HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/7/1993MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1993
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman ( Dist. 5) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (Dist. 4)
Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 )
Kenneth R. Macht (Dist. 3) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER -
2. INVOCATION -
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Item 9.A.2. Warren Dill's request to address the Board
regarding CR -512 Twin Pairs Project
Item 13.C. Report on Beach Conference at Amelia Island
Item 13.D.2. Purchase of Mann property by Seminole Indians
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting - 8/17/93
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Award of Recognition
( memorandum dated August 31, 1993 )
B. Appointment of Elizabeth H. Sehon to Transporta-
tion Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
( letter dated August 19, 1993 )
C. Appointment of Wayne McDonough to Transportation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
D. Environmental Learning Center Third Annual 5K
Road Race
( letter dated August 30, 1993)
E. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993 )
SEP 71991 BOOK ZJO PA. H. 3.3
SFP 7 1nnq BOOK 90 F`{GF..134
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
F. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993 )
G. A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REORGANIZING THE CHILDREN'S
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO RE-
FLECT ITS EX OFFICIO MEMBERSHIP
STATUS AND TO CHANGE ITS DUTIES
H. GHA, Harbor Ltd.'s Request for Final Plat
Approval for Ph. II of the Harbor Village
Planned Development to be Known as Harbor
Village Ph. II, Grand Harbor Plat 13
( memorandum dated August 30, 1993 )
I. Purchase Authorization; 41st St. R -O -W Acq.,
Richard Colley 6 Annie Colley parcels, 1. R.
Blvd., Ph. IV
( memorandum dated August 24, 1993)
J. Acceptance of Agreement to Extend Contract
Between I.R.C. and Environmetrics, Inc.
( memorandum dated August 13, 1993 )
K. Agreement / Doris J. Bean E Mac C. Platt
Temporary Water Service
(memorandum dated August 26, 1993)
L. Award Bid #3114 / Sidewalk Poles E Lighting
IRC Courthouse Complex Project
( memorandum dated August 24, 1993 )
M. Contamination - Assessment Report
_Virogroup Proposal
( memorandum dated August 30, 1993 )
N. 1994 State Aid Application
( memorandum dated August 23, 1993 )
O. Request for Signature on Section 8 Annual
Contributions Contract A3409E - Amended for
FY 93
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993)
P. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 023
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 ,a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Request From Judy Wagner to Discuss Animal
Control Ordinance
( memorandum dated August 13, 1993 )
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
+ Disney Development Company's Request for
Special Exception Use and Conceptual PD
Approval for a Lodging Facility and Resi-
dential Resort to be Known as Florida
Beach Resort
( memorandum dated August 31, 1993 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement with Florida
Communities Trust (FCT )
( memorandum dated August 24, 1993 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
1. IRC Courthouse Project - Change Order #4
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993 )
2. IRC Courthouse Project - Change Order #5
— ( memorandum dated August 13, 1991311
3. IRC Courthouse Project - Change Order #6
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993 )
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Amendment to FIND Grant Agreement for
Round Island Park Improvements
(memorandum dated August 26, 1993)
2. Purchase Authorization / Grand Harbor
Parcel, I.R. Blvd. Ph. IV
( memorandum dated August 26, 1993 )
3. Request for Grading 104th Ave., 104th Crt. ,
96th Court - Vero Lake Estates
( memorandum dated August 27, 1993 )
BOOK � •��
SEP 7 1993
SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 P, Gu 3.36
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
H. UTILITIES
1. Agreement to Furnish Economic & Financial
Consulting Services to IRC - Work Authori-
zation No. 1 - Update of Impact Fees,
Development of Wastewater Reuse Rates, and
Calculation of Septage Rates
( memorandum dated August 5, 1993 )
(continued from BCC Meeting of 8-17-93)
2. South County Wells - Final Pay Request and
Change Order No. 2
( memorandum dated August 17, 1993 )
3. Water Main Extension Project - C.R. 510/
58th Ave. Intersection - Work Authori-
zation No. 14, Change Order #1 and Final
Pay Request
( memorandum dated August 19, 1993 )
4. Petition for Water Service in Club Grove
Estates/ 35th Crt., North off 5th St. SW
( memorandum dated August 23, 1993 )
5. North County Water Distribution System,
Phase I
( memorandum dated August 30, 1993 )
6. Master Pian Update 'Agreement to Accommodate
the GDU System Purchase
( memorandum dated Sept. 1, 1993 )
7. Acquisition of GDU Vero Highlands/Shores
Utility System
( memorandum dated August 31, 1993 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1993 Legislative Meeting
( memorandum dated Sept. 1, 1993 )
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (contd.):
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Professional Services Advisory Committee
( memorandum dated Sept. 1, 1993 )
E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Baler Building
(memorandum dated August 23, 1993)
2. State Recycling/ Education Grant Application
Authorized Signature
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993 )
3. Declaration to the Public
( memorandum dated August 31, 19931
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
SEP BOOK �.��;t 3
Tuesday, September 7, 1993
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, September 7,
1993, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W.
Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
Kenneth R. Macht. 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.
J. R. Davis, Temple Beth Shalom, Vero Beach, gave the
invocation, and County Attorney Charles Vitunac led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13.D.2.,
purchase of the Mann property by the Seminole Indians.
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of Item 13.C.,
report on Beach Conference at Amelia Island, and later in the
meeting she requested the addition of Item 9.A.2., Warren Dill's
request to address the Board regarding CR -512 Twin Pairs Project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added 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 August 17, 1993. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of August 17, 1993, as
written.
SEP 7 1993 BOOK 90 I-AH"338
�9� BooK 90 F,, F
SES ,3'39
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested removal of Items C and G, and
Commissioner Adams requested removal of Items J and M, for
discussion.
A. Award of Recognition
The Board reviewed memo from Finance Director Richard E.
Watkins dated August 31, 1993:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
DATE: August 31, 1993
SUBJECT: Award of Recognition
FROM: Richard E. Watkins, Finance Director
The Government Finance Officers'Association (GFOA) has encouraged
all its participants 'in the Certificate of achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting Program to seek the "Award of
Recognition" from the National Federation of Municipal Analysts
(NFMA). The Indian River County commitment for - the Award of
Recognition was recently forwarded to the NFMA. The NFMA approval
is enclosed.
The four National Repositories recommended by NFMA are included.
We have already forwarded a copy of the Counties most recent
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Fiscal Year 1992) to each
one. We will now be able to include in the Official Statement of
all future Indian River County bond issues an appropriate statement
emphasizing that the County participates in the NFMA Award Program.
The Award of Recognition Program is designed to assure investors of
our commitment to continued disclosure of the Counties' financial
reports. This will permit investors to make better informed
decisions to buy, sell or hold Indian River County securities.
This may increase the market acceptability of our bond issues and
may reduce the interest rate paid on future bond issues.
NFMA membership comprises approximately 700 municipal bond analysts
across the country. They represent the major participants in the
municipal securities market, including unit investment trusts,
investment portfolios, bond insurers and rating agencies.
Recommend the enclosed Award of Recognition be appropriately
displayed in the County offices.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
acknowledged the Award ,of Recognition and directed
that it be displayed in the County offices.
2
B. Appointment of Elizabeth H. Sehon to Transportation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
The Board reviewed the following letter:
STATE OF FLORIDA
• AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
� WR,.�`
August 19, 1993
Honorable Carolyn Eggert, Chair
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Honorable Eggert:
The Governor's'Health Care and Insurance Reform Act -of 1993
transferred the Florida Medicaid Program from the Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to the Agency
for Health Care Administration (ARCA), effective July 1,,
1993. _
In the past, Medicaid transportation has.been represented
through the HRS liaison on the Local Coordinating Board.
However, with this recent transfer, we want to have
representation for Medicaid on the Board.
As the Program Administrator for the Area 9 Medicaid Office,
I will be the AHCA representative on your local board. I am
requesting.that your County Commission appoint me at the
earliest possible time so that I can begin participating at
the next -board meeting.
Information that you might need is as follows:
Elizabeth H. (Bette) Sehon
Program Administrator
Medicaid Area 9 Office
1720 East Tiffany Drive
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
(407) 881-5080, extension 3175
Suncom: 264-5080, extension 3175
Fax: (407) 881-5085
Suncom Fax: 264-5085 .
If you have.questions, please telephone me.
I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth H. Sehon
Medicaid Area 9
Administrator
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously appointed
Elizabeth H. (Bette) Sehon to the Transportation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board as
representative from the Agency for Health Care
Administration.
IC]
SEP 1993 BOOK 90 F�nlF 340
600K 90
SEP 71993 � 141
C. Appointment of Wayne McDonough to Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner Ken Macht
Appointment of Wayne McDonough to Transportation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
September 1, 1993
I recommend Mr. Wayne McDonough to represent the Children
and Youth Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board.
I respectfully request that you ratify Mr. McDonough's
appointment at this time.
Commissioner Eggert noted a scrivener's error. The memo
should have been submitted "From Commissioner Eggert."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously appointed
Wayne McDonough to Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board.
D. Environmental Learning Center Third Annual 5K Road Race
The Board reviewed memo from County Traffic Engineer Robert
Zaitooni dated August 30, 1993:
4
- M M
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUM: James W. Davis, P.E. ,
Public Works Director
FROM: Robert B. Zaitooni, P.E. PP
County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Environmental Learning Center
Third Annual 5R Road Race
Request for Road Closure
DATE: August 30, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Environmental Learning Center is proposing to conduct its
Third Annual "Wabasso Bridge 5 R Run" at 8:00 AM on Saturday,
October 23, 1993. The 3.1 mile run will start and end at the
Environmental Learning Center on Live Oak Drive and will
utilize CR 510, the high bridge, and an additional segment of
CR 510 west of SR AlA. It is anticipated that between 100 and
200 runners of all ages will participate in this race which is
projected to consume approximately -45 minutes.
Since the race participants will include persons from "8 thru
80 years of age" and the race course will involve the
participants running both eastbound and westbound on CR 510,
the County Traffic Engineer and representatives of the
Sheriff's Department have determined that, for safety reasons,
this section of roadway should be closed to all vehicular
traffic from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM for the race.
This method was used last October for the race with no problem
since the closure is of such short duration.
l
Traffic Engineering will place signs a week befdre the event
at both the US 1 and SR AlA intersections indicating that the
roadway will be closed between 8 & 9 AM on October 23, 1993.
The signs used last year will be re -used. Also, Indian River
County will provide, deliver, and pick 'up the proper
barricades and cones to be placed by the Environmental
Learning Center volunteers.
Sheriff deputies will be on duty at both the easterly and
westerly portions of the roadway closure.
In addition, Vero Beach High School ROTC cadets in uniform,
will be utilized to restrict any and all traffic attempting to
enter CR 510 via the few side streets involved.
The Environmental Learning Center will have emergency and
support vehicles along the route to assist any person or
persons who cannot complete the run within one hour and a
refreshment stand will be available to assist as well.
The formal request for the. road closures along with other
correspondence and the Environmental Learning Center's co-
insurance affidavits are attached to this request.
5
SEP 71993 B60K 90 FA;c. 4
SEP 7 1993
ALTODIATIVES ASID ANALYSIS
900K 90 PArF .343
The request for approval from the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners to hold the. Environmental Learning Road
Race is the proposal before the Board at this time. The
following conditions shall apply:
a) The Environmental Learning Center will provide
Indian River County with hold harmless insurance
documents naming Indian River County, prior to
issuance of the required permit.
b) Law enforcement vehicles and uniformed personnel
shall be present for the purpose of establishing
traffic control.
c) All required roadway and race permits will be
secured.
RSC iDATIM43 AND FUNDING
Given the benefits which will accrue to the general public
from this Environmental Learning Center event, the very
limited time period involved, and the minimal inconvenience to
the general motoring public, staff recommends that the segment
of CR 510 from Live Oak Drive, easterly to approximately 100
yards west of SR AlA be closed from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM along
with the closure of Live Oak Drive from the Environmental
Learning Center northerly to CR 510, from 7:30 AM to 9:00 AN.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
closure of roads as set out in staff's memorandum on
Saturday, October 23, 1993, for the Environmental
Learning Center Third Annual 5K Road Race.
E. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Legal Secretary Sandy Wright
dated August 25, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Sandy Wright, County Attorney's Office
DATE: August 25, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of
County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so.that they
can be recorded. The names and projects are:
6
1. Eighth Street Water Project
RATHBUN
2. Twelfth Street Water Project
ALBRIGHT
COOK
INDIAN RIVER ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS
3. Anith Park Water Project
SUMMERALL
4. Citrus Gardens
STORM/BRASWELL /RUSTAY
S. Glendale Lakes Water Project
EARMAN
MATHIS
6. Old Sugar Mill Water Project
BING
7. Phase I Water Project
CATTERSON
ERFURT
GRUMBLIS
JARSULIC
KAHN
MARTIN
NAPIER
OBERHOLTZER
PEIRCE/HARDEE
S. Phase II Water Project
BETBEL/SEMARU
BROWN
BRUCE -
FOSTER
NUNN
RICE (3)
SHEPPARD
SOMMERS/REGER
SADAUSKAS
STEVENS
THOMAS
9. Summerplace Water Project
DEMARCO
10. North County Sewers Release of Special Assessment Lien
7
BOOK
r�rr
r SEP 71993
BOOK 90 FnF,345
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously released
liens as listed in staff's memorandum.
SAID RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
F. Release of Utilities Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CIA, dated August
25, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� AP -49-1 R.
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CIA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: August 25, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of County
Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they can be
recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions:
MAZZARELLA
SHELTON
WILLIAMS
PRIME
2. Breezewood Park Water Project:
BALL/SCARBOROUGH SCENT
BOURN ZORCORP
BRAUN
PESCE
PHILLIPS
3. State Road 60 Sewer Project:
HERON CAY (151 Freeport & 179 Bimini)
4. Charlotte Avenue Water Project:
SANDERS
5. Pinewood Lane Water Project:
DAVIS
6. Wood Hollow Water Project:
PRESSLEY
8
7. U.S. #1 (south of Oslo Road):
SCHOMMER ( 2 )
S. Blue Cypress Lake Sewer Project:
ATAMER (2)
BRAGG/NORTH
CALDWELL
DANA
DORMINY (3)
EMBRY
HENSICR (2)
JACKSON (2)
HENSICK/ROTH
MADSEN
PIOTROWSKI
SMITH
STANSEL (2)
STEPHENSON
TAYLOR
TRINRLE
TURNER
VOTROBEK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
lien releases and satisfactions of impact fee
extensions as listed in staff's memorandum.
SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
G. Resolution Reorganizing the Children's Services Advisory
Committee
Commissioner Macht requested a correction in the list of
members to include a Member of the Children's Advocacy Group.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-151, with the inclusion of a Member of
the Children's Advocacy Group
z
EP 71993 sooK 90 PrF,340
SEP 7 X993
boa 90 F-Av347 -1
8/26/93(raso/nsan.clon)Uwlc
RESOLUTION NO. 93-151
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REORGANIZING THE CHILDREN'S
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REFLECT
ITS EX OFFICIO MEMBERSHIP STATUS AND TO
CHANGE ITS DUTIES.
WHEREAS, the Children's Advisory Committee is composed of
representatives of several organizations; and
WHEREAS, these representatives are ex officio members selected
by the organizations they represent; and
WHEREAS, a recent amendment to the code concerning ex officio
members allows representation by other than named members of the
organization; and
WHEREAS, a . committee made up entirely of ex officio members
needs no terms; and
WHEREAS, since the duties were originally established for this
committee experience has shown that said duties should --be modified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that:
1. The Children's Services Advisory Committee shall be
composed of thirteen ex officio members with membership as follows:
Member of the
Board of County Commissioners
Member of the
Judiciary
Member of the
Board of Education
Member of the
City/ County Recreation Department
Member of the
Substance Abuse Council
Member of the
Mental Health Association
Member of the
Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse
Member of the
County PTA Board
Member of the
Education Foundation
Member of the
Children's Advocacy Group
Member of the
Association of Child Care Providers
Member of the
Sheriff's Department
Member of the
School Administrative Staff
( The current named
members are set forth in Attachment "All)
2. The committee shall meet monthly or at the call of its
chairman or vice chairman and shall be advisory only.
10
to:
3. The committee shall be charged specifically with the duty
(a) inventory current child welfare services available in
Indian River County,
(b) conduct a needs assessment for services required for
children in Indian River County, and
(c) submit recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners based on the information derived under
subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph.
4. The
provision of
Title 1,
Chapter 102
of
the
Code of
Ordinances of
Indian River
County
shall apply
to
this
advisory
committee.
The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner
E g g e r t and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
T i p p i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 7 day of September , 1993.
Attest:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
By Tr*% oc61,It , GL (''.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
11
SEP 7199 �ooK 90 F-ar.94S
SEP 7 1993
BooK 90 Fr{c� 040
ATTACHMENT " A "
Member of the Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Member of the Judiciary
Judge Joe Wild
Member of the Board of Education
Stan Mayfield
Member of the City/County Recreation Department
Pat Callahan
Member of the Substance Abuse Council
Cheryl Ann Burke
Member of the Mental Health Association
Sandra Eckhardt
Member of the Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse
Anthony Donadio
Member of the County PTA Board
Frances Wagner
Member of the Education Foundation
Gene Waddell
Member of the Children's Advocacy Group
Wayne R. McDonough
Member of the Association of Child Care Providers
Patty Hinton
Member of the Sheriff's Department
Judy Deeson
Member of the School Administrative Staff
Bonnie Swanson
12
H. Request for Final Plat Approval for Phase II of the Harbor
Village Planned Development to be Known as Harbor Village Phase II.
Grand Harbor Plat 13
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Senior
Planner John W. McCoy dated August 30, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV SION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
AW Id
Robert M. KeatincjjjAICP
Community Developdent Di ctor
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP.��#%
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: August 30, 1993
SUBJECT: GHA,-Harbor Ltd.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for
Phase II of the Harbor Village Planned Development to be
Known as Harbor Village Phase II, Grand Harbor Plat 13
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration.by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of September 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Harbor Village Phase II is a boundary plat of a 7.11 acre parcel
located in the northeast section of the overall Grand Harbor
development. The final plat will create one 7.11 acre parcel for
the purpose of building 8 condominium buildings, totaling 98 units.
One building on the site is presently under construction and
nearing completion. Final plat approval is required, before a
certificate of occupancy can be issued for the building.
On September 10, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary PD approval for the Harbor Villages II PD. A land
development permit was subsequently issued for the infrastructure
improvements. The developer, GHA, Harbor Ltd. through its agent
Masteller & Moler, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval, and
has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat.
ANALYSIS:
All required improvements
to the Phase II tract
improvements necessary to
controlled via the PD plan
by the developer on a
necessary to provide access and services
have been constructed. The required
serve buildings within the tract are
development process and will be provided
building -by -building basis. Prior to
13
BOOK 90F,1;1. ,
SEP 7 A93
BooK90 FnF -351
obtaining a C.O. for any building, the required improvements
necessary to serve the building will be constructed by the
developer. All of the required improvements in the development
will be private, except utilities, which will be dedicated and
warranted separately, prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any given building. Since the provision of required
internal improvements will be controlled through the PD site plan
process, and since the required improvements necessary to provide
service to the tract have been constructed, the developer has
complied with the appropriate requirements to obtain final plat
approval for the tract.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for Harbor Villages Phase II.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the final plat for Harbor Villages Phase II, as
recommended by staff.
I. Purchase Authorization: 41st Street Right -of -Way Acquisition
Richard Colley and Annie Colley parcels Indian River Boulevard
Phase IV
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated August 24, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROIIGB: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
FROMa7nald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization; 41st Street Right -of -Way
Acquisition, Richard Colley and Annie Colley parcels,
Indian River Boulevard, Phase IV
DATE: August 24, 1993
lbs _ -o 4 'i+ •) M_11_A_• • ,�• •
Indian River County is planning to widen and pave 41st Street east
of U.S. Highway #1 to Indian River Boulevard, phase IV. Additional
right-of-way is needed to accomplish the project. The right-of-way
parcels are located on the north side of 41st Street. The owners
have agreed to sell and have executed the Contracts For Sale And
Purchase at the July 9, 1991 appraised values of $1,599 and $1,806.
There are no additional attorney's or Realtor's fees.
14
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board accept the $1,599 contract and $1,806
contract and direct the Chairman to execute the contracts on the
Boards behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Annie B. Colley in the amount of
$1,599 and the contract with Richard C. Colley in
the amount of $1,806, for acquisition of right-of-
way in connection with Indian River Boulevard, Phase
IV, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACTS (2) FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
J. Acceptance of Agreement to Extend Contract Between I.R.C. and
Envirometrics. Inc.
The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Chemist Stacy
Strickland dated August 13, 1993:
DATE:
AUGUST 13, 1993
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU:
TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTO
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
DISTRI OP
FROM:
STACY S. STRICKLAND,
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMIST
—
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
DISTRICT
' SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT TO EXTEND CONTRACT
BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY AND
ENVIROMETRICS, INC.
The County is currently contracted with Envirometrics, Inc., of
Vero Beach to perform chemical and microbiological sampling
analyses for the Department of Utilities and the Solid Waste
Disposal District. These analyses are in support of the ground
and surface water monitoring plan that is implemented in
accordance with the Department of Environmental Protection
permits 5031-162550 and SF31-159294 (Rule 17-18.700 (6)(f) FAC).
This contract was made and entered on November 3, 1992. The
contract is in effect until September 30, 1993. Paragraph 11
(contract renewal) allows for the renewal of this contract,
without requirement of bid, for an additional one year.
15
SEP ��
BOOK [Ar F3U
ANALYSIS
BOOK 90 Fr�Gf.1J
As stated in paragraph 11 of the contract, renewal is subject to
satisfactory performance and completion of the terms, provisions,
and services by Envirometrics, There is a zero cost increase for
these continued services. Envirometrics has performed the
required services in an efficient and prompt manner, providing
the necessary data in order that the County may meet State and
Federal requirements. Their staff has demonstrated its technical
expertise and has always been available for consultation
concerning their reports. Inspection of their laboratory during
this time period has found it to be well maintained, the
equipment properly calibrated, their laboratory personnel well
qualified, and the necessary quality control procedures for
laboratory sampling to be in effect.
CONCLUSION
The SWDD staff, believing •it to be in the best interest of the
County, requests that the Board approve and authorize the
extension of this contract with Envirometrics, Inc. for an
additional year.
Commissioner Adams asked, and Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto responded that the amounts of the contract are $58,000 for
the landfill and $56,000 total for Utilities. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
extension of the November 3, 1992, contract with
Envirometrics, Inc., for an additional year.
SAID EXTENSION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
K. Agreement - Doris J Bean and Mac C Piatt Temporary Water
Service
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 26, 1993:
16
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
AUGUST 26, 1993
JAMES E .. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA'
TERRANCE G.
H. D. "DUKE" OSTER, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
AGREEMENT
DORIS J. BEAN AND MAC C. PIATT
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
Doris J. Bean and Mac C. Piatt have requested that temporary service
be installed from the water line on 58th Avenue to service their
property at 5780 35th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, prior to
the installation of a water main on 35th Street.
ANALYSIS:
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary water service to
Doris Bean and Mac C. Piatt until such time as a water line is
constructed on- 35th Street, by assessment. They agree to pay all
fees required to make this connection. They further agree to
participate in the assessment and to reconnect to this water line as
required by IRCDUS.
KLCOMMEIVDATION
1
The Department of Utility Services recommends )that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Doris J.
Bean and Mac C. Piatt on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with Doris J. Bean and Mac C. Piatt
for temporary water service, as recommended by
staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
17
P 19BOOK 90 FF{;F5
BOOK 90 Fa,F •355 -7
L. Award Bid #3114 - Sidewalk Poles and Lighting IRC Courthouse
Complex Project
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated August 24, 1993:
DATE: August 24, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County A nistrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #3114/Sidewalk Poles and Lighting
IRC Courthouse Complex Project
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
August 4, 1993
July 21, 28, 1993
Sixteen (16) Vendors
Two (2) Vendors
-Six (6) No Bids
VENDORS
GRAYBAR
G.E. SUPPLY
FT. PIERCE
POMPANO BEACH
14 -Single Lamp Fixtures
$19,656.00
$18,690.00
Fluted Shaft
14 -Single Lamp Fixtures
* $16,771.30
$18,690.00
Smooth Shaft
2 -Double Lamp Fixtures
$ 3,824.70
$ 3,940.00
Fluted Shaft
2 -Double Lamp Fixtures
* $ 3,412.40
$ 3,940.00
Smooth Shaft
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
SOURCE OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECONH ENDATION
$20,183.70
IRC Courthouse Complex Project
$20,000.00
That the bid be awarded to Graybar as the lowest most
responsive and responsible bidder for the purchase of both
the single and double lamp fixtures with a smooth shaft.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #3114 for Sidewalk Poles and Lighting for the
Courthouse Complex Project to Graybar in the amount
of $20,183.70, as recommended by staff.
18
� � r
� s �
M. Contamination - Assessment Report - Virogroup Proposal
The Board reviewed memo from Superintendent of Buildings &
Grounds Lynn Williams dated August 30, 1993:
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS-, SUPT.
SUPERINTENDENT OF BUIL GS & OUNDS
DATE: AUGUST 30, 1993
SUBJECT: CONTAMINATION - ASSESSMENT REPORT
VIROGROUP PROPOSAL
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IS EQUIPPED WITH A 10,000
GALLON UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK WHICH SERVED UNTIL EARLIER THIS
YEAR THE EMER ENCY GENERATOR AND HEATING BOILER PLANT. AS A
PROJECT FOR THrSkYEARS REPLACEMENT OF THE GENERATOR AND ABANDONMENT
OF THE FUEL TANK WERE BUDGETED. THE TANK PREDATES.OUR PURCHASE AND
RENOVATION OF THIS BUILDING THUS THE ACTUAL AGE WAS/IS UNKNOWN.
COMPLETION OF THE GENERATOR REPLACEMENT WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN
MARCH OF THIS YEAR. WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TANKS AGE AND
SUSPECT CONDITION DICTATED REMOVAL, STAFF CONTACTED VIROGROUP
MISSIMER DIVISION FOR A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS
CONCERNING ABANDONMENT. THE LOCATION OF THE TANK WITH*CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE BUILDING AND POSSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS RAISED CONCERNS THAT ABANDONMENT
IN PLACE MAY BE NECESSARY INSTEAD OF REMOVAL.
AFTER INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH VIROGROUP, IT WAS DISCOVERED
THAT FUEL WAS PRESENT IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE EXISTING MONITORING
WELLS. VIROGROUP WAS CONTRACTED TO PERFORM A PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTAMINATION AND TO RECOMMEND EITHER
ABANDONMENT AND IN-PLACE OR REMOVAL. FROM THE PRELIMINARY WORK,
CONTAMINATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WIDE SPREAD. NOTICE OF "FREE
PRODUCT" WAS MADE TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IN A LETTER DATED
APRIL 20, 1993. A SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF A
CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT REPORT BEGAN ON THAT DATE.
DURING THE INTERIM, ALL REMAINING FUEL HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE
TANK HAS BEEN UNCOVERED TO REVEAL THAT ABANDONMENT IN-PLACE IS THE
,ONLY OPTION FOR DEALING WITH THIS TANK. FOUR (4) CONTRACTORS WERE
CONTACTED FOR POSSIBLE REMOVAL, ALL AGREED THAT REMOVAL WAS NOT AN
OPTION.
THIS PORTION OF THE INVESTIGATION DELAYED OBTAINING PROPOSALS
FOR THE CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT REPORT. VIROGROUP PROVIDED THE
INITIAL ASSESSMENT AND HAS PROVIDEDA PROPOSAL FOR SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND, NINE HUMDRED SEVENTY SIX DOLLARS ($17,976) TO
COMPLETE ALL RELATED ACTIVITIES IN THE CLOSURE OF THE SITE.
19
SEP 7 1993 BOOK 90
FF'_ I
SEP 7 1993 90 fti,F 957
EMERGENCY SERVICES HAS, BY COMPARISON, SPENT BETWEEN NINETEEN
THOUSAND TO TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($19,000 - $20,000) FOR AN
ASSESSMENT REPORT AT FIRE STATION #3 ON A MUCH SMALLER SITE.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
ALTERNATIVE I. APPROVE THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FROM VIROGROUP
MISSIMER DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
SEVENTY SIX DOLLARS ($17,976) AS AN EMERGENCY. THIS WILL ALLOW US
TO REQUEST A SHORT EXTENSION TO FILE THE CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
REPORT. IMMEDIATE ACTION WOULD ALLOW DELETION OF THIRTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($30,000) FROM THE BUILDINGS & GROUNDS DIVISION REQUEST FOR
F.Y. 93-94 SINCE THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED. DURING
THIS FISCAL YEAR. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION
IS BASED UPON AGRESSIVE MOVEMENT TOWARD COMPLIANCE.
ALTERNATE II. FILE A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO ALLOW FOR AN
RFP TO BE FORMULATED, ISSUED AND RETURNED. THIS WOULD REQUIRE
APPROXIMATELY NINETY (90) DAYS.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED FOR THE EXECUTION OF
THE VIROGROUP MISSIMER DIVISION PROPOSAL. FUNDING IS AVAILABLE IN
ACCOUNT #001-220-519-041.25 BUILDING ALTERATIONS.
Commissioner Adams asked, and Administrator Chandler confirmed
that funds in the amount of $17,976.00 are available to cover this
cost, and that the requested $30,000 would be deleted from the
fiscal 1993-94 budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the proposal from ViroGroup, Inc., Missimer Division
regarding the Contamination Assessment services in
the amount of $17,976.00, as recommended by staff.
PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
N. 1994 State Aid Application
The Board reviewed memo from Library Director Mary Powell
dated August 23, 1993:
20
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
8-23-93
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES
1994 STATE AID APPLICATION
FROM: MARY D. POWELL, DIRECTOR, MAIN LIBRARY
BACKGROUND:
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
APPLIES ANNUALLY TO THE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND
INFORMATION SERVICES FOR THE STATE AID GRANT WHICH IS
BASED ON TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS CENTRALLY EXPENDED FOR THE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LIBRARY SYSTEM.
ANALYSIS:
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
SIGNATURE IS_REQUIRED ON THE STATE AID APPLICATION
(ATTACHED).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
STAFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE ITS
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE GRANT APPLICATION AND RETURN TO THE
MAIN LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE
STATE LIBRARY STAFF.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the annual
Grant Application for State Aid to the Library, as
recommended by staff.
COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
0. Request for Signature on Section 8 Annual Contributions
Contract A3409E - Amended for Fiscal Year 1993
The Board reviewed memo from I.R.C. Housing Authority Director
Guy Decker dated August 25, 1993:
21
SEP 7 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 35
BOOK 90FAGF 359 ,
SEP 7 1993
TO: Me Hm able md3ers of the DATE: 8/25/93 FILE:
Board of County Camdssimers
7 OUGI: Jas E. C handaer
County AamGnistrator SUBJECT: request for signature an Section 8
Annual contract
A3409E - Amended for FY 93
FROM: Guy L. Ded*er. Jr. IV#REFERENCES:
M acutime Director
Dim
It is reoaamended that the data presented be given famal consideration
by the Cmmty C awass on.
The Department of housing and Urban Developnent has forwarded five (5)
Copies of the Annual Contract (AOC) which have been
amended to provide additional Budkiet Aut or;tp for FY 93.
The docnInentation required by HID for their final approval and emecutian
of the contracts is submitted for melsidesatian and approval of the
Board of County Camoissi+oners.
(1) Five (5) copies of AOC Part I mm ber M409E of the &mual
ContributiContract for the housiW C'prh; f; ate Program.
ginalsignatures are required an all copies of the Contract
and no cue in its fo mat is permitted.
We respectfully request the Cmmty Commission to a thr r; me its Chairman
to execute these Contracts for transmittal to the Jacksonville Office of
HID
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Annual
Contributions Contract for the Housing Certificate
Program, as recommended by staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED COPY OF SAID CONTRACT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
22
P. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 023
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
September 1, 1993:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: September 1, 1993
SUBJECT. MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 023
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following.
1. The State -of Florida, Department of Labor, has charged Indian
River County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former
employees. A budget amendment is required to reflect these
payments.
2. Indian- River County received a reimbursement check from the
Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of $30,000 for work
completed at the Environmental Learning Center.
3. Self -Insurance Fund revenues and expenses were low due to the fact
that at the beginning of this fiscal year we were unsure as to whether
the Sheriff was going to be covered under the counties insurance
plan.
4. At the Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 22,1993, the
Board approved the request from Emergency Management Services
for a budget amendment in the amount of $3,737 to make the
necessary electrical modifications and panel up -grade at the Hobart
Tower Transmitter Building.
S. The Property Appraiser has given the Office of Management and
Budget their 1992/93 Non -Ad Valorem budget in the amount of
$114,224, which requires the boards official approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment
023.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 023:
23
SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90,Fay;rE
r SEP 7 1993
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
BOOK 90 FAQ•
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 023
DATE: September 1. 1993
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Parks
Unemployment Compensation
001-210-572-012.15
$26
$0
GENERAL FUND/Clerk of Court
Unemployment Compensation
001-309-516-012.15
$1,382
$0
GENERAL FUND/Property Appraiser
Unemployment Compensation
001-500-513-012.15
$8,021
$0
GENERAL FUND/Supervisor of Elections
Unemployment Compensation
001-700-519-012.15
$30
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$9,459
EXPENSE
S.W.D.D./Recycling
Unemployment Compensation
411-255-534012.15
_
$1,776
$0
S.W.D.D./L.andfill
Cash Forward - September 30
411-217-534-099.92
$0
$1,776
2.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/
Other Physical Environment
001-000-334-039.00
$30,000
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/
Environmental Learning Center
001-110-572-088.85
$30,000
$0
3.
REVENUE
SELF INSURANCE FUND/
Worker's Compensation
502-000-395-023.00
$350,000
$0
EXPENSE
SELF INSURANCE FUND/
Insurance Claims
502-246-513-03458
$350,000
$0
4.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Communications
Maintenance -Other Equipment
001-107-519-034.69
$3,737
$0
GENERAL FUND/
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$3,737
5.
NO ENTRY NECESSARY
24
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - REQUEST FROM JUDY WAGNER TO DISCUSS ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright to County Administrator Jim Chandler dated August 20, 1993:
TO: Jim ChandlYirector
my Administrator
FROM: Doug Wrigh
Emergency Services
DATE: August 20, 1993
SUBJECT: Request from Judy Wagner to Appear Before Board of County
Commissioners to Discuss the Animal Control Ordinance
After the attached letter was received at the Board of County
Commissioners Office on August 13, 1993, I met with Judy Wagner of
1045 19th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, to ascertain if I could answer
any questions or provide her with information concerning the Animal
Control Ordinance.
Although she had several concerns, Ms. Wagner conveyed to me with
emphasis, that she feels the Animal Control Ordinance is not strong
enough in that - it does not require an animal (dog or cat) to be
restrained on a leash even if it is on its owners property. She felt
she needed to advise the County Commission directly regarding her
concerns. Ms. Wagner has had problems in and out of her neighborhood
with animal control related complaints and she feels the existing
ordinance needs to be amended as stated above.
Since this issue would appear to restrict activities on private
property, I have referred the matter to the County Attorney's Office
for further review and advice to you and the County Commission as is
deemed appropriate.
Ms. Wagner has formally requested to appear before the County
Commission under Public Discussion matters on September 7, 1993. She
was informed that unless she is advised differently, her request
would be granted pending formal approval by the County Administrator.
Judy Wagner, 1045 -19th Avenue, Southwest, came before the
Board and made the following presentation:
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board:
My name is Judy Wagner and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak with you and voice my concerns.
First of all I feel that if
spend $200,000. a year for
the authority to do what is
Ordinance as it is written
or her hands tied, which is
and cats, their loose!
Indian River County is going to
animal control they should have
needed. The Animal Control
leaves the "Dog Catcher" with his
more than I can say for the dogs
F4;d
BOOK 90 F'> r .362
J
rr"-
'SEP "d 193
BOOK 90 FA ssi�nF 3 3
Under Section 302.05 an owner of an animal is only required
to keep that animal on a leash, cord, chain etc if the animal
is off his own property. The animal can be loose on his own
property if under the control of his owner or responsible
person. The term "under control" is insufficient. Simply
telling your dog or cat "stay" and then driving off to work
is ridiculous. The animal who will "stay" is the exception
to the rule.
Many of us are tire4of our trash being emptied, finding cat
foot prints and scratches on our autos, holes dug in our yards
and piles of unwanted feces deposited about our yards. Think
about it, these animals eat the same thing we do.
When an animal causes a problem and you call animal control
the first thing you are asked is "is the dog still there?".
Usually the answer is "NO" he already left. Next statement
is "We have to catch the dog in the act". If the dog or cat
goes home and is sitting in his front yard he is again
perfectly legal.
I have been asked to catch,the dogs and tie them up. I refuse to
expose myself to being bitten. I also refuse to be forced to
fence EX yard to keep other irresponsible persons animals out!
An animal is NOT restrained if it is not tied, fenced or inside
the house.
Loose in the yard is just what is says per Websters:
LOOSE: 1- not rigidly fastened or securely attached 2- having
relative freedom of movement 3 -free from a state of confinement,
restraint or.obligation.
It is no wonder that there were over 300 animal bites reported
to the Health Department in 1991 and 75 animal bites the first
two months of 1992.
I would like to know why Indian River County has not picked up
the responsibility of seeing to it that there is a mandatory
reporting system of animal bites since it was -discontinued early
on in 1992 by the State of Florida?
All Physicians, Veterinarians, Clinics, Hospitals in this
County should be legally obligated to report all animal bites
to Animal Control. How else can you keep track of animals that
are repeat biters?
All Veterinarians in Indian River County should be required by
law to release a list of all -their "patients" with address and
phone numbers to Animal Control so that these owners of -'pets
can be billed for a County dog or cat tag. Another option
would be for Veterinarians in this county to sell County tags
and not be permitted to treat an Indian River County cat or dog
that did not have'a County tag.
In closing I want you to know that I am an animal lover. I have
a dog that is an integral part of our family. The idea of leaving
him loose in the front yard and taking the chance of him being
stolen or run over by a car is unheard of. I also respect my
neighbors property and would not want my animal causing someone
else a problem.
26
There are many responsible pet owners in Indian River County.
Those people don't need a Dog Ordinance Law. The irresponsible
pet owners out there need a very strict Dog Ordinance Law.
This community is growing by leaps and bounds every day and with
new families -come more pets. More dog catchers is not the answer,
a law which would allow stricter enforcement is.
Give us a Dog Ordinance Law with some Teeth in it.
Thank you for your time.
County Administrator Chandler reported that Mrs. Wagner
discussed this item with staff, and staff will research it further
if the Board wishes. He pointed out that the basic concern is
whether the County has the ability to require a property owner to
restrain his animals on his own property.
The Board members agreed that staff should research this item.
Commissioner Tippin thought that this problem is not unique to
our County and that it would be interesting to see how other
counties address this issue.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - WARREN DILL REGARDING WENTWORTH DITCH
At Chairman Bird's suggestion, Attorney Dill agreed to have
his item considered at the conclusion of the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING - DISNEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A
LODGING FACILITY AND RESIDENTIAL RESORT TO BE KNOWN AS FLORIDA
BEACH RESORT
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
X46
SEP 7 1993
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
r
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
mil ,� .
a
c
in the matter of -�''
in the
fished in said newspaper in the issues of �' a
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. / '
rrCto,§i0d pubscribed before me this / day off_ -A.D. 19
P Ry :KG's. _
(Business Manager)
D' iWy Comm. Evkes
June 29,1997
.'
'�'9T
• • .... • • P\� •`�
"I
'I -' OF F1-O.e•
BARBARA C. SPRAGUE, NOTARY PUSUC,
Stale of Haider. My COMM a" EXP, Jurt 29.19117
•• . ......
Coatniosion trurtber: CC3005T2
BOOK 90 F'. 65
`o,, SOW poi [ - ♦ _ Oov gar +
Nss
`''• t[R ORRQ
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider granter special ex-
ception and conceptual P.D. (planned development)
plan approval for the Florida Such Resort. The
sublect propenes are presently owned by or under
torlbaat for purchase by Disney Development Cor- '
tiwt,
and are bated In Section 26, Township and
of Range pr e .
the above map for the laca-
tion A public hearing at which parties in interest and
citizens Shall have an Opportunity to be heard, WPI
,be held by the Board of CounttWan River CountyFlorida, Inttyyyh Commissioners of
mis-
siert Chambers �Ure County AdmkilstCourationoBuild.
Tuesday, t 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Par.
Ida on September 7,1993 at 9:05 a.m. =
v may bANOM e made at ft to aing will � to
art -
am that a verbatim record of tha pros eededings IS
made, which Includes testlmaW and evidence upon
which the appeal is based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET.
ING. -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY
Boarda- of County N.
ssio er
Aug. 17, 1993
1023637
Community Development Director Bob Keating and Planning
Director Stan Boling made the following presentation with the aid
of the overhead projector:
28
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRE CE:
Robe M. Rea ng,AICP
Community Dei lopm nt Di for
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director ,1
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: August 31, 1993
SUBJECT: Disney Development Company's Request for Special
Exception Use and Conceptual PD Approval for a Lodging
Facility and Residential Resort to be Known as Florida
Beach --Resort
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of September 7, 1993.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION BACKGROUND:
Urban Resource Group, Inc. has submitted an application for special
exception use and planned development approval on behalf of Disney
Development Company to construct a lodging facility and residential
resort project to be known as Florida Beach Resort. The subject
property consists of 70.54 acres and is generally located at the
southeast and southwest corners of the CR 510/SR A -1-A
intersection. The 17.74 acres immediately south of Wabasso Beach
Park are zoned CG (General Commercial), while the remainder of the
property on the east side of SR A -1-A and the property on the west
side of SR A -1-A are zoned RM -6 (see attachment 2). The project
will consist of a maximum of 580 lodging and residential resort
units as well as accessory uses.
Residential resorts are listed as special exception uses in the RM -
6 zoning district. Because residential resort units are proposed
on the RM -6 zoned portion of., the project, the applicant is required
to obtain special exception use approval. The applicant has
elected to pursue the project through the planned development
(P.D.) and special exception use approval process, and is now
requesting conceptual PD plan and special exception approval (see
step loo described below).
29
BOOK �; {� =' 66
r EPn k
BOOK 9p F,vF 367
•PD Review/Approval Process
The approval steps in the PD process are as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing Body
1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception P&ZC recommendation; BGC
final action
2. Preliminary PD/Site Plan P&ZC
3. Land Development Permits Staff
4. Final PD (plat) BCC
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 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.
The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. If the
special exception use and conceptual PD plan application are
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant may
then proceed with the project by obtaining preliminary PD approval
for phase I of the project.
Planning and Zoning Commission Action
At its August 12, 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the project with original staff
report conditions 1B, iC, 1D, lE, 1G, 1H, and 1I along with
conditions 2A and 3A (Note: original condition 1F -was adequately
addressed prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and
was deleted at the meeting). The Planning and Zoning Commission
voted separately to consider condition lA, which was related to the
length of stay.issue.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 against applying a
minimum stay requirement to the project. However, the motion
failed since 3 affirmative votes of the seven member commission do
not constitute a majority. Even though the Planning and Zoning
Commission's action resulted in no recommendation on original
condition lA (length of stay), staff has not included a length of
stay condition in its recommendation. This is based upon the Board
of County Commissioners' direction to staff at the August 23, 1993
LDR amendment hearing.
In addition to making recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the residential resort use and conceptual
PD plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission authorized the use of
street names within the proposed development, subject to staff
approval of the selected road names.
ANALYSIS:
1. PROJECT SIZE:
Parcel A: 17.74 acres
Parcel B: 10.41 acres
Parcel C: 42.39 acres
Gross Project size: 70.54 acres
30
_ M
2. PROPOSED UNITS & DENSITY:
Parcel A:
17.74 acres zoned CG
Proposed Density:
265 units on 17.74 acres = 14.94 units/acre
Permitted Maximum Density:
643 units on 17.74 acres - 36.3 units/acre
Note: On commercially zoned property, one lodging unit is
allowed per 1,200 sq. ft. of land area. Therefore, a maximum
density of 36.3 lodging units per acre is permitted.
Parcels B and C:
10.41 acres and 42.39 acres zoned RM -6
Proposed Density:
315 units_ on 52.8 acres = 5.96 units/acre
Permitted Maximum Density:
316 units on 52.8 acres = 6.00 units/acre
Total Units: 580 (lodging and residential resort units)
Note: The development proposes the use of "lock -off units",
where a 2'bedroom/2 bathroom unit can be converted by locking
an interior door to make two 1 bedroom/l bathroom units for
the purpose of separate accommodations (see attachment 8).
The 580 unit figure counts all 144 lock -off units as separate
units for density purposes. If none of the lock -off units
were used as separate units, the total unit count would drop
to 436 units.
3. ZONING CLASSIFICATION:
Parcel A: 17.74 Acres: General Commercial (CG)
Parcel B: 10.41 Acres: RM -6, Residential Multi -Family
District (up to 6 units/acre)
Parcel C: 42.39 Acres: RM -6, Residential Multi -Family
District (up to 6 units/acre)
4. LAND USE DESIGNATION: 1
Parcel A: 17.74 Acres: C/I, Commercial Industrial
Parcel B: 10.41 Acres: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6
units per acre)
Parcel C: 42.39 Acres: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6
units per acre)
Note: refer to attachment #2 for parcel locations.;
5. PHASING SCHEDULE: The project is proposed to be developed in
3 general phases. The phases and types of units are described
below:
Phase Proposed Development Completion Date
1 Main Building 115 units, 54 Summer 1995
Oceanfront Villas and 6 Beach
Cottages (Parcel A); and employee
building, recreation courts, and
temporary location of kids camp
pavilion (Parcel C)
31
BOOK
SEP 1993,
F EP 71993
BOOR 90 PAGE 369
2 90 Oceanfront Villas.and One Summer 1996
Beach Cottage (Parcel B)
3 144 Lakeside Villas, 8 Lake Fall/Winter
Cottages, and 18 Oceanfront 1997
Villas (Parcels A & C)
Note: These figures do not include the lock -off units as
separate units.
6. UNIT SIZE:
Main Building Units: 400 sq. ft.
Oceanfront Villas: 1,225 sq. ft.
Lakeside Villas: 1,250 sq. ft.
Beach Cottages: 2,200 sq. ft.
Lake Cottages: 2,200 sq. ft.
Lock -Off Units: 375 sq. ft.
Note: The square footage figures are approximate since
construction drawings have not been approved. All proposed
lock -off units will be in the Oceanfront Villas, and all lock -
off units will contain cooking and bathing facilities and will
have access to on-site laundry facilities as required in the
residential.resort specific land use criteria.
7. Building Height: During its initial review of the project,
staff asked the applicant to demonstrate that the conceptual
plan building elevations comply with the county's height
requirements. Two requirements apply to the Disney project:
a 35' maximum building height requirement applies to most of
the project; however, a special 45' maximum building height
requirement is applied to all commercially zoned parcels
located east of S.R. A -1-A for buildings which are set back an
extra distance from the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control
Line). The applicant has provided the extra setback from the
CCCL for the main building which is located east of S.R. A -1-A
in the CG zoning district. Thus, the 45' maximum building
height requirement applies to the proposed main building. The
applicant's architect has conducted several extensive studies
to document that all of the proposed project buildings meet
the applicable 35' and 45' maximum building height
requirements as applied to sloped roof structures.
S. PROPOSED USES: There will be certain commercial uses that are
open to the public and certain uses accessory to both the
lodging facility (main building located in the CG district)
and the residential resort units. These uses include the
following:.
Public Areas (Commercial uses, all located in the CG
district):
Check-In/Lobby/Administrative Offices
Sales Center
Restaurant
General Store
Multi -Purpose Room (meetings and eventsr
Member Areas (accessory uses in the CG and RM -6 areas):
Exercise Rooms
Pools & Associated Structures
Game Arcade & Game Rental
Recreational Amenities
32
171
9. UTILITIES: Pursuant to
Connection Matrix, this
and wastewater, both of
River County Department
of Utility Services has
project.
:he provisions of the County's Utility
project will connect to public water
which will be provided by the Indian
of Utility Services. The Department
conceptually approved service to this
10. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: A conceptual stormwater plan has been
approved by the Public Works Department. The applicant will
be required to obtain Type "A" and Type "B" drainage permits
prior to issuance of the project's land development permit.
11. OPEN SPACE: Required: 40%
Provided: The applicant has committed to
provide 50% or more for the total
project, as well as on a phase -by -
phase cumulative basis.
12. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION:
•Internal Circulation & Driveways
The applicant is proposing four access points to the project;
one driveway on CR 510, two aligned main entrances on each
side of SR A -1-A, and an additional driveway on the east side
of SR A -1-A south of the main entrance drives.
The southern driveway will align with the existing Moon
River/Coralstone project entrance. The main driveways on the
east and west sides of SR A -1-A will align with each other.
The driveway on CR 510 will be located approximately 800' west
of the CR 510/SR A -1-A intersection, which meets applicable
county driveway separation distance requirements.
All driveways will be full movement driveways that will
provide both left and right turns into and out of the project.
Each driveway improvement will include a right turn
deceleration lane and a left turn lane.
Internal circulation for the portion of the project on the
west side of SR A -1-A will be provided by a loop road.
Circulation for the portion of the project on the east side of
SR A -1-A will be provided by a driveway running parallel to SR
A -1-A.
The County Traffic Engineer has conceptually approved the
internal circulation plan and conceptually approved all
external site related traffic improvements. The County
Traf f is Engineer will not give final approval for the internal
circulation plan until the applicant submits with the
subsequent preliminary PD plans a larger scale plan depicting
all internal radii. Such a review and approval will be
required prior to preliminary PD plan approval to ensure safe
movement of service and emergency vehicles within the project.
*Road Network Impacts
Subsequent to the August 12, 1993 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting at which this project was considered, the
applicant submitted a revised traffic impact analysis. Based
upon the newly submitted information and revised analysis, the
County Traffic Engineer has given final approval to the
conceptual plan traffic impact analysis. It is the county
traffic engineer's opinion that adequate network traffic
33
SEP X71993 BOOK 9� Fq.r. I
SEP 7 @99,
BOOK 90 r'A
facilities, in conjunction with project -related traffic
improvements to be provided by the developer, will adequately
address roadway network traffic impacts. The project will not
reduce any part of the county roadway network to an
unacceptable level of service.
Since the project will access SR A -1-A, permits from the FDOT
will be required prior to issuance of a land development
permit and subsequent project construction.
13. DEDICATIONS & IMPROVEMENTS: As required by the County's
Sidewalk and Bikeway Plan and the County Traf f is Engineer, the
applicant will be constructing an 8' wide bike path along the
project's C.R. 510 frontage and along the project's S.R. A -1-A
frontage on the west side of S.R. A -1-A. A 5' wide public
sidewalk will be constructed along the project's S.R. A -1-A
frontage on the east side of S.R. A -1-A. These improvements
must be completed or escrowed for prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any phase in which the required
improvement is to be located.
The County's Thoroughfare Plan requires an ultimate right-of-
way of 160' (80' on either side of the area's section line)
for C.R. 510 in the project vicinity. Presently, there is 90'
of right-of-way for C.R. 510. The existing 90' of right-of-
way is aligned such that 50' is north of the area's section
line and 40' is south of the area's section line. This
configuration requires an additional 40' of right-of-way to be
acquired south of the section line along the project's C.R.
510 frontage to provide for the ultimate right-of-way. The
applicant has designed the project to set back a sufficient
distance from the ultimate right-of-way line, so that the
county can acquire the additional 40' of right-of-way in the
future without buying improvements or creating site -related
nonconformities. The proposed plan satisfies all county LDRs
relating to right-of-way provisions.
14. PARKING: Required: 1.3 spaces per lodging facility or
residential resort unit')
Provided: a minimum of 1.3 per unit
Note: Additional parking will be provided for separate
commercial and accessory uses, as required. The
conceptual plan indicates that there is sufficient area
to accommodate additional parking.
15. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
•Upland Preservation: Since the project is greater than
5 acres in size, the applicant is required to provide for
the preservation of native upland habitat areas, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 929.05. The total project
site contains approximately 60.94 acres of area
considered to be native upland habitat. As required in
the, criteria of Chapter 929.05, the applicant must
preserve 15% of the native upland habitat throughout the
project, or 10% in a compact and contiguous area. In
this case, the applicant's required minimum native upland
preservation area is 6.94 acres.
The applicant has agreed to preserve 108 of the project's
area as native upland habitat, and the conceptual plan
depicts adequate space on site to satisfy the
preservation requirement. Precisely described
34
M M
preservation areas will need to be provided on a phase by
phase basis, with each phase meeting or exceeding the
project's cumulative preservation requirements. The
preservation areas will be dedicated as conservation
easements on the project's final plats.
*Turtle Protection: Since the project fronts on the
Atlantic Ocean, the project is subject to the sea turtle
protection requirements of section 932.09, regarding
illumination of the beach. The applicant has agreed to
comply with the provisions of section 932.09, and the
submitted plans conceptually appear to meet the
requirements. If conceptual PD plan and special
exception approval are granted, subsequent preliminary,PD
plans will be reviewed in detail for compliance with the
criteria of section 932.09.
*Potential On -Site Wetlands: During the conceptual plan
review, the applicant identified a small area east of SR
A -1-A, as possible jurisdictional wetlands. Upon closer
inspection of the area by environmental planning staff,
it appeared as though the area was not a wetland. The
applicant has recently provided the staff with
documentation that the jurisdictional agencies concur
with environmental planning staff and have determined
that the areas identified are not wetlands (see
attachment 9). Therefore, no jurisdictional wetlands
occur on site and no wetlands alteration or fill permits
are -required for the project.
•Beach Mouse: While there have been some staff concerns
that -the federally endangered southeastern beach mouse
may be present on the site's oceanside portion,
preliminary trappings conducted by the applicant have not
trapped any beach mice on the site. Although no beach
mice have been trapped on site, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has indicated that a more extensive
survey would be required to verify that no endangered
mice exist on site. Rather than conduct an extensive
year-long survey, the applicant has agreed to assume that
beach mice may be on the site, and is continuing to
coordinate with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service to prepare a habitat management plan that is
acceptable to both agencies and allows for the proposed
development of the site. The conceptual PD plan appears
to be consistent with the current habitat management plan
proposals, which primarily cover the project area located
seaward of the CCCL. Prior to issuance of a land
development permit for any construction on parcels A or
B (oceanside parcels), the applicant will need to obtain
Jurisdictional agency approval of the management plan or
obtain a letter from the agencies indicating that the
construction being permitted will not adversely affect
the habitat management plan area.
16. CONCURRENCY: The applicant has applied for a conditional
concurrency certificate which has been reviewed by staff and
will be issued prior to consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners.
17. OWNERSHIP OF UNITS: The applicant is proposing to market the
residential resort units as timeshare condominium units. Sale
of these units as timeshares is not required by the county
LDRs. Thus, these units could be sold as condominium units,
35
L_ SEP 71993
BOOK 90 p,,, F v � -7
V `
BOOK 90 PAGE 373 -7
fee simple units, or as individual rental units held under
single ownership.
18. DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI): The Department of,
Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the proposed project
relative to DRI project thresholds. The DCA considers this
proposal a residential project, since the units will be sold
as timeshare condominium units. DCA has determined that this
project does not constitute a DRI, since the project is well
below the 750 unit DRI threshold applicable within Indian
River County. Please see attachment #4.
19. STREET NAME REQUEST: The applicant has proposed the use of
street names rather than street numbers. Generally, it has
been the county policy to require the use of street numbers.
However, on the barrier island a pattern of street names has
been well established, and similar street name requests have
been granted for barrier island projects. Therefore, the
staff has no objection to the use of street names. At its
August 12, 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the use of street names subject to staff approval of
the names selected. Therefore, no Board action is required
regarding this request.
20. REQUESTED WAIVERS: Pursuant to section 915.15(1), PD
applicants may request waivers from standard LDR criteria.
The applicant is requesting the following waivers:
eParking Proximity: The applicant is requesting a waiver
from the requirement that parking spaces be located
within 200' of a multi -family unit for owners' spaces and
250' for guests' spaces. The applicant is requesting
that the distance requirement be waived entirely. The
staff has no objection to this waiver being granted,
since the proposed units and project layout are designed
as 'a residential resort (with possible -Valet services)
rather than as a conventional multi -family project.
•25' Perimeter Buffer Encroachment: The applicant is
requesting that certain improvements be allowed to
encroach into the 25' buffers adjacent to the
thoroughfare roadways, mostly adjacent to S.R. A -1-A.
The applicant is requesting that drainage improvements
and other at- grade or below grade "soft improvements"
(e.g. swales, berms, etc.) be allowed in the 25' buffer.
In the past, the county has allowed such encroachments as
long as all required elements of the Type "B" buffer are
planted and installed, and effective screening is
maintained.
In addition, the applicant is requesting that retaining
walls, other structural elements necessary to construct
a pedestrian crossing (overhead, at -grade, or
underground), signs, and structures such as gatehouses,
entry pavilions, covered stairs, etc., be allowed to
encroach into the 25' PD buffer.
Staff has no objection to minor encroachments into the
buffer area where the encroachments do not compromise the
buffer's aesthetic function. In staff's opinion, the
aesthetic function could be compromised if the
applicant's current request is granted, given the scope
of improvements, proposed to encroach in the buffer. It
is staff's position that no structures. associated with an
overhead pedestrian crossing of S.R. A -1-A and no entry
36
icons should be allowed to encroach into buffer areas.
Any structure allowed to encroach should be the minimum
scope and scale necessary to provide for the structure's
function, and should be developed so as to ensure that
the buffer performs its screening function.
In staff's opinion, the 20' X 40' pavilion which is
currently depicted on the conceptual plan is too large to
be allowed to encroach into the buffer zone, and could
impact the aesthetic function of the 25' buffer.
Recently, however, the applicant's agent has provided
staff with a written commitment to construct a pedestrian
tunnel, along with a sketch of how the tunnel will work.
Although the sketch is a non-binding drawing not
submitted for approval, it does clarify the intent of the
applicant's proposal regarding encroachments in the
buffer. The drawing depicts two structures approximately
15.5' X 15.5' that provide a cover for the access to the
pedestrian tunnel. The design' accommodates two entry
pavilions, one on either side of S.R. A -1-A, and an
access ramp on the east side of S.R. A -1-A (all located
within the buffer and set -back approximately 7' from the
property line) and provides sufficient area between all
structures and S.R. A -1-A for Type "B" plant material.
Such a design would be approveable under recommended
condition 2.a. as it appears at the end of this report.
The condition is necessary to ensure that the scale of
buffer encroachments allowed does not adversely impact
the developer's ability to properly provide Type "B"
buffer screening along the project perimeter.
•Driveway Widths: The applicant is requesting a
reduction in the standard two-way driveway width from 22'
to 201. The conceptual plan proposes the use of 20' wide
interior project roadways to link the various project
parking areas. A wider driveway width will be used where
driveways serve as direct access to parking spaces. As
of the date of this report, the Traffic Engineering
Division and Emergency Management Department have not
signed -off on this waiver for the conceptual plan.
During subsequent,.more detailed reviews of pfeliminary
PD plans, both departments want the applicant to
demonstrate that the roadway designs are sufficient to
accommodate all types of service and emergency vehicles.
Thus, the driveway width reduction waiver should be
approved subject to the condition that the applicant
obtain approval from Traffic Engineering and Emergency
Services staff during review of preliminary PD plans.
21. LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS & SIGNS: The applicant has committed to
meeting the landscaping requirements of Chapter 926. This
includes micro -siting improvements to preserve existing trees
and other significant vegetation. As proposed, the conceptual
plan appears to accommodate applicable preservation and
landscaping requirements.
In order to meet the county's buffer regulations, the project
will provide a 25' wide Type "B" buffer adjacent to S.R. A -1-A
and C.R. 510, and a 30' wide Type "A" buffer along the project
perimeters that abut residentially designated property (e.g.
the project boundary shared with Sea Oaks and Coralstone).
37
BOOK 90 FA,F74
BOOK 90 FAGF.
As indicated in the waivers section, the applicant is
requesting that signs be allowed in the buffer area. The
staff has no objection to signs being located within the
project buffer, as long as the requirements of Chapter 956,
Signs, are met. However, it is staff's position that all
icons must be located outside of the buffer area, and that any
icon visible from a public right-of-way will be considered'a
sign and must meet the requirements of Chapter 956. The
applicant is concerned that architectural features on
buildings such as dormers or cupolas may be considered icons.
It is the staff's position that common architectural features
do not constitute icons, but any item that acts as a symbol
and its main function is to draw attention is an icon.
Recently, the applicant indicated to planning staff that no
train replicas will be proposed or located at project
entrances.
22. COMPATIBILITY OF RESIDENTIAL RESORT USES & SPECIAL ACCESSORY
USES:
During the review process, planning staff expressed some
concerns to the applicant about the physical and operational
compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding
conventional multi -family developments. These concerns arose
because the project, as proposed, will be different in some
respects from a typical multi -family development. As the
general special exception criteria in section 971.05 indicate,
the project must be compatible with the area's residential
developments.
As indicated on the conceptual plan, the main building is a
large building that is located in the CG commercial zoning
district and will contain the project's commercial uses. This
type of building is allowed by right in beachfront general
commercial property; therefore, staff does not have major
concerns about the compatibility of this building. During the
course of its review, staff asked the applicant to demonstrate
that the development within the RM -6 zoned portion of the
project would be compatible with the area's residential
developments. As can be seen from the conceptual plan and
proposed conceptual building elevations, the Oceanfront
Villas, Lakeside Villas, Beach Cottages, and Lake Cottages are
comprised of small buildings that have a scale similar to
buildings that occur in conventional multi -family developments
in the area (see attachment #8). The applicant has committed
to this conceptual design and to the elevations depicted on
the plan. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the design and
elevations of the conceptual PD plan are compatible with the
surrounding area.
The residential resort will operate differently than other
multi -family developments in the area, and will contain some
special accessory uses. Staff reviewed the project, in part,
to ensure that proposed project accessory uses such as the
pool pavilion and a 9 hole miniature golf course, "kids camp",
tennis courts, and basketball courts are located and operated
in a manner compatible with the surrounding area.
The applicant has responded to staff's expressed concerns.
Relative to the pool pavilion, the applicant has explained
that it is a gazebo -like structure that will be used for ice
cream socials, special events, etc. and may occasionally be
used for music and entertainment, but is intended to be used
exclusively by resort members and guests.. Likewise, the 9
hole miniature golf course located in the pool area will be
38
M
used only by resort guests. The pool pavilion and miniature
golf course are located on the east side of S.R. A -1-A between
the support building and the ocean, are located entirely
within the CG zoning district, and will be buffered from view
along S.R. A -1-A by the main building and the project's
perimeter buffer.
The applicant has indicated that the kids camp ( located on the
west side of S.R. A -1-A) consists of a pavilion that will be
used for arts and crafts programs, games, environmental
programs, etc. In addition to the 30' Type "A" buffer
required along the project perimeter, the applicant has
committed to a 50' setback for the kids camp pavilion.
Two tennis courts and one basketball court are to be located
on the west side of S.R. A -1-A in Parcel C's southeast corner..
The applicant is committing to limiting court operating hours
from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Court lighting will be
controlled to shield adjacent properties from night lighting.
The project's 30' Type "A" perimeter buffer will be placed
between the courts and adjacent properties.
In staff's opinion, the conceptual PD plan includes design
measures, operational constraints, and buffering necessary to
ensure the physical and operational compatibility of the
residential resort uses, pool pavilion and miniature golf
course, kids camp, and recreational courts, with the
surrounding uses in the area.
23. S.R. A -1-A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING:
*Need for an S.R. A -1-A Crossing: The proposed
residential resort use differs from many of the existing
residential developments bisected by S.R. A -1-A. It is
anticipated that the resort's amenities will be used more
than those of a typical multi -family development, since
the resort units will be occupied for relatively short
periods of time by people on vacation. Staff anticipates
that much' of the internal commuting to the various
project amenities and activities will be done on foot or
bicycle, resulting in a higher rate of pedestrian/bicycle
crossing of S.R. A -1-A than a typical multi -family
project.
Since the project is bisected by S.R. A -1-A, with various
project amenities on both sides of S.R. A -1-A, a
pedestrian crossing of S.R. A -1-A at the main entrance is
an integral part of the project. The staff's concern is
that the applicant provide a safe, convenient, aesthetic
and efficient pedestrian crossing of S.R. A -1-A. At this
time, the conceptual plan depicts a pedestrian crossing
at the main entrance, with the note that the location and
design are to be determined at a later date.
In the near future, the county will be signalizing the
C.R. 510/S.R. A -1-A intersection and will provide an at -
grade pedestrian cross -walk at the intersection; this
will accommodate some pedestrian crossings. However, it
is anticipated that most project -related crossings will
occur at the main entrance, which is approximately 900'
south of the C.R. 510/S.R. A -1-A intersection; the main
entrance will not be signalized. Relying solely on the
at -grade cross -walk to be built at the C.R. 510/S.R. A -1-
A intersection would not be practical or convenient for
the guests. It is doubtful that guests would walk the
39
EP 7 1993 Boor 90 F�cc.37
r- SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 Fl,GF..3.377
distance north to the intersection to cross, then back
south to their destination. In the county traffic
engineer's opinion, relying solely on an at -grade
crossing of S.R. A -1-A at the S.R. A-1-A/C.R. 510
intersection would promote uncontrolled, chance crossings
along the project's entire S.R. A -1-A frontage.
Therefore, it is staff's analysis that a pedestrian
crossing near the project's main entrance is necessary.
There are basically three types of main entrance area
pedestrian crossings that staff has discussed with the
applicant. These include an above grade crossing
(pedestrian bridge over S.R. A -1-A), a below grade
crossing (pedestrian tunnel under S.R. A -1-A),, and an at -
grade crossing at the project entrance. At the August
121, 1993 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the
Disney officials verbally committed on the record to a
below grade crossing. Staff retained the analysis of all
crossing options discussed to give the Board of County
Commissioners an overview of the reasons the staff
recommended a below grade crossing.
@At -Grade Crossing: The staff's concerns relating to the
at -grade crossing are basically safety, efficiency, and
convenience. In the opinion of the county traffic
engineer, an at -grade crossing at the project entrance
will create safety and traffic flow problems and will
constitute a potential pedestrian/vehicular conflict
point because of the volume of pedestrian traffic, the
volume and speed of vehicular traffic on S.R. A -1-A, and
the age groups of the people using the crossing. The
1992 AADT (average annual daily traffic), traffic volume
for this segment of S.R. A -1-A was 6,575, with many
vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit. The county
traffic engineer has approximated the number of expected
peak hour pedestrian crossings at 120.-_
The significant number of potential pedestrian crossings
and the fact that tourists unfamiliar with the area will
be making crossing maneuvers makes thet-grade crossing
alternative undesirable from a pedestrian safety
standpoint. Because of the nature of the project,
procedures for crossing would need to be learned weekly
by a new group of people. This problem could be
intensified by the.number of foreign guests expected to
use the resort, since foreign guests are often unfamiliar
with American driving rules and customs. An at -grade
pedestrian crossing at the main entrance could also have
an adverse impact on vehicular traffic flow on S.R. A -1-A
through the project area.
During staff's review of the project, the county traffic
engineer requested • that the applicant provide a
pedestrian crossing study to determine the effect that an
at -grade crossing at the main entrance would have on
pedestrian safety and S.R. A -1 -A's vehicular travel
efficiency. To date, the applicant has not provided the
pedestrian crossing study. Therefore, the applicant has
not demonstrated the effect of an at -grade pedestrian
crossing would have on pedestrian safety. It is
anticipated that, as the project and the area develop,
S.R. A -1-A traffic volumes will increase, making
pedestrian crossings increasingly difficult.
*Above -Grade Crossing: Staff's concerns about an above
grade crossing (bridge) over S.R. A -1-A relate primarily
to aesthetics. Staff does not believe that a pedestrian
overpass could be constructed in a manner which would be
aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area.
Given the requirement that special exception uses be
found compatible with the surrounding area by the Board
of.County Commissioners, it is staff's opinion that the
use of a pedestrian overpass should not be allowed on the
grounds that such a structure would be incompatible with
the area.
*Below -Grade Crossing: Staff is in favor of a below -
grade crossing provided in the vicinity of the main
entrance. In staff's opinion, such a pedestrian under-
pass would provide safe, efficient, convenient, and
aesthetic means for large numbers of pedestrians to cross
S.R. A -1-A. As previously indicated in this report, the
applicant has committed to the below -grade (tunnel)
option.
There are two issues which affect the timing of the
tunnel construction. These issues include the
construction timing of project amenities and units on the
west side of S.R. A -1-A, and the timing of forthcoming
S.R. A-1-A/CR 510 intersection and S.R. A -1-A
improvements. In regards to the project development
timing issue, staff and the applicant agree that the
tunnel should not be required for employee parking and
service facilities to be constructed on the northeast
corner of parcel C. Staff and the applicant also agree
that prior to issuing a C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy)
for any amenity or residential unit constructed on the
west side of S.R. A -1-A, the tunnel should be
constructed. In regards to the timing of forthcoming
county improvements to the S.R. A-1-A/CR 510 intersection
and to S.R. A -1-A, it is staff's opinion that the tunnel
should be constructed in coordination with construction
of the intersection and S.R. A -1-A improvements. The
applicant is working with the public works director to
discuss the timing and coordination of the proposed
county improvements and the project -related traffic
improvements (including the tunnel).
Regardless of which crossing option (or options) is
allowed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
applicant will need to obtain an MOT permit for the S.R.
A -1-A pedestrian crossing.
24. MOON RIVER/CORALSTONE BEACH ACCESS: Currently, there is a
beach access easement for the Moon River/Coralstone project
which bisects the Disney project site. Existing improvements
within the easement consist of a path and dune crossover. The
applicant has indicated that tentative plans are to leave the
existing Moon River/Coralstone beach access easement in its
present alignment. The applicant, however, has not precluded
the option of relocating the easement in the future, in
accordance with the provisions of the recorded easement. Any
future plans to relocate the easement would require a minor
revision to the conceptual plan that could be handled at a
staff level.
25. LENGTH OF STAY: Based upon the Board of
direction to staff at the August 23,
hearing, staff has deleted from its
condition relating to length of stay.
41
County Commissioners'
1993 LDR amendment
recommendation any
BOOK 90 F E 3" 8
SEP 7 999
BOOKOO FATE O79
26. SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA: The following specific land use
criteria are applicable to this project:
a. The site must have direct access to a collector or
arterial roadway as defined and identified in the Traffic
Circulation Element of Indian River County's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
b. All living units must have cooking facilities and access
to on-site laundry facilities.
C. Each living unit shall constitute a dwelling unit in
terms of land use density calculations; the total project
dwelling unit density shall not exceed the density
allowed in the underlying zoning district.
d. Accessory uses may include meeting rooms or clubhouses
for the exclusive use of the occupants and guests of
occupants of the residential resort facility;
housekeeping, laundry and maintenance facilities;
employee parking; swimming pools; tennis courts and other
recreational uses and structures; dining structures or
rooms for the use of the occupants of the residential
resort. No accessory use shall be established or
conducted for the purpose of engaging in a business
operation or activity other than to support and provide
services and activities *to occupants and guests of
occupants of the residential resort. The accessory use
shall not be operated or promoted in such -a manner as to
invite the patronage of the general public.
e. Parking spaces for each unit of resort housing shall be
provided consistent with the parking requirements for
hotel uses. Adequate parking for accessory structures
and uses shall be provided in accordance with applicable
Chapter 954 standards.
f. A Type "A" buf fer shall be provided along the boundary of
the residential resort site where the site abuts
residentially designated property. A Type "B" buffer
shall be provided along the perimeter of the residential
resort site boundary that is adjacent to public or
private road rights-of-way.
Planning staff have verified that the proposed project meets
all of the above referenced criteria.
27. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
North: CR 510, Summer Place Subdivision, Wabasso Beach
Park/RS-6, CN
South: Coralstone, Moon River, Sea Oaks/RM-6
East: Atlantic Ocean/N/A
West: Grove, Coralstone, Moon River/RM-6
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners:
1. Grant conceptual planned development (PD) plan and special
exception use approval for the Florida Beach Resort with the
following conditions:
42
2.
a. That no icons shall be permitted within the project's
.required buffer areas and that any icons visible from a
public right-of-way shall be considered a sign and shall
meet all county sign regulations.
b. That a below -grade (tunnel) pedestrian crossing of S.R.
A -1-A near the project's main entrance shall be a
required improvement. The below -grade crossing shall be
constructed prior to the issuance of a C.O. (Certificate
of Occupancy) for any unit or amenity located west of
S.R. A -1-A. Furthermore, the public works director is
authorized to require earlier construction of the tunnel
if he deems it necessary for the tunnel to be constructed
at the same time as the construction of any S.R. A -1-A
improvements.
c. That the applicant shall construct 8' wide bikeways along
the project's C.R. 510 frontage and the project's western
S.R. A -1-A frontage, and shall construct a 5' wide public
sidewalk along the project's eastern S.R. A -1-A frontage.
d. That via the final plat, the applicant shall grant to the
county a conservation easement over the required.native
upland set aside area.
e. That prior to approval of any preliminary PD plan, the
applicant shall submit an internal circulation. plan which
details radii information, and shall obtain from the
county traffic engineer approval of the detailed internal
circulation plan.
f. That_ prior to issuance of a project land development
permit for improvements on parcels A or B (beachside
parcels), the applicant shall obtain jurisdictional
agency approval of a habitat management plan or shall
obtain a letter from the agencies indicating that the
construction being permitted will not adversely affect
the habitat management plan area. The approved
management plan shall be implemented prior to the county
issuing a C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy) for any phase
which includes improvements within the habitat management
plan area. I
Grant the requested planned development waivers, with the
following conditions:
a. Any building or pavilion improvements proposed to
encroach into a Type "B" buffer area shall be the minimum
size necessary to achieve the structure's function as
approved by the community development director, -and that
between any such structures and S.R. A -1-A the
landscaping material required for the perimeter Type "B"
buffer shall be planted.
b. That prior to preliminary PD approval, the applicant
shall either obtain approval from the Traffic Engineering
Division and Emergency Management Department to reduce
roadway widths from 22' to 201, or shall submit
preliminary PD plans which meet the 22' roadway width
standard.
43
L_SEP '� 1993 KOK 90 wl,F'3s9
r-
SEP 71993 eoax 90 FA1F:3.SI
The Board reviewed the following:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Alice E. White
Executive Aide to Board
RE: Disney project
DATE: September 3, 1993
Since the May, 1993 LDR hearing, the Board has received the
following number -of letters regarding the Disney project.
FOR AGAINST AGAINST ICONS
2 3 6
Many of the .people who wrote regarding the LDR amendments
specified that they did not want railroad cars at the Disney
entrance.
Piper Aircraft employees submitted a copy of petitions with 214
names asking that a 3 night minimum stay not be implemented for
the Disney Resort.
Also attached' is a sample letter that was sent _by 204 Piper
employees.
We also received other petitions in support of the Disney project
which contained 65 names.
The Clerk to the Board acknowledged receipt of the following
Petition with 65 signatures attached:
PETITION
To: Indian River County Commission
The undersigned citizens of Indian River County support the
Disney resort project which will bring business and jobs to our
county. We urge the -Commission to assist the project in every
way possible.
The Clerk to the Board acknowledged receipt of 204 signed
copies of the following letter:
44
M M M
so 5,iN sr /E1 rE/t' s�',t1 r 6
Y
do y PFEX
August 18, 1993
Dear County Commissioner:
It has come to my attention that the County Commissions, will vote on September:7th as til
whether or not to approve the County staff's recornmendation of .a three night mininnual '
stay at the proposed Disney Florida Beach Resort be required as part of the site pian
approval.
As an employee of Piper Aircraft Corporation, one of Indian River County's largest
employers, I feel this would be detrimenta! to the benefit of having Disney's business in
our community. The influx of tax revenue from this proposed resort will benefit the school
district, city and county operations, road maintenance, etc... more so than just having a
typical hotel operation.
The r,sort will also create an estimated 350 new jobs that this community so desperate;y
needs. There are still 1,300 exPiper employees that my company is unable to recall; who .
would benefit from such an opportunity. These Disney lobs will assist in obtaining a Iargor
working middle class in Vero Beach and eventually lead to a stronger economic base for
Indian River County.
Because the proposed resort is an all-inclusive and self sufficient property, it is already
designed for people to stay fora period of time. it wili also be impossible to reculame a
three night stay minimum. County funding should not be spent policing a vacation resort;
County funding should be used for necessities that benefit the children, elderly, the
working class, the businesses and other residents in this area.
Ple2se do not Implement a three nigh min#n_ur��� iQr the plsney re.:a Qrt. pipe)
Aircraft Corporation has been an active member of Indian Rhin Count,► sin+:e 19-7. :'l•'e
have enjoyed contributing both financially and othenr/ise to the community and have truly
appreciated the community's support during the past few years despite our financial
difficulties. We feel that Disney should be given the same opportunity tG become ,a flood
corporate neighbor and enjoy the same hospitality from Indian River County. -
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that this project is planned
within her District 2 and many messages were left on her telephone
answer machine from residents who are concerned about elements of
the Disney project. These items included parking, the pedestrian
tunnel, the pedestrian crosswalk, the bandstand, and signs and
icons.
Mr. Boling advised that parking for employees will be located
west of AIA and will be available when the hotel opens for
business. The planned crosswalk will be used until the tunnel is
45
P 71993 BOOK 90 * GF,3-�,
BOOK 90 FA ,UF 3, 9 3
built for users of the resort amenities on the west -side of AlA.
The tunnel is intended for pedestrians, bicycles, golf carts and
utility vehicles. Commissioner Eggert was concerned that employees
will acquire the habit of using the crosswalk rather than the
pedestrian tunnel. Mr. Boling assured the Board that design plans
include signs and vegetation to encourage use of the tunnel.
Mr. Boling assured the Board that all signs and icons will
follow the requirements of the ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert clarified that the planned bandstand is
designed for small groups playing quiet music and is similar to
others along the beach.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that her personal experience
in recovering from torn ligaments and progressing from wheelchair
through walker through quad -cane has made her aware of how parking
facilities can cause problems for the handicapped. Even with valet
parking, it is sometimes painful to stand and wait for the valet to
bring the car. Things like potted plants that jut out into the
walkway or flooring that is rough can cause large problems for the
handicapped.
Commissioner Adams led discussion regarding the design of the
pedestrian tunnel. -
Public Works Director Jim Davis reported that the pedestrian
tunnel will be partially below the grade of the roadway and AlA
will be elevated slightly. There will be a gentle slope to the
road with a total vertical increase of 4 to 5 feet and it will
level out 800 feet south of the intersection of AlA and CR -510.
Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding the section of
staff's memo titled "Specific Land Use Criteria," paragraph d.:
"Accessory use may include meeting rooms or clubhouses for the
exclusive use of the occupants and guests.... The accessory use
shall not be operated or promoted in such a manner as to invite the
patronage of the general public." Commissioner Macht reminded the
Board that at the meeting of March 30, 1993, he asked the specific
question: Will the hotel, now known as the main building, be
available for drop-in accommodations or reservations arranged by
travel agents for the public in general, and the answer at that
time was, "Absolutely."
Mr. Boling explained that the quote from staff's memo
regarding the accessory use provision applies in the residentially
zoned portion of the project, but those restrictions would not
apply in the commercially zoned portion of the project. The
amenities in the project which will be open to the public as well
as resort users will be within the commercially zoned portion of
the project.
46
Bob Shinn, senior vice president of Disney Development
Company, stated that the Disney management team and professional
advisers were present to answer questions from the Board and the
public. Mr. Shinn thanked staff for their work in the preliminary
planning process. He stated that his team is in full agreement
with staff's recommendations, and he hoped the Board would approve
the conceptual plan so the development could begin. Mr. Shinn
responded to Commissioner Eggert's concerns by stating that the
Disney organization provides fully accessible accommodations to
visitors to Disney resorts and attractions, and annually wins the
award from the American Handicapped Association for providing such
facilities. He assured the Board that the planned resort will be
fully accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Commissioner Macht noted that when he asked the question about
availability to the public at the meeting on March 30, 1993, Mr.
Shinn was the Disney representative who answered that question. He
asked if the hotel will be available to local people for meeting
rooms and for itinerant guests or those who make reservations
through travel agents.
Chairman Bird included food and beverage service in that
question.
Mr. Shinn assured the Board that the resort will be available
for transient guests, either through travel agents or through the
Disney reservations, or through whatever means they learn of the
project. The accommodations for small meetings are designed
specifically for the size of the resort. The food and beverage
services, recreational amenities and limited meeting space will be
available on a space -available basis to anyone who stays at the
resort.
Commissioner Macht pointed that the original statement was
"absolutely," and absolute means absolute.
Mr. Shinn did not think it would be absolutely available
because the Disney Vacation Club is a membership -ownership plan.
There may be unoccupied accommodations at certain times and any
accommodations that are not occupied by members would certainly be
available for rental.
Commissioner Eggert understood that space would be available
until such time as all the units were sold, but Commissioner Macht
argued that the minutes of the March 30, 1993, meeting reflected
that the answer was "absolutely" which means without limitations.
Mr. Shinn- expressed his opinion that it is highly unlikely
that the resort would be fully occupied at any given time and any
units that were not occupied by vacation club members would be
47
SEP 71993 9 BOOK go FVU-18
SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 PA F.',85
available for rental to the general public on a reservation or
drop-in basis. The meeting rooms are designed for use by the
members and resort guests but will be available for small groups on
a reservation basis with advance notification.
Commissioner Macht asked whether there was a possibility that
the Disney organization would have additional space designated for
use by the general public. Mr. Shinn responded that the meeting
rooms would accommodate small groups and be available for members'
meetings and recreational functions. The meeting rooms would be
available during most daytime hours on a reservation basis with
advance notification. The restaurant and bar facilities would be
available to the public.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to grant conceptual planned
development (PD) plan and special exception use
approval for the Florida Beach Resort with the
conditions set out in staff's memorandum.
Under discussion, Chairman Bird expressed_ the Board's
appreciation to Disney staff and to County staff for their mutual
cooperation and hoped this project is the beginning of a blend of
the Disney quality and the quality we feel we have here in Indian
River County to the mutual benefit of everyone concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - WARREN DILL REGARDING WENTWORTH DITCH
Attorney Warren Dill, representing Henry Fischer & Sons,
thanked the Board for including his request on the agenda at the
11th hour. He addressed the subject of the CR -512 Twin Pairs
project. A contract for relocation of the Wentworth Ditch was put
out for bids for that relocation and the contract was awarded to
Sheltra & Sons. Mr. Dill clarified that he was not representing a
disgruntled bidder because Henry Fischer did not make a bid for
that contract. He quoted the following figures: Contract price
was $245,000; County Engineer's estimated cost was $400,000; next
lowest bid was $390,000. He concluded that Sheltra & Sons
48
sharpened their pencil and gave the taxpayers a great price on this
contract. The contract contained a subtopic called Clearing and
Grubbing, which means removal of the trees and vegetation and
disposal of the remaining debris. The cost on that item in the
contract was $50,350. Mr. Dill understood that the County may have
inadvertently led the contractor to believe that the contractor
could remove the debris from the road right-of-way to another
facility nearby in the unincorporated area and burn the debris.
Mr. Dill was certain that the Board was aware that on May 18, 1993,
the Board of the Solid Waste Disposal District adopted a motion
that would prohibit any temporary burn site or any other permanent
burn site that would be in competition with the Solid Waste
Disposal District. At "that same time that Board invoked the
pending ordinance rule. Mr. Dill pointed out that the contract and
bid documents make it very clear that the contractor is responsible
for knowing what the laws are and for complying with those laws.
The bid package was picked up by Sheltra & Sons on June 9 and
returned on June 30. The County now proposes to let the contractor
use the SWDD chipper or mulcher at the site of the clearing and
grubbing project which will be extra cost to taxpayers. There is
also the possibility of the County competing with private
enterprise. The County will pay SWDD for use of the equipment and
will do that work for the contractor. Mr. Dill reported that Henry
Fischer has such equipment and is aware that it costs $250 per hour
to rent that equipment. Mr. Dill presented two alternatives: If
the County removes the subtopic of chipping or mulching from the
contract, the County should put it out to bid and allow private
enterprise an opportunity to do the work. The County should get a
realistic price for rental of the equipment from SWDD and see if
private competition could offer a better price and save the
taxpayers additional money. He felt that in any case the County
should put through a change order and deduct this cost from the
contract. Taxpayers should not subsidize a contractor simply
because there may have been a mistake in communication. The
contractor has an obligation to.remove the debris. Mr. Dill's
second proposed option was to make the contractor live up to the
contract and remove the debris the best way he can. If the County
feels there is an obligation to the contractor because of some
misinformation, the County should get a realistic price from SWDD
to run this equipment and use that price to put out a bid to see if
private enterprise can do it for less. Mr. Dill contended that
there should be an adjustment to'the contract bid price.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that the contract
documents for the project were prepared with the understanding that
49
�� 1 BOOK 9-0 F-4FIJ8
S9�
SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 `'QBE87
right-of-way clearing was somewhat different from single family lot
clearing. Since the County bought the air curtain incinerator, we
have been using it to dispose of right-of-way clearing debris on
projects such as the South County Park and Indian River Boulevard
Phase IV and we have saved substantial cost in disposal fees. Even
with the recent change in burning regulations, staff was under the
impression that right-of-way clearing was not included in the
restrictions. The contract was put out for bid and awarded before
the realization that the material could not be removed to a
location not far from the right-of-way. After the bids came in for
the relocation of the Wentworth Ditch, Public Works communicated
with legal staff and Emergency Services Management and a decision
was reached that moving the material from one location to another
to burn the material was contradictory to the changes in the
burning regulations as adopted on May 18. As a result staff tried
to amicably remedy the situation because the contractor wanted a
substantial change order to handle the cost of debris removal. The
debris which will be processed with the chipper is only a portion
of debris to be cleared. Large stumps will not be handled by the
chipper and large -trunk pine trees will be sent to a logging
company. The chipped or mulched material will be used in various
locations. The SWDD staff thought the chipper could be made
available to Public Works for a fee. The dollars and cents have
not been worked out because we do not know how productive the
chipper will be. The plan is to use the chipper for a week or two
to see how quickly the contractor can load the chipper and dispose
of the material under 6 inches in diameter. Then we would move
into the process of a change order and arrive at a fair price to
both the County and the contractor. This procedure would result in
less delay to the entire road project. This procedure has been
used in other situations where we find that it is mutually
beneficial to the County and the contractor.
In response to Mr. Dill's first option, Director Davis
expressed the opinion that Sheltra & Son's price is excellent and
was based on running an air curtain incinerator for $6,000. Staff
does not know of a chipper that is available for the contractor to
rent. If SWDD's chipper is used, it would be fair to the
contractor and advantageous to the County since the entire project
is funded by impact fees. In response to Mr. Dill's second option,
Director Davis stated that it requires time and effort to prepare
bid documents. He was sure that SWDD and Public Works can arrive
at a fair price for the work.
50
Discussion ensued, and Director Davis gave examples of
projects where County equipment and personnel were used when
unforeseen circumstances required changes in a contract. In some
of those cases the contracts resulted in change orders. Mr. Davis
expressed the opinion that the change order is a useful tool in
implementing a project.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we would be paying twice by
paying the contractor and doing it with our men and equipment.
County Administrator Jim Chandler assured the Board that the
contractor would not be compensated for any work that is not
performed by the contractor. Staff did not realize that this item
would be addressed at this meeting. Mr. Chandler explained that he
and staff were in the process of calculating expenses and gathering
information to present to the Board. This difficulty arose because
of the action taken on May 18 when the pending ordinance doctrine
was invoked. When the contract was awarded, staff thought the
contractor could get a temporary burn permit. Since that is not
the case, staff began researching other possibilities and came up
with the idea of using our personnel and equipment and the SWDD
chipper. Of course, there would be a charge back to the
contractor.
Director Davis advised that before a bottom line figure can be
reached, staff must determine how quickly the chipping can be
accomplished. Staff has not been able to quantify all the material
under 6 inches in diameter to estimate how long the chipper would
be on that site. That would be estimated after the work is in
progress for a week or two. The actual chipped material has value
and that would be taken into consideration.
Further discussion ensued regarding the quantity of debris,
the hourly rate and length of time the SWDD chipper would be in
use.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto pointed out that because
the contractor cannot burn the debris, it probably would be hauled
to the Landfill and chipped there. Letting them use the chipper at
their work site eliminates that work load from the Landfill.
Commissioner Adams asked whether the time needed to quantify
the amount of material would cause a delay in the project, and Mr.
Davis responded that it could cause a delay in the project.
Discussion ensued regarding the County's ability to enforce
the contract.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the contractor is
obligated to dispose of the debris by any means possible, even if
burning is not allowed. Sheltra & Sons could argue that staff told
the contractor something that would estop us from enforcing the
51
SEP 7 1990
r- SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 PV 99 ,
clear terms of the contract, but the contract on its face favors `
the County.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible waiver of the burn
regulation, and County Attorney Vitunac advised that the
requirement should be applicable to everybody, including the
County. We cannot justify making an exception to ourselves.
Additionally, this project is located within the City of Sebastian
which does not allow burning on road rights-of-way.
Administrator Chandler clarified that the burning was to be
done off-site, not on a road right-of-way. He further assured the
Board that staff's efforts were an attempt to keep the contract
price as low as possible.
Director Davis also clarified that the Board should not get
the impression that we supply resources on every contract. Staff
tries to be good stewards of County equipment. Engineers cannot
predict everything that may happen on a $3 million project and we
try to blend County resources occasionally.
Commissioner Adams thought staff should have an opportunity to
figure the costs and present those figures to the Board for a
decision as to whether it should be put out for bid.
Administrator Chandler explained that on the previous Thursday
he and Jim Davis worked on those figures and planned to present
this item to the Board. Staff did not realize the item would be
discussed this morning because it was not scheduled for this _
meeting, but these figures could be presented to the Board at next
Tuesday's meeting. He assured the Board that staff prefers to
abide by contracts and not involve County equipment, but in this
case the change order could have been $50,000 on a $250,000
contract and staff was looking at other alternatives.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled
the discussion and directed staff to estimate the
figures for the Board's consideration.
52
s � a
MULTI-PARTY ACQUISITION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST
FCT
The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Planning Chief
Roland DeBlois dated August 24, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
-Robert M. Reatl4g,- A
Community Developme Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: August 24, 1993
RE: Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement with Florida
Communities Trust (FCT)
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting on September 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program has established
procedures with regard to the acquisition of environmental lands
approved for FCT grant cost -share funds. These procedures apply to
the Wabasso Scrub site, for which a cost -share funding application
was submitted by the County and approved by the FCT earlier this
year.
The execution of a Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement between the
County and the- FCT is required if the County opts to take the
responsibility of negotiating the purchase of the Wabasso Scrub
site. The alternative is for the County not to enter into the
Agreement, whereby the FCT will take the responsibility of purchase
negotiations.
This matter is now presented for the Board to consider whether or
not to enter into a Multi -Party Agreement with the FCT regarding
acquisition of the Wabasso Scrub site.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Overview of Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement
The intent of the Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement (as indicated
in Paragraph 1 of the Agreement) is "to grant the FCT Applicant the
ability to secure, in the most expedient, economical and convenient
manner, land acquisition services that comply with" Florida
statute procedures.
Paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Agreement relate to title report,
appraisal map and survey requirements, in accordance with State
statutes and -rules. This process includes the County's selection
of two appraisers from the Division of State Land's (DSL) list of
approved appraisers to prepare appraisal reports, but only after
consulting with FCT's Community Program Administrator.
53
L_SEP t1 1e�l�� BOOK gJ FA;�F'J".1
63 1093
r- SEP
BOOK . g Ph - 91 -I
Paragraph 8 and Exhibit A require the FCT and FCT Applicant (Indian
River County) to agree to enter into and comply with a
Confidentiality Agreement relating to appraisals, offers and other
negotiation matters. This Confidentiality Agreement is to be signed
by each member of the Board of County Commissioners and any staff
member potentially involved in the purchase negotiation.
Paragraphs 22 and 23 provide that the County will contract for and
pay for all of the cost and expenses associated with title,
appraisal maps, appraisal reports, and surveys, with the FCT
reimbursing cost -share funds only if a closing occurs.
Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantage of the County taking the responsibility of
negotiating the purchase of the Wabasso Scrub site is expediency.
Although the FCT is willing to undertake negotiations and other
aspects of acquiring the property, the FCT has limited staff that
are involved with numerous projects throughout the state.
Indications from other applicants and land acquisition
organizations are that a property is more likely to be successfully
acquired if negotiated by the applicant. This particularly applies
to the Wabasso Scrub site, because the property is under one
ownership, and property appraisal characteristics are
uncomplicated.
The major advantage of having the FCT take responsibility for
acquisition of the Wabasso Scrub property is that -the necessary
acquisition activities would not infringe on county staff time
devoted to other tasks. Moreover, acquisition of the property by
the FCT would relieve the County from any accusations that the
County did not negotiate the best deal for public acquisition.
In that the Wabasso Scrub site has uncomplicated physical and
ownership characteristics, and in that the FCT cost -share amount
has already been substantially determined, it is staff's position
that the advantage of County negotiations outweighs the benefits of
the FCT taking responsibility for negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Board Chairman to execute the attached Multi -Party Acquisition
Agreement with the Florida Communities Trust regarding acquisition
of the Wabasso Scrub site.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Multi -
Party Acquisition Agreement with the Florida
Communities Trust regarding acquisition of the
Wabasso Scrub site, as recommended by staff.
PAI3Y EXECUTED COPY OF AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
54
IRC COURTHOUSE PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER #4
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated August 25, 1993, and letter from James L. Musgraves,
AIA, of Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville dated August 18, 1993:
DATE: AUGUST 25, 1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 4
BACKGROUND:
This Change Order_ to the subject project was necessitated due to the
following:
Item #lA Adjustment of the Overhead and Profit $ 431.48
percentages to items on Change Order
Number 2. Should have been 10% rather
than -5%.
Item #2. Adjustment of the Overhead and Profit 413.83
percentages to items on Change Order
Number 2. Should have been 10% rather
than 5%.
Item #3. Miscellaneous changes that were generated 79,729.12
by changing of NFPA building codes.
Explained in attached PGAL letter dated
8/18/93.
Item #4. Rerouting of 24" storm drain from under 138.92
building footing.
TOTAL $80,713.35
The new contract price will be $11,206,084.77.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Change Order Number 4 as submitted and
requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the applicable
documents.
55
Sir 71993 BOOK 9® Fa'c ` 92
SEP 71993
August 18, 1993
Mr. H.T. "Sonny" Dean
Department of General Services
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street .
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Indian River County Judicial Complex
Change Order No.4
PGAL Project No. 91012-A-000
Dear Sonny:
BOOK
Architecture
Interior Architecture
PIGAA L
Engineerhkk
Phunting
In response to your request for additional information related to Change Order No. 4, I
have prepared the following. This response is for Item #3 of this change which relates
to changes directed by the Building Department and the Fire Marshall and Item #4
which was the rerouting of the 24 inch storm sewer.
A major impact on the review of this project was the adoption of new budding codes by
the City of Vero Beach on August 17, 1992 with our project being submitted for
Permitting in September 1992. Prior to that date NFPA 1985 edition was used in lieu of
the 1991 edition and the Standard Building Code 1988 edition was used in lieu of the.
1991. Our design team was not advised of any anticipated change. _
Roughly half of the change in Item #3 relates to the addition of the six pairs of fire
doors and the associated wall, ceiling and hardware changes around the atrium. These
were required by the Building Department and the Fire Marshall after their final review
Of the documents. Our design team with the Building Department, during discussions in
November of 1991, had reached agreement on the method of calculation for number of
occupants in the building and our design was changed at that time from four exit stairs to
two. Further review was done by the Fire Marshall's office in the summer of 1992 of this
design with no comment of any potential problem related to stairs. Upon submittal for
permit, both departments determined that a different method of calculating occupancy
was necessary causing the requirement for an additional exit stair. This was
accomplished by enclosing the atrium for utilization of that stair.
Other changes requested by this group were the mechanical and electrical items and fire
protection changes. These related to:
• Relocation of two fire hose cabinets and addition of one hose cabinet.
• Additional exit signs requested by the Fire Marshall which are beneficial but in
our engineer's opinion were not_ required.
• Exterior fire alarm audio/visual devices required by Fire Marshall which are
beneficial but in our engineer's opinion were not required.
• Smoke detectors added in the atrium after discussion with Fire Marshall.
• Upgrade of fire alarm audiovisual devices for compliance with the requirements
of ADA since products meeting the new code were not available to be included in
the. bid documents.
Item #4, rerouting of the 24 inch storm sewer, was a result of some interference with
building footings and the determination that, in the long term, it would be beneficial to
route the storm drainage around the comer of the building instead of through the
sallyport.
56
� - r
I trust that this will provide the information which you require for presentation to the
Commission. Please let me know if additional input is needed.
Sincerely,
F1 5.71ZJT D; iZ05
Jam Lusgrave
actor-4f-,AichitectAe&EngJneering
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding Item #3.
William H. S. Murray, representative of Pierce Goodwin
Alexander & Linville, explained that there was a change in the way
the code was interpreted. The occupancy load of the building was
addressed and calculated in the original design. When the permit
application was pulled for the job, the building department and
fire marshallIs office recalculated the total occupancy load of the
building. Mr. Murray explained that he did not attend those
meetings but he gave one example of a change in occupancy load. In
the original calculation it was determined that a judge's suite
would not be occupied while the judge was holding court, but later
that determination was changed. He stated that there were several
similar instances. The final calculation was based on gross square
footage which called for an additional vertical means of egress.
The solution was to add automatic fire doors in the entry rotunda
along with the necessary exit signs and alarm systems and other
integrated parts.
Chairman Bird asked whether the code was misinterpreted
originally, or is there a possibility that it is being incorrectly
interpreted now.
Mr. Murray thought the explanation was that the current
interpretation follows the letter of the most recent code. The
original design was presented before the codes were updated and
some leeway was allowed in the execution of the code requirements.
Commissioner Macht asked whether the fire marshall rejected
the interpretation which allowed leeway, and Mr. Murray responded
that he was not at the meetings and was not sure how the decisions
were made.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned that the project proceeded
so far before this problem was discovered.
Mr. Murray emphasized that the County is getting more for that
money. Additional exit doors will be included at a cost which
would have been incurred even if they were included in the original
design.
57
SEP 7 1993 BOOK 90 FnIN-3,9
r SFP 7 IM
BOOK PAGE
395 nn rr 3,
Commissioner Adams questioned Items 1 and 2 regarding the
change in the Overhead and Profit percentages, and Director Dean
explained that the change was a recommendation of the construction
management firm. Commissioner Adams disagreed with the explanation
and thought that even though it is a small amount it should be
considered seriously.
Mr. Murray explained that the 10% does not apply to both
Overhead and Profit combined.
Commissioners Eggert and Adams asked for more details, and
Administrator Chandler, suggested that the item be deferred to allow
time to provide more complete answers to the Board's questions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously tabled
this item to allow staff time to provide more
information.
IRC COURTHOUSE PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER #5 - JAMES A. CUMMINGS, INC.
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated August 13, 1993: -
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SER E
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 5
BACKGROUND:
The subject Change Order was generated to provide a deduction to the
construction contract for this project. It covers a cost for
materials and equipment that was purchased directly from vendors, by
the County, to eliminate paying sales tax.
ANALYSIS:
A total of $1,224,299 was paid for the items listed herein, which
equates to a savings on sales tax of $69,570.99. The new contracted
price for this project is now reduced to $9,981,785.64.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Change Order Number 5 as submitted and
authorization for the Board Chairman to execute the applicable
documents.
58
r � �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order Number 5 to the Indian River County
Judicial Complex Project, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 5
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
IRC COURTHOUSE PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER #6
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated August 25, 1993:
DATE: AUGUST 251 1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR4F
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 6
BACKGROUND:
This Change Order was necessitated due to the following changes on
the subject project:
Item
#1.
Revised
builders hardware
NIC
Item
#2.
Revised
south wall at elevator No. 7.
N/C
Item
#3.
Removal
of tree at southeast corner of
$ 715.00
parking
garage.
Item
#4.
Changed
litter unit tops to ash/trash
NIC
type.
Item
#5.
Deleted
metal framing at rotunda wall
(2,629.00)
wall and replaced with concrete.
Item
#6.
Revised
additional security equipment.
(522.00)
Item
V.
Removed
installation of telephone cable
(31269.00)
from contract.
Item #8. Fireproofing exposed steel angles that
support interstitial slabs.
Item #9. Relocated manhole structures.
Item #10. Changed wood cants to fiber cants at
all roof levels.
59
3,962.00
NIC
(2,157.00)
500K 90 FAGE _)96
r SEP 7 19y3
TOTAL DEDUCT
The new contract price will be $9,977,885.64.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
BOOK 90 Pm F. 997
($3,900.00)
Staff recommends approval of Change Order Number 6 as submitted and
requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the applicable
documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order Number 6 to the Indian River County
Judicial Complex Project, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 6
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
AMENDMENT TO FIND GRANT AGREEMENT FOR ROUND ISLAND PARK
IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated August 26, 1993: -
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.��K
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to FIND Grant Agreement for
Round Island Park Improvements
DATE: August 26, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 8, 1992, Indian River County accepted a $130,000 Waterways
Assistance Project Grant for Round Island Park river access improvements.
Scheduled improvements include construction of paved access road, parking,
restroom building, additional boat ramp and waterfront boardwalk with
fishing docks.
The agreement requires that the project be completed on or before
September 1, 1993 unless the project -period has been extended. Staff
requested that the FIND Board extend funding on the project into the next
fiscal year (FY 1993-94) because construction will not be completed until
December 1993.
The attached amendment extends the project completion deadline to
September 1, 1994-.
60
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute the attached
Project Agreement Amendment.
The County's match for construction will be funded by Florida Boating
Improvement Program (FBIP) grant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Amendment to Project Agreement No. IR -91-9
extending the project completion deadline to
September 1, 1994, as recommended by staff.
SAID AMENDMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION - GRAND HARBOR PARCEL, INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD, PHASE IV
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated August 27, 1993:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization
Grand Harbor Parcel
Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
DATE: August 26, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is planning to pave and widen .45th Street east of U.S.
1 to Indian River Boulevard, Phase IV. Subject parcel is located at the
northeast corner of 45th Street and Indian River Boulevard.
The construction of this portion of 45th Street is included in the
County's contract with Dickerson Florida, Inc. which is currently under
construction. Grand Harbor has agreed to sell the parcel at the July 9,
1991 appraised value of $19,229.
GRA Grand Harbor -Ltd. has already executed the deed and a Partial Release
of Mortgage which are being held in trust (copy attached). These
documents will be recorded after Board approval and release of payment.
61
8ao go FA,F J
SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 FA�F.39. 9
RECOMMSNDATIOHS AM FUNDING
Staff requests that the Board authorize payment in the amount of $19,229
to GHA Grand Harbor Ltd. for the right-of-way parcel.
Staff also requests that the Board authorize payment of attorney's,fees
up to a not -to -exceed amount of 6% of the selling price and miscellaneous
closing costs.
Funding is from Account #309-215-541-066.12 Indian River Boulevard Phase
IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
payment in the amount of $19,229 to GHA Grand
Harbor, Ltd., for right-of-way, payment of
attorneys fees not to exceed 6% of the selling
price, and miscellaneous closing costs, as
recommended by staff.
REQUEST FOR GRADING 104TH AVENUE, 104TH COURT, 96TH COURT - VERO
LAKES ESTATES
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated August 27, 1993:
TO: -James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request for Grading 104th Avenue, '104th Court,.
and 96th Court in Vero Lake Estates
REF. LETTERS: 1) Mr & Mrs. Smargriassi, Mr. Smith &
Mr. & Mrs. Smith dated Aug 2, 1993
2) Mr. & Mrs. Joseph dated Aug 12, 1993
3) Mr. & Mrs. Strap dated Aug. 20, 1993
DATE: August 27, 1993 FILE: vle.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the regular May 15, 1991 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, staff recommended that the County assume grading of
Approximately 13 miles of additional unpaved roads in the Vero lake
Estates Subdivision. Various roads have been added since that time
with the approval of the Board.
At this time, various property owners along 104th Avenue and 104th
Court between 83rd Street and 81st Street and two owners along 96th
Court between 87th Street and 89th Street have requested that the
County grade 104th Avenue, 104th Court, and 96th Court in Vero
Lakes Estates Subdivision. 62
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed these requests and performed the standard
numerical evaluation of criteria for acceptance of grading
unimproved roads. Staff usually recommends that a minimum of 75
points be assigned to justify grading. In this case, a minimum of
75 and 80 points was absigned.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since the minimum of 75 points was met, staff recommends the
addition of 104th Avenue and 104th Court between 83rd Street and
81st Street and 96th Court between 87th Street and 89th Street be
added to the grading route in Vero Lake Estates.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added
portions of 104th Avenue, 104th Court, and 96th
Court to the grading route in Vero Lake Estates
Subdivision, as set out in staff's memorandum.
AGREEMENT WITH CH2M HILL TO FURNISH ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
CONSULTING SERVICES TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - WORK AUTHORIZATION No.
1 - UPDATE OF IMPACT FEES, DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER REUSE RATES
AND CALCULATION OF SEPTAGE RATES
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 5, 1993:
DATE: AUGUST 5, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. P
DIRECTOR OF S CES
PREPARED HARRY E.
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRE R OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT TO FURNISH ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
CONSULTING SERVICES TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 - UPDATEop IMPACT
FEES, DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER REUSE RATES,
AND CALCULATION OF SEPTAGE RATES
On July 13; 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
Agreement to Furnish Economic and Financial Consulting Services
to Indian River County with CH2M Hill (copy attached). The
Department of Utility Services (Department) has identified the
need to review certain fees and charges as they apply to its
current rate resolution.
63
EP '11993 BOOK 90 PAGF. 400
SEP 7 19 g3 BOOK 90 FADE 401
ANALYSIS:
The Department has identified the need to review its fees and
charges in the following areas:
1. Impact Fees - Due to the County"s new water and
wastewater master plan.
2. Review existing Wastewater Reuse Agreements and costs'to
calculate proposed wastewater reuse rates.
3. Calculation of fees for septage discharge into the
Countya's wastewater system.
The Department has negotiated the attached Work Authorization No.
1 (copy attached) under the Master Agreement to address the above
needs. The Work Authorization No. 1 will be composed of five
tasks as follows:
Task 1: Collect Data
Import Fee Data $1,646.00
Septage Rate Data 11646.00
Reuse Data 1,682.00 $4,974.00
Task 2: Impact Fees
Prelim Fee Calculations $3,018.00
Prelim Line Ext. Fees 1,317.00
Finalize Rate/Fee Calcs 2,193.00 $6,528.00
Task 3: Septage Rates
Septage Cost Analysis $10,430.00
Septage Rate Design 482.00
Septage Rate Revision 1,017.00 $2,929.00
Task 4: Reuse Rates
Prelim Reuse Calcs $6,724.00
Finalize Reuse Water 4,235.00 $10,959.00
Task 5: Present Results
Draft Report $6,626.00
Final Report 3,535.00
Present Results 4,243.00 $14.404.00
Total Cost: $39,794.00
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
Hoard of County Commissioners' approval of the attached Work
Authorization No. 1 --Update of Impact Fees, Development*of
Wastewater Reuse Rates, and Calculation of Septage Rates --and
authorize execution of Work Authorization No. 1. `
64
M
Commissioner Adams led discussion regarding County staff's
ability to do studies of this nature.
Director Pinto explained that this type of study is more than
accounting. It takes a consultant with experience in the field and
the ability to analyze past and current costs as well as project
future costs and to consider all the factors that go into setting
rates. When questions are raised by a developer who pays large
sums in impact fees, this type of study supports our position. It
also helps the Board make decisions regarding costs and how
adjustments in impact fees, for example, will affect the entire
rate structure. We can also analyze, for example, whether to
charge less for sludge disposal to encourage use of the County's
sludge facility.
Chairman Bird thought that outside consultants have the
opportunity to study not only our situation here but other utility
operations throughout the state and see the other ways it is done.
Commissioner Eggert noted that there was a separate fee to
present results.
Director Pinto pointed out that this fee would be added to
each individual task if it were not listed separately.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 1 with CH2M Hill, Inc., for
Update of Impact Fees, Development of Wastewater
Reuse Rates, and Calculation of Septage Rates, as
recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SOUTH COUNTY WELLS - FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER No. 2 -
DRILLING SERVICES, INC.
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 17, 1993:
`V
L- SEP Y 19913 BOOK 90 FnuE.402
0 800K 9 p
SEP 7 1993 _ AcE 403
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
..a
AUGUST 17, 1993
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO 1.
DIRECTOR OFWTILI SERVICES
WILLIAM F.
CAPITAL PSI
UTILITY SERVICES
SOUTH COUNTY WELLS
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -07 -UW
On February 23, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Drilling Services, Inc., for
the installation of two public supply wells at the South County R.O.
Plant (see attached agenda item and minutes). The wells are now
complete, and. we are before the County Commission requesting
approval of the final pay request and change order (see attached
change order and pay request).
ANALYSIS -
After a final reconciliation of quantities (see attached
reconciliation sheet), we arrive at a contract reduction of
$13,460.54. All of the additional quantities approved in the
previous change order were not required. The contract additions and
deletions since inception are as follows:
Original contract amount $ 95,191.50
Change Order No. 1 + 31,271.70
Change Order No. 2 - 13,460.54
Final adjusted contract amount $113,002.66
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 2 and the
attached final pay request for Drilling Services, Inc., as
presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 and the final pay request of
$11,300.27 to Drilling Services, Inc., as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
66
WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT - CR -510 AND 58TH AVENUE INTERSECTION
- WORK AUTHORIZATION No. 14, CHANGE ORDER No. 1 AND FINAL PAY
REQUEST - DRIVEWAYS, INC.
DATE: AUGUST 19, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT R
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SERVICES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM /
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT
COUNTY ROAD 510/58TH AVENUE INTERSECTION
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 14
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -15 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
Construction of -the subject project has been completed, and the
contractor, Driveways, Inc., of Titusville, Florida, has made
application for final payment. The pay request includes an increase of
$10,280.71, as reflected on Change Order No. 1 (see attached).
The labor cost increase is due to: 1) the addition of a 12" D.I.P.
water line extension and a 24" steel pipe casing across C.R. 510 (these
pipe additions are to accommodate the Indian River County Public Works
Department paving project and future utility expansion), and 2) an
increase in the quantity of asphalt and the number of fittings used as
compared to the original estimate.
ANALYSIS
All Indian River County requirements have been met and our testing has
been satisfactorily completed. The original labor contract price was
$4,167.45, and the final labor contract price is $14,448.16, which
includes Change Order No. 1. The contractor has previously been paid
$2,753.17. This leaves a remaining balance of $11,694.99.
RECOMMENDATION
The.Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached
Change Order No. 1, and Final Pay Request of $11,694.99, as payment in
full for services rendered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 14, Change Order No. 1 and
Final Pay Request of $11,694.99, as recommended by
staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
67
BOOK
SEP 1993
90 F,nF 414
SEP 7 1993
BOOK 90 P* 405 �
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN CLUB GROVE ESTATES - 35TH COURT,
NORTH OFF STH STREET S.W.
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 23, 1993:
DATE: AUGUST 23, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
FROM: TERRANCEG. PINT
DIRECTOR OF TIL T ICES
` PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS*ft PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF II! SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN CLUB GROVE ESTATES/
(35TH COURT, NORTH OFF 5TH STREET, SW)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -18 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension for Club
Grove Estates 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-mentioned project. (See attached petition
and plat map.)
ANALYSIS
The subdivision contains 27 lots. The 11 property owners signing
the petition represent 70% of the properties to be served. The lots
in this project are typically one-half acre, plus or minus. 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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the petition for water service in Club Grove Estates
(35th Court, north off 5th Street Southwest), as
recommended by staff.
68
NORTH COUNTY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, PHASE I
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 30, 1993:
DATE: AUGUST 30, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRAN"G.PINTODIRECTSERVICES
PREPARED H..D. P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PHASE I
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -90 -05 -DS
BACKGROUND
IN
The subject project was designed by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan,
Inc. (PBS&J , who -also provided resident inspection.
Our negotiations with PBS&J were approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on September 25, 1990, in the amount of $35,746.00.
ANALYSIS
The project was. overrun by the contractor and required PBS&J to spend
additional man-hours by the engineers and the inspector. Liquidated
damages of $7,200.00 were assessed the contractor for late project
completion (see attached).
Two changes to the PBS&J contract were approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on February 26, 1991 ($4,167.00) and March 24, .1992
($2,554.00). *These changed the contract price to $42,467.00.
The -amount requested, $3,228.15, is the actual expenditure by PBS&J
during the overrun period.
The Department of Utility Services staff recommends approval of the
$3,228.15 increase in the PBS&J contract to a total of $45,695.15.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve the $3,228.15
increase in the PBS&J contract, for a total of
$45,695.15, as recommended by staff.
ME
1993 BOOK 90 Fa,F406
SEP 7 &K 90 PA,UE 407
Commissioner Adams asked _why the contractor was late in
completing the project.
Director Pinto responded that the contractor simply was slow
in doing the work and had no justifiable excuse to run beyond his
contract date. A portion of the penalty of $7,200 in liquidated
damages will be applied to cover the extra engineering costs with
PBS&J during the overrun period.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
MASTER PLAN UPDATE AGREEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE GDII SYSTEM PURCHASE
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated September 1, 1993:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTORJOF
IIT I CES
WILLIC N
CAPIT S ENGINEER
DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
SYSTEM PURCIIASE
TO ACCOMMODATE THE GDII
On March 23, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
continuing services agreement with Brown and Caldwell (engineering
consultants) for.the updating of the- Master Plan from time to time
due to changes in development schedules, etc. The Utilities
Department has received approval from the Board of County
Commissioners to purchase the GDU facilities in the south portion of
the County and is proceeding with same. As a result of this
acquisition, there will be major changes to our South County
utility; i.e., water, sewer, and effluent disposal. Attached is the
negotiated Work Authorization (No. 3) with Brown and Caldwell to
evaluate the effect of this acquisition on our Master Plan.
ANALYSIS
Exhibit A with the attached Work Authorization prlovides a detailed
description of the proposed services. The services are broken up
into two primary tasks as follows:
70
Task 1 - GDU Master Plan Update
South Region Wastewater Collection System evaluation based on
GDU addition.
South Region Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion phasing
analysis for conversion of the GDU facility to a regional
plant.
South Region Water Distribution System evaluation and phased
system expansion.
Entire County Effluent Reuse System evaluation.
Task 2 - Production of Master Plan Graphics/Cost Tables
Revision to all applicable Master Plan exhibits.
Update of all Master Plan cost tables.
Update of annual capital expenditures for planning period.
Preparation of complete County water and wastewater maps.
The fee for these services has been negotiated with an upper limit
of $39,400.00, which is well within acceptable limits for the given
scope of services_.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached Work Authorization No. 3 with Brown and Caldwell as
presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 3 with Brown and Caldwell for
a Master Plan update to accommodate the GDU system
purchase, as recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 3
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
ACQUISITION OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES. INC., VERO
HIGHLANDS/VERO SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 31, 1993:
71
SEP 11993
BOOK so FAGS 408
SEP 7 1993
DATE: AUGUST 31, 1993 -
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
r
50GK 90 F, GF 09
PREPARED
AND STAFFED HARRY E. AS
BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC.
(GDU) VERO HIGHLANDS/SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners held a public
hearing at which details were presented to meet the requirements of
Florida Statutes, Section 125.3401 (copy attached), concerning the
acquisition of General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) Vero
Highlands/Shores Utility System.
After consideration of the information presented in the public
hearing, the Board of County Commissioners approved the purchase of
the General Development Utilities, Inc., Vero Highlands/ Shores
Utility System and authorized the Department of Utility Services to
negotiate the final contract to be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
ANALYSIS
The negotiated price is $3,000,000.00, plus closing costs, which
represents a 50% discount in the net book value of the system of
$6,0401567.00.
If the County does not purchase the system, the potential immediate
impact on existing GDU utility customers could be up to a 113.6%
increase in monthly utility rates. With the County purchase of the
system, a current GDU utility customer using 5,000 gallons per
month would realize a 19% increase on the County's Uniform Rate
Schedule.
The current Indian River County utility customers would not be
impacted by the purchase of the utility. The debt service for the
acquisition cost, operational and maintenance requirements,
renewal/ replacement, and expansion costs will be supported with
revenues generated from the existing GDU customer base and service
area under current County Uniform Rates.
The Department of Utility Services has negotiated the final
purchase agreement (attached) for the Board of County
Commissioners' approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends, based
upon all information presented for this project, the Board of
County Commissionerst approval of the attached purchase agreement
and authorization for the Chairman to execute the agreement.
72
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase agreement for acquisition of General
Development Utilities, Inc., (GDU) Vero Highlands/
Vero Shores Utility System, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
1993 LEGISLATIVE MEETING
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated September 1, 1993:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: September 1, 1993
RE: 1993 LEGISLATIVE MEETING -
The Local Legislative Delegation will meet on November 17, 1993, at 9:00
a.m. in the Vero Beach City Hall and staff needs to know if the Board of
County Commissioners has any special or general bills which it would
like prepared for presentation to the Legislative Delegation.
Attached to this memo is a proposal by the Treasure Coast Council of
Local Governments to support ten items. Commissioner Tippin is the
County member of the Council of Local Governments Legislative Committee
and is familiar with the items on the list. If there are any additional
ones, the County would present them separately from the Council of Local
Governments' presentation.
REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends direction from the Board concerning
what items should be presented under "County Matters" at the November 17
Local Legislative Delegation Meeting.
73
BOOK �� PAGE 1®
SEP 1993
SEP 7 190i
i
BOOK 90 DrIF 41
7RE.ASlC1RE CO-AS'l` - (C(0)(U1•.Jc_AJL
LOCAL
LIST OF LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN PRIORITY ORDER
1993
1. Florida State Retirement System
Z. Modifications to Homestead Exemption
3. Establishing a Partial Year Assessment
for New Construction and Renovation
�. Unfunded Mandates Assigned Local Governments
by State a.nd Federal Governments
5. Treasure Coast University Campus
6. Prostitutibn
7. Dry Line Utilities Permitting by Department
of Environmental Protection
8. Mandatory Public Hearings on New Electrical
Transmission Lines
9. St. Lucie.River/Indian River Lagoon Cleanup
10. "See-through" Guardrails on New Bridges
Commissioner Tippin explained that Council on Government is
trying to give everyone enough time to compile their list for
presentation to the Legislative Delegation.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that this was not a request for
approval of the list. He merely wanted to give the Board time to
think about proposals to the Legislative Delegation. He advised
that the list should be ready to present to the Legislative
Delegation by November 17, but any special bills must be written
over a month before that.
The Board agreed to defer this item and directed Administrator
Chandler to schedule discussion of this matter at the last regular
meeting in September.
74
BEACH CONFERENCE REPORT BY COMMISSIONER ADAMS
Commissioner Adams reported that the beach conference was a
good opportunity to meet representatives of Department of
Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers. She was
sure the Board members read the articles in the Press Journal under
the byline of Debra Shimanski and stated that everyone at the
conference was impressed by the fact that Indian River County had
a news reporter in the delegation.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed memo from Commissioner Eggert dated
September 1, 1993:
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Carolyn K. Eggert _,, V
County Commissioner tl
Date: September 1, 1993
Re: Professional Services Advisory Committee
1. Please accept the resignation of Jeffrey P. Meyer
as representative of the banking and financial services
industry to the Professional Services Advisory Committee
with deep regret and send an appropriate letter expressing
our gratitude for his service.
2. Please approve David C. Hankle to fill Mr. Meyers
unexpired term to January, 1994 plus 2 years to January,
1996. (Resume attached.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted,
with deep regret, the resignation of Jeffrey P.
Meyer from the Professional Services Advisory
Committee, and approved appointment of David C.
Hankle to that committee.
SEMINOLE LAND PURCHASE
Commissioner Eggert advised the Board that the Seminole
Indians purchased what is called the Mann property. It is located
mostly in Osceola County and touches St. Lucie and Indian River -
75
BOOK � Eac�EP�993 W
809K 90 F.{;F.413
Counties. Commissioner Eggert stated that she was informed by Dawn
Smith, legislative aide to Representative Sembler, that the land
will be used for ceremonial purposes and kept in a pristine natural
state. However, information from the Gaming Commission in
Tallahassee is that the Seminole Indians are asking that Florida
approve open, high stakes gambling, or poker stakes gambling.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she is opposed to high stakes
gambling in Indian River County and intends to contact our senators
and congressmen to voice her opposition. She asked how the other
Commissioners feel about it.
Commissioners Adams and Tippin were opposed to high stakes
gambling, and the Board concurred that Commissioner Eggert should
contact our senators.and congressmen to see what action the Board
should take to oppose high stakes gambling.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the
Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
ATTEST:
I z -4 2 t� Q >Cl�
--, J. rton, Clerk
76
Ri c1fard N. Bird, Chairman