HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/14/1993MINUTES ATTACIIED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 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
9:00 A. M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Item 13-C, Approval -of out -of -county travel
for Comm. Adams to attend SJRWND workshop
in Winter Park 9/17/93.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
-A. Report of Convictions, Month of August, 1993
B. Appointment of James Jenkins to Parks E Rec.
Committee; Annie Foster as Alternate
( letter dated September 3, 1993 )
C. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated September 3, 1993 )
D. Release of Easement Request By: Timothy J.
Fothergill, Lots 17 & 18, Block B, Oslo Park
S/D Unit No. 3
( memorandum dated August 24, 1993 )
E. Miscellaneous Budget Amendments #024
( memorandum dated September 8, 1993 )
F. Award Bid #4003 / Limerock
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
800K 90P��GE 4 9 8
SEP 14 1993
1993 f,
Fr"-SEP � 4 90 FBOOK ,Ucr 499
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
G. Award Bid #4008 / Reinforced Concrete Pipe
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
H. Award RFP #3117 / Certified Appraisers for
Environmental Land Acquisition
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
I. Award Bid #4006 / Pest Control Services
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
J. Award Bid #4004 / Chiller Maintenance
( memorandum dated September 2, 1993 )
K. Occupational License Taxes Collected During
Month of August, 1993
( memorandum dated September 8, 1993 )
L. Agreement - Mattie M. Parker / Temporary Water
Service
( memorandum dated September 2, 1993 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Land Acquisition Issues Raised by Carroll Palmer
( letter dated September 7, 1993 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
- Approval of Contract and Funding for Pallans
Associates to Complete a Comprehensive 800Mz
Public Safety Trunking Radio Communications
Study
( memorandum dated September 2, 1993 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
IRC Courthouse Project / Change Order No. 4
( memorandum dated August 25, 1993 )
(deferred from meeting of Sept. 7, 1993)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
D. LEISURE SERVICES
-ITT
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
L— J
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Purchase Authorization; Oslo Road / Old
Dixie R -O -W Acquisition, Phillip and Patsy
Helseth, Three Additional Parcels
( memorandum dated September 1, 1993 )
2. Additional R -O -W Purchase; 33rd St. between
58th Ave. & 66th Ave. Three Parcels: Geo.
8 Sharon Glenn, Helen Glenn, and Steven &
Frances Sherwood
(memorandum dated August 31, 1993)
3. City of Vero Beach - Airport Perimeter Rd.
Request for Traffic Impact Fees - Dist. 5
( memorandum dated September 7, 1993 )
4. C.R. 512 / Clearing Disposal
( memorandum dated September 8, 1993 )
( backup provided separately)
H. UTILITIES
Petition for Water Service in Green Acres
Estates ( 47th Ave., SW, So. off 9th St., SW /
Oslo Rd.)
( memorandum dated September 3, 1993 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
BOOK 9 F�10
SEP 14 1993
r-
SEP 1 190 "
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Request from New Horizons for Resolution in
Support of Crisis Stabilization Unit for
Treasure Coast Children
( letter dated August 30, 1993)
E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Award Bid #4010 / Fill Dirt
( memorandum dated September 2, 1993 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
BOOK 90 uGF50i -7
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.
� � r
Tuesday, September 14, 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 14,
1993, at 9:00 o'clock 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 Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Bird called the meeting to order and Administrator
Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAZEMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested that a short bargaining
caucus be held in the County Attorney's office after this meeting.
Commissioner Adams requested the addition as Item 13-C of
approval of out -of -county travel for her to attend a workshop
meeting of the St. Johns River Water Management District on Friday,
September 17, 1993.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously added the
above item to today's Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested that Items F through J be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the
Board: Report of Convictions, Month of August, 1993
L -SEP 141993 BOOK 90 FAGE502
r�EP 141993
BOOK 90 FAG F.503 -7
B. Appointment to Parks & Recreation Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/3/93:
COMMISSIONER DICK BIRD, Chairman
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RECREATION BOARD
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
SEPTEMBER, 3, 1993
Dear Commissioner Bird:
James Jenkins is the new board representative for the PROGRESSIVE
CIVIC LEAGUE OF GIFFORD. Annie Foster will be the alternate.
Please inform the board of this change.
Yours truly,
AW
Freddie Woolfork
PRESIDENT
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously appointed
James Jenkins to the Parks & Recreation Committee as
the representative from the Progressive Civic League
of Gifford and named Annie Foster as Alternate.
C. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/3/93:
TO: BOARD /OAF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
$4—a - 4� .
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: September 3, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY DIENS
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:
I. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions:
GAY
ARMAN
GOOD III
HOLZAPFEL
K
2. State Road 60 Sewer Project:
HERON CAY (Release 8 ERUs)
168 Freeport Cay
270 Longpointe Court
341 Bimini Cay Circle
386 Bimini Cay Circle
415 Bimini Cay Circle
169 Freeport Cay
220 Bimini Cay Circle
62 Darby Cay
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions as listed
in the above staff recommendation.
RELEASES OF LIENS ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
D. Release of Easement - Timothy J. Fothergill, Lots 17 and 18.
Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision Unit No. 3
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/24/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R ert M. Resting, AICP
Community Developmrant D actor
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental. Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Charles W. Heath,�,Vp.�/.
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: August 24, 1993
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
Timothy J. Fothergill
Lots 17 & 18, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision Unit No. 3
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of September 14, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has.been petitioned by Timothy J. Fothergill and Lori
Leean Fothergill, his wife, owners of the subject property for the
release of the common five (5) foot side lot utility and drainage
easements of Lots 17 & 18, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision Unit No.
3. It is the petitioners' intention to construct a swimming pool
on the combined lots.
3
SEP 141993 BOOK90 F,1 F 5J4
-7 r- BOOK, 9.9 FAG F.-Sr��
SEP x.41993
The current zoning classification of the subject property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is
L-2, allowing up to six (6) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power and Light Corporation, T.C.I. Cable Corporation, and
the Indian River County Utilities Department and the Road and
Bridge and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it
was determined that there would be no adverse impact to utilities
or drainage on the subject property by the release of the
easements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached
resolution, release the common five (5) foot side lot utility and
drainage easements, being the northerly five (5) feet of Lot 17,
and the southerly five (5) feet of Lot 18, Block B, Oslo Park
Subdivision, Unit No. 3, according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 4, Page 19 of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
and
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-152, abandoning certain easements on
Lots 17 and 18, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit
No. 3, etc.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-152
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ABANDONING
CERTAIN EASEMENTS ON LOTS 17 & 18, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK
SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 19 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below,
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no public
purposes,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
4
RESOLUTION NO. 93-152
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing
address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
Timothy John Fothergill and Lori Leean Fothergill, his wife, their
successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address
is 1455 19th Avenue S.W., Vero Beach, Florida 32962, Grantee, as
follow: .1P
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and
interest that it may have in the following described easements:
The common five (5) foot side lot utility and drainage
easements of Lots 17 & 18, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision Unit
No. 3, being the northerly five (5) feet of Lot 17, and the
southerly five (5) feet of Lot 18, according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert. , seconded by Commissioner Adams ,
and adopted on the 14
following vote:
this
day of September
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
, 1993, by the
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
14 day of September , 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
ByLcY
Richard N. Bird
Attest By
Jeffrey K. Barton. p
Clerk��,,,�
pr
5
SEP 14 1993 BOOK 90 F,1GF. 596
F"r
SEP �� 199
3 `A .
aooK 90 F 5197
E. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #024
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/8/93:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: September 8, 1993
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 024
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director 6k
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following.
1. Reallocate the distribution of Gas Tax and Fund Transfers for the
Transportation Fund.
2. Reallocate Half Cent Sales Revenue to reflect changes after
refinancing Refund and Improvement bonds
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment
024.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 024, as recommended by OMB Director
Baird:
6
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 024
DATE: September 8. 1993
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Constitutional Gas Tax
109-000-335-042.0
$0
$798,916
Cash Forward
1094000-389-040.00
$798,916
$0
REVENUE
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Constitutional Gas Tax
111-000-335-042.00
$798,916
$0
Funds Transfer In
111-000-381-020.00
$0
$798,916
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Funds Transfer Out
001-199-581-099.21
$0
$431,415
Cash Forward
001-199-581-099.92
$431,415
$0
M.S.T.U.
Funds Transfer Out
001-199-581-099.21
$0
$367,501
Cash Forward -September 30
001-199-581-099.92
$367,501
$0
2.
REVENUE
REFUND AND IMPROVEMENT
Half -Cent Sales Tax
204000-335-018.00
$0
$150,000
EXPENSE
Principal - Debt Service
204117-513-077.11
$0
$75,000
Interest - Debt Service
204117-513-077.21
$0
$75,000
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Half -Cent Sales Tax
001-000-335-018.00
$60,000
$0
EXPENSE
Cash Forward -September 30
001-199-581-099.92
$60,000
$0
REVENUE
M.S.T.U.
Half -Cent Sales Tax
004000-335-018.00
$90,000
$0
EXPENSE
Cash Forward -September 30
004199-581-099.92
$90,000
$0
7
SEP 141993
BOOK 90 FA,F 5rj8
rSEP 14 1993
BOOK 9® pml.-3 509
F. Award Bid #4003 - Limerock
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/8/93:
DATE: September 1, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #4003/Limerock
County Wide Annual Contracts
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications -Mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
August il, 1993
July 28 & August 4, 1993
Ten (10)
Three (3 )
PRICE PER TON
VENDORS
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Pick -Up
Stewart Industries
6.75
*6.60
*6.60
*3.95
Blackhawk Quarry
* 6.69
6.80
6.69
*4.45
Florida Aggregates
NB
NB
8.44
3.75
* Denotes Bid Award
Staff recommends the following:
1. Award the bid as follows:
ZONE A .... Low Bidder .... Blackhawk Quarry, Palm Bay, F1
ZONE B .... Low Bidder.... Stewart Industries, Ft. Pierce
Zone C ... Low Bidder.... Stewart Industries, Ft. Pierce
Pick -Up. .:Multiple Award to both Blackhawk Quarry and
Stewart Industries based on the formula of
$.13/mile/ton as stated in the Invitation to Bid.
2. Establish an Open End Contract with both Blackhawk
Quarry and Stewart Industries. Last year expenditures
for Limerock Base totaled $125,000.00.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost
increase, vendor acceptance, and the determination that
renewal is in the best interest of the County.
Commissioner Adams inquired about the bidding process on the
type of bids in Items F, G, H, I, and J, and Administrator Chandler
explained that these are actually annual contracts which permit us
to renew them on an annual basis if there are no changes in
conditions and performance or any increases in costs. We go back
out to bid on these items if conditions warrant it and the bid is
brought to the Board for approval.
8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #4003 as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
G. Award Bid #4008 - Reinforced Concrete Pipe
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/93:
DATE: September 1, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY - COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi s
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #4008/Reinforced Concrete Pipe
County Wide Annual Contracts
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: August 11, 1993
Advertising Dates: July 28, & August 4, 1993
Specifications Mailed to: Fourteen (14)
Replies: Three (3)
BID TABULATION UNIT PRICE
Southern Culvert SEE ATTACHED TAB
Ft. Pierce, F1 SHEET
Joelson Concrete Pipe "
Venice, F1
Hydro Conduit Corp "
Orlando, Fl
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
1. Award the bid to Southern Culvert as the low bid for
items #1 thru #17 and #20 thru #32 for reinforced
concrete pipe. Items #18 and #19 are not to be awarded
but bid on an as needed basis.
2. Establish an Open End Contract with Southern Culvert
with a not to exceed amount of $20,000.00 during the
period.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost
increase vendor acceptance, and the determination that
renewal is in the best interest of the County.
9
EP
4199 BOOK 00 F,+,E 510
r SEP 14 1993
BOOK, 9 F,r,F 5111
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #4008 to Southern Culvert as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
H. Award Bid #3117 - Certified Appraisers for Environmental Land
Acquisition
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/93:
DATE: September 1, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, CountyAdmi 'strator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director '
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell,
Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award RFP #3117/Certified Appraisers for
Enviromental Land Acquisition
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid opening Date:
August 18, 1993
Advertising Dates:
August 4, 11, 1993
Qualifications Mailed to:
Thirty five (35) Firms
Replies:
Ten (10) Firms
SUBMITTALS
Deighan Appraisal Assoc.
Port St. Lucie, F1
Real Property Analysts
Ft. Lauderdale, F1
W.H. Benson & Company
George P. Kmetz
Palm Bay, F1
Vero Beach, F1
David R. Langfitt Realtor
Carson McCurdy Integrity
Vero Veach, F1
Ft. Pierce, F1
Armfield-Wagner Appraisal
Clayton, Roper, Marshall
Vero Beach, F1
Orlando, F1
Appraisal Real Estates Service
Basile, Schieber Assoc.
Ft. Pierce, F1
Melbourne, F1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that all of
the above listed firms be
accepted and placed on the
County's master list of
appraisers.
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted
the above named firms for the County's master list
of appraisers, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
I. Award Bid #4006 - Pest Control Services
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/93:
DATE: September 1, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #4006/Pest Control Services
County Wide Annual Contracts
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
Massey Services
Port St. Lucie, F1
Spencer Pest Control
Vero Beach, F1
Absolute Pest Control
Ft. Pierce, F1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
August 25, 1993
August 12, 18, 1993
Eleven (11)
Three (3)
UNIT PRICE
SEE ATTACHED TAB
SHEET
to
if
1. Award the bid to fencer Pest Control as the overall
lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
2. Establish. an Open End Contract with Spencer Pest
Control with a not to exceed amount of $6,500.00 during
the period October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase,
vendor acceptance, and the determination that renewal is
in the best -interest of the County.
11
BOOK 0 F'" 514"
r SEP 14 193
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PURCHASING DIVISION
UNIT PRICE ANALYSIS (WITH EXTENDED TOTALS)
910 NO: 4006
PAGE/PART: 1/1
BUYER: FRAN BOYNTON
OPEN DATE: 08/25/93
OPEN TIME: 02:00p
PRINTED: 08/25/93
REQUISITION: BLDG -4-5033
ANNUAL PEST CONTROL
1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL
2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL
3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL
4 SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION
5 SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION
6 SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION
7 SHERIFFsS HANGER FOR THE
8 SHERIFF HANGER FOR THE
9 SHERIFF HANGER FOR THE
10 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX
11 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX
12 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX
13 NORTH COUNTY OFFICES FOR
14 NORTH COUNTY OFFICES FOR
15 NORTH COUNTY OFFICES FOR
16 MAIN LIBRARY FOR THE PERIOD
17 MAIN LIBRARY FOR THE PERIOD
18 MAIN LIBRARY FOR THE PERIOD
19 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
20 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
21 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
22 PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING FOR
23 PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING FOR
24 PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING FOR
25 SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE
26 SARDRiDGE GOLF COURSE
27 SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE
28 GRAND TOTAL FOR BUDGET YEAR
29 GRAND TOTAL FOR BUDGET YEAR
30 GRAND TOTAL FOR BUDGET YEAR
EST: 0.00
ITEM COMMENTS
1EQUISITION#
.ODE DEFINITIONS
ITEM# VENDOR COMMENT
Low Bid 0n Item
LT Low Total
I Different Quantity
BOOK 90 FAGS 513
a
VENDOR 1 (1335) VENDOR 2 toll) VENDOR 3 (2970)
------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
MASSEY SERVICES INC SPENCER PEST CONTROL ABSOLUTE PEST CONTROL INC
PT ST LUCIE FL 34985 VERO BEACH, FL 32961 FT PIERCE FL 34947
TERMS:
CODES: * LT LT
12 NO
200.000
240.000
120.000*
12 NO
200.000
240.000
125.000*
12 MO
200.000
240.000
130.000*
12 NO
50.000
_ 60.000
30.000*
12 MO
50.000
60.000
35.000*
12 NO
50.000
60.000
40.000*
12 NO
25.000
15.000*
20.000
12 NO
25.000
15.000*
25.000
12 NO
25.000
15.000*
30.000
12 NO
50.000
25.0001'
25.000T
12 NO
50.000
25.000*
30.000
12 MO
50.000
25.000*
35.000
12 NO
25.000
15.000*
20.000
12 NO
25.000
15.000*
25.000
12 NO
25.000
15.000*
30.000
12 NO
25.000
30.000
20.000*
12 NO
25.000T
30.000
25.000T
12 NO
25.000*
30.000
30.000
12 NO
240.000
60.000*
210.000
12 NO
240.000
60.000*
220.000
12 NO
240.000
60.000*
230.000
12 NO
90.000
65.000*
70.000
12 NO
90.000
65.000*
80.000
12 NO
90.000
65.000*
90.000
12 NO
65.000'
30.000*
45.000
12 NO
65.000
30.000*
50.000
12 MO
65.000
30.000*
55.000
1
795.000 0
540.000* Q
560.000 0
1
795.000 0
540.000* 0
615.000 0
1
795.000 0
540.000* Q
670.000 0
BID TOTAL 56340.00
12
38880.00 LT
44280.00
i
Commissioner Adams questioned the $38,880 bid from Spencer.
She pointed out that staff's memo states that the not to exceed
annual amount is $6,500 for three years, and when she multiplied 3
x $6500, she was uncomfortable with the spread difference between
$38,880 and $19,500.
General Services Director Sonny Dean explained that the $6,500
is for the buildings listed for the next fiscal year from October,
1993 to September, 1994. We allow ourselves some room in there so
that if we have a new building or a new service, we have the
ability to add on. The Courthouse will be coming on line for part
of next fiscal year.
Commissioner Adams felt the not to exceed annual amount of
$6,500 is misleading since the actual not to exceed amount is
$38,800 over the 3 -year period.
Director Dean explained that if you multiply the monthly total
of $540 to service the buildings that are listed by 12, it comes to
$6,480, which is $19,440 for three years.
Administrator Chandler interjected that the difference between
$19,440 and $38,880 is if other buildings come on line. What this
does is set our unit prices for the buildings. The buildings
listed here will be serviced for $6,480 per year. If we have any
increases, it will not exceed the $38,880.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #4006 to Spencer Pest Control, as recommended by
staff.
J. Award Bid #4004 - Chiller Maintenance
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/93:
DATE: September 2, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director .0
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid 04004/Chiller Maintenance.
Buildings and Grounds
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: August 27, 1993
Advertising Dates: August 11, 18, 1993
Specifications Mailed to: Fourteen (14) Vendors
Replies: Three (3)
13
q�
BOOK 90 F -,v F 511
r--SFP 1.4 1993
BOOK 90 PnE 515 7
BID TABULATION UNIT PRICE (Yearly)
Irvine Mechanical $5998.00
Orlando, FL
Carrier Corporation $6,924.00
Orlando, FL
Southeastern Chiller $7,484.00
Winter Park, FL
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Irvine
Mechanical as the lowest, most responsible bidder
meeting specifications.
2. Establish an Open End Contract with Irvine Mechanical
with a not to exceed amount of $ 5,998.00 during— the
period.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost
increase, vendor acceptance, and the determination that
renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #4004 to Irvine Mechanical, as recommended by
staff.
K. Occupational License Taxes Collected During Month of
August, 1993
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/8/93:
NWRARD@S
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: September 8, 1993
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $66,993.75 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of August, representing the issuance of
2,651 licenses.
14
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted
the Occupational License Tax report for the month of
August, 1993.
L. Temporary Water Service Agreement - Mattie M. Parker
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/93:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR UT ITY VICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: H. D. "D " OSTER, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
MATTIE M. PARKER
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
BACKGROUND:
Mattie M. Parker has requested that temporary service be installed
from the water line on 11th Avenue, SW, to service her property at
1066 8th Street, SW, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, prior to the
installation of a water main adjacent to her property.
ANALYSIS:
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary water service to
Mattie M. Parker until such time as a water line is constructed on
her street by assessment. She agrees to pay all fees required to
make this connection. She further agrees to participate in the
assessment .and to reconnect to this water line if required by
IRCDUS.
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mattie M.
Parker on the Consent Agenda.
04.7
900K �0 F'AGc ���
L_SEP �.4 �99� '`
r SEP 141993
BOOK 90 PAE 517 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Agreement with Mattie M. Parker, as recommended
by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - LAND ACQUISITION ISSUES RAISED BY CARROLL
PALMER
The Board reviewed the following letter
dated 9/7/93:
mlTAXPAYERS'
ASSOCIATION
AEST. 1967
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. P.O. Box 1751• Vero Beach,FL32961-1751
WLYTO:
6789 �0
1�5
SW 20TH Place
J
Vero Beach, FL 32960
September 7, 1993 ., SEP 1993
45678, ;^
cm
Board of County Commissioners N RECEIVED
COM
BOARD COUNTY
S
o EA 1993
Indian River County � COMMISSIONERS ��'
�Q%11NIS
1840 25th Street mac' ���
Vero Beach, Florida 32860 `9�s2�Z�zZZ��p,L�
�=
�' I1 t0
OFf j ��
'
Re: September 14,1993 Commission Meeting Agenda
Matters From The Public
Dear County Commissioners:
I have requested a position on the September 14th agenda under the Matters From
The Public portion to discuss the possibility of passage of two resolutions pertinent to
acquisition of environmentally significant lands with funds obtained by issuance of general
obligation bonds pursuant to the November 3, 1992 referendum.
As back-up material to alert you to what I wish to present for your consideration, I
have drafted two sample resolutions that indicate what it is I want to discuss with you, i.e., (1)
a resolution putting a $26 million dollar cap on purchase money and (2) a resolution requiring
a supermajority vote for approval of all land purchases purusant to the referendum.
The wording of the attached resolutions is only suggestive of what formal resolutions
would contain, but it does concisely set forth the points that I wish to make during my
appearance on the agenda.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter which the Board of Directors of
our association believes to be of urgent concern to the county taxpayers because of the
possibility much more than $25 million dollars the voters thought was to be a cap may be
spent as a result of.the referendum.
Very trul yours,
Carroll F. Palmer, President
860 20th Place, Vero Beach, FL 32960
16
a - �
Carroll Palmer, president of the Taxpayers' Association, first
wished to point out that staff's memo should have referred to their
letter of August 16, 1993 rather than to a "recent" letter.
M7TAXPAYERS'
ASSOCIATION
1A,
in im
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. P.O. Box 1751 • Vero saw*. FL 32s61 -175f
REPLYTO:
88020THPlaw
Vue BOWN FL 32880
August 16, 1993
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street •
Vero Beach, Florida 32860
Re: Oslo Riverfront Property and Subsequently Purchased Lands
Dear County Commissioners:
It should be apparent to you from your copies of correspondence I have had with
David Roach of FIND and county attorney Charles Vitunac that the IRC Taxpayers
Association is very concerned about long term tau consequences of the proposed
development for recreational purposes of the Oslo Riverfront Property (ORP) and of other
properties that may be purchased as a result of the recent $26 million bond referendum.
We are also concerned that the money spent on land acq=ftions as a result of that
referendum could substantially exceed the $26 million CAP by addition of matching funds.
REQUESTED ACTIONS
1. Make sure that the County's Land Acquisition Guide requires that a realistic
projection of annual maintenance costs be completed and made a part of the management
plan required by such Guide before any future purchase of lands with money from the $26
million bond project ($26P) can be approved If not, change such Guide accordingly.
2. Pass a resolution that any matching funds obtained from thirdpparties for
assistance in purchase of lands with money from the $26P be subtracted from the $26 million
so that land purchased thereunder will be wed at $26 million and not be expanded to some
larger figure by addition of matching funds.
SUPPORTIVE REMARKS
Although the proposal for the development of the ORP as detailed in the FIND grant
application dated April 28, 1993 has been supported by your resolution No. 93-83, it appears
to us that you have not realistically addressed the long term tax consequences for
maintenance costs of this proposed development. Clearly the annual maintenance figure of
$1600 per year stated on page 12 of Appendix A to the FIND grant application is completely
untenable. It further appears to us that you are relying too heavily in your decisions in this
matter on the staff of the Planning &DevelopmentOAion.
The staff of the Planning & Development Division is using misguided judgement in
addressing development of the ORP and possible development of subsequent lands
purchased via the $26P. This is shown by the following statement of R. DeBlois in his letter
of July 7, 1993 to David Roach of FIND:
17
SEP 14 1993
BOOK 90 PAGF 518
QFP i 4 1QQ3
County Comissioners
August 16,1993
Page - 2 -
U.5,19
BOOK 90 P.M.;
The Intergovernmental Management Agreement between the St. Johns
River Water Management District and Indian River Count,, executed in 1991
when the properly was publicly acquired includes the following language relating
to acquisition purpose:
'"The County acquired an undivided one-half interest in the
Property for the purposes of providing environmental protection
and public recreation."
Therefore, the County made the commitment in 1991 to develop public
access on the subject property, albeit passive recreational fa iades compatible with
resource conservation, and is obligated to carry out this commitment.
In a letter to the County Attorney of July 22, 1993, I asked Mr. Vitunac if such legal
commitment by the County existed and in his letter of August 2,1993, he answered that m his
opinion:
... the county is not under any legal obligation to develop the Oslo Road Property
for public recreation, ...
It is clear that staff of the Planning & Development Division has a misunderstandin
of County obligations in dealing with the ORP and future matters concerning e 32611-7
Consequently, you in turn may be misinformed in acting in this matter by heavy reliance upon
such staff.
There is further evidence of a "mandate mentality" affecting the thinking of staff of the
Planning & Development Division in considering development of lands purchased by the
County in the following additional statement in the DeBlois letter. -
Moreover, although the County is not mandated to develop recreation
facilities on every property it acquires, the County does have mandates in its
Comprehensive Plan to provide resource-based recreadonal oppomtnid a to the
public.
The County Attorney in his letter again opines that no such mandates exist. It is
surprising to us that Mr. DeBlois did not consult with Mr. Vitunac about the existence of legal
binding mandates before sending his July 7th letter to FIND. In any event, it appears to us
that the understandings of staff of the Planning & Development Division need correction for
making future judgements about development plans for County acquired lands.
Concerning the second request above, it is our position that in getting the voters to
favorably act on the $26 million bond issue, the voters were given to understand thatCHAP of
that amount would apply as to the value of land to be removed from the tax rolls. owH -eve
now matching funds have entered the picture. If 50% matching funds were to be obtained for
all lands purchased under the $26P, the ultimate value of land removed from the tax rolls
could equal $52 million. Further, maintenance costs for acquired lands will be increased
creating a "double whammy" for the taxpayers. We submit, this is not what taxpayers voted
on.
We support the concept of seeking matching funds in this land acquisition project, not
as add-ons to total available funds, but as means to reduce the tax burden on IRC taxpayers.
Thus, we submit that every dollar of matching funds should be subtracted from the $26
million so that this remains the CAP for the project, which is what the voters thought they
18
County Comissioners
August 16, 1993
Page - 3 -
W
were voting on, not some higher amount leveraged by matching funds that can remove more
than $26 million of property from the tau rolls and also increase land maintenance costs.
Please give our requests careful consideration.
Very truly yours,
Carroll F. Palmer 10A41
i
c: County Attorney
Planning and Development Division
Press Journal
The Board reviewed the following staff recommendation of
9//93:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPA`'-A�/j�
'
Community Development Director
DATE: September 8, 1993
SUBJECT: LAND ACQUISITION ISSUES
RAISED BY CARROLL PALMER
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of September 141 1993.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Recently, the Board of County Commissioners received a letter from
Carroll Palmer, President of the Indian River County Taxpayers
Association, regarding the County's environmentally significant
land acquisition program in general and the Oslo Riverfront
Property acquisition in particular. This is at least the fifth
letter that Mr. Palmer has written regarding the Oslo Riverfront
Property.
Because of Mr. Palmer's continuing correspondence, it is staff's
position that the Board should address Mr. Palmer's concerns. Not
only does Mr. Palmer request that the Board take certain actions;
he also draws -certain conclusions with which staff disagrees.
19
L_ 900K 9Q FAIG 5?0
SEP 141993
SFP 14 1993
• Backaround
BOOK 90
In 1991, Indian River County and the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD) jointly acquired a +300 acre parcel,
known as the Oslo Riverfront property. As part of an
intergovernmental management agreement between the two parties,
SJRWMD agreed to manage the wetlands portion of the property, while
Indian River County was given the right to use the property for
public recreation purposes. With execution of that agreement,
Indian River County also committed to prepare a management plan
for the property.
In the Fall of 1992, County planning staff coordinated with
representatives from the Indian River County Mosquito Control
District and the Florida Entomology Lab to prepare a management
plan for the Oslo Riverfront property that would meet the
requirements of the SJRWMD/IRC agreement as well as serve as a
basis for a -Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) grant
application. Staff's objectives in preparing the management plan
were to provide limited public recreation and access opportunities
consistent with protection of the environmental resources of the
site.
Subsequently, County staff, Mosquito Control staff and Entomology
Lab representatives prepared a two phase $66,325 FIND grant
application for the Oslo property. Not only did the application
request funds for public access related improvements, but it also
included an educational component. The Board of County
Commissioners then approved staff's request to submit the
application.
It should be noted that the Oslo Riverfront Property acquisition
occurred prior to approval of the $26 million environmental land
acquisition bond referendum. The acquisition also occurred
outside of the LAAC process, because the SJRWMD/IRC acquisition had
been initiated prior to Board approval of the LAAC guide.
• Taxpayers Association Concerns
The attached letters from Mr. Palmer detail the Taxpayers
Association's concern regarding the County's environmentally
significant land acquisition process. Those letters from county
staff reflect staff's position.
Basically, Mr. Palmer's position seems to be that the County should
use property acquired with environmentally significant land
acquisition bond funds only for conservation purposes. This is
reflected in the text of his June 18, 1993 letter to David Roach
of FIND. Consistent with that position, Mr. Palmer has indicated
that the County should not expend funds to provide for public
access to acquired properties. He also recommended that FIND not
approve the County's grant application.
Besides his conservation -only position, Mr. Palmer in his
correspondence addressed and took issue with various county staff
positions, ranging from maintenance cost estimates to comprehensive
plan requirements. In his latest letter, however, Mr. Palmer
requested that two actions be taken by the Board of County
Commissioners. These are:
• to make sure that the Land Acquisition Guide requires a
realistic projection of annual maintenance costs for future
land purchases; and
to cap total environmentally significant land purchases at $26
million, including both bond funds and cost share funds.
Because these
directed his
Commissioners,
issues.
ANALYSIS:
are major policy issues and because Mr. Palmer
latest correspondence to the -Board of County
it is appropriate that the Board address these
Of the two issues raised by Mr. Palmer, maintenance cost is the
more involved. This issue transcends the simple request of
providing accurate and realistic annual maintenance cost
projections; it indirectly raises the question of how much public
access and recreation opportunity should be provided for those
environmentally significant lands that are acquired by the County.
Since the spending cap issue is more straightforward, it will be
discussed first.
• Spending Cap
In his latest letter, Mr. Palmer requests that the Board of County
Commissioners pass a resolution capping the amount of money spent
on environmentally significant land acquisition to $26 million,
including contributions from regional, state, and "federal cost
shares as well as contributions from any source other than the
proceeds of the County's $26 million bond referendum. As
justification for his recommendation, Mr. Palmer focusses on three
points. First, he contends that, if the entire $26 million bond
referendum.amount were matched on a dollar for dollar basis, that
would remove $52 million from the tax rolls. Second, Mr. Palmer
notes that increasing the amount of land acquired will increase
annual maintenance costs. Finally, Mr. Palmer suggests that
leveraging the $26 million is not what the taxpayers voted for.
Staff's position is that Mr. Palmer is incorrect. With respect to
what the taxpayers voted for, the ballot language addressed only
the question of whether the County could issue $26 million in bonds
for environmentally significant land acquisition; it did not
reference any limitations on total funds to be spent for land
acquisition. In fact, the brochure which the County sent to all
voter households specifically noted that "state and federal
matching funds to increase the total sum available" would be
pursued.
With respect to the charge that total maintenance costs will
increase if more land is acquired, staff agrees. That cost,
however, can be expected to be minimal. Maintenance costs will be
discussed in reference to Mr. Palmer's other point.
It appears that Mr. Palmer's major objective in advocating the cap
is to reduce the loss of ad valorem tax revenue. While that is a
valid concern, Mr. Palmer's premise appears to be incorrect.
Because assessed values for undeveloped land are low, the purchase
of land for $52 million will not remove $52 million from the tax
rolls.
For example, the Lost Tree Islands which are on the County's
acquisition list are assessed at approximately $1,133,000. The
general consensus, however, is that this property has a fair market
value of, and will be appraised at, four or five times that amount.
Similarly, the 28 acre Prang Island site is assessed at
approximately ;123,000, but may be appraised at six or eight times
that amount. These examples illustrate that bond program
acquisitions will probably remove far less assessable value from
the tax rolls than will be paid for the property.
21
L_ BOOK 0 PAGE 599SSP :� 4 1993
r SEP x.41993
• Maintenance Costs
-7 BOOK
3n F,,r,F 523
Besides the spending cap issue, Mr. Palmer also raised the issue of
the on-going cost of maintaining those properties that are
acquired. Mr. Palmer's specific request is that the Board require
that a realistic projection of annual maintenance cost be done and
made a part of the management plan for each property to be
purchased. Not only is this a good idea; it is already
incorporated within the Land Acquisition Guide. On page 33 of the
Guide, it indicates that "Long term management and maintenance
costs will be considered in this phase, including a general
assessment of annual maintenance cost funding..."
Up to this point, the only management plan prepared by staff has
been the plan prepared for the Oslo Riverfront Property. It
appears that Mr. Palmer's management cost comments evolved from his
comments on the Oslo Riverfront Property. In that case, Mr.
Palmer took issue with staff's estimate of maintenance costs for
the site.
As structured, the Oslo Riverfront Property management plan
includes minimal public access - type improvements. Among these
are a parking lot, restrooms, walking paths, boardwalks, an
observation tower, and a dock/pier. These improvements are to be
funded through a FIND grant.
In developing its maintenance cost estimates, staff made certain
assumptions. These included: volunteer assistance from the staff
of the adjacent Florida Entomology Lab; no on-site staff; and no
maintenance intensive landscaping. Staff also identified a non -ad
valorem tax source of maintenance funds. These are the County's
upland preservation mitigation fund and the tree fine fund.
While staff's annual maintenance cost estimate for the Oslo
Property may be low, staff feels that Mr. Palmer's contention (June
15, 1993 letter to David Roach) that those costs will exceed
$50,000 per year is high.
More important, however, is Mr. Palmer's position that
environmentally significant properties acquired by the County be
used for conservation - only purposes. Not only is that
inconsistent with the intent reflected in the County's Land
Acquisition Guide, but also inconsistent with policies in its
comprehensive plan. Both of these documents recognize that public
access is important for land acquired by the County.
Public access to County acquired environmentally significant land
is a policy decision of the Board of County Commissioners. In its
comprehensive plan, the County's foremost policy document, the
Board has addressed public access and resource-based recreation.
As reflected in Conservation Element Objective 8 and Policy 8.1,
and in Recreation and Open Space Element Objectives 5 and 8 and
Policies 5.2, 5.4, and 8.1, the County has established a policy to
provide more public access and resource-based recreation.
Besides those considerations, it is important to note that some of
__-the land acquisition cost share opportunities available to the
County depend upon the provision of public access. The Florida
Communities Trust (FCT) program is one example. With FCT
applications, it is necessary to relate the proposed purchase to
enhancement of public access and recreation opportunities.
Otherwise, an application will not receive sufficient points to be
funded through this highly competitive program.
22
CONCLUSION
In his letters, Mr. Palmer makes a number of valid and important
points. With respect to maintenance costs, staff shares his
concerns regarding minimizing expenditures. Accordingly, staff is
developing low,maintenance cost management plans with improvements
to be funded through grant programs, with work to be done by
volunteers, and with other costs to be funded through non -ad
valorem revenue sources.
Based upon the comprehensive plan's public access policies and the
objective of allowing limited public access to publicly acquired
lands, staff disagrees with Mr. Palmer's conservation - only
approach to land acquisition. In the past, the Board's policy has
been to increase public access and resource-based recreation
opportunities, when those activities do not conflict with
environmental protection o0jectives. Staff feels that this policy
should be maintained.
In reference to Mr. Palmer's proposed spending cap, staff feels
that this is not warranted. It is staff's position that bond funds
should be leveraged with regional, state, and federal grant monies
to increase the amount of environmentally important land to be
protected..
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners concur with
Mr. Palmer and direct staff to prepare realistic annual
maintenance cost projections in conjunction with the development of
management plans for lands acquired with County bond program funds.
Staff also recommends that the Board retain its policy of providing
limited public access to acquired properties. Finally, staff
recommends that the Board not agree to cap expenditures for land
acquisition at $26 million, the amount of the County's bond
referendum.
Mr. Palmer advised that the purpose for coming before the
Board today is to request that the Board set the spending cap for
the County's land acquisition purchases at $26 million, bottom
line. They believe that most voters didn't anticipate that more
than $26 million would be spent, even though the extra funding
would be coming from state grants and not county money. Further,
taking additional tracts of land off the tax rolls would add even
more to the taxpayers' burden. Mr. Palmer acknowledged that the
brochures prepared by the County before the referendum stated that
23
SEP 141993 BOOK U0 F-�,F 5?4
r SEP 141993
BOOK 90 F-,* 5?5
grants and matching funds also would be sought, but he contended
that County officials did not mention this often enough in meetings
held before the referendum.
Commissioner Eggert believed that was put forth in many, many
conversations.
Continuing, Mr. Palmer expressed the Taxpayers' Association's
objection to allowing recreation on the acquired lands. He
wondered why plans for the riverfront property off of Oslo Road
would include a dock, observation platform and a boardwalk when the
purpose of the land acquisition plan was to keep the lands in a
pristine state and when we already have a recreation budget that is
way out of sight.
Mr. Palmer questioned why there have not been any official
appraisals on either of these two sites as of this date. He
pointed out that what the County is going to pay for these
properties as opposed to what the County Property Appraiser says is
a fair market value for the property is called an admission against
interest in legal terms. It seemed to him that this does some
damage in the negotiation with these property owners as far as the
ultimate value of this property.
Mr. Palmer presented the Taxpayers' Association's request for
the Board to adopt two resolutions which they have prepared -- one
putting a $26 million cap on purchase money and another requiring
a supermajority vote for approval of all land purchases pursuant to
the referendum. He urged the Board not to put this on hold today
but make some decision one way or another.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there are three occasions under
State law when a supermajority vote is required: 1) When an
emergency ordinance is considered; 2) When the appraised value is
exceeded in --an acquisition; and 3) The expenditure of tourist
taxes. Anything else would be a self-imposed restriction which
would not be binding on the Commission and one which could be
changed by future Commissions with equal ease.
Mr. Palmer asked that the Board impose the restriction if it
can be done with equal ease and send a signal to the taxpayers in
this county that the Board intends to consider all of these
acquisitions in a hard-nosed manner.
Commissioner Eggert noted that as the temporary chairman of
the Land Acquisition Committee when they were preparing for the
referendum, she remembered that the discussion was that no more
than $26 million could be bonded out. However, it was hoped it
wouldn't reach that amount. She also remembered that they always
talked about pursuing conservation easements and matching funds
24
with the understanding that there would be some passive recreation
on some of these lands.
Commissioner Tippin shared the concern about the amount of
public lands coming off the tax rolls, but he wasn't sure that we
should be against all grants or matching funds.
Commissioner Macht felt that Mr. Palmer makes a very valid
point, but he didn't want to be in a position of knowing what the
public had in mind when they voted for the $26 million. The Board
can only refer to the question that was on the ballot. He felt the
only mandate we have is the mandate of the Comprehensive Plan for
requiring environmentally sensitive land, and we can do that with
any amount of easements, grants, etc. With regard to passive
recreation use, he felt as a citizen that he would be very miffed
to find keep off signs on property bought with public money.
Commissioner Macht didn't think that capping the $26 million was
necessary since the Board can decide at anytime that sufficient
environmentally sensitive lands have been acquired.
Mr. Palmer repeated that the public believed that the cap
would be $26 -million and didn't realize that amount could double to
$52 -million by obtaining matching grants and conservation
easements, etc. He emphasized that the Commission has it in its
power today to take some of the burden off the backs of the
taxpayers of this county.
Commissioner Adams didn't feel any of us can second guess what
the taxpayers had in mind when they voted. She disagreed with Mr.
Palmer on this particular issue as she felt it would be a
dereliction of responsibility not to pursue grants and extend our
purchasing power. All of us pay for these grants and we need our
fair share. She felt it would be ridiculous for us to sit here and
watch them go to Brevard, Palm Beach or Volusia County without
making a fight to bring some -of the bacon back home.
Commissioner Adams emphasized that one of the overriding
factors of why we are buying these environmentally sensitive lands
is to conserve and protect our water resources. At this point in
time we are polluting all our water resources, and if we don't
begin to become much more environmentally sensitive and take
precautions to protect our water supply, we will exhaust our own
species.
Commissioner Adams did agree with Mr. Palmer's point about the
County paying so high a price for property assessed so low. She
felt that is the'type of thing that raises the question of whether
we are really serious or whether we are trying to sneak something
by somebody. She wasn't sure whether this had been totally
addressed, but it definitely raised a red flag to her.
25
BOOK 5:2, 6
419
L_SEP 3
r -
UP X41993
BOOK 90 PvU 527
Commissioner Adams believed that has been the trouble with
government's argument that it's not what the property's value is,
it's what its value is to us, and she felt that maybe we need to
look at that in some way. She was not sure that a supermajority
vote was the answer because the Board has had some 3-2 votes. She
felt that to allow passive recreation is a very simple way to give
public access and to educate people on conservation. Commissioner
Adams believed we have a responsibility to make these lands
accessible to the public whenever possible.
Mr. Palmer also wished to discuss the cost of the maintenance
plans for these lands. He urged the Board to make sure that the
County's Land Acquisition Guide requires that a realistic
projection of annual maintenance costs be completed and made a part
of the management plan before any further lands are purchased with
the money from the $26 million bond project.
Bill Koolage of Vista Gardens noted that he sat through the
meetings when it was decided to go to referendum on the acquisition
of environmentally sensitive lands. He urged the Board to consider
all of the citizens of this county, not just the few avid groups
who advocate the protection of such things as beach mice, etc., and
spend the taxpayers' dollars in a frugal manner when it is in the
best interest of this county. He didn't think the Commission
always does that and that they only get called to task in a
situation like this when somebody says they are watching. Mr.
Koolage emphasized that he and the taxpayers are looking for the
biggest bang for the buck, and he encouraged the Board to put the
$26 -million cap on the total expenditures which would include the
matching grants.
Harold Putnam, local attorney, advised that he was a member of
the Finance Advisory Committee when this issue was initiated and
had recommended the purchase of the Oslo Road tract about 12 years
ago. He agreed with Commissioners Macht, Adams and Eggert about
pursuing matching grants, etc., and pointed out that the wording on
the ballot was very carefully worked out and presented to the
taxpayers. It said that the County is not to bond more than $26
million, that the County has 15 years to use the bond money, and
that any land acquired must be for three purposes - open space,
wildlife protection and water quality. He believed that the
taxpayers would have good grounds to object to the purchase of any
parcel that did not meet one of these three objectives.
Mr. Putnam didn't agree with Commissioner Macht's statement
about not having the right to keep the public off of lands
purchased with public funds. There might be good reasons for
keeping the public off of the Oslo riverfront property, for
26
M M
example, and not spending money for recreation as the Taxpayers'
Association recommends. He felt the priorities for purchasing the
Oslo property were to protect the Indian River Lagoon, protect the
water table, to generate marine life, and to keep mosquitos down.
Mr. Putnam believed a good case could be made that these four very
different purposes are better served by keeping the public out.
Mr. Putnam emphasized that the public has spoken and none of
us has the right to alter the effect after the vote. From the very
beginning, it was suggested that other bodies, both private and
public, might contribute to certain purchases and it would be
highly improper to change the vote of this Commission on any
acquisition question. If a member of the Commission had to file a
conflict of interest, it is possible that there could be a 2-2
vote, which would make it impossible for the County to move ahead
in a constructive way. In conclusion, Mr. Putnam stressed that
future generations would be much better served if we proceed in the
way that was authorized by the bond issue.
Rob Walsh, Sunset Drive, remarked on the high amount budgeted
for Parks & Recreation and asked how many acres the County has in
parks.
Chairman Bird estimated that 900-1000 acres were being used
for recreation, including the golf courses.
Mr. Walsh felt that golf courses were another matter. He
understood that the County has 450 acres in 19 parks, that Vero
Beach has 110 acres in 16 parks and that Sebastian and Fellsmere
have 11 and 4 parks, respectively, for a total of 50 parks and 1000
acres without golf courses. He maintained that the ratio of people
using the parks to the amount of acres available is too high. He
opposed the use of many of these environmentally sensitive lands
for recreation when the intent of the people was to have them saved
in pristine condition. He challenged the Board to put a moratorium
on any recreational improvements to these lands until a survey is
made of the taxpayers to see who is using what facilities. Mr.
Walsh urged the Board to strongly keep in mind that the only
endangered species here is the taxpayer.
Chairman Bird really believed that the majority of the
taxpayers in the referendum understood that we were going to spend
the $26 million along with some matching grants. He also believed
that people realized that whenever possible these lands were to be
made available to the public for passive recreation. He felt we
are proceeding with that intent and that we should continue in that
direction.
Commissioner Eggert felt the statements made today are well
taken and need to be considered at all times.
P/
L_SEP 14 IM BOOK 90 FAE5 28
r
SEP 141993
BOOK 90 F-ru% 5?9 7
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that the Board not act on the
two resolutions presented today and keep -things as
they are.
Commissioner Adams noted that staff has recommended that we
concur with Mr. Palmer and direct staff to prepare realistic annual
maintenance cost projections in conjunction with the development of
these lands. She understood that we are required to do this under
the Land Acquisition Guide, but wondered if staff wanted additional
direction.
Director Keating confirmed that we do have that requirement.
He offered to address some of the items that were brought up today,
particularly the maintenance costs, but Chairman Bird preferred not
to get into a debate at this point.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
COMPREHENSIVE 800Mz PUBLIC SAFETY TRUNKING RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
STUDY - PALLANS ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/93:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
T ,1OUGS: Jim Chandlertr, Cpunty Administrator
FROM: Doug WrighI Director
Emergency Services
DATE: September 2, 1993
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract and Funding for Pallans Associates to
Complete a Comprehensive 800Mz Public Safety Trunking Radio
Communications Study
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 8, 1993, -the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff
to issue an RFP for the purpose of selecting a consultant to complete
a comprehensive 80OMHz Public Safety Trunking Radio study. The
Purchasing Department advertised RFP 3113 on June 30 and July 7,
1993. The RFP was sent to sixteen (16) firms and five responded with
proposals which were opened on July 21, 1993.
28
M M' M
A selection committee was designated on July 26, 1993, and approved
by County Administrator Jim Chandler. The five firms were
interviewed on August 6, 1993, and at the conclusion of the
presentations, the committee ranked Pallans Associates as number one.
On August 17, 1993, the Board authorized staff to proceed with
negotiations for a contract with Pallans Associates.
Negotiations have been completed and a proposed contract is now
before the Board for consideration. The original price quoted by
Pallans Associates in the RFP was $5,655.00, plus reimbursables, to
complete Phase I and II of the scope of work. Rather than have a
contract that is somewhat open ended and the fact that considerable
time will have to be spent in the county working on this project,
staff opted for a not -to -exceed price to complete the two phases
noted. The contract price proposed to the Board is a cost not to
exceed $6,000 for the two phases, with the study to be completed
within 100 days.
Pallans Associates will not be entitled to receive reimbursement in
the form of mileage, lodging, meals, administrative expenses, or any
other costs that exceed $6,000.00. Funding for the project will be
from existing funds of the fire and EMS budgets. No additional
funding is being sought from the Board for the communications study.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
References have been checked on Pallans and Associates with very
favorable remarks. It should be noted that he is- a full time
employee of Dade County as Communications Projects Manager. He has
conveyed to staff that he has and will have ample time to complete
the study and no conflict will occur since he will be on leave during
his work in this county.
Pallans is a communications engineer with a substantial history of
experience in the communications field. His references were totally
favorable and he has demonstrated an ability to deliver his
consulting projects on time and within budget. He is also a
frequency coordinator for APCO and is managinga $50 million dollar
communications project for Dade County.
Staff recommends the Board approve the contract for $6,000 with
Pallans Associates and authorize the Chairman to execute the
necessary documents.
Commissioner Macht questioned whether it would be good
practice to hire an employee from another government entity, and
Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no problem in our procedures
in hiring him if it is in the best interest of our county. It may
be that it is not in the best interest of Dade County to have him
do the study, but that is their problem.
29
a W
BOOK 90 F -Au.
RFP i d 9Qo�
BOOK 90 Pa;F 531
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright stated that in his
opinion Pallans Associates is well qualified to do the job and has
quoted a reasonable price.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Pallans Associates in the amount
of $6,000.00, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
COURTHOUSE - CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 - JAMES A. CUMMINGS INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/25/93:
DATE: AUGUST 25, 1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 #1. 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
The new contract price will be $11,206,084.77.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
$80,713.35
Staff recommends approval of Change Order Number 4 as submitted and
requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the applicable
documents.
30
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 4 with James A. Cummings, Inc. in
the amount of $80,713.35, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - OSLO ROAD/OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY -
THREE PARCELS (HELSETH)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/1/93:
TO: .James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
and
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
^�,�Capital Projects Manage
FROM: -D" 7 hald G. Finney, SRA
County Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization; Oslo Road/Old Dixie
Right -of -Way Acquisition, Phillip and Patsy
Helseth, Three Additional Parcels
DATE: September 1, 1993 FILE: helseth.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The county plans.to widen and signalize the intersection of Oslo
Road and Old Dixie Highway. Additional right-of-way is needed from
twelve parcels owned by one of the original families that settled
in Vero Beach. The county previously settled and closed on six of
the parcels owned by the Helseth's at $1.50 per square foot for the
CH zoned parcels.
The property owners have executed three contracts, for the RS6
zoned parcels, which the owners counter -offered above the appraised
value. The owners have based their counter-offer on the previously
closed interior parcels to IRC at $1.50 per square foot.
The county also closed on two parcels owned by the Brookers at
$1.50 and $3.00 per square foot, zoned CG. The county purchased
Oslo Road property from Safari Putting Golf in 1990 (before their
development) at $1.30 SF. There is the possibility in the future
that the subject properties could be rezoned for commercial use.
31
SEP x.41993 aoaK 90 FarF�:3�
L2
r SEP 141993
BOOK 9O U F 533
Following is an overview of each of the contracts:
IRC Offer to Purchase at Attorney & Signed Counter -
Parcel Oct. 91 Appraised Value Recording Fee Offer Contract Amount
101 $ 11075.00 $.50SF $350.00 $3,573.50 $1.50SF
102 $ 1,588.00, $.58SF $350.00 $4,455.50 $1.50SF
119 $ 300.00 $.50SF $250.00 $1,148.50 $1.50SF
*includes Attorney's Fees & Recording Fees $9,177.50*
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff has discussed Eminent Domain proceedings with the County
Attorney's office. The final cost of condemnation to acquire the
three parcels- would be far in excess of the contracts purchase
price.
Staff requests the Board accept the three contracts which including
Attorney's fees and Recording fees total $9,177.50 and direct the
Chairman to execute the three contracts on the Board's behalf.
Funding is available in Traffic Impact Fee District 6 - Account No.
101-156-541-067.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of three additional parcels from
Phillip and Patsy Helseth in the amount of
$9,177.50, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - 33RD STREET BET. 58TH AVE. &
66TH AVE. - THREE PARCELS (GLENN)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/31/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
TEMUGM: James W. Davis, P.E. M
Public Works Directo
and ♦�
Roger D. Cain, P.
County Engineer
04
7WX:7 riald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase; 33rd Street between
58th Avenue and 66th Avenue. Three Parcels: George &
Sharon Glenn, Helen Glenn, and Steven-& Frances Sherwood
DATE: August 31, 1993
32
L— I
M
Indian River County needs an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for
the petition -paving project on 33rd Street. The Board of County
Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-of-way
along this corridor on January 21, 1992. These are the last three
parcels to be acquired.
The owners have each executed a Contract For Sale And Purchase near
the appraised value without cash compensation at this time - but
with no petition paving assessment after the road is constructed.
The County Attorney has reviewed each contract with no objection to
the contract language.
Additionally, each contract contains stipulations to relocate trees
and guarantee their survivability for one year, and pay for six
other trees at a total cost not to exceed $600.00 if the trees have
to be removed from the additional right-of-way.
The county is to obtain title insurance and correct any defect of
title at the county's expense, which is a condition on all three
contracts.
The following is the appraised value and assessment cost for each
parcel:
George & Sharon Glenn
Helen Glenn
Steven & Frances Sherwood
June, 1991
AMraiised Value
$1,080.00
$1,350.00
$1.983.56
Right-of-way Total value = $4,413.56
Assessment Total and Contract Amount o
Assessment
$ 324.49
$6,860.69
$ 440.38
$7,625.56
Staff has discussed Eminent Domain proceedings with the County
Attorney's office. The final cost of condemnation to acquire the
three parcels would be far in excess of the contracts. Staff
requests the Board accept the three contracts, approve the $750
attorney fee and direct the Chairman to execute the contracts on
the Board's behalf.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that some of the
difference in the values is due to Helen Glenn having more acreage
than her children.
Commissioner Eggert asked why the 1991 appraisal is lower, and
Director Davis explained that the appraised value is based on
approximately $.50 per square foot for the property. The Glenn
family had a larger tract at one time and it was split off with
parcels going to the daughter and son. The family is united in
wanting to deed all of the right-of-way to the County in exchange
for a waiver of any future paving assessments.
33
BOOK 9.0 PArc 534
r UP 141993
BOOK 90 PAF 5,35 7
Commissioner Adams asked if staff feels comfortable with
replacing the trees if necessary, and Director Davis stated that we
will do our best to transplant them. If we lose any, we will
replace them with standard nursery stock, which is what the Glenn
family has requested.
County Engineer Roger Cain noted that none of the trees are
more than 4" in diameter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
three Real Estate Exchange Contracts with the Glenn
family for additional right-of-way on 33rd Street,
plus the $750 attorney fee, as- recommended by staff.
CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
REQUEST FROM CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR ALLOCATION FROM DISTRICT #5
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR AIRPORT PERIMETER ROAD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/7/93:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: City of Vero Beach - Airport Perimeter Road
Request for Traffic Impact Fees - Dist. 5
REF. LETTER: Cliff Suthard, City Engineer to Jim
Davis dated August 26, 1993
DATE: ...September 7, 1993 FILE: perimeter.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The City of Vero Beach Engineering Department has received bids for
construction of the Airport Perimeter Raod between 43rd Avenue and
US1. The programmed improvement will result in added capacity to
a City Collector Road. The City is requesting a $40,700 allocation
from the District 4 Traffic Impact Fee Fund (Balance as. of 7-31-93
is $540,022.53).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The projects to be funded with District 5 Traffic Impact Fees in
the next two years include the following:
Estimated Cost
Old Dixie Highway Widening
17th St to lst St. SW
Widen to three lanes 1993 $ 350,000
34
43rd Ave Widening
26th St to 12th St. 1993-95 $ 500,000
Widen Main Relief Canal to
5 lanes - widen portions of road
to 3 lanes
US 1/49th Street $ 50,000
10 Av Widening $ 70,000
Subtotal $ 970,000
Airport Perimeter Road Request 40,700
TOTAL $1,010,700
District 5 - Current Balance 7/31/93 $ 540,022.53
Projected Revenue by 9-95 636,000.00
(based on past five year average)
TOTAL $1,176,022'.53
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Based on the past five years average yearly revenue, it appears
that planned improvements can proceed if the District 5 funds are
approved - for the Airport Perimeter Road. Staff recommends that
$40,700 be allocated at this time to fund a portion of the project.
Funding to be from Dist. 5 Traffic Impact Fee Fund 101-155 in the
amount of $40,700.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
a $40;700 allocation from the Dist. 5 Traffic Impact
Fee Fund for Airport Perimeter Road, as recommended
by staff.
CR -512 CLEARING/WENTWORTH DITCH RELOCATION PROJECT - DISCUSSION
REGARDING ALTERNATIVES FOR DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that this discussion
was tabled from last week's meeting to give staff more time to
prepare the following alternatives and estimated costs. He
reviewed the 7 alternatives for disposal as set out in the
following staff recommendation:
35
a f�
3 BOOK � r � �."
SEP 14199 F,1�.;r. 536
r SSP x.41993
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: CR512 Clearing Disposal
BOOK 90 Pav 5.37 7
DATE: September 9, 1993 FILE: 512clr.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
When the CR512 Clearing/Wentworth Ditch relocation project
specifications were prepared and the project advertised for bid,
the County Staff and low bid contractor considered the use of an
air curtain incinerator as an allowable disposal technique for
right-of-way clearing debris. In the bid documents, Page SP -6, it
was stated that "All trees to be removed shall be disposed of by
the Contractor off-site in accordance with these provisions and in
accordance with applicable local codes and ordinances. When
burning of'such materials is permitted, all such burning shall be
subject to -applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, including
Chapter 17-5 of the Department of Environmental Regulation and
Chapter 51-2 of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Forestry. All burning at locations where
trees and shrubs are adjacent to the cleared area shall not be
harmed. When burning is prohibited by law, ordinance, or
regulation; -the Contractor shall dispose of the material by other
approved means at no additional vay."
After the Contract was awarded, the Contractor applied for and
received a County Burning Permit to burn the debris at the Jack
Davis dairy site (SE corner of CR512 and CR510). Shortly
thereafter, the County staff researched the formal action taken by
the Board of County Commissioners on May 18, 1993, when the Richard
Fey Burning operation in Fellsmere was considered. The County
Attorney's office rendered a preliminary opinion that because the
FDER does not issue .individual permits for temporary burn
facilities, the exemption under 925.03(2) did not apply and
material from a site cannot be relocated to a separate site in the
unincorporated area and disposed of by burning. As a result, the
County returned the Contractor's permit fee and informed the
Contractor that he could not burn the material in the
unincorporated area of the County.
After researching the matter further, Exemption 925.03(2) in the
County Code states that "the following activity is exempt from the
proVisionss-of Chapter 925: "Burning activities associated with the
use of air curtain incinerators permitted by the the Florida Dept.
of Environmental Regulations (FDER) and operated by governmental
entities...".
The Community Development Director shall make interpretations
regarding issues of use and criteria as it relates to the
interpretation of land development regulations. In reviewing this
exemption, the Community Development Director agrees that in the
CR512 clearing disposal instance, the following applies:
1) An'air curtain incinerator will be used.
2) The Florida DER (now DEP) has taken the position that the use
of portable temporary air curtain incinerators; when properly
used, are not detrimental to the environment and a specific
use permit is not required for a temporary (less than 6
months) period.
3) The burning operation will be operated by a governmental
entity (County) through its contractor, Sheltra and Sons, Inc.
36
M
The Contractor bid $950 per acre for clearing and grubbing the 53
acre right-of-way for a total cost of $50,350.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following* alternatives have been identified as possible options
to dispose of the cleared material.
Alternative No. 1
Allow the Contractor, on behalf of the County, to burn
the cleared material at the Jack Davis site with an air
curtain incinerator as provided for in exemption
925.03(2) for governmental entities. Chapter 925
currently includes exemptions for agriculture,
silvaculture, clearing debris burned on-site, and state
permitted facilities operated by governmental agencies.
If this interpretation is approved, the Contractor can
dispose of the material at no additional cost to the
project.
Alternative No. 2
Allow the Contractor to burn the material in the City of
Sebastian city limits if a suitable site can be found.
At this time, staff is not aware of a specific site. No
additional cost is anticipated.
Alternative No. 3
Allow the Contractor to use the Solid Waste Disposal
District's mulching machine. On Sept. 8, 1993, the
machine was moved on-site for a trial period. In one
day, approximately 1,000 l.f. of a sparsely vegetated
area was mulched. In investigating the entire two mile
project, approximately 50% of the material could be
mulched. It is estimated that 30 working days would be
required to mulch all of this mulchable material.
Estimated cost would be:
30 days ® 7 hrs/day ® $150/hr = $31,500 + repairs to machine if
necessary.
Stump/Palm Tree disposal to approved site in City of Sebastian
100 truck loads x 40 yds.truck ® $3.25/yd = $13,000
Additional costs may be applicable based upon time
delays.
A $6,000 reduction in the contract cost may be applied since the
Contractor will not have to burn the material. Estimated
Additional Cost $38,500.
Alternative No. 4
Dispose of all material at the County landfill facility:
Tipping Fee 12,000 c.y. ® 2 Ton ® $20/Ton = $96,000
5 c.y.
Trucking Cost 36 miles(round trip) $100/load x 300 loads = $30,000
based upon $50/hr truck rental
A $6,000 reduction in the contract cost may be applied since the
Contractor will not have to burn the material. Estimated
Additional Cost $ 120,000.
37
L_ AFP 141993 BOOK 90 Fa,r 153.8
F"-SFP 141993
Boa c 5:39
Alternative No. 5
Request Contractor to dispose of the material in a
Florida DEP approved burning/ chipping facility located in
the City of Sebastian.
Estimated Cost $25,000
Based upon verbal quote by Contractor.
A $6,000 reduction in the contract cost may be applied since the
Contractor will not have to burn the material. Estimated
Additional Cost $19,000.
Alternative No. 6
Do nothing and require the Contractor to dispose of the
material by an approved method at no additional cost to the
County. 'This may place.a hardship on the Contractor.
Alternative No. 7
The Contractor has indicated that he can rent a large chipping
machine that will chip all c-leared material at a cost of
$400/hr. It is estimated that it will take 40-48 hours to
chip all material. The estimated cost is $16,000 - $19,000
plus $2,000 for fuel, taxes, etc. A $6,000 reduction may be
applied since the contractor willtnot have to rent an air,
curtain. Estimated Additional Cost $12,000 - $15,200.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff is of the opinion that recent proposed changes in the County
burning regulations were intended to prohibit privately operated
burning operations receiving large amounts of clearing debris from
development sites on a temporary or permanent basis. Right-of-way
clearing was not an issue during the May 18, 1993 discussion.
Based upon this understanding, staff recommends Alternative No. 1,
thereby allowing the Contractor to dispose of the material by
burning at the Jack Davis site. If this is not agreeable, staff
recommends Alternative No. 7, whereby the Contractor be issued a
Change Order- to dispose of the material by renting a large chipper.
Estimated cost of Change Order is $12,000 - $15,200.
Chairman Bird asked if Attorney Vitunac concurred that
Alternate 1 would be a possible alternative under the law.
-Attorney Vitunac felt that we can live with Alternative #1.
He wished to point out that he wasn't saying that their original
interpretation was wrong, just that this is another way of looking
at it. If that is the way the Board feels, that will finally
establish what it is.
Warren Dill, attorney representing Henry Fischer & Sons who
did not bid on this job, agreed with all three of the County
Attorney's initial opinions. After reviewing all the alternatives
and commenting on each, Mr. Dill stated that it is their opinion
that Alternative #6 is in the best interest of the County.
Commissioner Macht suggested offering the contractor the
alternative of a change order in the amount of $5,000 -to implement
the provisions for chipping the material instead of burning it.
Chairman Bird noted that is basically the same as Alternative
#7, with the amount changed from $12,000 to $5,000.
38
s � �
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that the Board offer the
contractor, Sheltra & Sons, approval of a change
order in the amount of $5,000 to implement the
chipping of material.
Under discussion, Director Davis wished to respond to several
of Mr. Dill's comments: The County does have a full-time inspector
on the CR -512 project. The other two bids received were for
$244,000 and $390,000, but this particular contractor sharpened his
pencil and bid $950 an acre for the clearing of 50 acres and the
disposal of the material based on the understanding that he could
use an air curtain to burn the material. In all fairness to the
contractor, we believe that he made a good faith effort -to give the
best price to the County being under the impression that burning
was an allowable option. At the time the bid was submitted, staff
also believed burning was an allowable option. One of the other
two bids was for $2000 an acre.
Commissioner Macht asked if the high bidder was laboring under
the impression that burning was prohibited specifically, but
Director Davis did not know the answer to that question. He felt
that whether you could burn or not should not reflect a $50,000
difference. If it is the Board's intent to reduce the change
order from $12,000 to $5,000, he suggested that we table this
matter for one week so that the contractor can be here to represent
himself.
COMMISSIONERS MACHT AND ADAMS AMENDED THEIR MOTION
to table this matter for one week to allow the Contractor
time to respond to the offer.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN GREEN ACRES ESTATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/3/93:
KVO
SEP 141993 BOOK 90 Fv, E 540
L
rSEP 141993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
3, 1993
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI'
JAMES D. CHAST
MANAGER OF AS PROJECTS
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BOOK 90 PAGE 541
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN GREEN ACRES ESTATESS
(47TH AVENUE, SW, SOUTH OFF 9TH STREET, SW/OSLO ROAD)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -24 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension for Green
Acres 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 20 lots with 10 existing homes and 10
vacant lots. Seven owners of the existing homes and one vacant lot
owner have signed the attached petition. This represents 70% of the
homeowners, plus an owner of one vacant lot. These homeowners
describe their water as below drinking water quality. The lots in
this project are typically one-half acre, or slightly more. 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 Macht, the Board unanimously approved
water service to Green Acres Estates in order that
staff may proceed with the design engineering work
in preparation for the special assessment project.
APPROVAL OF OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL - COMMISSIONER ADAMS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioner Adams to
attend a workshop of the St. Johns River Water
Management District in Winter Park on Friday,
September 17, 1993.
40
REQUEST FROM NEW HORIZONS FOR SUPPORT OF CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT
FOR TREASURE COAST CHILDREN
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 8/30/93:
I&
New Horizons
OF THE TREASURE COAST. INC.
RICHARD L MILS
PRESIDENT and CEO
ADMINISTRATIVEORS
714 AvwPA H
Port Pierce. R arida 34950
(407)468.5600
Summn 240.5600
SEP 7993
RftrAl t
ftRD 1!n1f ..
August 30, 1993
Ms. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Ms. Eggert:
arra -
OMB
Em m.
(usk}
ir-
()tllr
A- Task Force representing agencies and volunteers from
the four -county area (St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin,
and Okeechobee) .has identified the need for community
support of New Horizons of the Treasure Coast's
efforts to obtain services for children who are
emotionally disturbed.
Presently we have no facilities for children whoare in
a crisis situation. This is a situation which can no
longer be tolerated in our communities.
New Horizons is requesting the legislature. to
appropriate $3.8 million for the construction of a
crisis stabilization unit for children, -along -with _the _.. _..
expansion of beds for adults.
We are requesting that your agency pass a resolution in
support of this -crisis stabilization unit. Such a
resolution should be submitted to the local.legislative z .........
delegation and key legislative leaders. (See enclosed
lists.)
In order for a new crisis unit --a unit that will serve
children --to become a reality, your letter of support
should be written by September 30, 1993. If you would
like- additional information, please contact Richard
Mills at (407) 468-4073. Your letter of support will
help children in crisis and the Treasure Coast
community.
Sincerely,
oe Sloan, DPA
person. Task Force
JS:jb /
Enclosures /
YOUR COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER
ur,.e
vre
41
`SEP 41993 BOOK 90 F -r 542
r--
SEP 14199
BOOK 90 FAGS 543-1
Commissioner Eggert preferred to send a letter of support
rather than a resolution. She had some mixed feelings about
expansion of beds for adults and would like to see it go for
children's beds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized a letter of support for a Crisis
Stabilization Unit for Treasure Coast Children, as
recommended by Commissioner Eggert.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
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 11:10 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
J. . Barton, Clerk
42
Richard N. Bird, Chairman