has been extended from March 1 to October 31. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In addition to severe erosion of the dune along Ms. Carnill's property, the Wabasso Beach Park shoreline and dune has experienced severe erosion over the past six months. Approximately nine feet of escarpment exists along the Park's dune line. Staff is of the opinion that approximately 2000 cubic yards of sand at a cost of $8000 is needed to be placed along the Wabasso Beach Park dune. The alternatives are as follows: 37 F EB FEB tr- 8 !1997 BOOKS Alternative No. 1 Approve Ms. CarnillIs request and simultaneously authorize staff to restore the Wabasso Beach Park dune. Permits for the County project can be acquired on an emergency basis. There are budgeted funds available in Account 001-210-572-034.33 which can be allocated for this project. (balance on Jan. 31, 1992 is $24,537). Alternative No. 2 Approve Ms. Carnill's request but delay restoring the Wabasso Beach dune. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Alternative No. 1 is recommended. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Mrs. Carnill's request to access the beach at Wabasso Beach Park and authorized staff to restore the Wabasso Beach Park Dune, as set out in staff's recommended Alternative No. 1. SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain dated February 11, 1992: 38 M TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E County Engineer SUBJECT: South County Regiona CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE: February 11, 1992 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS 77 Park IRC Project No. 8716 During construction of South County Regional Park and according to the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, when it approved the Contract with Hunley-Hubbard Construction, staff has negotiated the attached Change Order No. 1 with the contractor Hunley-Hubbard Construction, Inc. The -new change in the Contract price for the additions and deductions to the Contract is a decrease in the amount of $143,511.30 with no change in the time of the Contract. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 - Authorize Change Order No. 1 which would result in a revised Contract price of $663,125.46. Alternative No. 2 - Deny authorization of the Change Order and re- negotiate. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, authorization of Change Order No. 1 be approved. Funding is from Account No. 001-210-572-066.51. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized Change Order No. 1 for a revised contract price of $663,125.46, as recommended by staff. COPY OF SAID CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 39 FEB 18 1992 BQaK r BOOK l 0 fA"AYKJ; SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Robert Cain dated February 11, 1992: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E: Public Works Director FROM: Roger D. Cain, P County Engineer SUBJECT: South County Regional CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE: February 11, 1992 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS IRC Project No. 8716 During construction of South County Regional Park changes were negotiated to provide reduced playground equipment as compared to the original specifications, to provide accessibility to the handicapped and to provide an electrical system less costly to expand for the other two ballfields. In addition county forces did stabilization with parking lot grading. The new change in the Contract price for the additions and deductions to the Contract is an increase in the amount of $30,494.31 with no change in the time of the Contract. ALTERNATIVES AND A)CALySIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 - Authorize Change Order No. 2 which would result in a revised Contract price of $693,619.77. Alternative No. 2 - Deny authorization of the Change Order and re- negotiate. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, authorization of Change Order No. 2 be approved. Funding is from Account No. 001-210-572-066.51. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized Change Order No. 2 for a revised contact price of $693,619.77, as recommended by staff. COPY OF SAID CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 40 _I AWARD OF BID - SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE SECOND 1118" The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton dated February 12, 1992: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, DirectoAc� Department of General Sery FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager j� SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID - SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE SECOND "18" DATE: February 12, 1992 FILE: 2ndl8.agn BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: February 3, 1992 Advertisement Dates: January 9 and January 15, 1992 Bids Received: Six (6) BID TABULATION (Breakdown Attached) Prince Construction Co. Inc. $ 1,970,884.65 Palmetto, FL. Guettler & Sons, Inc. $ 1,997,253.29 Fort Pierce, FL. Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. $ 2,302,752.80 West Palm Beach, FL. Central Florida Turf, Inc. $ 2,415,548.30 Avon Park, FL. Ryan Inc. Eastern $ 2,475,615.30 Deerfield Beach, FL. Phillips & Jordan, Inc. $ 2,701,543.30 Mulberry, FL., SOURCE OF FUNDS Course Construction - 418-000-169-018.00 BUDGET AMOUNT $ 2,305,015.00, DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Per the attached letter from Bob Komarinetz to James E. Chandler dated February 12, 1992, staff recommends that the bid be awarded to the second lowest bidder, Guettler & Sons, Inc. Staff also recommends that Additive Bid Item No. 3 for the construction of concrete cart paths be included in the award amount. -.'Payment for cart paths will be based on the actual linear.feet of path installed. The number of linear feet in the contract may be reduced during construction. 41 FEE H 1992 UJil 8 199 BOOK C: F; ;E 5 7 Irrigation materials were included in the bid totals for the comparison of bids, but are not included in the award amount. The County will purchase all irrigation materials. The County is Purchase Order Exempt, therefore taxes are not included in the material prices. The Contractor is - responsible for ordering and handling all materials, the cost of which is included under irrigation equipment installation. The total project cost adding $188,009.55 for concrete cart paths to the $ 1,997,253.29 total is $ 2,185,262.84. The total award amount deducting $ 239,528.72 for Rainbird materials from the total project cost of $ 2,185,262.84 is $ 1,945,734.12. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Geuttler & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $ 1,945,734.12. In addition, staff requests the Board's approval for the Chairman to execute the agreements when all requirements are met and approved as to form by the County Attorney. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird to award the bid to Guettler & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $1,945,734.12 for construction of Sandridge Golf CourrseSecond 111811, and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreements, as set out in staff's recommendation. .Chairman Eggert noted that this was not a public hearing. County Attorney Charles Vitunac noticed there was a court reporter in attendance and suggested the County's position should be stated for the record. County Administrator Chandler recapped the procedures involved in arriving at this recommendation and felt strongly that it is in the County's best interest to award the bid to Guettler & Sons, Inc. Director of Leisure Services Bob Komarinetz commented from the following memo dated February 12, 1992: 42 TO: James E. Chandler, FROM: Bob DATE: February 12, A92 of oSeisure Services RE: BIDS FOR SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE/SECOND 18 The low bidder was Prince Construction Co. with a bid of $1,970,884.65. 1 Pursuant to page 16 of the bid documents, Technical Specifications, I investigated the low bidder to determine the ability of the bidder to perform the work in a competent and timely fashion. My investigation consisted, among other things, of contacting management of 5 golf courses completed by Prince in the past several years. The decisional question asked was "Would you rehire?" The responses to this question were as follows: 1. Tatum Ridge Golf Course Tom Hilferty (813) 378-4653 2. River Club Golf Course Mike Pascuzzi ($13) 751-4211 3. Deer Run South (Eastwind) Kevin Rotti (407) 281-8729 4. Country Creek Golf Club Richard Burnetti (813) 947-4499 5. Metro West Louis Seybold (407) 299-8800 No Yes Yes No Yes The Tatum Ridge course was not completed on schedule. Originally scheduled to open in the Fall of 1988, it was opened for play in April 1989. Prince in this particular case was the low bidder by approximately $60,000-00. The Superintendent was not sure of the exact figure of final costs but he stated it was many times over the difference between the low bidder and the second low bid. The Country Creek Golf Course experienced problems with irrigation and drainage. In view to the foregoing, I felt that it would be in the public interest to investigate the second low bidder. The second low bid was in the amount of $1,997,253.29. 1 It was submitted by Guettler & Sons, Inc. I used the • same investigative method with 'the second low bidder as I did with the low bidder. As before, the decisional question asked was "Would you rehire?" The responses to this question were as follows: I. Old Tabby Golf Course Yes Bob Turner (813) 726-3500 ' 2. The Habitat (Brevard County) Yes Don Nix (407) 952-4588 43 ji E ED 18 1992 BOOK In addition, none of the persons interviewed on the Guettler projects experienced any problems with the work. All of the projects were completed in a timely manner. I note in passing that Golfweek of February 8, 1992, pages 35 and 36, in a survey ."of 250 of the nations leading golf course architects" voted Guettler Construction one of the top four golf course builders in the nation. In view of the foregoing, I do not feel that it would be in the public Interest to award the contract to the low bidder. The second low bidder is eminently qualified and the award to this bidder appears to be In the public interest. Additionally, it should be noted that the bid specifications provide that " preferential consideration in awarding the contract for construction Sandridge Golf Course - 112 and 18" may be given to a golf course contractor who exceeds this criteria." (Three golf courses within three years) Guettler's recent golf construction efforts far exceed Prince and far exceed the County's minimum qualifications and, therefore, I recommend that a preference be given to Guettler .under this provision. County Attorney Vitunac asked, and Mr. Komarinetz confirmed that he had spoken with Mr. Prince as recently as the morning before the meeting and there was no new information that would lead to a change in the recommendation. County Administrator Chandler said he also met that morning with Mr. Prince and his attorney, Chester Clem, and there was no change in his position. Discussion continued along this line with Commissioner Scurlock and Commissioner Bird stating they had met with Mr. Prince and his attorney prior to the meeting. Attorney Chester Clem, representing Chester Prince and Prince Contracting Co., came before the Board and stated he had met with everybody and talked to everybody on staff on the telephone or personally in an effort to share information. Mr. Clem said the recommendation to award the bid to Guettler & Sons, Inc., came as 44 BOOK` Fo, 3. Windsor Polo Club Yes Jay Gratton (407) 770-0543 4. Orchid Island Golf Club Yes Jay Gratton ' (407) 770-0543 5. Fairwind Golf Course (St. Lucie Co.) Yes Mark Cammarene (407) 467-2708 6. Palm Beach Gardens Municipal Golf Course Yes Bob Norris (407) 627-7655 7. Country Club of Miami Yes Rich Evans (904) 221-4109 8. Derring Bay Yacht & Country Club Yes (305) 536-3745 9. Northport at the Lake Yes Dee Greninger (317) 365-0422 In addition, none of the persons interviewed on the Guettler projects experienced any problems with the work. All of the projects were completed in a timely manner. I note in passing that Golfweek of February 8, 1992, pages 35 and 36, in a survey ."of 250 of the nations leading golf course architects" voted Guettler Construction one of the top four golf course builders in the nation. In view of the foregoing, I do not feel that it would be in the public Interest to award the contract to the low bidder. The second low bidder is eminently qualified and the award to this bidder appears to be In the public interest. Additionally, it should be noted that the bid specifications provide that " preferential consideration in awarding the contract for construction Sandridge Golf Course - 112 and 18" may be given to a golf course contractor who exceeds this criteria." (Three golf courses within three years) Guettler's recent golf construction efforts far exceed Prince and far exceed the County's minimum qualifications and, therefore, I recommend that a preference be given to Guettler .under this provision. County Attorney Vitunac asked, and Mr. Komarinetz confirmed that he had spoken with Mr. Prince as recently as the morning before the meeting and there was no new information that would lead to a change in the recommendation. County Administrator Chandler said he also met that morning with Mr. Prince and his attorney, Chester Clem, and there was no change in his position. Discussion continued along this line with Commissioner Scurlock and Commissioner Bird stating they had met with Mr. Prince and his attorney prior to the meeting. Attorney Chester Clem, representing Chester Prince and Prince Contracting Co., came before the Board and stated he had met with everybody and talked to everybody on staff on the telephone or personally in an effort to share information. Mr. Clem said the recommendation to award the bid to Guettler & Sons, Inc., came as 44 M a shock to Mr. Prince, who is the low bidder. He wanted to be sure staff's recommendation was not based on something erroneous or not factual. He distributed a packet to the Board members showing the projects Prince Contracting has done. He felt the problem seemed to boil down to Tatum Ridge Golf Course. Mr. Clem admitted there had been a problem at Tatum Ridge Golf Course but that the end result was that Mr. Prince's firm was awarded $195,986, less a setoff of $10,000. Mr. Prince also was awarded $1600 for service performed over and above the contract, plus the cost of arbitration and attorneys' fees. So, there had been a problem and it had been resolved in favor of Prince. He felt getting information over a telephone from possibly a disgruntled person could lead to a misunderstanding of the facts. Mr. Clem felt if that was the basis for the decision, it was a mistake by the County because Prince Construction Company is a $20 million bondable company and does excellent work. County Administrator Chandler reported that the day before this meeting, Mr. Prince suggested staff talk to the architect on the job at Tatum Ridge, but Mr. Komarinetz spoke to that architect a week ago. Staff's recommendation was based on other information as well. Country Creek Golf Club commented that they were satisfied with the architect but would not recommend the contractor, Prince Construction, and that was at a point before staff discussed specific bidders. Administrator Chandler and Commissioner Scurlock commented on a situation at a golf course in Sarasota, and Mr. Clem argued that it should not be discussed because it had not been a basis for staff recommendation. Administrator Chandler agreed it had not been a basis for the recommendation. Chairman Eggert asked what transpired during the conversation with the architect at Tatum Ridge. Mr. Komarinetz stated that Mr. Prince sent a memo suggesting that Ted McAnlis was a professional, knowledgeable person at Tatum Ridge and was also the architect. Mr. Komarinetz called on February 12 to speak to the architect, and received information that there had been problems with Prince Construction related to removing the superintendent from the job and the owner had to correct or complete a list of items. Chairman Eggert did not understand how that related to the arbitration. Attorney Clem explained that the arbitration involved the claims of Tatum Ridge and that those claims had been resolved in favor of Prince except for a $10,000 setoff. In addition, Prince EIV F' -Y 'u m had been awarded $1600 for grassing, plus attorneys' fees and costs of arbitration. Commissioner Bird explained the basis for his second to the motion to support staff's recommendation is the clause in the bid documents which allows preferential consideration to a contractor who exceeds the criteria. The criteria in this situation was construction of three 18 -hole golf courses within three years. He felt Guettler's qualifications exceed the bid document requirements, while Prince had a minimum amount of activity in the last three years, and there had been some problems on those courses. Commissioner Bird stated Guettler has done several golf courses in Florida during the last three years, including the first 18 holes at Sandridge and had completed that project very satisfactorily. Chester Prince came before the Board and stated he was not really sure of the exact number but it's about 30 golf courses in the last few years. He explained that the Tatum Ridge Golf Course was under construction during a time when they had in excess of a 100 -year flood in Manatee County. He said in 1988 there were 32 golf courses being built in Florida and Prince Construction was doing 8 of them and there was movement of personnel from one site to another. Mr. Prince stated that some of the comments received over the telephone were never brought up during arbitration, and he felt the arbitration documents contained the real facts of the matter. Mr Prince said he represented Prince Contracting Company as owner and operator and has been involved in every golf course his company has done. He said 1991 was a disappointing year but through it all they had retained their personnel. They came to view the project in Indian River County and bid and are ready with equipment poised to go to work. Mr. Prince asked the Board to consider the legitimate low bidder who is qualified to do the work. He promised to give the project his personal attention, bring it in on time and within budget. He said if word goes out through the golf course industry that Prince Contracting was the low bidder on a job in Indian River County but the County chose the second bidder, his reputation would take a big hit. Chairman Eggert asked for clarification of Mr. Prince's golf course construction activities within the last three years since he stated he had not done any golf courses in the last year. Mr. Prince stated that the bid documents called for complete 18 -hole golf courses. While Prince did not construct full 18 -hole golf courses, there had been several projects, as listed in his letter to the Board, as well as reshaping, irrigation, and remodeling. Mr. Prince pointed out that he is called when people 46 _ M have a difficult situation. Mr. Prince related it would be very disappointing not to be awarded this job when he is the legitimate low bidder and qualified in every aspect of the bid documents. Chairman Eggert asked if Guettler met the criteria of completing three golf courses in three years. Commissioner Scurlock said they exceeded that criteria. Attorney Clem argued that Prince Contracting met the criteria and is qualified and he hoped the project would be awarded to the low bidder. Attorney Eugene O'Neill, representing Guettler & Sons, Inc., came before the Board and stated the Commissioners were obligated to make decisions which are in the best interest of Indian River County. He said arbitration is a process to make findings and the Commission can take that into consideration, but it is also reasonable for the Commission to believe what is heard from the individuals who were involved in the project. Mr. O'Neill listed the projects Guettler has completed satisfactorily and which staff considered in making their recommendation. He read the legal definition of "lowest bidder" and reminded the Commission that County ordinance states a contract should be awarded to the bidder who has submitted the bid that is in the overall best interest of the County. He also mentioned that Guettler is currently working on clearing the area for the golf course and would be in a position to continue and finish the project sooner than if another contractor were hired. Commissioner Wheeler recalled our experience in hiring contractors for several different projects and having problems on one project, but the other projects were done on time and satisfactorily. He felt that there is a bid process and as long as Prince Contracting was qualified, given the fact that his bid was lowest, he should be awarded the contract. The fact that he had problems on one project should not outweigh the difference in the bids. He said he would vote contrary to staff's recommendation and follow our bid process. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are following our bid process because the process allows us the option to consider experience and investigate the bidder's past history. In this case, there were five people contacted and two of them said they would not hire Prince again, whereas on Guettler, nine people were - contacted and they all said they would rehire that company. Commissioner Wheeler clarified that he had not discussed this subject with anyone. He listened to staff, Mr. Prince and Attorney Clem in the morning prior to this meeting, and read the backup documents. 47 FEB _ BOOK FEB 18 `99 BOOK �-, � F;,;;E 6 0 i Commissioner Scurlock said he posed very specific questions to Mr. Prince and Mr. Clem and the answers were not sufficient to overcome his concerns. Commissioner Scurlock felt Guettler is the more responsible bidder because our experience with Guettler has been favorable. Chairman Eggert stated her only conversation with Mr. Clem was when he called to say he would deliver some material to her office, and she told him she would come in early to read it. She understood about exceeding the criteria but was troubled by the extent of the people contacted and the problems disclosed versus the low bid. Commissioner Bird was concerned with getting this project started immediately because we are committed to having this course open for play in the winter of 1993. Failing that, we will lose as much as $40,000 to $50,000 per week in additional revenue. P Because of the time constraint, Commissioner Bird felt more confident going with a known quantity, Guettler & Sons, Inc., which has done local jobs, including the first Sandridge golf course. Chairman Eggert asked if Commissioner Bird felt there was a certain danger with Prince Construction getting it done. Commissioner Bird believed Mr. Prince's word that he can do this job under the time constraint, but because of Guettler's additional construction experience he would support the staff recommendation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 3-2, Commissioner Wheeler and Chairman Eggert voting in opposition. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERIC TO THE BOARD NORTH COUNTY SEWER "REFLECTIONS LIFT STATION" CONNECTION TO COUNTY SYSTEM The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated February 10, 1992: 48 DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAIN AND STAFFED CAPITAL ENGINEER BY: DEPAR LITY SERVICES SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY SEWER "REFLECTIONS LIFT STATION" CONNECTION TO COUNTY SYSTEM BACKGROUND On September 24, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement with "Reflections" for connection to the County sewer system. (See attached agenda item and minutes.) The actual force main connection has been completed. However, due to pressure conditions in our system that are higher than the GDU System, several upgrades to their master lift station have been necessitated. The upgrades include new pumps with all associated hardware, raising of the lift station top and valve pit top (to eliminate flooding), and a new control panel. ANALYSIS The project costs are broken into two parts; the first cost is for purchasing pumps with associated hardware, and new control panel. The second cost element is for the installation of the pumps, raising of the lift station top, and for the first cost valve pit top. Two quotes were acquired (see attached); i.e., the pumps and accessories from the approved pump suppliers for Indian River County. The results of this bid are as follows: 1) ABS Pumps $14,874.00 2) Flight Pumps (E -K Phellps) $15,854.00 We are proposing to purchase the pumps and accessories from ABS Pumps. Three quotes were acquired for pump installation and raising of the lift station and valve pit. (See attached quotes.) The results of this bid are as follows: 1) Tri -County Excavation, Inc. $ 3,200.00 2) G. E. French Construction, Inc. $ 3,841.00 3) Owl and Associates, Inc. $ 4,950.00 We are recommending that the work be awarded to Tri -County Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $3,200.00. Funding for this project will come from two sources: 1) $13,698.71 from the Reflections Renewal and Replacement account has been transferred to the County's Operation and Maintenance Account, and 2) remaining funding will come from other Operation and Maintenance funds available. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Board of County Commissioners execute Pumps, Inc., and Tri -County Excavating, Services recommends that the the attached quotes from ABS Inc. FEB ia 3 ROOK CCi MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a quotation with ABS Pumps, Inc., for submersible pumps and hardware in the amount of $14,874.00, and two proposals with Tri - County Excavating, Inc., in the total amount of $3,200.00 for installation of said pumps, as recommended by staff. Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock was aware the County has a specifications book which indicates the kind of pumps and valves and other items that we use and while he was sure ABS Pumps are the best, he felt we should review our requirements to assure economy and efficiency. Chairman Eggert recalled when we were using Myers Pumps we talked about reviewing our requirements. Capital Projects Engineer Bill McCain said we have a test installation of the Myers Pump in the Elders in Touch facility, which is a County -operated pump station, for the purpose of field testing the Myers Pump for its acceptability. Fairbanks -Morris is another pump we are considering using on a test basis, so we do evaluate new products periodically and at their expense. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. SAID AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD EIGHTH STREET WATER MAIN EXTENSION FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated February 7, 1992: DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES STAFFED AND PREPARED BY: JAMES D. CHASTAI� MANAGER OF ASSES PROJECTS DEPARTMENT OF UTUPVY SERVICES SUBJECT: EIGHTH STREET WATER MAIN EXTENSION FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO. IV INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -88 -14 -DS BACKGROUND: At the Public Hearing held on January 8, 1991, for the preliminary assessment roll for the above -referenced project, the Board of County Commissioners approved the following third resolutions: No. 91-3 for 25th Avenue North, No. 91-4 for 23rd Avenue North, No. 91-5 for 26th Avenue North, and No. 91-6 for 26th Avenue South. Final certification has been submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation. We are now requesting the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll (see attached minutes and resolutions). ANALYSIS: The final assessment and resolutions are as follow: Resolution 25th Ave. N. 23rd Ave. N. 26th Ave. N. 26th Ave. S. Assessment $18,035.75 19,579.00 28,019.96 25.718.28 $91,352.99 Cost per Square Foot $0.052146(33906) 0.051782(46024) 0.055072(94915) 0.096632(95058) The final assessments are approximately 42% lower than the preliminary assessments, partially as a result of the 8th Street main transmission water line being deleted from the final assessment. The main transmission line is a part of the Indian River County water system master plan. Also, at the time of the bidding for this project, economic conditions were favorable. RECOMMENDATION: The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of the fourth resolution for each of the above assessments for the final assessment roll. 51 � BOOK ) � F;���r. FEB 8 199 A rFEB HIM -7 C Jam. BOOK �� F ; f 4� ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-35, certifying "As -Built" costs for installation of a waterline extension in 25th Avenue north of 8th Street, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION 92-35, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 92- 3s A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN 25th AVENUE NORTH OF EIGHTH STREET, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXTENSION OF THE EIGHTH STREET WATER MAIN, AND OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements for the property located within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 1991, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-3, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 91-3, 52 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. Resolution No. 91-3 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4% per annum may be made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 91-3 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 91-3, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its validity. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner W h e e l e r and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman A y e Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 18 day of February , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Carolyn/ft. Eggert Chairman 53 FES��a� , 19 9', . BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-36, certifying "As -Built" costs for installation of a waterline extension in 23rd Avenue north of 8th Street, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION 92-36, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 92- 36 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN 23RD AVENUE NORTH OF EIGHTH STREET, AND OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements for the property located within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 1991, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-4, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 91-4, 54 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. Resolution No. 91-4 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4% per annum may be made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 91-4 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 91-4, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its validity. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner S c u r l o c k, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner dr-_, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 18 day of February , 1992. - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By L Carolyn K. Eggert Chai an ; ' C 55 �F FEB A1992 B00K O'D " E.Lu ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-37, certifying "As -Built" costs for installation of a waterline extension in 26th Avenue north of 8th Street, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION 92-37, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 92- 3 7 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN 28th AVENUE NORTH OF EIGHTH STREET, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXTENSION OF THE EIGHTH STREET WATER MAIN, AND OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements for the property located within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 1991, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-5, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 91-5, 56 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. Resolution No. 91-5 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4% per annum may be made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 91-5 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 91-5, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its validity. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner W h e e l e r and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman A y e Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird A y e Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler A y e The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 18 day of February , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BYL. ,cam' : , tt . Carol K. K. Egge 57 Chai man FEB H N92 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-38, certifying "As -Built" costs for installation of a waterline extension in 26th Avenue south of 8th Street, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION 92-38, IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 92-3g A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN 26th AVENUE SOUTH OF EIGHTH STREET, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXTENSION OF THE EIGHTH STREET WATER MAIN, AND OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements for the property located within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 1991, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-6, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 91-6, 58 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. Resolution No. 91-6 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4% per annum may be made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 91-6 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 91-6, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its validity. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner W h a ®1-4 r , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler A y e The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and _ adopted this 18 day of February , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By %t Car y K. Eg' rt 59 Cha rman , r E 8 18 092 BOOK;,, � BOOK S tYtJL L PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN GLENDALE LAKES SUBDIVISION (NORTH OF 8TH STREET TO 10TH STREET) The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated January 29, 1992: DATE: JANUARY 29, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAI AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSE S PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF Y SERVICES SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN GLENDALE LAKES S/D (NORTH OF 8TH STREET TO 10TH STREET) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -11 -DS BACKGROUND A petition has been received for a water main extension for Glendale Lakes subdivision to supply potable water to its residents. We are now coming to the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above project (see attached petition and plat map). Previously (in late 1988), a portion of this project (i.e., 47th Avenue and 9th Place) came to the Board of County Commissioners and failed to obtain approval at the Public Hearing. We feel the current petition is substantial enough to justify reopening the entire Glendale Water Project. ANALYSIS The subdivision contains 66 lots without water service. The 43 property owners signing the petition represent 65% of the properties to be served. The petition was picked up on January 14 and returned January 29. Several property owners were not contacted as they were not available. With the exception of 5 lots slightly exceeding .50 acres, the remaining 61 lots (92%) in this project are substandard or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health. New lots utilizing well and septic systems must be a minimum of one-half acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized lots." The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will be through the use of impact fee funds. The Utilities Department still has the firm of Masteller and Moler under contract for design and inspection of the 47th Avenue and 9th Place portion of this project (design of this part has previously been completed). RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services is requesting the Board of County Commissioners' authority under CCNA (reuse of existing plans) to negotiate a new Work Authorization with Masteller and Moler for the project's design and assessment roll preparation, and recommends approval of the above -listed project in order to Proceed with the design engineering work in preparation for the special assessment project. 60 � � r ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to negotiate a new Work Authorization with Masteller and Moler for the 47th Avenue and 9th Place portion of this project, and approved Project No. UW -92 -11 -DS for water service in Glendale Lakes Subdivision, as recommended by staff. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:04 o'clock A. M. ATTEST: J. K. Barton, Clerk 61 Caro K. Egg , Chairman BOOK