HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/3/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
_ AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2. INVOCATION - Rabbi Jay R. Davis
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
4. ' ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Chairman Eggert req. the addn of req.by the Atty. for Prince
Contracting Co. to speak regarding award of bid for constr.of 2nd
"18" holes at Sandridge Golf Club to Guettler & Sons.
2. Item 9-B switched to SWDD meeting, (ITEM #1.14-C)
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 1/21/92
B. Special Meeting of 1/22/92
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the office of Clerk to
the Board:
Report of Convictions. Month of January, 1992
Copy of Amended Budget for FY1990/91 for the Indian
River Farms Water Control District
Copy of the Annual Financial Audit for FY 1990/91 for
the St. Johns River Water Management Governing Board
on 2/12/92
B. Proclamation Designating March 18, 1992 as RSVP Day
in Indian River County, Florida
1
11AR 0 31992 BnnK fA' F
HAR, 0 3 'M9LL.� N
BOOK f,..�, l�J.i...
9:05 a. m.
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
C. Final Plat Approval for the 99th Way Road Plat
( memorandum dated February 21, 1992 )
D. 1992 State Aid Contracts
( memorandum dated February 24, 1992 )
E. IRC Bid #92-74 / Glendale Terrace Water Main Ext.
( memorandum dated February 24, 1992 )
F. IRC Bid #92-66 / Air Curtain (Rd. 6 Bridge)
( memorandum dated February 25, 1992 )
G. IRC Bid #92-67 / LP Gas Engine Driven Generator
( Emergency Services)
( memorandum dated February 24, 1992 )
H. Actuarial Study '
( memorandum dated February 21, 1992 )
I. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Riverboat Club S/D
( memorandum dated February 25, 1992 )
J. Change in School Board Representation on Transporta-
tion Planning Committee, and Property Value Adjustment
Board
(minutes - Annual Organizational Meeting 11/19/91)
K. Acceptance of Millie Bunnell's Resignation from IRC
Historical Advisory Board
( letter dated February 17, 1992 )
L. Acceptance of Tom Gillette's Resignation from Pro-
fessional Services Advisory Committee, and Appoint-
ment of Robert B. Swift to fill unexpired term
( letter dated February 20, 1992 )
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Solid Waste Collection Franchises
Residential Curbside Recycling Contract
( memorandum dated February 19, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MPO Designation
( memorandum dated February 24, 1992 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
PB. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
Study of Parks and Recreation Services
( memorandum dated February 26, 1992 )
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
1. Interest Rates
( memorandum dated February 26, 1992 )
2. Utility Financing - Impact Fees
( memorandum dated February 26, 1992 )
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Proposed County/City Signal Maintenance Agree-
ment
( memorandum dated. February 26, 1992 )
2. FDOT Local Government Cooperative Assistance
Program - Ind. Riv. Blvd. Phase IV
( memorandum dated February 25, 1992 )
H. UTILITIES
1. 12th Street Water Assessment Project Change
Order No. 1
( memorandum dated February 21, 1992 )
2. Petition for Water Service in Kings Highway S/D
and Replat of Blocks 1, 2, 3, & 4, 39th 6 40th
Streets East of Kings Highway 6 56th Avenue
( memorandum dated February 20, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
L_ MAR 0 3 1992
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
'JAR 0 3 119, `-
BOOK 8b i -,";E 6 � 0
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A.= NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
IRC Bid #92-68 / Igloos
( memorandum dated February 24, 1992 )
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, March 3, 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, March 3, 1992,
at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn R. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Don C.
Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; William G. Collins II, Deputy
County Attorney; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah,
Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rabbi Jay R. Davis of Temple Beth Shalom of Vero Beach gave
the invocation, and Commissioner Scurlock led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition of a request by the
attorney for Prince Contracting Co. to speak regarding the award of
the bid for construction of the second 18 holes at Sandridge Golf
Club to Guettler & Sons.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the addition of the above item.
Fl
MAP 031992 BOOK 8 b t" ��
OAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES _
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 21, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 1/21/92, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 22, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 1/22/92, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board
Report of Convictions, Month of January, 1992
Copy of Amended Budget for FY 1990/91 for the
Indian River Farms Water Control District
Copy of the Annual Financial Audit for FY 1990/91 for the
St. Johns River Water Management Governing Board on
2/12/92
2
� � r
B. Proclamation Designating March 8, 1992 as RSVP Day in Indian
River County. Florida
8
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING MARCH 18, 1992
AS RSVP DAY IN
INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, 525 senior volunteers, members .of The Retired
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) of Indian River County donated a
total of 102,500 hours of volunteer service to Indian River
County; and
WHEREAS, to honor these unselfish senior citizens, the
Retired Senior Volunteer Program of Indian River County will hold
its seventh annual Recognition Luncheon on Wednesday, March 18,
1992 at the Polish American Club; and
WHEREAS, The RSVP is sponsored by the Indian River County
Council on Aging and ACTION, the federal volunteer agency; and
WHEREAS, RSVP is founded on dedication and a commitment to
provide a variety of opportunities for retired persons who are
age 60 or more to participate more fully in life through
significant volunteer service; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County benefits greatly by the
thousands of volunteer hours that senior citizens donate each
year; and
WHEREAS, presently more than 45 non-profit organizations and
agencies have senior volunteers doing a number of challenging and
interesting volunteer jobs in our community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF CO[TNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that Wednesday,
March 18, 1992 be designated as
RSVP DAY
in Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER 'PROCLAIMED that the Board commends the
unselfish senior citizen volunteers who donate their time and
efforts in this County.
Adopted this 3rd day of March, 1992
3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.� Z_4zt-t-7_
Carolyn . Egger Yairman _
I
BOCK
6
'P- �-�1- P -e,
r f
C. Final Plat Approval for the -99th Way Road Plat
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/21/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Reattopmeft
ng, CP
Community Deve Director
14
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison Ov
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: February 21, 1992
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE 99TH WAY ROAD PLAT
SD -91-06-005
#92010107-001
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 3, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The proposed 99th Way Road Plat will "plat -over" an existing
roadway which currently serves existing, industrially -zoned sites.
The roadway lies approximately 3/4 of a mile north of C.R. 512 and
forms a "T" intersection on the west side of 102nd Terrace.
Platting is being proposed pursuant to the provisions of Section
913.06(4) of the subdivision ordinance which allows road rights-of-
way to be created in order to serve legally created parcels. -
On November 14, 1991, the Planning & Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval for the 99th Way Road Plat. The
applicant, Reith Milligan, is now requesting final plat approval
and has submitted the following:
1. A plat in conformance with the originally approved preliminary
plat;
2. An Engineer's Certified Cost Statement for the construction of
the completed roadway improvements to be dedicated to the
county;
3. A Warranty/Maintenance Agreement covering the roadway
improvements to be dedicated to the county; and
4. A security agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the submitted Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement.
4
- ANALYSIS:.
The creation of the 99th Way road right-of-way will provide new
road frontage and platted road access to existing, legally created
parcels. The existing roadway, which is to be located within the
99th Way right-of-way, was constructed in compliance with county
road specifications and standards.
A Certificate of Completion for the roadway has been issued by the
Public Works Department. To guarantee the performance of the
roadway, the developer has submitted a Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement and suitable security, approved by the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement. With
these documents, the developer has complied with the appropriate
requirements to obtain final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the 99th Way Road Plat and accept the submitted
Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and posted security.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for the 99th Way Road Plat and
accepted the submitted Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and
posted security, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
D. 1992 State Aid Contracts
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/24/92:
DATE: 2-24-92
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR j�
THRi;: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT Ow I
GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: 1992 STATE AID NTRACTS
FROM: :MARY D. POWE;, DIRECTOR, MAIN LIBRARY
BACKGROUND:
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
APPLIED TO THE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION
SERVICES FOR THE STATE AID GRANT WHICH IS BASED ON TOTAL
LOCAL FUNDS EXPENDED CENTRALLY FOR THE OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCEIOF PUBLIC LIBRARIES. THE APPLICATION WAS
APPROVED.
5
BAR 0 -3 1992
BOOK
N
3 � B00!( ��b PAS
ANALYSIS:
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ON BOTH ORIGINAL CONTRACTS
(ATTACHED) IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE GRANT FUNDS.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
STAFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE ITS
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE GRANT CONTRACTS AND RETURN TO THE
MAIN LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE
STATE LIBRARY STAFF.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to sign the State Aid to Libraries Grant
Agreement which is to be forwarded to the appropriate
State Library staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED COPY OF GRANT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. IRC Bid #92-74 -- Glendale Terrace Water Main Extension
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/24/92:
VVo*ary 24, 1992
.,OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director �
Department of General Servi��s
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: IRC Bid #92-74/Glendale Terrace Water Main Ext.
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: February 13, 1992
Specifications mailed to: Twenty -Four (24) Vendors
Replies: Five (5) Vendors
VENDOR BID TABULATION
Driveways, Inc $24,462.14
Titusville, FL
G.E. French Construction $25,942.50
Okeechobee, FL
21
Ted Myers Construction
Winter Beach-, FL
A.O.B. Underground
Indiantown, FL
JoBear
Indiantown, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
$29,086.70
$34,351.50
$38,740.10
$24,462.14
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities General Impact Fees.
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
RECOMMENDATION:
$29,241.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Driveways, Inc as the
lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting speci-
fications set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests the Board's approval of the attached
agreement when all requirements are met and approved as to form
by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded IRC
Bid #92-74 to Driveways, Inc. in the amount of
$24,462.14, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. IRC Bid #92-66 -- Air Curtain (Road & Bridge)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/92:
DATE: February 25, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Ser%F5
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC Bid #92-66/Air Curtain
Road and Bridge
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
strator
Bid Opening Date: February 5, 1992
Specifications mailed to: Six (6) Vendors
Replies: - - _ Two (2 ) Vendors
7
MAR 0 1992 minK ��'b F ,,,C.6 U
VENDORS
Kelly Tractor $19,300.00
Miami, FL
Air Burners, Inc $25,000.00
Stuart, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $25,000.00
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $26,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Roads and Bridges Other Machinery and Equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Air Burners, Inc. of
Florida, as the most responsive bidder, meeting all specifications.
FS—ee attached memo).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid 92-66 to Air Burners, Inc. of Florida in the
amount of $25,000, as recommended by staff.
G. IRC Bid #92-67 -- LP Gas Engine Driven Generator Emergency
Services -
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/24/92:
DATE: February 24, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admi istrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Serv'
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: IRC Bid #92-67/LP Gas Engine Driven Generator
Emergency Services
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
Knight and Mathis
Vero Beach, FL
All Power Services
Ft Pierce, FL
February 5, 1992
Five ( 5 ) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
TABULATION
$ 17,714.61 (Diesel Unit)
$ 18,711.00
* $ 298.00
8
(LP Gas Unit)
Cummins
Orlando, FL
Lockwell and Pump
Orlando, FL
$ 20,291.00 (LP Gas Unit)
$ 25,750.00 (LP Gas Unit)
* Alternate Adder: Jacket Heater - $298.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID•
$ 19,009.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Communication/Emergency Services Other Machinery
and Equipment Account.
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
RECOMMENDATION:
$ 20,500.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to All Power Services as
the lowest, most responsive' -and responsible bidder meeting the
specifications as per the Invitation to Bid. In addition, staff
recommends the purchase of the jacket heater.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid 192-67 to All Power Services in the amount of
$19,009, as recommended by staff.
H. Actuarial Study
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/21/92:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Adminis rator
TERU: Jack Price, Personnel Director kms✓
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manager,n_,�,
DATE: 21 February 1992 +
SUBJECT: Request for Board Consideration; Actuarial Study
Please consider this item for inclusion on the Board's March 3,
1992 consent agenda.
For the past two (2) years, Coopers & Lybrand has performed an
annual actuarial study of the County's self-insurance program to
determine adequacy of funding in keeping the governmental
accounting standards. We have received the attached renewal
proposal from Coopers & Lybrand with the not -to -exceed cost of
$10,000.00, the cost for the past study. Mr. Nelson has been the
actuary involved each year and we have found his work to be timely
and professional. Staff recommends continuation of this project
with the firm which has a contract -for the unified audit.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
9
MAR 0 3 1991
A
vPt u t Eij
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation for Coopers & Lybrand to do
the annual actuarial study of the County's self-insurance
program at a cost not to exceed $10,000.
I. _ Reauest for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Riverboat Club Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. CIO
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.Emr_
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Riverboat Club Subdivision
DATE: February 25, 1992 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
McQueen & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Corporate Life Insurance
Company, developers of Riverboat Club Subdivision, is requesting a
waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement of Section
930.07(2)(d) of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance. Riverboat Club Subdivision received preliminary plat
approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission on September 13, 1990.
The project is located on the north side of 95th Street (Durrance
Road) east of U.S. 1, immediately south of Pelican Pointe. The
special flood hazard areas inundated by the 100 year flood on this
site include Zone AE with base flood elevations of 8, 9, and 10 FT.
N.G.V.D. The ten year flood elevation predicted in the May 4, 1989
F.E.M.A. Flood Insurance Study is 4.7 FT N.G.V.D. The proposed 10
year floodplain displacement created by fill below elevation 4.7 FT
is estimated by the applicant's engineer at 4703 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided
in Section 930.07(2)(d)1. of being situated in an estuarine
environment within the 100 year floodplain along the Indian River
and in staff's opinion it appears that all other Stormwater
Management and Flood Protection Ordinance requirements can be met.
Construction permits have been obtained from the Department of the
Army for dredge and fill and from S.J.R.W.M.D. for stormwater
discharge. Construction of the project began, however, without
County Land Development approval from the Public Works Department.
Approval of the Land Development Permit is pending the cut and.f ill
waiver request and issuance of an F.D.O.T. roadway 'connection
permit.
10
Alternative No. 1
_ Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-
site balance of cut and fill.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
cut and fill balance waiver request by Riverboat Club
Subdivision, as recommended by staff.
J. School Board Representation on Transportation Planning
Committee and Value Adjustment Board
The Board reviewed the following excerpt from the School
Board's Minutes of the Annual Organizational Meeting of 11/19/91:
Minutes - Annual Organizational Meeting
11/19/91
The Indian River County School Board met in a special session on November 19. 1991 at
5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the School District Central Administrative Offices at
1990 25th Street. Members present were Chairman Gene Waddell. Vice Chairman
Sandra Bowden. Joe N. Idlette, Jr.. Gary Lindsey and William L. Marine, Jr. Also
present were Dr. Gary W. Norris. Superintendent and School Board Attorney G. Russell
Petersen.
Dr. Norris presided over the meeting. The order of business was as follows:
L Election of Cbahmaa and Vice-Cbairmaa
1
JTTa re P 1 F77--) F-oVMTWW�7-9—P[Ts a -
11L MiSCeliBII@Offfi AppOiIIttIIeIItB fivm the Hoard
1. FS�giRlative Representative:
Duties include attending meetings as well as lobbying activities in
Tallahassee.
Mr. Lindsey was last year's representative and agreed to be this year's
representative. He requested the Florida School Boards Association be
notified of his appointment.
2. South Florida Consortia**± of School Bo rcia;
Duties include attending meetings as well as lobbying activities in
Tallahassee.
Mr. Marine was last year's representative and agreed to be this year's
-z ell mentative
it
BOOK
03 199,
r
MARIV 31 "i 492 "FIK
r, -1E
PC, r3 -County Tra�ngDortation r.....mitt4.
Duty to attend meetings.
Mrs. Bowden Was last's year's representative. Gene Waddell will serve
this veaes representative Mrs. Bowden will be an alten�ate
Last year's representatives were Gary Lindsey and Joe N. Idlette. 'Jr. Mr.
Lindsey pointed out that the term for this board starts and ends on
different dates than the school board. Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Idlette will
continue to serve on this board until their terms expire. Mr. Lindsey
requested that at that time the school board take the appointment to the
Property Value Adjustment Board under consideration again -
5. C
• -� � Economic Deyelopment, Council
Duty to attend meetings.
53
Mr. Marine was last year's representative and agreed to be this year's
representative
Duty to attend meetings (legal parameters available through Attorney
Russell Petersen).
Last year's representative was Gene Waddell. This year's representative Will
be Sandra L. Bowden.
7. Restructuring Committee
One meeting per month.
Mr. Lindsey was last year's representative and agreed to be this year's
representative.
The meeting adlourned at 5:15 p.m.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously appointed
Gene Waddell to the Transportation Planning Committee as
this year's representative of the School Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously reappointed
Gary Lindsey and Joe N. Idlette, Jr. to the Value
Adjustment Board as representatives of the School Board.
K. Acceptance of Millie Bunnell's Resignation from IRC Historical
Advisory Board
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/17/92:
12
r
bruary 17, 1992
d t� Gary Wheeler
Chairman Historical Advisory Board
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Gary:
Due to increased demand of my time involving the restoration of
the Physical Arts Center and the leadership of Vero Heritage, Inc.,
I find it necessary to resign from the Indian River County Historical
Advisory Board. I feel this board serves an important function for
the county and urge the commission to always seek its advice when
matters of historical concern arise.
I am asking the Indian River County Historical Society to recommend
my replacement.
I have enjoyed my participation and have found it interesting and
beneficial in the knowledge of historical research and preservation
in our county.
Thank you for the opportunity of serving these past months.
Best Regards
Millie Bunnell
P. 0. Box 8006
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
mb/mf
cc: Indian River County Historical Society
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously accepted the
resignation of Millie Bunnell from the IRC Historical
Advisory Board.
L. Resignation and ADRointment to Professional Services Advisory
Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/20/92:
13
ROOK. F.l;E ���
r
BOOK 0f",'�.j 7
ROBERT B. SWIFT
Rea E* to
February 20, 1992
Carolyn Egert
Commissioner
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
re: Public Services Advisory Committee
Dear Carolyn:
Peter Robinson asked that I let you know of my interest in
filling the vacancy in the PSAC created by Tom Gillette's
departure.
As you know I've been active in real estate development in the
community for the past seven years. I have a working
understanding of the county's land development regulations and
the issues that come to bear on land use and permitting
questions.
Please let me know if you need anything further to consider this
appointment.
Best regards,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously appointed
Robert B. Swift to the Professional Services Advisory
Committee, filling the vacancy created by Tom Gillette's
departure.
14
r
PUBLIC DISCUSSION — PRINCE CONTRACTING CO. REQUEST TO SPEAK IN
CONNECTION WITH THE BID AWARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SANDRIDGE
GOLF COURSE SECOND 18
The Board reviewed the following letters dated 2/28/92 and
2/27/92:
I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Michael E. Riley
Cummings, Lawrence E Vezina, P.A.
Post Office Box 589
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589
Dear Mr. Riley:
(ry 28, 1992
swlcom Telephorxi: 294.1011
As I stated to you in my telephone call on Friday afternoon,
February 28, 1992, you will be placed on the agenda for the Board
of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 3, 1992. The Item has
been placed under "Public Discussion", which is one of our first
Items. Please be in the Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
at 9:00 a.m.
If you will .please state your request, you will receive an
answer.
15
BUCK L7�
u�dea:0
0 31992 E ,c
Sincerely,
Carol K. Egg �t
Chairman
LAW u/ c 1l;ES
CUMMINGS, LAWRENCE & VEZINA, P. Aoi11'• �, ` >+J
1004 095070 PARK ORIVE
�-
,1
POST OFrICE sox 559160
TALLAHABBCE. IMORICIA 38308-0589 PLEASE REPLY TO.
JOUTNCAST I? STREET C+11J E'MAY
POST OrrtrE Box Ino ,t1
TELEPHONE 19041 678-3700
ET LA1/0ERDALE. rLOPIDA a.I116
FA n •�•E7 j(` n 656-0389 Tallahassee
41
ELC rjONSE 1 OSI 751':9'/00
4
AGI RfC '' February 27, 1992
DISTRIBUTION LISP
s co 7D cDnNrb 'XI -
Commissioners
SS'o�+� ;yv
Administrator L
�I �. V. :;
icT
Attorney
:
The Honorable .Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Personnel
Public Works
The Board of County Commissioners
Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Utiiii;��s
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Fin,r1ce —
�iher
Dear Ms. Eggert:
—'
This law firm represents Prince Contracting Co, Inc. in connec-
tion with its contract bid to Indian River County for the /...-
Sandridge Golf Course Second 18, Project No. 9105.
15
BUCK L7�
u�dea:0
0 31992 E ,c
On Monday, February 24, 1992, Prince filed suit requesting that
the Court declare the contract award to Guettler & Sons, Inc.
void, and enjoin the Board from entering into an agreement with
Guettler. The Court today granted Prince's motion to shorten the
time to take depositions of Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Guettler &
Sons, Inc.'s corporate representative, and the other individual
Board members. These depositions will take place_negt Wednesday
and Thursday. On Wednesday, March 11, 1992, the Court will then
year Prince's Motion for a Temporary Injunction. Therefore, by
March 11th, the Board will know -- one way or another -- the
Court's view of the merits of Prince's actions.
Prince requests that the Board simply decide not to enter into a
contract and/or issue Guettler & Sons a notice to proceed until
the March 11th hearing. I understand the Board could consider
this request as soon as its March'", 1992, meeting.
I will not repeat Prince's assertions about the impropriety of
Mr. Scurlo'ck's activities. It is sufficient to say that his
activities strike at the heart of governmental trust generally
and the integrity of the competitive bid process specifically.
Both the rights of the County taxpayers, by losing the benefit of
a bid approximately $50,000.00 less than the Guettler & Sons bid,
and Prince, a Florida contractor with extensive experience
constructing golf courses throughout Florida, have been violated
by the tainted bid -process.
County staff have said the Count"ust now contract with Guettler
& Sons and proceed with the work. Nevertheless, the County need
not rush to sign a contract or issue Guettler & Sons a notice to
proceed. By the.very terms of the contract documents, the Board
reserved its right not to act precipitously. The County could
have delayed the award for sixty (60) days after the bid opening;
and the Board does not require the contractor to commence work
for twenty (20) days after issuing the notice to proceed. The
Board contemplated delays in starting the work; if the Board
grants this request and chooses not to act before March 11th, it
will be acting within the scope of the contract documents.
Prince asks merely that the Board wait until March 11th and start
anew with Prince, Guettler & Sons, or another responsive contrac-
tor depending upon the Court's ruling. Too many questions have
been raised about the propriety of the award to Guettler & Sons
to rush the contract award process any further. The risk of
further injury to the taxpayers of the County, while the ques-
tions regarding the bid remain unanswered, is too great to now
allow the contract to proceed.
MER/ybf
Sincerely,
Michael E. Rile
Cummings, Lawrence
16
& Vezina, P.A.
Attorney Joe Lawrence of the law firm of Cummings, Lawrence &
Vezina advised that he was substituting for Michael E. Riley today
in the law firm's representation of Chester Prince, president of
Prince Contracting Co., Inc., who has filed suit requesting that
the Court declare the contract award to Guettler & Sons, Inc. void
and enjoin the Board from entering into an agreement with Guettler
or issuing Guettler a notice to proceed until next Wednesday, March
11, when the Court will hear Prince's Motion for a Temporary
Injunction. To the extent the County has already entered into a
contract and issued a notice to proceed to Guettler & Sons, he
urged the Board to suspend construction activity on the project for
a mere 8 days until Circuit Judge Charles Smith has the opportunity
to consider the merits of the very grave allegations that were made
in the complaint filed in Circuit Court. Attorney Lawrence
understood the Commissioners have seen some of the proof of the
allegations in the complaint, and if it is true, the actions
strikes at the heart of the competitive bid process which the Board
of County Commissioners have said shall be followed in this project
and also strikes at the heart of their actions. All they are
asking is that the Board allow Judge Smith to consider all the
evidence and sworn statements that will be taken over the next
several days so that Judge Smith can make a reasonable decision on
the matter and take into account the full facts of the matter and
make an independent decision whether or not the competitive bid
process was followed and whether or not the actions of the Board
were tainted and should be voided or not voided under the
situation. Basically, the request is as simple as that. They are
asking that no further action be taken on this construction
contract until Judge Smith has the opportunity to consider the
matter on March 11, merely 8 days from today.
Continuing his arguments for an 8 -day delay, Attorney Lawrence
emphasized that Prince Contracting Company has been constantly
assured that the Board wants to comply with the law and their oath
of office, and wants to build a golf course in full accordance with
the plans that were published at the lowest possible cost to the
taxpayers of Indian River County. The Board's vote of 3-2 to
reject Prince Contracting Company's offer to build that golf course
in full accordance with the plans and specifications for $50,000
less than the -second low bidder raised certain questions. Further
questions were raised once an investigation was conducted which
revealed that potentially one of the Board members was instrumental
in the County's pre -award investigation and that the vote was
tainted in the process. Instead of slowing down the process after
these allegations were made, staff proceeded to issue probably one
17
MAR 0 3 1992' i U
' �OGK v IOU
I
MAR 0 3 199
BOOK
of the fastest notices to proceed ever made, not on a hospital
project that would have been an emergency matter, but on the
construction of a golf course. Rather than waiting to make sure
just what had occurred and making sure that the Board had acted
appropriately under the circumstances, the County issued a notice
to proceed and the contractor is now geared up to perform the work.
In conclusion, Attorney Lawrence emphasized that all they are
asking is an 8-dsy delay so that the County does not potentially
encounter further costs from Guettler & Sons that would have to be
paid and at the same time have to pay Prince Contracting Company
who was supposed to have done that work if Judge Smith so rules.
On that basis, he believed a delay would be a sound business
decision, both legally and morally. He thanked the Board for the
opportunity to speak today.
Attorney Lyman Reynolds, representing the Board of County
Commissioners in this matter, advised that the suit filed by Prince
Contracting Company for a temporary injunction is an extraordinary
legal relief which seeks to maintain the status quo. In the
present situation involving a contract, there is a status quo where
the contract was issued and executed on behalf of the county on
February 18, 1992. A pre -construction was noticed February 21,
1992 and held on Wednesday, February 26, 1992 at 2:00 o'clock P.M.
Following that pre -construction conference, a notice to proceed was
issued February 26, 1992 to Phillip Guettler, president of Guettler
& Sons. That is the status quo at the present time and should
remain.
Chairman Eggert asked Deputy County Attorney William Collins
if he had anything to say before she opened the matter up for
questions or comments, but Attorney Collins preferred to let
Attorney Reynolds speak with one voice for the Commission. If
asked, he would answer, but he would prefer that we speak with one
voice.
Commissioner Bird stated that one of his main concerns was the
timing of this project so that this project would get started as
soon as possible and be completed as expeditiously as possible in
order to get the course developed, grown in, and open for the
winter season of 1992/93. He felt a further delay in the project
would make that time table much more difficult to attain.
Commissioner Bird felt he was looking for a little bit more legal
guidance from our Legal Department about placing ourselves in a
position of least jeopardy or vulnerability with both contractors
in mind. He inquired about the financial down side if Guettler
proceeds to work during the next 8 days and the Court makes some -
sort of a ruling that causes the County to change -to Prince
18
Contracting Company. In other words, are we placing ourselves
further at risk or less at risk?
Attorney Collins was prepared to answer some of those
questions if Attorney Reynolds preferred. He explained that at
this point we have a contract with Guettler and we cannot rescind
that contract without being in breach ourselves. It is his
understanding that we can terminate only for cause. What Attorney
Lawrence is asking the Board to do this morning essentially is to
make a determination that there is cause to breach the contract in
the absence of all the facts that they plan to develop and present
to the Judge. Attorney Collins felt it would put the Board at more
risk to make a determination in the absence of facts to breach and
rescind the contract today, rather than waiting for the Judge to
make that determination. If the Judge makes such a determination
and Guettler has performed work, he would be entitled to a quantum
merit payment for the proportion of the work that he had done.
Attorney Collins felt that taking action today would risk having
liability to two parties instead of one.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if Attorney Collins was saying that
the Board's liability is much greater if we were to grant the 8 -day
delay, and Chairman Eggert interjected that is what she was
hearing.
Attorney Collins advised that it is not only a question of
liability, but a question of how the delay would affect the golf
course time table. It is critical that the golf course be
completed in time to bring in a stream of revenue next season,
because it would affect how the County pays off its revenue bonds.
Attorney Collins advised that the Board does not need to take
any action today.
MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock that the Board extend
an 8 -day delay FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECTION.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he moved the 8 -day delay for
the simple fact that there has been allegations made against him,
and because he doesn't buy the arguments that the 8 days would make
that much difference. Basically, he has been accused of being
almost a thief and he intends to cooperate in very way to give
every record to these gentlemen. That process starts tomorrow at
3:00 P.M. He has served on this Commission for 12 years and felt
his relationship with everyone has been a good one, and he is here
ready and willing to answer any questions. He has everyone of his
financial disclosures and income tax returns since 1982.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that this has been tough; he has been
19
�ooK � ��
MAR 0 31992 F; ;c % ��
BOOK �,� FArr r�f C
accused of being a corporate officer, which is absolutely on its
very face incorrect. He noted that his comments are given as a
County Commissioner; he is without counsel as his attorney is not
present.
Chairman Eggert stated she could understand Commissioner
Scurlock's personal position, even though she had voted not to
award the bid to Guettler, but her greatest concern is what is best
for the County at this time. She asked Assistant County Attorney
Terry O' Brien if he agreed that we should not take this step at
this time.
Attorney O'Brien certainly agreed that when the Board voted 3-
2 to award the bid to Guettler, a contract existed between the
County and Guettler. The signing of that contract was merely an
administrative act. Guettler could have gone to Court and had a
mandamus action for the signature of the Chairman to complete the
contract. The notice to proceed was issued because of the time
constraints, as expressed by Commissioner Bird, and everyone was
aware of that concern. Attorney O'Brien felt that the County has
a valid contract and that to stop Guettler at this point in time
perhaps would make us liable to Guettler for delay damages or any
damages that would be a result of him having to stop work.
Commissioner Bowman asked if any action taken today would in
effect prejudge the suit, and Attorney Collins answered, "Yes".
Commissioner Wheeler emphasized that he had voted against the
award to Guettler. While he could appreciate what Commissioner
Scurlock is saying, he felt the place to solve this is in front of
a Judge. He believed that the best interests of the County would
not be served by granting the 8 -day delay.
Chairman Eggert understood then that we would .continue the way
we are, and thanked Attorney Lawrence for coming this morning.
PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISES RESIDENTIAL
CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT
Chairman Eggert announced that this public hearing was placed
on the Agenda of the Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners
rather than on the Agenda of the Meeting of the Solid Waste
Disposal District that is scheduled to be heard after adjournment
of this meeting..
Attorney Will Collins explained that some question has arisen
because this was advertised as a public hearing of the Solid Waste
Disposal District for the purpose of granting franchises for
residential curbside recycling. The Board of County Commissioners
has the power to grant franchises under a special act which -
includes garbage franchises, but the Solid Waste Disposal District
20
has been created since that special act was formed. SWDD also has
the authority to accomplish the purpose of the District by
contract. The Resolutions that are before the Board today make
certain findings as to its authority to accomplish the purposes of
the District by contract of finding that the collection of solid
waste is an integral part of disposal. At .the end of the
agreement, it asks the Board to authorize the Chairman of the SWDD
to execute the franchise agreement in the name of the Board. Since
the Board of County Commissioners sits as the District Board of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District, it is his
opinion that those findings within the resolutions and the
authority delegated by it essentially provide for the Chairman of
the SWDD to enter into this agreement on behalf of the Board of
County Commissioners.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
The time being 9:20 o'clock A.M., Chairman Eggert announced
that the Board of County Commissioners would recess this meeting
and reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid Waste
Disposal District, and upon adjournment of that meeting, reconvene
today's meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. .
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:35 o'clock
A.M. following adjournment of the meeting of Solid Waste Disposal
District with the same members being present.
21
MPS 0 1
OO G 1r � q
V1 R () e' �u992
L
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) DESIGNATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/24/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPA&(K
Community Development Director
DATE: February 24, 1992
SUBJECT: MPO DESIGNATION
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 3, 1992.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Recently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) notified
county staff -"that a portion of Indian River County met the criteria
to be designated as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
According to FDOT, the MPO designation is warranted due to the
Census Bureau's establishment of Vero Beach and its surrounding
area as an urbanized area. The urbanized area designation was made
because 1990 Census figures showed that the population of Vero
Beach and the densely settled areas surrounding the city exceeded
50,000.
An MPO is made up of representatives of local governments within
the designated urban area. In this case, the Vero Beach MPO will
probably be comprised of representatives of the Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners, the City of Vero Beach, and the Town
of Indian River Shores. It is doubtful that Sebastian and
Fellsmere will be included. However, until Census urbanized area
maps are provided to the staff, it is not certain which
municipalities are within the designated urban area and therefore
part of the MPO.
As an MPO, the County and municipalities will obtain more ability
to control the expenditure of state and federal transportation
funds within the Vero Beach urban area. This will involve the
preparation of a unified work program, long range transportation
plan, five year transportation improvements program, and other
activities. As a result, the local governments making up the MPO
will have more influence on the expenditure of federal and state
transportation funds in this area.
In addition, state funds will pay for most of the staffing costs
associated with the MPO. Other than a required 20 percent match,
which can be in-kind services, all MPO related costs will be paid
through state funds. The proposed FY 1992/1993 MPO planning funds
distribution formula allocates $185,544 for the Vero Beach MPO.
22
The process for establishing the Vero Beach MPO has already -
started. It began with the Census Bureau's urbanized area
designation for Vero Beach and its surrounding area. The next step
will be official notification by the governor. This notification
will inform local officials of MPO designation and establish a 120
day timeframe to prepare several types of boundary maps.
During that 120 day timeframe, the local governments within the
urbanized area must organize and work with FDOT to prepare the
necessary boundary maps. In addition, the local governments will
need to establish bylaws and adopt interlocal agreements. Once
these activities are completed and FDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) approve the maps and procedures, the MPO will
be officially designated.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
There are no alternatives to MPO designation. Since the Vero Beach
area has met urbanized area criteria, state and federal rules
mandate establishment of the MPO. There are, however, several
organizational alternatives. These involve boundary delineation
options for several maps that must be prepared, MPO composition
alternatives, staffing options, and others.
Overall, the Vero Beach MPO designation will be beneficial for all
local governments in the urbanized area, in that there will be more
local control over state and federal transportation spending in the
area. One of the few drawbacks is that the MPO will not include
all local governments in the County. Since Sebastian and Fellsmere
will most probably not be within the MPO boundary, the County will
need to retain its Transportation Planning Committee to effect
countywide transportation planning and to provide coordination
among all local governments in the County with respect to
transportation planning.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to coordinate with FDOT and the other local governments
within the Vero Beach urbanized area to initiate MPO establishment
activities.
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that
primarily this is an informational item for the Board's benefit,
but staff is asking for the Board's authorization to proceed with
the MPO. He explained that the proposed FY 1992/1993 MPO planning
funds description formula allocates $185,544 for the Vero Beach
MPO. According to the allocation plan, that $185,544 does need to
be matched. It is a 20% match and the match can be in-kind
W
{
RR 31992 ncK „'.,C.70-
j 319
services, and the 20% is 10%- local and 10% from the State.
According to the DOT personnel who we have talked with, that
$185,544 is not a given amount you have to spend. It is an amount
that is available if your expenditures warrant that, and the
expenditures can be for staff and consultant services for the
various activities that the MPO needs to take.
Director Keating requested that the Board give authorization
to the staffs of both the Community Development Department and the
Public Works Department to work with the DOT and with the
municipalities within the urbanized areas to begin the initial work
on the MPO.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that we have no alternatives;
we must do it, and it is just a matter of how it is structured.
Chairman Eggert noted that there are some negative
ramifications to this MPO. She understood that the Housing
Authority was told that the line was at the North Relief Canal and
that Gifford no longer would be able to get certain funds for
building low cost housing because it was now in this new urban
district.
Commissioner Wheeler asked how they came up with $185,544, and
Director Keating explained that they developed an allocation
formula that incorporated a minimum amount for each MPO regardless
of the size and then allocated the rest based on population. The
funds are to be used only for transportation planning activities
such as running transportation models, coming up with
transportation improvement programs and budgets, etc. A lot of
what the MPO is involved with is committees and input and making
sure that planning isn't done in a vacuum. In addition to the MPO
itself sitting as one committee, there is a technical advisory
committee and a citizens advisory committee, and some of the staff
work involves working with those committees.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize staff to
coordinate with FDOT and the other local governments
within the Vero Beach urbanized area to initiate MPO
establishment activities.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler commented that he finds
it frustrating that the State can take the money, attach strings to
it, and send it back to us telling us what we have to do to keep
the money, especially when we already are doing those type of
things. There are additional costs involved with setting up an -
24
L
additional committee such as additional staffing, additional
meetings, additional minutes, and we already are doing this.
Director Keating confirmed that there will be some additional
committee work, but this will provide some funds for work that we
already are doing. As we go through the process, there may be
some alternatives to reduce some duplication.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
STUDY OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 26, 1992 FILE: -
Study of Parks and
SUBJECT: Recreation Services
James E. Chandler
FROM.County Administrator REFERENCES:
Two proposals have been received to perform the study of parks and recreation
services, as follows:
David M. Griffith 8 Associates, Inc. $48,960
Tallahassee, Florida
Ward Associates, P.C. $78,000
Bohemia, New York
On February 21, 1992 the following committee met to consider the proposals:
Commissioner Dick Bird, City Manager Tom Klaric, Assistant City Manager/
Finance Director Tom Nason, Recreation Director Pat Callahan, and myself.
The Committee unanimously recommended that authorization be requested from the
Board of County Commissioners and City Council to negotiate a proposed contract
and fee with David M. Griffith 8 Associates, Inc.
25
MAR 0 3 N92 BOOKFt ;jE � ,�
Fl -
ROOK Lie) F'A.E ilyl
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize staff to
negotiate, in conjunction with the Vero Beach City
Council, a proposed contract and fee with David M.
Griffith & Associates, Inc. to perform a study of parks
and recreation services.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird mentioned that Recreation
Director Pat Callahan had an opportunity on a recent trip to
Tallahassee to spend quite a few hours with this particular company
that has been recommended here and she feels pretty comfortable
that they have a good handle on what our needs are and what we are
looking for in this study.
Commissioner Bowman was under the impression that our needs
were pretty well spelled out in the Comp Plan, and she didn't see
any need for this study.
Administrator Chandler explained that this is the study to
look at the provision of parks and recreation services on a county-
wide basis for the future and look at whether it should be under
one organizational structure or two separate structures. He
confirmed that the emphasis is on studies, not programs.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
INTEREST RATES
OMB Director Joe Baird presented the following information in
the memo dated 2/26/92 regarding the County's policies regarding
interest charges:
26
_I
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
,INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board of
County Commissioners
DATE: February 26, 1992
SUBJECT: INTEREST RATES
FROM: JosephA. B
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Recent reductions in interest rates over the last year have prompted several questions about
the county's policies regarding interest charges. Below are policy questions that have been
asked and my recommendations.
I. Should we reduce the interest rate on existing assessments
(previously approved at 12%) in order to grant relief to those
wishing to finance their fees?
The fixed rate of 12% fairly reflected the prevailing market
conditions at the time the assessment was done. If interest rates had
increased, we would not have the ability to increase the rate charged;
conversely, if we took the approach of reducing rates every time the
market went down (but did not increase them when they rose), we
would lose a significant amount of money on the assessments. As a
result, over the life of an assessment we will make money in some
years and lose in others; this is no different from any other
investment carrying a fuzed interest rate.
I recommend that the existing assessment interest rate currently at
the 12% fixed rate not be reduced.
2. What interest rate do we charge borrowers?
Currently we charge 2% above our interest cost if we do a bond
issue or 2% above the prime rate. (Using the Wall Street Journal as
our guide for the prime rate.)
3. When are the interest rates changed?
Several years ago we were changing the interest rate on petition
paving assessments every time the assessment was approved. The
Board of County Commissioners found this confusing and wanted it
changed annually or if rates changed considerably.
I recommend we set the interest rates annually in Janumy of each
Year unless interest rates change considerably.
27
MBAR 0 1992 BOOK � ") �
11AR u 31997
BOOK
Director Baird stated that -he is of the opinion that we should
not reduce the 12% fixed interest rates that were offered at the
time of the assessments. Not only are the individuals protected
from any increase during the term of the loan, we also balance our
portfolio using the fixed rates. The main reason for not reducing
the rates is that we have pledged the majority of these assessments
for bonds, and we would not be able to reduce the rates for
everyone.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed the 2% over prime is for
servicing and administrative handling of the work associated with
having a loan program, but he wondered if it should be a full 2% or
something less than 2%.
Director Baird explained that because assessments are not
looked at as prime paper in the bonding market, the market likes to
see some comfort. One of the comforts is charging 2% over prime so
that money is available to pay the installments for those who don't
pay since only the assessments themselves are pledged. Initially
we charged only 1%, but we went to a bond issue and they didn't
feel that 1% was sufficient, so we have gone to 2%. The market
conditions dictate a bond issue.
Commissioner Wheeler understood the intent of providing County
financing was to help those who perhaps didn't have good credit or
could not get financial help to pay for assessments on County
projects. He pointed out that 12% is still considerably less for
high risk individuals than what a bank would charge. He didn't
want us to encourage people to use the County as their bank, and if
the fixed rates were set at 12%, they have the option of going to
the bank and borrowing money at the current rate of 6.5%. He
agreed we need to help those who need our help, but he wasn't
interested in seeing us get into the banking business by making
loans that are comparable or better than those offered by the
banks.
Commissioner Scurlock just wanted it to be a fair program to
help those people who are having to pay assessments in these poor
economic times.
Director Baird explained that presently we are charging 9-
3/4%, which he felt is reasonable. He emphasized that we cannot go
back and reduce all of the 12% loans because the majority of those
were pledged in our bond issues, and it wouldn't be fair if we
reduced the rate for just some of the 12% loans.
Discussion turned to the possibility of people getting equity
loans to pay for their assessments, but Director Baird didn't think
the banks would give a loan at 1% over prime rate guaranteed for 10 -
years. He would not recommend having a variable interest rate.
28
_ M -.
'MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman that
recommendation as set out
the Board approve staff's
in the above memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked how it would work if
the Motion passes and we did a bond issue tomorrow.
Director Baird explained that we would take the cost of money
for us and add 2% and that would be a fixed rate for the term of
the bond.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that there are some spin-off
advantages when you deal with the County. You don't have to
furnish a financial statement every year, which the banks require,
and you don't have to go and sit down with loan officers and fill
out endless applications.
Commissioner Bird just had hoped that we could reduce the 12%
rates for the existing loans, but understood that we don't have the
ability to do that.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
UTILITY FINANCING - IMPACT FEES
OMB Director Joe Baird presented the following memo dated
2/26/92 regarding the financing of utility impact fees:
OFFICE OF MANAGFMUM AND BUDGET
TO.. Members of the Board of
County Commissioners
DATE February 26, 1992
SUBJECT: UTIIM FINANCING - R"ACT FEES
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the meeting of December 17, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
financing of impact fees and distribution lines over a ten year period for property owners
affected by non voluntary assessment projects. The Board asked staff to address at a later
date the appropriate funding mechanisms that would be used to finance the impact fees
and other assessments and whether other property owners impact fees should be financed
for ten years as well.
After much consideration, staff recommends that we expand the ten year financing to
include county built projects and existing homes. All others will have five year financing,
29
M AR 0 3 1992 Boa 83" F, ,,r. "i 12-
0
To develop the appropriate funding mechanism we had to first compile pertinent data from
the Utility Rate Study, the Utility Budget and the Capital Project Schedules. Based on this
information we have compiled the attached financial schedules. When reviewing the
financial schedules you can see that if our revenue and capital expenditures occur as
predicted, we will have to borrow $2,933,073 in 1991/92, $9,058,899 in 1992/93, $16,909,441
in 1993/94, and $23,037,092 in 1994/95, and $23,185,720 in 1995/96.
DISCUSSION
As a result of these findings, staff recommends a three tier financing approach for non-
voluntary assessments. Essentially this would involve moving from one tier to the other as
more capital funds are required automatically then the third tier would only be required
if the other two options are exhausted.
The First Tier
The first tier would involve interfund borrowing from our internal special revenue funds
(as opposed to governmental). When our capital exceeds approximately $7,500,000 we
would then go to the second tier.
The Second Tier
The second tier would involve pledging the existing assessments for impact fees and
distribution lines for a bond issue.
The Third Tier
In the event that these two financing mechanisms cannot generate sufficient capital funds
for the capital projects, we would move to a third tier and do a larger bond issue to create
a pool of funds. We would probably have to pledge future impact fees and some other
revenue source (Le. franchise fees, half -cent sales tax, sate revenue sharing) to do this type
of bond issue.
There are many factors that can affect our capital requirements, for example, the
comprehensive plan, state laws, and Department of Environmental Regulation rules, as well
as changes in service territory, and the local and national economy. As a result, it is nearly
impossible to accurately predict our future capital needs for even as short a period as five
years. The three tier approach attempts to address this problem, by giving the county the
flexibility to change rapidly in response to this uncertain economic environment, yet limit
the financial burden to the Utility Department and the taxpayers
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following:
I. We expand the ten year financing to include county built projects and
existing homes. All others have five year financing.
2. The three tier financing mechanism mentioned above.
30
M M
f
Director Baird further explained that we are proposing to
expand the 10 -year financing to include impact fees for existing
homes that have been built along County -built utility projects.
For example, in cases where someone has petitioned the County and
we take lines down a street of existing homes, we will offer the
10 -year financing to the owners of existing homes on that street.
Administrator Chandler clarified that any vacant property
along that street would be included in the assessment.
Chairman Eggert reported that she is hearing from both the
Affordable Housing Committee and the Economic Development Council
that if we want to improve commerce or if we want to get low cost
housing, we are going to have to do something about spreading out
impact fee costs since it has been a policy of the County not to
forgive them. On that basis, she asked Administrator Chandler and
Director Baird to keep in mind how we are going to do that under
this recommendation. It seemed to her that we are cutting but the
private developers who would come in and try to build low cost
housing unless we could deal with that some other way through the
Housing Trust Fund. However, we still would have a policy of doing
things a certain way here, and while we could meet those one at a
time as they come, she would like to have things discussed up
front. Her concern is that we are kind of stuck in this 5 -year
financing for everything else, and she would hate to see that as a
firm policy when we know we have other problems out there that we
must face in the coming years.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that after considerable debate on
this policy with Administrator Chandler and Director Baird, they
came up with this 3 -tier approach to try to offer some flexibility
in trying to make it a little easier. He realized the 3 -tier
approach does have a down side with the risks perceived by
Administrator Chandler and Director Baird, but he felt it comes
down to a policy decision for the Board. Being very much attuned
to providing some help and impetus for proper economic development
in our community, he was leaning toward assuming some risk to do
that.
Chairman Eggert just wanted there to be some flexibility and
didn't want to see a stone wall built in front of them.
Administrator Chandler felt there is some flexibility with the
way the program is structured. He emphasized that it is not
chiseled in stone; we can come back and modify it if there are
special conditions or special projects. He believed that the
particular needs of low cost housing can be addressed in this
program.
31
MAR 0 3 1992
BOOK S:" [,A. 1-L
W
KAR 0 �q
Poria 6 F',',iE
;
Chairman Eggert stated she -would appreciate having it worded
to recognize that.
Commissioner Scurlock was convinced about the 3 -tier policy,
but wouldn't be opposed to putting some language in there that
would recognize that we have some problems out there.
Chairman Eggert raised the point about whether we would turn
down a major industry in a situation where they could not handle
all the impact fees in 5 years but could in 10 years.
Commissioner Wheeler suggested that in such cases the
developers phase in their units. He believed we have a
responsibility to provide some financing relief for County -built
projects and existing homes, but didn't feel we have a
responsibility to provide financing of impact fees for industry or
new developments. He didn't want to see the County getting into
the savings and loan business, because if something goes wrong, we
would end up taking over a development or business and the
taxpayers would have to bale it out. He believed that if a person
or corporation wants to open a business, they should have
sufficient capital to build and pay for water and sewer impact
fees.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation as presented with the understanding that
we will have some flexibility when we are addressing
special projects like affordable housing.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman felt there should be
other funds or grants available to finance utility impact fees for
low cost housing, but Chairman Eggert advised that there isn't.
Director Baird cautioned that the County isn't immune to the
effects of these poor economical times. There is some risk in this
plan, and he believed that you only can take on so much risk with
the public's money.
Director Baird explained that the reason banks are being so
hard on development now is that in the past they did not have to
have as much equity, and some banks failed when those developments
failed. Banks now are requiring equity of 25%-35%. If we loaned
them money, that is not equity, that is another loan situation.
They still wouldn't get their loan because we would be another
liability, not a personal cash equity.
Commissioner Wheeler emphasized that the County doesn't want
to get into a position where the taxpayers have to bale out the -
County's debt like they baled out the S&Ls in this country. He
32
knew -of developments that would have occurred in this county if it
had not been for our water and sewer impact fees. He didn't know
what the answer is, but he did not believe the answer is for us to
go into the S&L business.
Commissioner Bird concurred with Commissioner Wheeler's
earlier suggestion that developers should consider phasing in a few
units at a time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
PROPOSED COUNTY/CITY SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - "CLOSED LOOP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM"
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
TMROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr. P.E
County Traffic Engineer
DATE: February 26, 1992
SUBJECT: Proposed County/City Signal Maintenance Agreement
At the present time, all Traffic Control Signals 'in Indian
River County are operating independently, without any
coordination, based on one set of timing throughout each day.
As the County continues to develop, the need for
coordinating the operation of the County's Traffic Control
Signals continues to grow. The need for a comprehensive,
coordinated and flexible system was recognized, and the Florida
Department of Transportation, working closely with the Indian
River County Traffic Engineering Division, engaged a Professional
consultant to design such a system. This design, which began in
March of 1991, is now nearing completion with actual construction
of the estimated $1.9 million project slated for October/November
of this year.
In order to ensure that ,once installed, the system would be
Properly maintained and that its intended benefits to County
motorists would continue to accrue, a single local maintaining
agency must assume maintenance responsibility for the system.
33
VIAR X1031902,
BOOK... '
Ue Ft ur iiu
A
,JAR 0 1992
BOOK ; b`��, � -7F'AUE P i
As designed, of the 41 intersections in the Indian River
County Closed Loop - Phase I System, all but 14 intersections are
presently maintained by County Traffic Engineering staff with the
remaining 14 being maintained by the City of Vero Beach. The
County currently has two fully qualified technicians to maintain
the System, but the City has no IMSA qualified technicians.
Given these facts, it has been decided that the most logical
approach would be for the County to assume maintenance
responsibility of all 41 signals within the Closed Loop System.
The attached proposed Agreement has been developed by County
Traffic Engineering, the County Attorney's office, and several
City of Vero Beach Departments to formally establish maintenance
responsibility and a reimbursement schedule for the County's
assumption of "MAINTENANCE ONLY" of the City's 14 intersections.
The format of this Agreement has been found to be acceptable by
all involved staff members of the City of Vero Beach, Indian
River County and the Department of Transportation, and is
scheduled for review and adoption by the Vero Beach City Council
at their March 3, 1992 meeting.
In order to remain on schedule, this Agreement is presented
for review and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners at
this time.
There are two actions the Board of County Commissioners can
take with regard to this proposed Maintenance Agreement.
Alternative #1, acceptance •of -the Agreement and
authorization for the Commission Chairperson to sign the
Agreement, once executed by the City Authorities, would allow the
Project to move ahead to the Construction phase.
Alternative #2 would be to elect not to enter this
Maintenace Agreement with the City of Vero Beach. The Florida
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration has indicated that this project would not be
constructed if a "Single Local Maintaining Agency" were not
established to ensure that the installed system continued to
operate properly. A rejection of the County/City Agreement would
result in a termination of the $1.9 million project.
The projected cost is approximately $1.9 million dollars, of
which the City and County will each pay only $33,000.00.
The cost of this Agreement to Indian River County will
essentially be "zero dollars" each year since all maintenance
activities accomplished by County forces on the 14 City Signals in
the "Closed Loop System" would be reimbursed by the City per the
fees established in Schedule "A" of the Agreement. Bi -annual
reviews of these rates is also set forth.
Based upon the need to meet the ever increasing demands of
traffic in the County and the need for a "Single Local Agency" to
maintain the "Closed Loop System" once installed, staff
recommends approval of the attached Agreement by the Board of
County Commissioners and authorization for -the Commission
Chairperson to sign this Agreement once executed by the City
Council of Vero Beach.
34
� � r
'ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Agreement for Traffic Maintenance and Repair with the
City of Vero Beach and authorized the Chairman's
signature, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FDOT LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD PHASE IV
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/25/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director C) -p
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
)C:N1(5
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: FDOT Local Government Cooperative Assistance
Program - Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
DATE: February 25, 1992 FILE: LGCAP.AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is accepting
Local Government Cooperative Assistance (LGCA) Program grant
applications. Under the LGCA Program, the FDOT funds 50
percent of the projects estimated eligible cost.
Staff is of the opinion that the County should apply for
funding of Indian River Boulevard Phase IV construction from
37th Street to 53rd Street.
Attached is a grant application package and resolution
requesting matching financial assistance under the LCCA
Program. The actual level of funding available in the
upcoming fiscal year (beginning July 1) is subject to
Legislative appropriation.
The Road and Bridge Department will begin clearing and
grubbing the Indian River Boulevard right-of-way between
37th Street and 53rd Street in March. Construction is
schedule to be advertised for bid in July 1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute
the attached resolution authorizing the County Administrator
and the Budget Director to enter into a LCCA Program
memorandum of agreement.
Funding is from Indian River Boulevard North.
35
BOOK, 8� FwuC.v��.
BOOK ' F.9,f P'^1 11
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-41, authorizing the County Administrator
and the Budget Director to enter into a Local Government
Cooperative Assistance Program Memorandum of Agreement
and Joint Participation Agreement with the Department of
Transportation, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
2/24/92(WCrt)TBT(PWD)ree
EXHIBIT E
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Application Agency: Indian River County
RESOLUTION NO. 92-41
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE BUDGET DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AND JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, the Legislature has created the Local Government
Cooperative Assistance Program, Chapter 335.20, Florida Statutes;
and,
WHEREAS, it is a policy of the State of Florida to construct
and make improvement to the state transportation system in a
cooperative partnership; and,
WHEREAS, such partnership shall be promoted and encouraged
through the joint funding of projects that improve traffic flow
and reduce congestion on the State Highway System; and,
WHEREAS, Indian River County desires to receive matching
financial assistance for such projects; and,
WHEREAS, Indian River County wishes to authorize the County
Administrator and the Budget Director to make an application(s)
for such projects, enter into a Memorandum of Agreement(s) and,
if the proposed projects are selected for funding,
into a
Joint Participation Agreement with the Stae eofer Florida
Department of -Transportation.
36
NOW THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED, by Indian River County:
Section 1. Indian River County hereby authorized the County
Administrator and the Budget Director to apply for matching funds
under the Local Government Cooperative Assistance Program.
Section 2. Indian River County hereby authorized the County
Administrator and the Budget Director to enter into a Memorandum
of Agreement with the State of Florida Department of
Transportation..
Section 3. 'Indian River County hereby authorizes the County
Administrator, and Budget Director to enter into a Joint
Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department of
Transportation, if such project(s) are selected for funding.
Section 4. The Clerk of Indian River County is hereby
directed to send copies of this RESOLUTION to the Department of
Transportation and all other persons as directed by Indian River
County.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Indian River County at a regular
meeting assembled this 3 day of March . 1992
ATTEST: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
_ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
'TM.�� �'",.� �-`.-'`l•"+, hr� .w reg+
Jeffrey ;.'Barton,/ Clerl Carolyn. Eggertchairman
S E A L
12TH STREET WATER ASSESSMENT PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/21/92:
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILL F. MCCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPI OJECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 12TH STREET WATER ASSESSMENT PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UN -90 -09 -DS
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the
above-mentioned contract to Boyce Company in the amount of
37
MAR 0( 3 1992-BUCaK. FP�:uEn`4:0'
L
-I
BOOK ''
$993,753.19. The contract was _due to reach substantial completion
on February 2, 1992. Due to some delays, additional work, and
testing problems, Boyce is requesting a time extension until March
10, 1992, for substantial completion.
ANALYSIS
Work on the project has been satisfactory to date. However, due to
several rain delays throughout the project, the addition of
approximately 30 services (to accommodate the customer -requested
service locations), and extended problems in complying with our
strict pressure -testing requirements relative to water mains, the
contractor is now behind schedule. Boyce has provided additional
crews for this project due to the above unforeseen problems to
expedite its completion and has agreed to a final completion date of
March 10, 1992, at which time liquidated damages will commence to
run $300.00 per day. Attached is a letter from Masteller and Moler,
Inc., recommending this time extension, and staff concurs with this
recommendation. (Also see attached Change Order No. 1.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 with Boyce
Company.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN KINGS HIGHWAY SUBDIVISION AND REPLAT
OF BLOCKS 1 2 3 & 4 39TH & 40TH STREETS EAST OF KINGS HIGHWAY
AND 56TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/21/92:
38
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1992
TO: - JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA*LITY
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN KINGS HIGHWAY SID AND
REPLAT OF BLOCKS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, 39TH & 40TH STREETS EAST
OF KINGS HIGHWAY AND 56TH AVENUE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -13 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension, for Kings
Highway Subdivision and replat of blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, 39th Street,
40th Street and 56th Avenue, 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.)
ANALYSIS
The subdivision contains 23 undersized lots on the south side of 39th
Street, with 15 owners. There are also 10 1 -acre lots on the north.
side of 39th Avenue, west side of 56th Avenue, and south side of 40th
Street, with 9 owners. The total 33 lots to benefit from this project
are owned by 24 property owners. The 16 property owners signing the
petition represent 66.7% of the properties to be served. Of the 10 1 -
acre lots, 6 of the owners signed the petition.
There are 23 lots in this project that are substandard or "undersized,"
according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan. The County
Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, requires that new
lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum of 1/2 acre. If
served by a public water system, the lot•may be reduced to 1/4 acre in
size. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized
lots."
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. Design services will be provided
by the Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of
the above -listed project, in order that they may proceed with the
design engineering work in preparation for the special assessment
project.
I"" fora Ca AAPtored
admlrn 5 Odle
Legal ' C 177
Budget
Utilities In
Sick Ma. Z
39
MAR 01 3 1992 K0F 6,6,
�-
f
MAR U -3 `u
�OriK 8;b
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the above -listed project, in order to proceed- with
the design engineering work in preparation for the
special assessment project, as recommended by staff.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:20 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Jef K. Barton, Clerk
Crl7
t1' P,4 " r a A Zr,-. -
Carolyn K. ggert, Choigman
-I