HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/1995=MINUTES AiFTACHED =
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 )
John W. Tippin ( Dist. 4)
9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2.
INVOCATION - None
3.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
4.
ADDITIONS
TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Item
13-A-1, defer.
2. Item
13-A-2, defer.
3. Item
13-A-3, add Change in Personnel Manual re employee appeals.
4. Item
13-A-4, add HRS reduction in health costs for prisoners in
jail.
5. Item
13-A-5, add Resolution opposing proposed legislation re
tort
liability and comparative fault.
6. Item
10, add scheduling of employee appeal.
7. Item
7-E, delete the first 3 entries.
8. Item
11-C-2, defer.
5.
PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of February 21, 1995
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 6 Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board:
Ind. Riv. Mosquito Control District:
1. Annual Financial Report of Units of
Local Government - 1994
2. Financial Statement Audit for 9/30/94
B. Proclamation Designating April 3-7, 1995 as
Public Health Week in Indian River County
C. Local Arts Agency
( memorandum dated March 21, 1995 )
D. Charles & Gail Godwin's Request for Final PD
Plat Approval for an Agricultural PD Known as
Shady Oak Farms
( memorandum dated March 20, 1995 )
E. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #014
( memorandum dated March 22, 1995 )
F. Final Pay Request Centex Rooney Contract
( memorandum dated March 16, 1995 )
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
G. Annual Financial Report
( memorandum dated March 23, 1995 )
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Paving 6 Drainage Improvements to 61st Avenue
North of 4th Street in Diana Park S/D
( memorandum dated March 13, 1995 )
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
PEP Reef "Status Report
( backup provided under separate cover)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals
to Provide Housing and Other Services for
Animals in the Custody of the Indian River
County Animal Control Authority
( memorandum dated March 21, 1995 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
1. IRC Courthouse Project Close Out and Final
Payment; Construction Manager's Recommen-
dation
( memorandum dated March 21, 1995 )
a. Final Change Orders 17, 18, 19
( memoranda dated 3/14 8 3/16)
b. Recommendation for architect and con-
tractor claims along with close out and
final payment
( letter dated March 14, 1995 )
C. Request to issue purchase order for
mechanical contractor to correct HVAC
problems
( letter dated March 13, 1995 )
2. Administration Building Space Needs
( memorandum dated March 2, 1995 )
( postponed from Meeting of 3/14/95)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FY 1995/96 Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding
Certification of Participation
( memorandum dated March 22, 1995 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Florida East Coast Railway Crossing Agree-
ment, CR 512
( memorandum dated March 15, 1995 )
2. Agreement for Architectural/ Engineering
Services - Blue Cypress Lake Restroom Bldg.
( memorandum dated March 22, 1995 )
H. UTILITIES
1. Petition -for Sewer Service / North US #1
Between 110th Place and Riverside Drive
( memorandum dated March 14, 1995 )
2. Sebastian Lakes Sewer Connection
( memorandum dated March 15, 1995 )
3. Woodlawn Manor Force Main
Final Pay Request and Change Order
(memorandum dated March 6, 1995)
4. Agreement for Future Delivery of Reuse
Water to Bent Pine Golf Club, Inc.
( memorandum dated March 16, 1995 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MRCHT
1. Discussion of Land Acquisition Policies
(no back-up material provided)
(postponed from meeting of 3/21/95)
2. Discussion Re: Utility Department
(no back-up material provided)
( postponed from meeting of 3/21/95)
B. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Council on Aging and Paving of 14th Street
East of U.S.#1
( memorandum dated March 21, 1995 )
4 te j
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 2/21/95
2. Approval of Fair Labor Standards Act
Settlement Agreement and Amendment to EMS
Labor Agreement Modifying Article 16
( memorandum dated March 14, 1995 )
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
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.
Tuesday, March 28, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March 28, 1995,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B.
Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John
W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order and led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Macht requested the following changes:
Deferment of 13-A-1 and 13-A-2 to subsequent meeting.
Addition of 13-A-3 - Change in Personnel Manual re
employee appeals
Addition of 13-A-4 - HRS reduction in health costs for
prisoners in jail.
Addition of 13-A-5 - Resolution opposing proposed
legislation regarding tort liability
& comparative fault.
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item 10 -
scheduling of employee appeal - and the deletion of the first 3
entries on 7-E of the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the above changes to today's Agenda.
Later in the meeting, Commissioner Bird suggested that Item
11-C-2 (Administration Building Space Needs) be postponed until
next week's meeting in order to allot more time for discussion and
consideration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously postponed
Item 11-C-2 to next week's meeting.
94 PacF 693
MARCH 28, 1995
L-
na 9 4 Ff1uf:684
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 21, 1995. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 2/21/95, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
Indian River Mosquito Control District:
Annual Financial Report of Units of Local Government - 1994
Financial Statement Audit for 9/30/94
B. Proclamation - Public Health Week
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Florida's annual celebration of Public Health Week will
increase awareness and understanding of the importance of a
strong public health policy; and
WHEREAS, Public health services reach all the residents and
visitors of Indian River County, thereby crossing all ethnic,
socio-economic, and individual family and social strata of
our communities; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County will participate in Public Health week
and will be joined by many other counties; and
WHEREAS, Public health knowledge and awareness of healthful
behavior are coat effective and contribute significantly to
the reduction of needless physical and emotional suffering;
and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Public Health Unit and other
public health service providers will continue vital
contributions to improve the health of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, Public Health Week's community outreach effort will
deliver health promotion messages directly to the communities,
ensuring that the general public and professions have an
opportunity to participate in the event and improve their
understanding and appreciation for the vital impact public
health has upon shaping a healthier future for Indian River
County:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that -the week of April 3 - 7,
1995 be -designated as
PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board encourages our citizens
to use this week to participate in activities that will help
them choose a healthy lifestyle.
Adopted,. jits_ 29 day of March, 1995.
MARCH 28, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
4enntht
IVER CO FLORIDA
R. cht, Cha rma /
K
M
C. Local Arts Agency
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/21/95:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: .Carolyn K. Eggert, County Commissioner O -KE
Date: March 21, 1995
Re: Local Arts Agency
Several years ago the Indian River Arts Council was
designated as our Local Arts Agency for purposes including
getting state . grants. That Council is no longer
functioning.
The Cultural Council of Indian River has been
incorporated, has applied for a 501C3 designation, and will
function in place of the Arts Council. David Becker is the
chairman. The Board has wide community representation.
This organization was established at the requestof the 41
cultural organizations in Indian Riyer County and will
provide education, seek grants funds for the. organizations
and serve as an information resource.
I respectfully request that you designate the Cultural
Council of Indian River as the new Local Arts Agency.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously designated
the Cultural Council of Indian River as the new
Local Arts Agency.
D. Final Planned Development Plat Approval - Shady Oak Farms
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV."ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Irobert P.1,Keat1nc AIC
Community Develop entT rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling AICP
Planning Director \
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 20, 1995
SUBJECT: Charles and Gail Godwin's Request for Final PD Plat
Approval for an Agricultural PD Known as Shady Oak Farms
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 28, 1995.
3
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 m,IL c
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Shady Oak Farms is a proposed 3 tract planned development
subdivision of a ±30 acre parcel of land located on the north side
of 17th Street S.W., halfway between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue.
The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per
5 acres) and has a land use designation of AG -1, Agricultural (up
to 1 unit per 5 acres).
On December 8, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary PD approval contingent upon special exception PD
approval. Such approval was granted by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 10, 1995. The
applicant subsequently made all necessary improvements required by
Public Works for the PD. The developer, Charles and Gail Godwin,
through their agent Carter Associates, Inc., is now requesting
final plat approval -,.and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat.
2. Documentation from the public works department that all
required improvements are complete.
ANALYSIS:
As an agricultural PD, the 10 acre tracts can be used for
residential or agricultural uses. Residential uses will be
restricted to 1 acre of the 10 acres. Thus, the PD plat meets the
special requirements for PD projects in agriculturally designated
areas (see attachment #4).
There were several minor improvements that were required by the
public works department in conjunction with this PD plat. These
improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the public
works department. Therefore, all requirements for final PD plat
approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
PD plat approval for Shady Oak Farms.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted
final PD plat approval to Agricultural Planned
Development known as Shady Oak Farms, as recommended
by staff.
E. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 014
Chairman Macht noted that the first three entries were deleted
at the request of Administrator Chandler.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/22/95:
4
MARCH 28, 1995
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 22, 1995
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 014
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
91s 1 �t # 1
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. This entry is to reimburse the Transportation Fund - Fund 111 for the cost of 101st Avenue
(87th Street-C.R 512) paving and drainage improvement project completed and Board of
County Commissioners approved in May 1992. The cost of the project was never charged
to Vero Lakes Estates M.S.T.U.
2. This entry is to reimburse Fund 109 - Secondary Road Construction and Fund 111 -
Transportation Fund for funding originally provided to cover the shortfall in Vero Lakes
Estates Fund in 1988/89 for the 87th Street (C.R. 510 - 101 st Avenue) paving and drainage
improvement project.
3. This entry is to reimburse Fund 111 - Transportation Fund for the cost of 91 st Ave. (79th
Street - 87th Street) paving and drainage improvement project. Project was completed April,
1994.
4. This entry will move cash from the Court Facility Fund to the Optional Sales Tax Fund,
$150,000 will go toward Courthouse furnishings and $3,000 will be used to purchase a
Personal Computer to 'tie the Law Library to the Main Library and Courthouse legal
information.
5. In fiscal year 1993/94 a matching grant was approved and received by the EMS Department
for the purpose of purchasing seven (7) twelve -lead monitor/pacemaker/defibrillators. The
items were not received until fiscal year 1994/95: This entry will appropriate the funding.
6. Increase current year budget for SHIP program fund balance carried forward for program
expenditure disbursements in current year.
7. To allocate funding for Anti -Drug Abuse Grant to purchase surveillance equipment.
S. This entry represents the County's portion of the Property Appraisers legal fees with regard
to the Piper delinquent taxes as approved by the Board of County Commissioners at their
September 27, 1994 meeting. Total legal fees were only $6,009 of which the Board of
County Commissioners portion is $5,396.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 014.
5 aooK 94 FAA 687
MARCH 28, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #014, with the
exception of the first 3 items.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director I
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 014
DATE: March 22. 1995
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease .
1.
EXPENDITURES:
VERO LAKES ESTATES/Transfer Out
185-214-541-099.21
$134,062
$0
REVENUES:
Cash Forward Revenue
185-000-389-040.00
$134,062
$0
REVENUES:
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Transfer In
111-000-381-020.00
$134,062
$0
Cash Forward Revenue
111-000-389-040.00
$0
$134,062
2.
EXPENDITURES:
VERO LAKES ESTATES/Transfer Out
185-214-541-099.21
$115,000
$0
REVENUES:
VERO LAKES ESTATES/Cash Forward
185-000-389-040.00
$115,000
$0
REVENUES:
SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION/
Transfer In
109-000-381-020.00
$50,000
$0
Cash Forward
109-000-389-040.00
$0
$50,000
REVENUES:
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Transfer In
111-000-381-020.00
$65,000
$0
Cash Forward
111=000-389-040.00
$0
$65,000
3.
EXPENDITURES:
VERO LAKES ESTATES/Transfer Out
185-214-541-099.21
$173,564
$0
REVENUES:
Cash Forward
185-000-389-040.00
$173,546
$0
REVENUES:
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Transfer In
111-000-381-020.00
$173,546
$0
Cash Forward
111-000-389-040.00
$0
$173,5641
R
MARCH 28, 1995
Entry
Number
Funds/DepartmendAccount Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
4.
REVENUES:
126-000-334-697.00
$9,749
$0
COURT FACILITY/Cash Forward
106-000-389-040.00
$153,000
$0
EXPENDITURES:
Transfer Out
106-199-581-099.21
$153,000
$0
REVENUES:
OPTIONAL SALES TAX//Transfer In
3154000-381-020.00
$153,000
$0
EXPENDITURES:
OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Courthouse/
Office Furniture & Equipment
315-909-516-066.41
$150,000
$0
OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Library/
EDP Equipment
315-109-571-066.47
$3,000
$0
5.
REVENUES:
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/
EMS Matching Grant
114-000-334-291.00
$70,200
$0
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/
Cash Forward
114-000-389-040.00
$11,600
$0
EXPENDITURES:
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT/
Other Machinery & Equipment
114-253-526-039.24
$81,800
$0
6.
REVENUES:
IRCLHAP/SHIP/Cash Forward
123-000-389-040.00
$158,144
$0
EXPENDITURES:..
IRCLHAP/SHIP/Impact Fee Loan
123-228-569-088.04
$32,400
$0
Downpay Closing Cost
123-228-569-088.05
46,400
$0
Rehab. Loan Owner
123-228-569-088.07
$79 344
1:!$79:344
$0
7.
REVENUES:
MULTI -JURISDICTION T F SPECIAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT/Sheriff Task Force
Grant
126-000-334-697.00
$9,749
$0
Confiscated Property
1264000-351-020.00
$3,250
$0
EXPENDITURES:
MULTI -JURISDICTION T F SPECIAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT/Other Machinery
& Equipment
126-600-521-066.49
12,999
$0
Boos 94
MARCH 28, 1995
MOK Pty..691)
F. Courthouse Contract with Centex Rooney - Final Pay Request --
Materials Testing by Ardaman and Associates
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/95:
DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
0
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAY REQUEST CENTEX ROONEY CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Indian River County has a contract with Centex Rooney to provide
Materials Testing, Inspection Services, and Threshold Inspection
Services through Ardaman and Associates for the new courthouse
project. The total for these services was not to exceed $114,000.
ANALYSIS:
Centex Rooney has requested a final draw of $1,505.75 to complete
the contract. This would equate to a total contract price of
$114,000.00 for the above described services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of this final payment.
8
MARCH 28, 1995
8.
REVENUES:
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/
Cash Forward
114-000-389-040.00
$530
$0
EXPENDITURES:
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/Fire/
Property Appraiser
114-120-522-099.06
$408
$0
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/ALS/
Property Appraiser
114-253-526-099.06
$122
$0
EXPENDITURES:
GENERAL FUND/ '
Reserve for Contingencies
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$4,866
Transfer -Property Appraiser
001-500-586-099.06 1
$4,9661
$0
F. Courthouse Contract with Centex Rooney - Final Pay Request --
Materials Testing by Ardaman and Associates
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/95:
DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
0
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAY REQUEST CENTEX ROONEY CONTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Indian River County has a contract with Centex Rooney to provide
Materials Testing, Inspection Services, and Threshold Inspection
Services through Ardaman and Associates for the new courthouse
project. The total for these services was not to exceed $114,000.
ANALYSIS:
Centex Rooney has requested a final draw of $1,505.75 to complete
the contract. This would equate to a total contract price of
$114,000.00 for the above described services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of this final payment.
8
MARCH 28, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
final pay request of $1,505.75 to Centex Rooney for
Materials Testing, Inspection Services and Threshold
Inspections Services through Ardaman and Associates,
as recommended by staff.
FINAL PAY REQUEST WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
G. Annual Local Government Financial Report FY 1993-94
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/23/95:
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners
DATE: March 23, 1995
SUBJECT: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
FROM: Edwin M. Fry, Jr., Finance Director
Florida Statutes require that each unit of local government submit an Annual Financial Report
covering operations during the preceding fiscal year. The Indian River County Annual Financial
Report for Fiscal Year 1994 has been prepared, reviewed by the County's external auditors and
is ready to be submitted to the Department of Banking and Finance in Tallahassee. The report
is due by March 31, 1995. The report is signed by the Chief Financial Officer and the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners.
Respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the
County's Fiscal Year 1994 Annual Financial Report.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
the submittal of the FY 1994 Annual Financial Report
to Tallahassee, and authorized the Chairman's
signature.
COPY OF ANNUAL REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 691
94 692
6�KWlarJ\■V■►\\Y■ ./1TV. L7■ Jr\7 as k%arJM arra
DRAINAGE Il"ROVEWMS TO 61ST AVE. NORTH OF 4TH ST. IN
DIANA PARK SUBDIVISION
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
J,
has been I for Road PjrxdO=
sA ppm ire for Gist Avenue (Gera Pak 5udld�
l
36REAS, ft woonsseltl�oln d pang and dsYf
s�ulhorlaed lOP ► 2fJ6. ssetot mm ftd
2x809, irrdsn Rhm CM1" acoda and oraeOw
onow anndpyprdra
niy seasrrerrt roe have brren
mu( wesdrnfeedl01=1 Vft °ep°r pTM�Y�giad to
ft
ONE WrEEN DMLA0RBS ad FF7Y
TWO CEN%(si82,118AU ad
WIEREA& Me Spacial aaaertent prattled her,
emder and, Jar a y Hoard ower d proparq
,Seep� oaf In the area benelbed, be in an awaint
ods Matas oast d dthe pr .d1)
vrhifi
to nuiftm of paraeb owned W me Oven
owns trees to the taal number if paosls wii►r
ptl
the earea specially hererr�d and P►gsat
a"% d the told cost d ft
a�oltarkwo oorm bore PMft. Paig AD-
WHEREAS,
oW EREAS, Ore speed aaaenratt d oil beoone
due and ;y— at the Offre d the Tax CaleOW
el' balm' Rkw CaNty Welly die char the
at eo SONOn 2 xim Man Rio r CON* Cp odd
WHEREAS. srlr special asse not Pd1
weir add rief)r lel day perlod and bear Yrunrd
he MOO date at a rate eetablalred by O11
Board• d County • Camrisabne s al the the d
papsatio . d Ow artd assearrrerm rot, and am r
piabb in twoequal irat etritraia, ri fieo 69made twelve (I mnOe bare Oa due doe and
edefagtrrrtpayrirenls fobsdueyaarFlr and
�� WF�y�p�6iE��Aty. ahs mtsdnatlon d the Haan Md
h Board le pC�w�etr%eisenpsFnined go 20
�p� s
RM, a dlreed and spaial baeOta N Min Orae I�in-
p VMM t, tow!
10
MARCH 28, 1995
Lots I .Lou f dVID0-6=. 2I
oll�lll' Pok s ' d,9 we on&82 n a
Raosdd b plrpp0 Flk.FAft
ui�6'"2rpas8""=Firof 130FrSladledI
100lW20.4Aga dTmd7asin
amen°Zioar g Pr 31k_08. Sao 4M
W
11111" Gi N aaPT at s du ff
d � 78L PF 2218 101110
.
IE a IMMI ED ar
oGhrasof� oF. .
. F1rdt�A, ar tdteaar; * .
�4 aarale allhww aed,+aNd
e1,e for rW"� Z .
r Aa19teled a. ikft llfalea py
1q �r
ar i106, et rts4 irslr f�.
f tttl2�t
PAW IR A OMMAaL YMOMBBIItTO
' 414TAVBEE "' A
RESMUMN OF ROAN RIM COLN-
Y. FLORmA.- 1BETTIN A THE AND
OF 471
SIOM
SONS
BOARD
AND BI
MENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE
AMOW THEREOF TO BE • SPECIALLY
ASKED AdAWST EACH PROPERTY
Me .Board of County CMWNWM
of kdon RIM County hM, by Rdecaedon No. 96-
32, ding I ed' VM IS neoeMuy for h PLAID
wdr n of dol 1 ofWft mss County, a�fh
�"ren'a°eded mals teepowlyiiHERE4. to °
hu caumW onaMeae�aeredfd 10 bcoowinbm
d eaand
fled w11bae Cink Ioft8W E and
NAS. Section 201A9. kddn RMer Carinly
Cada, negaaM Met Me Bond d County Cwndd-
tiaues tier fbc •.fee. and 0Me as ahi* ft own,
eprds�daoffs11v I oFdetiae t be dweeerally ga�epdd or any
BMnO d county Camwitltwo' '—a ad be
bpee�d n b
Md
drattepe q�o��Mro to am po`01 of � ,as 6 My
aW ifereof a b•tie name d Perm �dP6
Rad n 10 pto
ayno nt Me�eM�of�y, be N"N"
11EFEFOi��BE FT RESOLVED BY THE
90ARD OF OOL NTY COMauMS OIERS OF N.
M HANSI CM01TY. FLOWA. M lobwd:
Ifid county tHOae�- " ad mdd at Me C&A0
onft . In Yet County AchoM Mem.
amp at 'fie f11EF d 9a6 JUt . on Twomy.
Medi 211, 1916 al Wft On tie amen d Me
p�apstlla b be MMMed aro any COW kdow"
ps�os Vj .APPW,•b oM said COretiee'm and
be ndeed b.Ie�� b 0x10 pip 7M Na b a
irdpraed "aab'1+a b ba 40dw bow
fed .. nsa adawfed epee to f
eeeem.e 0111 and. "fa.' M MeM O Id td1h npeod
b Me epeaw Melablead.
2 M PONW! ed M Me 4oe11eeffM d MIO
hpramae�Ma� Wi�lia apow MMeMenr IIPiMt
Me popmiWIll� WON may aMaea
Me 1�1F� 4 ants -.e a W
Meead�: trot ft fad U1�
wwnsUr'11 4oppmn-1 r+=� at
Iwo
ea.-
Fift
b be.
neBdO aMOPS a .a�wad1ft MO&
r�on.`• w�i'••p��a+I" �•nmaaa+ �lrroaaAwanlan.
Ad ns and 111; MWon.wM by cmab.
tion►. 900nRd .Von W1 Pa b a Ift ri
n' 000106111ow AWL -ad. AP Ap
Tie G+aaenet'fMaepee•daDlaaO fa aaok0on
IAM" add��abMpaTTaY�d d+oa t dap d abnd4
.90=4
CM
sum COWN.FLUNDA
AMdMt
-&.Mamnaft '
M11014,11 10 DjM Ila=
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/95:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
9/
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
.t I
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C. T. -
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage Improvements to
61st Avenue North of 4th Street in Diana Park Subdivision
DATE: March 13, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On March 7, 1995.; the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 95-39
providing for certain paving and drainage improvements to 61st Avenue North of 4th Street
In Diana Park Subdivision.
11 BOOK 94 F' - '3
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 9 4 FAQ 6 �.
A petition was received from the property owners on 61st Avenue and 16 property owners.
out of 19 property ownexs signed the petition making it 84% in favor of having this road
paved. .
On March 7, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners adopted another Resolution No.
9540 setting the date and time for a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and
amount of the assessment against each property owner. This hearing is scheduled for March
28, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that motions be made to approve the assessment roll, and confirming
resolution with changes, if any, made after input at the March 28, 1995 Public Hearing.
Revised confirming resolution and assessment roll will be forwarded to Chairman of the
Board for signature. The Assessment Roll and assessment plat are on file with the Clerk
to the Board of County Commissioner's office:
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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-51, confirming the assessment roll for
certain paving and drainage improvements to 61st
Avenue north of 4th Street in Diana Park
Subdivision.
MARCH 28, 1995
12
Confirming (Third Reso.)
2/7/95(ENG)RES3.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 51
A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING
THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 61ST AVENUE NORTH OF
4TH STREET IN DIANA PARK SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County adopted by Resolution No. 95-39, providing for certain
paving and drainage improvements to 61st Avenue north of 4th
Street in Diana Park Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which
said special assessments shall be made and how said special
assessments are to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by
Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 95-40, on March 7, 1995, which
set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners
of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons
would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints
as to said ptoject and said special assessments, and for the
Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian River
County Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public
hearing was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal
Newspaper on March 14, 1995, and March 211 1995, (twice one
week apart, and the last being at'least one week
prior to the
hearing), as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County
Code; and -
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at
least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section
206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday. March 28. 1995 at 9:05 A.M. conducted the
public hearing with regard to the special assessments,
1
This doeunent was prepared by and should be returned to the County Engineer's Office, 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Fl 32960
0*1
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 PtL6
r �
BOOK 94 PA,;C 69
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 51
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their
entirety.
2. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment
roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain
legal, valid, and binding first liens against the
properties assessed until paid in full.
3. The County will record the special assessments and' this
resolution, which describes the properties assessed and
the amounts of the special assessments, on the public
records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of
the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this __Zgday of Marrh ,. , 1995.
BOARD C%RIA.L,
O ISSIONERS
INDIAN IVY, LORID
14_�_ r,
By
KENNET'
Chairman
Jeff K. Barto Jerk
-&.
y
Attachment: ASSESSMENT'ROLL
C:\wp60\data95\61avconf.res
14
MARCH 28, 1995
Indian River County
Approved
Dale
Administration
Budget
Legal
Risk Management
i ,.
Pnbltc
Engineering
+f
i � ;,• �
�
PEP REEF STATUS REPORT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/95:
L
Pypmo0tE
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator VC
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Don G. Donaldson, P.E., Coastal Engineer7?
SUBJECT: Indian River County/Vero Beach PEP Reef
DATE: March 16, 1995
Staff has completed the assessment report on the expected performance of the PEP Reef (see
attached). Staff has concluded the PEP Reef will reduce wave heights but will not completely
stop erosion. Because of this Indian River County will be required to place some fill to mitigate
storm induced erosion.
Staff is recommending the County obtain the remaining permits for the 3000' experimental PEP
Reef. Proceed with the PEP Reef project in the summer of 1995 and add a dune/fill to the permit
to mitigate the predicted erosion not stopped by the PEP Reef, Dune filling can commence in
October, 1996 if it is funded by the proposed erosion control taxing district.
Staff will present the results of this assessment report to the beach advisory committee on March
20, 1995.
County. Coastal Engineer Don Donaldson pointed out the two
areas of the project outlined on a large display board and reviewed
the status report on the Vero Beach PEP Reef:
Background
Over the past 32 years Indian River County has experienced erosion that was caused by
fourteen Northeasters, fifteen Tropical storms and two Hurricanes. These storms have
caused the Vero Beach area to average 1 to 2 cubic yards per foot per year of erosion.
The shoreline has also receded at a rate of between 1 and 3 feet per year. Most recently
the shoreline recession has slowed because of bulkheads (i.e., it can move no further
landward at those locations) and local sand nourishment efforts.
The storm that was most damaging in recent times was the Thanksgiving Day 1984 storm.
This storm average 10 cubic yards per foot of sand loss and caused the shoreline to
receded by as much as 20 feet. Most of the sand loss occurred within the City of Vero
Beach. The Cubit Study (1988) categorized this a severe storm, a hurricane would be an
extreme storm and any thing less would be a mild storm. During the year 1994 staff
recorded 3 erosion storms that fall somewhere between mild and severe, staff will call
them moderately severe. -
15 BOOK 94 pmu •f.�
MARCH 28, 1995
wT.
ma
Starting in 1994, Indian River County Staff has been monitoring the beach losses due to
storm events at Wabasso and Humiston Beaches. Three storms caused significant
erosion (i.e., greater than 1 cubic yard per foot loss) at these beaches. The first storm
occurred in February, the second in October and the third (Tropical Storm GORDON) was
in November. Each of these storms had waves, recorded by the Sebastian Inlet Taxing
District wave gauge, in excess of 4.5 ft. (see Exhibit A). The storms average wave height
and erosion rate (measured at Wabasso Beach) are as follows:
Event Avg. Wave Ht. (Ft.) Avg. Loss
February 1994 Storm 5.9 4 CuYd/Ft
October 1994 4.5 3 CuYd/Ft
Gordon Nov. '94 6.3 5 CuYd/Ft.
The October storm did not have as large of waves but it did occur during a time when the
tides were higher. Also, it had a longer duration than did the February storm or Tropical
Storm Gordon. All of these storms did cause an increase in water levels over the predicted
tide stage.
P.E.P. REEF
The P.E.P. Reef was recommended by the Indian River County Shore and Beach Advisory
Committee as a way to reduce the erosion adjacent the City of Vero Beach. Principally,
the P.E.P. will reduce the wave heights that reach the beach and thereby reduce the
erosion rate. It was also hoped, but not required, to help build a beach during less
energetic storms.
Project Design
A submerged breakwater is a significant asset to beach protection if it can trap some sand
during smaller waves or significantly slow down the loss of beaches or, preferably both.
It is clear that a submerged breakwater must work with the nearshore beach, dune and
other upland structures to reduce losses. If the submerged breakwater reduces waves,
but doesn't increase the nearshore sand deposits (during small events),then a stone is still
going to remove sand when the higher water levels eliminate the reefs effect. The result
is the submerged breakwater will perhaps reduce the rate of erosion, but the savings of
that reduced rate will have to be gained over a long period of time.
The Vero Beach area experiences, on average, one storm a year that will cause erosion
with orwithout the P.E.P. Reef (Ref. FIT Study). The P.E.P. Reef will provide wave height
reduction of a least 10%. Erosion will be reduced by no more than 10% and not less than
0%. Considering the estimated erosion rate is between 1 and 2 cubic yards per foot per
year. Staff estimates the-P.E.P. Reefs -best performance -will yield an erosion rate
reduction to between .9 and 1.8 cubic yards per foot per year. At current cost estimates
of $10.00 per cubic yard of sand, trucked and placed, a 3,000 P.E.P. Reef will provide
a return of between $3,000 to $6,000 per year, considering sand benefits only.
If by chance, the P.E.P. can reduce to erosion rate to zero, it would provide a return of
$30,000.00 to $60,000.00 per year. The results of other projects and the County's own
model studies do not indicate that this scenario is true.
Certainly the P. E. P. is expected to provide a better performance at Vero Beach than the
Midtown and the Avalon projects. This is due to the reduced settlement and the greater
updrift sand supply at the Vero Beach project. In addition, the marine life growing on the
structures may increase its wave height reduction by increasing its size. The fact remains,
that no project has shown an ability to significantly reduce erosion and iri all cases sand
will have to be replaced along the project area due to storm erosion.
16
MARCH 28, 1995
Staff has determined that the P.E.P. Reef will not solve the erosion problem at Vero Beach.
It may slow the rate of erosion down however, the benefits will only be realized over a long
time. The P.E.P. Reef should be configured so that it can trap sand and further reduce
wave height. This can only be accomplished by making the units taller so that they
become exposed at low tide even after settlement.
Altematives
Obtain the remaining permits for the experimental P.E.P. Reef and proceed with the
proposed installation during the summer of 1995. Due to predicted reef
performance, significant storm protection will not be provided without sand
placement.
2. Obtain the remaining permits for the 3000' experimental P.E.P. Reef. Proceed with
PEP Project in the summer of 1995. To mitigate the predicted erosion not stopped
by the reef, direct staff to work with DEP and the other regulatory agencies to add
a dune fill to the permit so that a 22,000 cubic yard dune fill project can be
constructed annually. Establish an Erosion Control District prior to Jan. 1996, so
that revenue for sand placement would be received beginning Oct. 1996. Sand
placementidune fill would commence Oct. 1996, unless property owners fronting the
PEP Reef project area voluntarily funded and supported implementation in Oct.
1995. If state required monitoring costs are significantly reduced or funded by the
state, tourist tax funds would be available for sand placement in 1995.
3. Abandon the P.E.P. Reef in favor of an ongoing beach/dune maintenance program
for 5,000 to 10,000 feet of beach. If tourist tax revenue is used, the joint resolution
between the city and county may have to be amended to allow its use for sand
placement. Otherwise, funding will be from an alternate source.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 and recommends the City, County, and State DEP
commit to a dune maintenance program.
17 BOOK 94 fA, L
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 9 pw 700
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Beach
Committee's recommendation and hired American Coastal Engineering to Design, Permit
and Construct the P.E.P. reef. Staff was instructed to assist with the design and permitting
of the reef. Since the hiring of American Coastal Engineering in September of 1993, the
County has commissioned several field investigations, background studies and ground
breaking analysis of the P.E.P. Reef. Most of these investigations were required by the
Department of Environmental Regulation as part of the permitting process. The DEP has
required the County to be able to predict how the beach will change after the P. E. P. Reef
is installed (e.g., what is the expected performance of the P.E.P. Reef).
The most significant problem with predicting the performance of the P.E.P. Reef (with
absolute confidence) is that it is an experimental technology. To date, staff is aware of
only five other installations of a submerged breakwater in the United States and four of
these installations are less than two years old. At the time the County began the
permitting process, the only project with any history was the Dupont project in Palm Beach.
The other projects, including the Palm Beach Midtown project,_were less than a year old.
At the time of this writing, staff has now reviewed several monitoring reports from the
P.E.P. Reef midtown project, corresponded with out of state engineers regarding the three
New Jersey breakwaters and directed two model investigations of the proposed Vero
Beach project. Each of these reports, however limited, provide some insight into the
expected performance of the Vero Beach P.E.P. Reef.
Both the New Jersey Avalon submerged breakwater and the Palm Beach Midtown P. E. P.
Reef units settled 1 to 4 feet into the sand. The New Jersey project had the worst
settlement with an average of 4 feet while the Midtown project has experienced an average
of 3 feet for the first 54 units and 1.9 feet for the remaining 279 units. It is important to
distinguish the Midtown first 54 units because these were the only units aligned during
Hurricane Andrew. Under higher wave conditions there is a greater chance that sediments
will be eroded from around the units thereby allowing further -settlement.
P.E.P. settlement was not thought to be a significant problem in Vero Beach because a jet
probe survey found a layer of rock beneath the sand. The underlying rock must be
considered an asset because without it some type of foundation would be necessary. Staff
reanalyzed the survey data and computed the maximum depth of settlement for each of
the proposed P.E.P. Reef units (see Exhibit B). The P.E.P. Reef units will likely come to
rest on the rock at elevation -9.4 to -10.6 N. G. V. D. This means the P.E.P. Reef on
average will have between 3.4 and 4.6 feet of water over them at mid tide water levels.
Water depth over the reef is important because this is the most important criteria for
reducing wave heights. Both the University of Florida Vero Beach Physical Model Study
(U of F 1994) and the Midtown project have found the P.E.P. Reef reduces wave heights.
P.E.P. Reef wave height reduction can now be accurately determined for different water
depths, breakwater sizes and wave heights.
18
MARCH 28, 1995
s �
Bob Dean, with the University of Florida, has also proposed a hypothesis that a continuous
submerged breakwater (e.g. the.Midtown P.E.P. Reef) can cause increased erosion by
creating increased currents adjacent the beach. These increased currents have not been
measured in the field however, they were observed under very speck conditions during
the Vero Beach physical model study (U of F 1994). During this study, staff worked with
the U of F to find a P.E.P. Reef configuration that would minimize this effect. The
currently proposed staggered alignment is the result.
One thing the U of F physical model study could not do is predict the P.E.P. Reef effect
upon the beaches. Staff petitioned the DEP that it was not practical to model the Reefs
effect and that the County should be allowed to install the Reef. The DEP was insistent
and suggested the County perform a worst case study by using an existing computer
program and assuming the P.E.P. Reef behaved like a emergent breakwater with a higher
wave transmission coefficient. Staff recommended using the Florida Institute of
Technology to computer model the P.E.P. Reef because their model was the only model,
within a reasonable cost, capable .of including a submerged breakwater.
The draft results of FIT were submitted to the County on February 15, 1995 and the final
model runs are currently being completed. Staff asked FIT to model several wave climates
including the wave events that caused erosion during 1994. These results indicate that
the P.E.P. Reef will not stop erosion during sever or moderately severtevents. The P.E.P.
does provide some wave height reduction and it did reduce some of currents between the
breakwater and the beach (i.e., it did not agree with Bob Deans hypothesis). Also, during
small wave events some sediment accretion was predicted at the south end of the project.
The FIT model is not calibrated and its results must be weighed by the fact that it is just
a computer model. However, it does agree with the results of the Palm Beach Midtown
project and preliminary results of the New Jersey Avalon project. The Midtown project has
experienced sediment accretion at the southern 1/4 of the project. The remaining project
area has experienced erosion. The New Jersey project has also experienced erosion but,
the project investigators feel the erosion may have been less than if the breakwater was
not installed. To date, there have been no reports as to the Midtown projects ability to
slow the erosion rate. The other New Jersey projects are too recent to determine their
performance. Staff recently talked to Dr. Bob Sorenson, with Leigh University, regarding
a submerged rubble mound breakwater he installed in the Caribbean. This breakwater is
slightly larger than the P.E.P. Reef and is exposed at low tide. During recent storms
(approx. 4 ft waves) the beach did experience some erosion. However, Dr. Sorenson felt
the breakwater had helped to slow down the erosion.
In all cases the submerged breakwaters are not stopping erosion. They may be slowing
it down, but even moderate storms are likely to cause beach loss. The reason for this is
due to the fact that under most storm conditions the wind will increase the nearshore water
level, and the deeper the top of the breakwater the less its ability to reduce wave heights.
19 BOOK 94 Pt�a LMARCH 28, 1995
MOK 94
Mr. Donaldson- introduced Dr. Gary Zarillo of the Florida
Institute of Technology in Melbourne, who explained that they
incorporated the two areas of the project into the wave model. The
north reef area and the south reef area show a 12-25 percent wave
height reduction with no dramatic impacts. It did not show any
increase in currents between the breakwater and the shore which was
thought to be a potential problem.
Commissioner Bird asked if the reef would work as an
impediment to sand being replaced on the shore during the summer
when the winds prevail from the southeast, but Mr. Donaldson didn't
believe there should be any impediments to the sand coming back to
the beach because of the gaps between the units. However, we are
pursuing that with this model to see if that assumption is correct.
Continuing, Dr. Zarillo explained which permits have been
obtained and which ones are still to be obtained.
Beth Mitchell of American Coastal Engineering, Inc. reported
that their firm completed the archaeological survey on Friday. The
divers investigated 20 anomalies and found no significant
historical artifacts. Most of what they found was construction
debris, fire block, etc. The report on that study, which is in its
preliminary state, will be sent to Historical Resources for their
approval before we can send it to the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Donaldson advised that we expect to have the Corps of Army
Engineers' permit within a month. He then explained the
requirement for a 3 -year monitoring test plan. State has applied
for some grants from the DEP, but we have not received notice as
yet that we will receive any funding.
Administrator Chandler referred to the following cost analysis
included in the report, noting that the overall costs for
monitoring for 3 years is just over $1 -million. If we do not
receive supplemental funding from the State or some other agency,
we will have a deficit of approximately $400,000 because of the
monitoring expense. It would be staff's recommendation that we
look at our sales tax over the next 2-3 fiscal years to make up
that $400,000.
20
MARCH 28, 1995
PEP REEF - SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
PRIOR YEAR TOURIST TAX CASH $320,000.00
TOURIST TAX REVENUE (OCT. TO APRIL $130,000.00
BOND ISSUE PROCEEDS $2,300,000.00
TOTAL SOURCES $2,750,000.00
USES
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY $0.00
AMERICAN COASTAL -TASK I $0.00
PERMITTING
AMERICAN COASTAL -TASK 11 $22,500;00
MAGNETOMETER SURVEY & REPORT $15,850.00
F.I.T. COMPUTER MODEL $29,477.60
CERC MONITOR PLAN -U.S. ARMY $6,000.00
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA $0.00
CONSTRUCTION
ORIGINAL 250 UNITS $1,762,500.00
CREDIT FOR 35 UNITS $0.00
MONITORING
CERC, SURVEY & F.I.T. $945,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL $72,000.00
PERMIT CONDITIONS
SAND NOURISHMENT (10,000 YDS.) $50,000.00
OTHER
PERMIT FEES $2,000.00
PRINTING $247.50
MISCELLANEOUS $2,000.00
CONTINGENCIES $290,000.00
ISSUANCE COSTS $25,000.00
TOTAL USES $3,222,575.10
DEFICIT
($472,575.10)
21 BOOK 94 PA,Lr 703
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 9 pma,.70.4
CASH-FLOW
22
MARCH 28, 1995
m
REVENUE
EXPENSE
BALANCE
BEGINNING CASH
$450,000.00
$450,000.00
APRIL 1995
276,752.60
173,247.40
MAY -BORROW
200 000.00
301,172.50
72,074.90
JUNE -BORROW
500 000.00
528,350.00
43,724.90
JULY -BORROW
650,000.00
677,775.00
15,949.90
AUGUST -BORROW
200,000.00
179,775.00
36,174.90
SEPTEMBER -BORROW
150,000.00
178 250.00
7,924.90
TOTAL 1994/95
$2,150;000.00
' $2,142,075.1.0
$7,924.90
OCTOBER 1995
2 000.00
5 924.90
NOVEMBER
2,000.00
31,924.90
DECEMBER -BORROW
125,000.00
102,000.00
26,924.90
JANUARY 1996
2,000.00
24,924.90
FEBRUARY
2,000.00
22,924.90
MARCH
2,500.00
20,424.90
APRIL -BORROW
150 000.00
-12,000.00
58,424.90
MAY
12,000.00
46,424.90
JUNE
12,000.00
34,424.90
JULY
12,000.00
22,424.90
AUGUST -BORROW
150,000.00
112,000.00
60,424.90
SEPTEMBER
129000.00
48,424.90
TOTAL 1995/96$425,000:00.
<
$384,500.00
$48,424.90
OCTOBER 1996
12,000.00
36,424.90
NOVEMBER -BORROW
175,000.00
62,000.00
149,424.90
DECEMBER
112,000.00
37,424.90
JANUARY 1997
12 000.00
25,424.90
FEBRUARY
12,000.00
13,424.90
MARCH
12,000.00
1,424.90
APRIL -SALES TAX
150 000.00
112,000.00
39,424.90
MAY
12,000.00
279424.90
JUNE
12,000.00
15,424.90
JULY
12,000.00
3,424.90
AUGUST -SALES TAX
100,000.00
37,000.00
66,424.90
SEPTEMBER
12,000.00
54,424.90
TOTAL 1996/97
$425,000.00
$419,000.00
$54,424.90
OCTOBER 1997
12,000.00
42,424.90
NOVEMBER
12,000.00
30,424.90
DECEMBER -SALES TAX
100,000.00
62,000.00
68,424.90
JANUARY 1998
12,000.00
56,424.90
FEBRUARY
12,000.00
44,424.90
MARCH
12,000.00
32,424.90
APRIL -SALES TAX
100,000.00
62,000.00
70,424.90
MAY
12,000.00
58,424.90
JUNE
12 000.00
46,424.90
JULY
12,000.00
34,424.90
AUGUST -SALES TAX
22,575.10
57 000.00
0.00
SEPTEMBER
TOTAL 1997/98
$222,575:10
$277,000.00
XAM
22
MARCH 28, 1995
m
Commissioner Bird couldn't imagine how unattractive these
breakwaters would be sticking out of the water at low tide and
exposing all the barnacles and algae.
Mr. Donaldson explained that if we want to stop the erosion,
we need to make the reefs taller.
Jeremy Kraft, director of the Division of Environmental
Resource Permitting, of the Department of Environmental Protection,
advised that his motive in coming down here today is to see if we
couldn't come to some resolution on this and move forward.
Certainly, sitting here and debating the issues doesn't solve
erosion problems. Whether or not the PEP reef will solve the
erosion problem is a matter of debate, but there is one sure way to
find out. He did not expect the agency to change requirements for
the reef, but he preferred to work together rather than have
antagonistic efforts. Mr. Kraft stated he would like to see us
move toward issuance of a permit so this reef can be constructed if
that is the County's desire.
Mr. Kraft referred to the following letter written by Paden E.
Woodruff, senior engineer, dated 3/24/95:
-- — --- -
B.ce March 24, 1995 t,5Z`Z7t�g;
ug. Serv.
e Mgt. egAR
Dr.-- Be�! . hell, Vice President
American Coastal Engineering Inc. t �;
201 North Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 V
�rj
Don G. Donaldson, P.E. Coastal Engine
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street eo
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 °��10
Dear Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Donaldson:
SUBJECT: DBS -9A0342, PEP Reef, Vero Bea�� n' River County
This is in response to your letter with enclosures dated February
23, 1995, received by this office February 24, 1995. Department
staff has reviewed all of the information with your letter and
provides the following sthtus of the informational requirements
in order to complete the application. The original numbering
will be used.
1. and l.a. Comparison of the 1972 and 1993 profiles has not
been accomplished as requested in the May 26, 1994, letter. The
table requested in the letter of January 4, 1995, has also not
been provided. As indicated in this correspondence, the Bureau
can review the data to determine an appropriate erosion rate. It
will be necessary to obtain the 1993 data in digitized form,
(i.e., on floppy disk). The data should be formatted to include
distance from the monument and elevation relative to NGVD. The
data should be -'accompanied by control information, including
MARCH 28, 1995
L
23
BOOK 94 mu 70
coordinates of the -monument in
elevation of the.monument and
profile. This. information is
the proposed project.
B®®K 94 F. 706
Florida State Plane Coordinates,
azimuth/bearing of each survey
necessary for an adequate review of
2.2.a. Two sets of the reduced drawings were received but they
were not signed and sealed as required by rule. Please provide
two new sets. -that have been signed and sealed by the engineer.
3. he
The Countyhas not provided 'a letter received fromsponse to Ms. AdeletClemenseas for
c
comments onnthe
result of the public notice.
G. The following.comments pertain to the numerical modelling:
There was no preliminary review of the Scope of work for the
numerical modelling by Department staff or any review of early
s
This has
drafts to assist the modeler as previously requested. ThiThisnha as
resulted in a document which does not address the re uiand the
previously outlined and agreed to by the Department
County.
English units are not_utilized.in the report,_ which is fine for
the modeler but not the County or regulatory agencies. This
would have been the desirelth a to use rEnglish preliminary which would
have identified
The description.of the proposed project on page 1 is incorrect.
There are numerous references and-discussions
ssions by the error in
reaction to the low or depression area
bethymetry. Thesro ussions and needare
toirrelevant
be deletedtfromethestex�nt
of the proposed p iect
Figure 1 shows the bathymetric error. This figure needs to be
replaced with a corrected figure.
There are two figures labeled as Figure I.
There are numerous typographical errors and incomplete sentences
which need correcting?
The model does nbt incorporate any reflection of wave energy from
the units, which based on observation at the Midtown project is
significant. whet would be necessary to incorporate a reflection
component?
In item 3.10 the circulation and sediment transport models use
the incorrect bethymetry. This needs to be corrected. The
design development report contained estimates of transport. why
weren't these -estimates used in the model?
General Comments
Much of the discussion
of the modeler and not
text are undecipherable
results of the model.
MARCH 28, 1995
in the text is written
the user. Most of the
and are not helpful in
24
from the viewpoint
figures within the
understanding the
L__1
Beth MitcheU._And_4Don Donaldson
March 24;'3995
Page 3
As agreed, the numerical model was supposed.to incorporate the
laboratory results obtained by the University of Florida during
the physical model study. This has not been accomplished, which
prevents the model from incorporating or predicting the ponding
and associated currents. To proceed with the project based on
modelling which has not been validated by existing available data
is not good engineering or scientific practice.
it is not clear why wave refraction around the ends of the
segments was not incorporated into the model. Refraction, along
with the reflection phenomena is a potentially important factor
which could affect patterns of erosion and deposition along the
shoreline.
The model fails to incorporate the pumping mechanism due to the
use of a negative water level set-up inside the surf zone. This
is caused by the assumed wave reduction of the reef. There
apparently is no consideration for the constriction of flow
caused by the presence of the reef units. Because of these
assumptions, the numerical model is fundamentally flawed.
Therefore, the Department cannot use the numerical model to make
decisions as to the probable performance of the proposed project,
especially in the lee of the proposed structure.
No data or analysis has been presented that would indicate that
the proposed project would not accelerate erosion an has occurred
with the Midtown PEP reef.
There are concerns regarding the boundary conditions used in the
modelling. On page to a -"periodic" boundary condition is
described. Was it used? What was the effect of the periodic
boundary condition? On page 15, closed boundary conditions are
described which are not realistic. Why couldn't open boundary
conditions be used? What effects do these closed boundary
conditions have on the model results?
on page 23, it is stated that bathymetric changes predicted by
the model are not "updated" based on "accumulated" elevation
changes and therefore results are only "qualitative". How can
these results, then, be considered sufficient for drawing
conclusions about the reef?
7. This item requested a written response discussing how the
proposed project addresses'the six recommendations contained in
the physical model report by the University of Florida. Based on
the reasons cited below, the Department disagrees that the County
has considered and adequately responded to the recommendations
contained in'the physical model report. This item remains
25
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 PA 70 7
07
Boa 94 PTE 70
Beth Mitchel�l,�ndsDon Donaldson
March 24 ; - A 5
Page 4
incomplete.
7.1 Segmenting and offsetting - The report states that
segmenting and offsetting aploars to orov de sgM rel s O the
longshore curs-entf created by the pumping sochani+�,�. There has
been no demonstration with the numerical model that the ponding
will not exist,.and act similarly to the Midtown project and cause
a significant adverse impact to the shoreline of Vero Beach.
7.2 The discussion of relative freeboard in the completeness
response is incorrect. In the third paragraph there is a
statement that the University study recommends that the project
should provide a relative freeboard value of equal to or less
than -1.3 after conetidering unit settlement.. -.In fact, the report
recommends that the relative freeboard after unit settlement be
greater than or equal to -1.3. The report goes on to state that,
"if the relative freeboard is less than -1.3, the effectiveness
of the Reef will be reduced significantly". It appears that the
proposed project is contrary to this recommendation.
7.3 Consideration of short segments - Even with the segmented
offset design, due to the "bridging" effect cited in #6 of the
Summary and Recommendations section contained on page 26 of the
report, the structure may perform as though it is*a continuous
line of units, contributing to the pumping mechanism causing
ponding and the potential for increased erosion.
7.4 Irregular planform of the shoreline - There has been no
demonstration through the use of the numerical model that the
proposed design will eliminate this possibility or what the
shoreline response will be in the area between the north and
south segments of the proposed project.
7.5 Swimmer safety - Rip currents - In the February 23, 1995,
completeness response, the applicant relies on the predictions of
the numerical model to dismiss any currents as a significant
threat to swimmers and states that the model shows there is a
decrease in currents landward of the structure. These statements
again point to the fundamental flaws contained in the numerical
modelling where the constriction of flow caused by the units and
the resulting pondinq is not considered. This is also a result
Of assuming a negative wave set-up on the landward side of the
structure. As mentioned previously, this is contrary to the
physical modelling which was supposed to be used in the numerical
modelling, and the existing installation at Midtown,'Palm Beach.
Swig safety remains a serious concern of the Department.
7.6 Placement of sand fill to mitigate
County has adamantly opposed placement
�Tl
MARCH 28, 1995
adverse impacts - The
of sand fill to mitigate
Beth Mitehell.,and.rpon Donaldson
March
Page 5
any potential adverse impacts which is contradictory to the
recommendation contained in the physical modelling report.
Based on recent conversations with County staff, there appears to
be a desire to place sand fill due to the lack of accumulated
sediment projected by the numerical model to occur as a result of
the proposed installation. Please be advised that any fill
placed in conjunction with the PEP reef will involve a
modification to the current proposal. This would also apply to
any proposal to place sand fill once the experimental test plan
is underway. Placement of fill during the test would seriously
jeopardize the experiment and could result in revocation of the
permit, if issued.
If the County wants"to expand the ongoing dune restoration
program in lieu of constructing the PEP reef as an interim
measure, or on an annual basis through a truck haul project to
provide storm protection and a wider and higher beach profile
above the mean high waterline which would also improve marine
turtle nesting habitat, the Department will assist the County in
expediting the permitting process for such a proposal and may
also possibly participate in the funding of such a project.
13.6 As mentioned previously, the reduced drawings required
pursuant to Chapter 62B -41.008(1)(i), F.A.C., have not been
signed and sealed.
16. I would like to comment on the existence of underlying rock
at the proposed structure's location:
The Du Pont installation site in Palm Beach County has similar
underlying rock where the units were placed. Observation over
approximately 5 years indicates the units settled to the rock
bottom. This was caused by reflection of wave energy and scour.
Because of this reflection of wave energy and scour, the thin
veneer of material at the structure location is removed and
transported out of the zone of influence of the structures. This
same wave energy reflection and scour is what has also
contributed to the settlement problem of the originally installed
unite and the remaining units at the Midtown installation causing
then to sink an average of 2.71 and 1.87 feet respectively,
according to the seventeen month monitoring report.
It can be expected that this wave energy reflection and scour
phenomena will also occur'at the Vero.Beach installation
resulting in significant quantities cf material being transported
outside the zone of influence of the proposed structure.
17. This item remains incomplete.
27
MARCH 28, 1995
I will begin with Exhibit 1,
BOOK 94 m,:L
Beth Mitchel o-Amd-$on Donaldson
March 24;"'l995
Page 6
Test Plan Matrix, Expectations and Limits, Vero Beach PEP Reef.
Wave Height Reduction - There is no discussion or documentation
of what is meant.by "Wave Height Reduction". Is this general
wave height reduction? Is this the reduction of the higher one
third of the waves measured at the site? Is this for individual
waves? The two nearshore gages will have to be located to
"track" a wave from the seaward side of the breakwater in a
specific depth, to the leeward side of the breakwater in a
specific depth., Control gages will also need to be established
to determine the effect of shoaling on wave height reduction.
The test to be applied to the transmission coefficients will be
that the measured average over -a one year period will be less
than the expectation: The same criteria shall be applied
separately to the higher it of the incident waves occurring over
a one year period. Quantification of this parameter will need to
be modified as outlined above.
Volumetric Changes - This criteria shall be applied immediately
landward of the proposed 4,000 feet of breakwater and will not
include the gap between the northern and southern components of
the entire structure. The lower limit of 5.0 cy/ft/year
translates to accumulation on an average annual basis of 20,000
cubic yards landward of the proposed 4,000 feet (not including
the gap). The upper limit of -0.5 cy/ft/year translates to
erosion on an average annual basis not to exceed 2,000 cubic
yards landward of the proposed 4,000 feet (not including the
gap).
How will the material which is placed as part of the on-going
dune maintenance program be included in the volumetric change
assessment? Will the quantity placed be deleted on an annual
basis?
Shoreline Changes - The same comments as stated above for the
volumetric changes hold true for the shoreline changes.
Shoreline changes shall be analyzed in conjunction with the
volumetric data. Limits established for shoreline change, over
the monitoring period are:
a) if the Mean High Water (MHW) shoreline does not change
over the 3 year test period, without adverse effects to the
adjacent shordline.
b) The lower limit is the Mean High Water (MHW) shoreline
achieves an average of 5 feet of beach width increase per
year over the 3 year test period for a total of'15 feet.
c) The upper limit is that the Hean High Water (MHW)
shoreline recedes more than 0.5 feet per year with a total
recession of 1.5 feet -for the 3 year period, over any 400
foot segment within the monitored area then the project
28
MARCH 28, 1995
E71
Beth Mitchell and,.Don Donaldson
March
Page 7 '
shall be considered to be causing an adverse impact.
Shorelines are considered as the Mean High Water (MHW)
contours and the computations shall weight the changes by
one-half the distance to the adjacent profiles. The average
mean high water changes shall be assessed on an annual basis
and will be considered net cumulative shoreline change for
the purposes of the determination of increase in beach
width.
Scour - Additional detail for this parameter is required such as
what will be the frequency of performance assessment, i.e.,
average annual scour or scour from a specific storm event? now
will the underlying rock effect this performance parameter? In
other words, what good will an upper limit of greater that 3.5
feet be if the depth of sediment is only 2 feet?
Settling of Units - This performance criteria is somewhat soot
since most of the units are expected to settle to underlying
rock.
Alignment of Units - it is not clear how and when this criteria
will be measured.
Increase in currents - Same comment as above.
Marine Turtle Impacts - Please refer to the enclosed meso from
Mike Sole concerning the assessment of this performance criteria.
Biological Impacts - Please refer to the enclosed memo from Mike
Sole concerning.the assessment of this performance criteria.
Sediment Accumulation on Hardbottom - Additional detail is
necessary, i.e., how and when will this be measured?
These performance criteria need to be more explicitly expressed
in the test plan matrix and explained in detail in the text of
the test plan.
Exhibit 6, PEP Reef Test Plan
General Comments: ,
J
The test plan does not incorporate the test plan matrix nor
explains the matrix performance parameters.
The test plan outlines performance criteria as claimed
he
proprietary owner. As mentioned in previous correspond*nce, this
Is inappropriate.
There is no provision or section involving contingency plans that
would be triggered by the limitations set out in the test plan
matrix.
The test objectives are vague, lacking clarity and definition
The various components of the monitoring program and data
analysis involving three different organizations make the plan
confusing with unnecessary coordination required and high costs
associated with travel and overhead.
The total cost of the test plan is prohibitively high when
compared to other test plans for equivalent projects.
29 boos 94 pAin 711
MARCH 28, 1995
i
BOOK 94 Pr1E 7 -12
Beth Mitchell and Don Donaldson
March
Page 8
Some of the components of the -test plan are unnecessary and can
be eliminated without significantly effecting the analysis. The
current monitoring and associated data reduction and analysis
should be reduced. The shoals surveys and associated data
reduction and analysis could also be eliminated for further cost
savings. It is also not clear what the Phase III costs involve
and what reductions are possible.
There is no schedule provided in Section IV.
The plan refers to surveys every 4 months, but then uses the term
"quarterly surveys".
The proposed profile locations as provided by J. Bailey Smith
appear adequate, however, the information shall be submitted to
the Department in an acceptable format, (CAD files) so that
accurate drawings can be developed and used by all parties. The
information submitted is not acceptable as a baseline survey.
There are no provisions to provide the Department with
information or notification of execution of the various test plan
elements. The test plan refers to the Department as the
Department of Natural Resources.
The information submitted does not provide the Department with
the information to adequately assess the performance of the
proposed project pursuant to Section 27, Chapter 89-175, Laws of
Florida, Chapter 161.041, Florida Statutes and Chapter 628-41,
Florida Administrative code.
Based on review of the information which has been submitted, the
Department cannot recommend approval to the Secretary based on
the potential for significant adverse impacts to the coastal
system.
Sincerely,
Paden E. Woodruff, Senl6r Engineer
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Enclosure
cc: Kirby B. Green III
Jeremy A. Craft
Alfred B. Devereaux
Hal Dean _
Mark Leadon
Mike Sole
Eric Bush
Mike Ashey
David Ferrel (USFWS)
Mike Nowicki (ACOS)
Joan Pope (CERC)
J. Bailey Smith (CERC)
Steve Lewis
Gary Zarillo (FIT)
Bill Roberts
Tom Smith (ALOE)
Joe Gurule:(ACOE)
MARCH 28, 1995
30
h
Mr. Kraft advised that with regard to the issuance of a
permit, he doesn't preclude appeals of any affected parties. Most
of the burden will lie with the County. He didn,'t want to minimize
the possibility of a hearing which sometimes can go a year or more
and carry a great deal of expense.
Commissioner Adams inquired about the time frame for obtaining
the permit, noting that Mr. Woodruff took the full 30 days to reply
to us.
Mr. Kraft explained that through the normal process we still
would be arguing completeness. He thought one of the issues for
completeness is the experimental test plan, and he would suggest
that we endeavor to try and solve that within 30 days and schedule
the permitting. He felt that he could commit to assuring the time
for him and his staff to get together to work that out. As soon as
that is done, it would take another 30 days to get out the
necessary intent to issue in order to provide the public notice.
Commissioner Bird asked about the test plan, and Mr. Kraft
explained that the design of the test plan is accomplished before
the permitting. The monitoring goes forward after construction.
Commissioner Bird understood from Paden WoodrufffIs letter that
the County would not be allowed to add sand during the monitoring
stage without jeopardizing the project, and Mr. Kraft confirmed
that to be the case. He recalled that after last year's huge storm
the DEP did allow sand to be replaced on the beach in order to
protect the public's investment along the shore. The addition of
sand will alter the monitoring results. If there was a mechanism
by which we could account for that addition of sand, he would be
glad to consider that because he felt the County would like the
flexibility of adding sand under certain circumstances. He would
have to rely on his staff to see if they could come up with a plan
that would allow us to alter that variable. He rather doubted that
there is a possibility, but he is open to considering it.
Commissioner Adams noted that we already have submitted a test
plan and that Mr. Kraft's staff is in disagreement on just a few
items for one reason or another. She believed that could be
settled in 2 weeks rather than 30 days, if, in fact, the D.E.P. is
willing to work with the County. County staff has worked hard in
an effort to have a quality monitoring plan, and if money means
quality, we certainly have a quality plan.
31 eo®K 94 KUL 713
MARCH 28, 1995
BooK 94 Mi 714
Commissioner Bird wanted to be optimistic that this project
will stabilize and broaden the beach, but it bothered him that we
would not be allowed to supplement the project with beach
renourishment during the 3 years of monitoring. Three years is a
long time to sit here with our arms folded waiting to see if the
sand is going to come back; having $3 -million laying out there is
a big gamble.
Mr. Kraft agreed that it is a big gamble, and he pointed out
that many feel that money would be better spent on a different type
of project.
Mr. Kraft stated he is willing to step beyond their
recommendation and look at the placement of sand if we can come up
with a legitimate test plan that will accurately reflect the impact
of the PEP reef. It is quite possible that putting sand out would
be better without the reef.
Chairman Macht pointed out that one of the things that is
driving the high expense of this project is what we believe to be
the unreasonable requirements from Tallahassee and the monitoring
plan is a classic example of that. The result 2-3 years down the
road will speak for itself.
Chairman Macht didn't understand why we have to go through all
of this since this is a local project. If the project works, we
know who to credit; and if it doesn't, we will know who to blame.
In the 1989 storm at Humiston, waves opened up a 28 -foot breach
into the park. If that storm had lasted another 2-3 hours, that
breach would have reached Ocean Drive. That could happen again.
Chairman Macht emphasized that since no two beaches are alike, all
of the models that we have been forced to pay for really_ don't mean
a thing.
Commissioner Adams stressed that it has been a very
frustrating two years working with the DNR and DER to get the
permitting on the PEP reef, and we spent quite a bit of money on a
model at the D.E.P.'s request.
Mr. Kraft assured the Board that he would get the message to
his staff that we will be working together on moving forward with
the permitting, and Chairman Macht thanked him for coming this
morning.
Beth Mitchell of American Coastal Engineering gave further
specifics on the monitoring test plan and permitting process,
noting that they filed the application for this project in
December, 1993 with the expectation of installing the reef in 1994.
32
MARCH 28, 1995
Since that time they have conducted all of the modeling tests and
submitted a draft test plan to Tallahassee in December, 1994. Her
concern is that we are running out of time to install this project
this summer. It will take weeks to construct the units, and
installation will take 2 months, during the window of April to
September. Ms. Mitchell recalled that we went through all of this
last year when we were in the middle of the permitting process and
now we are right back where -we started from. She understood from
Mr. Kraft's statements that the test plan is the only thing holding
us up at this point, and she would like to suggest that we get
started with the permitting contingent upon completing the test
plan.
With regard to the Palm Beach Mid -Town Project, Ms. Mitchell
explained that there seems to be no dispute that there is some wave
energy dissipation going on out there. When the Beach & Shore
Preservation Committee visited Palm Beach, we had 57 units in place
for approximately 1 year with a 6-1/2 ft. build-up of sand at the
site. There was a question as to whether or not that was caused by
the reef or whether it was due to other reasons, but the fact was
that there was a lot of sand built up and it was documented. The
Mid -Town Project is into 17 months of the 3 -year study and over the
last 6-8 months there has been some severe erosion. The sand that
the Beach & Shore Preservation Committee saw on their visit has
moved out of the project site. American Coastal doesn't believe
that the PEP reef is causing the erosion, and they are very
concerned that people are jumping to conclusions based on some
survey data that may be skewed by all of the storms that have taken
place. They are hoping that cool heads will prevail and that the
sand will come back during the summer months and everybody will
feel good again about the Mid -Town Project. If that is not the
case, it is possible to adjust the reef and make a better
configuration. The fact is that this is still experimental
technology.
Ed Lambry, general manager for the Holiday Inn Oceanside,
asked the Board to support the PEP reef. He stressed that tourists
come here expecting a beach for many other reasons besides swimming
-- sunbathing, walking, wading, etc. -- and we have lost two more
feet of beach just in the last few months. The stairs to the beach
at the Holiday Inn are just five steps from the sand. The Holiday
Inn has put over $5 -million into renovations, but people still
expect a beach; moreover, the name of our city reflects that there
is a beach here.
33 BOOK 94 PAL
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 PALE 716
Ralph Sexton, president of Save Our Shores, noted that their
association has 900 members who also represent 750 feet of ocean
frontage. After hearing all of today's deliberation, he would like
to point out that we have been considering the PEP reef for over
two years now. He has studied the PEP reef in Palm Beach and
feels that with the placement and the design there is enough
evidence to allow us to proceed with a PEP reef in Vero Beach and
not mess around any longer and lose another year. If we don't
start now we are going to lose another year. He understood that we
already have spent $.5 million and he urged the County to proceed
to get the permit and get this reef constructed.
Frank Zorc, resident of Vero Beach, distributed photographs of
the PEP reef in Palm Beach, which he felt depicts the failure of
that project. He urged the Board to put the Vero Beach PEP reef
on hold until the results are in from the monitoring plan. Mr.
Zorc pointed out that people in Palm Beach are very concerned about
who would have to pay to have the reef removed if that is required
by the State. He suggested that the Board listen to the concerns
expressed by three members of the Beach & Shore Preservation
Committee at their March 20 meeting.
Peter Fallon, 12310 AIA, stated that he stood to get no
positive gain from the PEP reef because he lives too far to the
north, but he does stand to gain from the values of the beach
property that the PEP reef will be protecting. As a former
commissioner of the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District, he can say
that inlets do cause erosion. He understood that 80% of erosion on
Florida's east coast is caused by inlets, and he endorses this
because the good outweighs the bad. It is a reversible thing. If
the monitoring plan finds that the reef is not working, we can
remove it. If we don't try this experimental project, what else is
there? The Army Corps of Engineers is doing away entirely with any
help for beach restoration projects. Without their help, we are
left to do it on our own -- either totally on our own or with help
through State funds. The value of beachfront property in this
county is $11.3 million, and he believed that it behooves everyone,
whether they live on the beach or not, to protect the values of
this property.
Cal Cummings of the Village Spires, supported everything that
Ralph Sexton said and stated that Village Spires is 100% behind the
PEP reef project.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Macht
closed the public discussion.
34
MARCH 28, 1995
Commissioner Tippin felt there is a good chance it will work,
but realized there are no guarantees from Mother Nature that it
will work. He wished to point out that he is interested in the
citrus industry in this county not because he owns an orange grove
but because of the way it contributes to the economics of our
county. He is concerned about what happens to the beach because if
assessments on that property go down, we have to make up the
difference. Commissioner Tippin felt the beach is a vital resource
that everyone should be concerned about.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that we move ahead as quickly as
possible with the PEP reef project.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert felt we should try this
and do what we can. She believed we will see some success with the
Vero Beach PEP reef.
Commissioner Bird asked about our resources for trucking in
sand, and Public Works Director Jim Davis estimated that there is
enough sand available in the county for two projects.
Commissioner Adams felt that to look just at sand replacement
is not addressing the cause of the problem.
Commissioner Bird commended Commissioner Adams for her efforts
and those of staff and the Beach & Shore Preservation Committee,
but felt we are taking a $3 -million gamble which is not backed up
by the experts that we hired to give us their opinion.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that the oceanfront property
provides $11 -million in ad valorem taxes.
Chairman Macht asked about alternative 2 which contains beach
renourishment, and Commissioner Tippin noted that his Motion was
just to move ahead with the permitting process as rapidly as
possible.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that we could consider the sand
replacement separately. She believed the permitting needs to be
separate from the establishing of a funding district.
Commissioner Bird understood the Board would have another
opportunity to vote on whether to proceed with construction of the
reef. He would vote to proceed with the permitting, but he still
has some serious reservations about doing this project.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
proceed with the permitting as quickly
carried unanimously.
35
MARCH 28, 1995
The Motion to
as possible
Boox 9 PA.0 i,
Boa 9 4 PAVE 71,8
Frank Zorc understood then that the project cannot be built
until a decision is made about the erosion district, and Chairman
Macht advised that the district matter would be addressed at a
public hearing.
SCHEDULING OF APPEAL OF EMPLOYEE TERMINATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/23/95:
TO: Board of County c mmissioner
�ATE: March 23, lass FILE:
SUBJECT: Appeal of Employee
Termination
f �
FROM: ,coouun y AdministratorcREFERENCES:
As a result 6f a administrative hearing on March -16, 1995, 1 upheld the
termination of Lisa Freeman from the Emergency Management Department.
Attorney Robert Stone has filed an appeal of that decision to the Board. It is
requested the Board set an appropriate date and time for the appeal hearing
within 30 days.
Administrator Chandler reported that Attorney Robert Stone has
advised that he would be available on the following dates:
April 11, Tuesday
April 18, Tuesday
April 19, Wednesday a.m.
April 20, Thursday a.m.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board can choose any day
they want during the 30 -day window and did not have to adjust their
schedules to satisfy the appellant's attorney.
Chairman Macht announced that the consensus is to
schedule the appeal for Monday, April 24, 1995 at
9 a.m.
AUTHORIZATION FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - HOUSING OF
ANEVIALS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/21/95:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Addmi
Doug Wright, istrator
FROM: Dou Wri ht Director
Emergency Services
DATE: March 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Authorization to Issue a Request For Proposals to Provide
Housing and Other Services for Animals in the Custody of
the Indian River County Animal Control Authority
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by. the Board of County Commissioners
at the next -scheduled meeting.
36
MARCH 28, 1995
® s �
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 16, 1995, Indian River County received a letter from the
Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, F1., Inc.,
advising that its Board of Directors had voted to limit its private
sources of funding to programs directly related to the established
mission of the Humane Society. The letter further conveyed that
effective October 1, 1995, the County should plan, construct, and
begin operation of a facility for the stray dog and cat population
inasmuch as the County was unable to commit to the Humane Society
a greater share of operational costs for basic housing on a
contractual three year basis.
Given the Humane Society's position regarding discontinuing this
service, staff is requesting authorization to issue a Request For
Proposals (RFP) to provide housing and other services for animals
in the custody of the Indian River County Animal Control Authority.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff is not certain that, private entities exist that would be
interested in contracting with the County to provide this type of
service, although a brief survey demonstrated that some possible
vendors had an interest -in entertaining the idea if a request for
proposals were in fact solicited.
Staff submits that this alternative should be explored to determine
if this approach is operationally feasible and economically
acceptable to the Board in carrying out the required statutory
duties related to animal control within the County. If the
issuance of an RFP is approved, staff will release it and report
back to the Board the feasibility of private vendors providing this
type of service to the County.
ON:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the issuance of an RFP to
provide housing and other services for animals in the custody of
the Indian River County Animal Control Authority.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
the issuance of an RFP to provide housing and other
services for animals in the custody of the County,
as recommended by staff.
IRC COURTHOUSE PROTECT - CLOSE OUT AND FINAL PAYMENT
Administrator Chandler presented summary of costs:
37
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 Pv,'L 719
R� 94 FAsF i?
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Total Original Estimate was
$22,048,515.00
Total Anticipated Cost for the Courthouse Complex is
22,044,483.30
Anticipated Under -budget
$49031.70
This equates to
0.0183%
The anticipated cost figures subtract out $150,000 in furnishings as funding is to be
provided by the Court Facilities fund. Adding this cost back would bring the
variance to a projected over -budget of
$(145,968.30)
or 0.66%
Special note should be made that the total anticipated cost includes $521,211 paid for additional property
not included in the original plan or estimate.
38
MARCH 28, 1995
i �
�
W
tD
W
0
0
r
-j
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
NOTES:
(1) ALL BUT FOUR LOTS OF BLOCKS 44 & 45 WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET FOR THE
COURTHOUSE FACILITIES. THE REMAINING ADJACENT LOTS WERE TO BE PURCHASED AT A LATER DATE
AND USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BULDING FOR THE STATE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER
IN 2010. DURING FY 91-92 THE B.C.C. INSTRUCTED STAFF TO PURSUE THE PURCHASE OF THESE REMAINING
LOTS FOR FUTURE USE. A PURCHASE PRICE WAS NEGOTIATED FOR TWO OF THE FOUR LOTS WHICH WAS
APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON FEB. 2,1993.
(2) RELOCATION AND UPGRADE COSTS OF UTILITIES TO BE PAID TO CITY OF VERO BEACH.
(3) ESTIMATED COST OF AIR QUALITY STUDY
(4) ESTIMATED COST OF REMAINING CHANGE ORDERS
(5) ANTICIPATED COSTS ARE ESTIMATE OF OUTSTANDING FURNISHINGS COSTS (NET OF FUNDING FROM FUND 106 OF $150,000)
(6) RECORDING SYSTEM FOR COURTROOMS
(7) MATERIALS PURCHASED BY COUNTY TO SAVE $214,953.61 IN SALES TAX. (CHANGE ORDERS 1,3,5,9 ,12 & 19)
(8) MOVING COSTS INCLUDE ESTIMATED COST OF CLEANING BOOKS FOR $20,000
(9) BREAKOUT OF CLERICS DATA PROCESSING COSTS FROM FURNISHINGS.
(10) STATE ATTORNEY'S COMPUTER EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN APPROVED FURNISHINGS FIGURE; HOWEVER, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT WAS NOT.
(11) CONSISTS OF TV MONITOR, CAMERA, COMPUTER BRIDGES, MODEMS, AND TERMINALS FOR PRISONER PROCESSING
BETWEEN JAIL AND NEW COURTHOUSE.
(12) INCLUDES APPRAISAL FOR OLD COURTHOUSE ($4,000) , MINOR COSTS FOR COURTHOUSE OPENING ($585.53), PAYMENT
TO TAX COLLECTOR ($1,401.52), AND FLAGS ($1,530).
(13) TOTAL COST FOR HVAC ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE $84,986. THE ARCHITECT HAS AGREED TO PAY $5,000 TOWARDS THESE CHANGES.
NO LITIGATION ESTIMATES ARE INCLUDED REGARDING INFILTRATION SYSTEM AND MILLWORK CONTESTED BILLINGS.
C:IFUND315lCRTHSEISUMMARY3. WK4
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS:
ORIGINAL
JAMES CUMMINGS:
ACTUAL
THRU
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE
@ 3/9/95
ANTICIPATED
TOTAL
ANTICIPATED
(852,750.00
FAVORABLE/
(UNFAVORABLE)
11,829.91
VARIANCE AS
%OFORIGINAL
(1.308,308.49
ESTIMATES
80,713,3.5
3/9/95
(1,224,299.13
COSTS
COSTS
CHANGE ORDER 07
VARIANCE
ESTIM6TE
109,788,00
'CHANGE ORDER 09
(185,614.60
CHANGE ORDER 010
44,120,00
CHANGE ORDER 011
(40,000,00
*CHANGE ORDER 012
(108,523.02
CHANGE ORDER 013
LAND
/PRkT1QF►,A3,ip►CENT L#Np:FEF G,C. INSTRUCT
$3,500,000.00
ON)
(400,00
$3,108.830.40
26,891,00
$0.00
$3,108.630.40
CHANGE ORDER 017
$391.369.60
CHANGE ORDER 018
CONSTRUCTION:
CHANGE ORDER 019
(23,818.82
521,211.00
(1
0.00
521,211.00r1,��#:,pQ.
TOTAL COST
ll
AIR QUALITY BROKEN O
$141,889,00
JUDICIAL BUILDING
10,820,000.00
PARKING GARAGE
2,860,000.00
SUBTOTAL
AUDIOMSUAL CABLING
13,480,000.00
13,538,311.74
(12,985.42)
13,525,346.32
(45.348.32
(-0.33840,1,
IMPACT FEES
.�•�
692,800.00
333,05125
5,500.00
338,551.25
(138,551.2
SITE WORK
150,000.00
306,901.12
0.00
306,901.12
385,898.88
DEMOLITION
150,000.00
82.046.95
110,552.73
0.00
0.00
82,046.95
110,552.73
67,953.05
OTHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ADDITIONAL SITE WORK
17,250.00
122,768.17
(13)
59,986.00
182,754.17
39,447.27
(165,504.1
AIR QUALITY
100,000.00
47,633.09
(2)
88,159.12
115,792.21
(15,792.21
CHANGE -ORDERS
0.00
000
151,279.00
(3)
0.00
151,279.00
(151,279.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
14,790,050.00
14,692,544.05
4
120,679.70
14,813,223.75
(23,173.75
(-0.1567%
MANAGER & THRESHOLD TESTING
ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING FEES
955,000.00
1,000,130.18
1.505.75
1,001,635.93
46,635.93
FURNISHINGS
953.465.00
650,000.00
1,094,724.09
9,390.01
1,104,114.10
150,649.10
FURNISHINGS - CLERK DATA PROCESSING CABLING
622,233.11
(5)
(13,119.04)
609,114.07
FURNISHINGS - PUBLIC DEFENDER'S COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
89,938.68
(9)
4,535.32
94,474.00
TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT
200.000.DO
0.00
299 71700
(10)
18,183.00
4,28300
18,183.00
304 00000
EQUIPMENT FOR SHERIFF DEPARTMENT CONNECTIVITY
24 69646
(11)
2 881 54
27,380.00
RECORDING EQUIPMENT
TOTAL EQUIPMENTIFURNISHINGS
250,000.00
8
80,000.00
310,000.00
OTHER
850,000.00
1,288,587.25
76,583.82
1,363,151.07
513,151.0
MOVING COSTS
HVAC SYSTEM
26,720.71
(8)
13,27929
40,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS
MISCELLANEOUS
54,300.00
30 70000
85.000.00
TOTAL OTHER
7,517.05
12
0.00
7,517.05
CONTINGENCIES
0.00
88,537.78
43,979.29
132,517.05
132,517.
1.000 000.00
$2 �, ;.... 1Ii:0
0.00
`1l 1I$t'
:...:::...2d52
0
item
0.00
1.000 000.00
NOTES:
(1) ALL BUT FOUR LOTS OF BLOCKS 44 & 45 WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET FOR THE
COURTHOUSE FACILITIES. THE REMAINING ADJACENT LOTS WERE TO BE PURCHASED AT A LATER DATE
AND USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BULDING FOR THE STATE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER
IN 2010. DURING FY 91-92 THE B.C.C. INSTRUCTED STAFF TO PURSUE THE PURCHASE OF THESE REMAINING
LOTS FOR FUTURE USE. A PURCHASE PRICE WAS NEGOTIATED FOR TWO OF THE FOUR LOTS WHICH WAS
APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON FEB. 2,1993.
(2) RELOCATION AND UPGRADE COSTS OF UTILITIES TO BE PAID TO CITY OF VERO BEACH.
(3) ESTIMATED COST OF AIR QUALITY STUDY
(4) ESTIMATED COST OF REMAINING CHANGE ORDERS
(5) ANTICIPATED COSTS ARE ESTIMATE OF OUTSTANDING FURNISHINGS COSTS (NET OF FUNDING FROM FUND 106 OF $150,000)
(6) RECORDING SYSTEM FOR COURTROOMS
(7) MATERIALS PURCHASED BY COUNTY TO SAVE $214,953.61 IN SALES TAX. (CHANGE ORDERS 1,3,5,9 ,12 & 19)
(8) MOVING COSTS INCLUDE ESTIMATED COST OF CLEANING BOOKS FOR $20,000
(9) BREAKOUT OF CLERICS DATA PROCESSING COSTS FROM FURNISHINGS.
(10) STATE ATTORNEY'S COMPUTER EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN APPROVED FURNISHINGS FIGURE; HOWEVER, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT WAS NOT.
(11) CONSISTS OF TV MONITOR, CAMERA, COMPUTER BRIDGES, MODEMS, AND TERMINALS FOR PRISONER PROCESSING
BETWEEN JAIL AND NEW COURTHOUSE.
(12) INCLUDES APPRAISAL FOR OLD COURTHOUSE ($4,000) , MINOR COSTS FOR COURTHOUSE OPENING ($585.53), PAYMENT
TO TAX COLLECTOR ($1,401.52), AND FLAGS ($1,530).
(13) TOTAL COST FOR HVAC ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE $84,986. THE ARCHITECT HAS AGREED TO PAY $5,000 TOWARDS THESE CHANGES.
NO LITIGATION ESTIMATES ARE INCLUDED REGARDING INFILTRATION SYSTEM AND MILLWORK CONTESTED BILLINGS.
C:IFUND315lCRTHSEISUMMARY3. WK4
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS:
JAMES CUMMINGS:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE
$13,272,600,00
*CHANGE ORDER 01
(852,750.00
CHANGE ORDER 02
11,829.91
CHANGE ORDER 03
(1.308,308.49
CHANGE ORDER 04
80,713,3.5
'CHANGE ORDER 05
(1,224,299.13
CHANGE ORDER 08
(3,9W.00
CHANGE ORDER 07
179,088,00
CHANGE ORDER 08
109,788,00
'CHANGE ORDER 09
(185,614.60
CHANGE ORDER 010
44,120,00
CHANGE ORDER 011
(40,000,00
*CHANGE ORDER 012
(108,523.02
CHANGE ORDER 013
71,064.00
CHANGE ORDER 014
(400,00
CHANGE ORDER 015
26,891,00
CHANGE ORDER 01611,520.00
CHANGE ORDER 017
43 832,00
CHANGE ORDER 018
559 077,00
CHANGE ORDER 019
(23,818.82
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE
10,187,011.40
'(7) DIRECT PURCHASES BY IRC
3,480,223.92
TOTAL COST
$13,687,235.32
AIR QUALITY BROKEN O
$141,889,00
CON T UCTIO C ST
$13,525,346.32
DRAFT
1
1
[i
Boa �" F'r1 u-724
Commissioner Eggert asked why Centex Rooney does not have any
liability in things that went wrong, such as finding that there
weren't any lights in the parking lot. She felt it seems that all
the responsibility is on the architect and the contractor, and she
asked if Centex Rooney has any responsibility in the close out and
final payments.
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien believed that if the
situations did not affect delays in the construction, there really
isn't any legal responsibility on their part.
Administrator Chandler explained that the Commission doesn't
actually see a lot of what Centex Rooney handles for us in pulling
this project together, such as getting the change orders down to
the lowest cost possible. He stressed that the bottom line is that
we are getting a good building and it came in under budget.
General Services Director Sonny Dean reviewed the following
memo dated 3/21/95:
DATE: MARCH 21, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
SUWECT: IRC COURTHOUSE PROJECT CLOSE OUT AND FINAL PAYMENT;
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND:
Centex Rooney, Construction Manager on the Courthouse Project will
present the following:
1. Final Change Orders 17, 18, and 19.
2. Recommendation for architect and contractor claims
along with close out and final payment.
3. Request to issue Purchase Order for Mechanical
contractor to correct HVAC problems.
40
MARCH 28, 1995
Gary Glenewinkel, senior vice president of Centex Rooney
Construction Co., Inc., pointed out that their main duty is to
monitor the project, maintain the budget, and see that the project
does not get out of control. He emphasized that the change orders
amount to less than 5% of the construction costs, and from a cost
standpoint the project has been very successful.
Mr. Glenewinkel then reviewed change orders 17, 18, and 19 and
asked if there were any questions:
DATE: MARCH 14, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 17
BACKGROUND:
This proposed change order to the contract between James A.
Cummings, Inc. and Indian River County is necessitated due to the
following construction changes on the subject project:
Item #1 Redesigned concrete beams and moved $4,683.00
fire protection lines at Interstitial
level. (ARCHITECT)
Item #2 Increase size of fan motors in two 2,663.00
Air Handling Units. (IAQ CONSULTANT)
Item #3 Lowering of ceiling allowed deduct for (140.00)
paint. (ARCHITECT)
Item #4 Add structural dowels in covered walk- 474.00
way. (ARCHITECT)
Item #5 Add low wall stiffeners in Courtrooms. 5,817.00
(ARCHITECT)
Item #6 Add return air humidity sensors. 7,643.00
(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY BOARD)
Item #7 Additional fire sprinkler heads in 3,329.00
some mechanical rooms. (ARCHITECT)
Item #8 Add steel closure plate on windows 774.00
in interstitial for protection from
inmates. (ARCHITECT)
Item #9 Modify tree grates for oversize trees. 1,143.00
(ARCHITECT)
Item #10 Grout certain open joints in parking 4,242.00
garage. (ARCHITECT)
Item #11 Trim pre -fitted doors in restrooms 921.00
to clear tile. (ARCHITECT)
41 Boa 94 PAu %
MARCH 28, 1995
Boa 9 PA L :Y
Item
#12
Delete A.C.T. in room 1102 and add
(36.00)
accommodate various ceiling heights.
paint. (ARCHITECT)
(ARCHITECT)
Item
#13
Add wing wall in office area 1226
257.00
grades. (ARCHITECT)
to reinforce handicap ramp. (ARCHITECT)
Item #21
Item
#14
Paint atrium lights. (ARCHITECT)
-0-
Item
#15
Delete acoustical spray in generator
(900.00)
Item #22
Modify structural elevations due to
room. (ARCHITECT)
Item #16 Additional exiting signage required 158.00
by fire marshal. (ARCHITECT)
Item #17 Provide speaker port and paper pass 275.00
in glass in room 2187. (OWNER)
Item #18 Seal coat on acoustical insultation 6,700.00
in mechanical rooms. (ARCHITECT)
Item #19
Offsets in sprinkler heads to
550.00
accommodate various ceiling heights.
(ARCHITECT)
Item #20
Adjust catch basins to accommodate"hew
162.00
grades. (ARCHITECT)
Item #21
Relocate fire department connections
727.00
to avoid underground utilities.
( OWNER)
Item #22
Modify structural elevations due to
450.00
civil conflicts. (ARCHITECT)
Item #23
Toilet room accessories in room 3192
300.00
were inadvertently omitted from plans.
(ARCHITECT)
Item #24
Hardware for elevator equipment room
564.00
door as inadvertently omitted from plans.
(ARCHITECT)
Item #25
Relocate pedestal unit modified as per
1,110.00
Clerk of Court. (CLERK/OWNER)
Item #26
Connect electrical power to demountable
2,066.00
partitions. (OWNER)
TOTAL
$43,932.00
New Contract Price is $10,151,751.02.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Construction Manager and Staff, recommends approval of Change
Order Number 17 as submitted.
42
MARCH 28, 1995
DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 18
BACKGROUND:
This proposed change order to the contract between James A.
Cummings, Inc. and Indian River County is necessitated due to the
following construction changes on the subject project:
Item #1 Additional electrical conduit, devices $11,588.00
for audio/visual equipment. (OWNER)
Item #2 Deletion of granite banding. (ARCHITECT) (2,918.00)
Item #3 Secure food pass slots added to holding 1,192.00
cell doors. (ARCHITECT)
Item #4 Modifications along 21st Street per 8,806.00
City of Vero Beach. (OWNER)
Item
#5
Several non -fire doors changed to fire
2,435.00
doors. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#6
Power and communications requirements
5,545.00
inadvertently omitted from documents in
J.A.'s area. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#7
Add ventilation grilles in irrigation
204.00
pump room. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#8
Delete specified cash drawers.
( 708.00)
(CLERK/OWNER)
Item
#9
Change specified door hardware to
2,862.00
accommodate proper operation. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#10
NOT USED
-0-
Item
#11
Change irrigation heads to meet need of
1,775.00
ground cover change. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#12
Electric strike for door 2181 omitted
2,302.00
from plans. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#13
Provide A/C diffusers for Mechanical
450.00
Rooms.. (ARCHITECT)
Item #14 Relocate equipment in Mechanical Rooms 1,527.00
to provide easier access. (ARCHITECT) .
Item #15 Relocate thermostats from behind 500.00
demountable furniture. (ARCHITECT)
Item #16 Relocate exit lights as per fire marshal. 420.00
(ARCHITECT)
43 ft00K 94 PA r 25
MARCH 28, 1995
Item #24 Modify slab on grade to provide better 2,028.00
drainage. (ARCHITECT)
Item #25 NOT USED -0-
Item #26 Connect fire pump to fire alarm system 371.00
as per fire marshal. (ARCHITECT)
Item #27 Add thresholds and change lock functions 614.00
on all elevator machine rooms. (ARCHITECT)
Item #28 Add floor stops to lobby front doors. 198.00
(ARCHITECT)
Item #29 Modify wood window trim to accommodate 594.00
lowered ceiling. (ARCHITECT)
Item #30 NOT USED -0-
Item #31 Extend telephone feeders in Room 2149. 2,328.00
(ARCHITECT)
TOTAL $59,077.00
New contract price is $10,210,828.02..
RECOMMENDATIONS:
v
The Construction Manager and Staff, recommends approval of Change
Order Number 18 as submitted.
HTD/eh(COURCOI8.MAR)
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
BY. i� s
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FOR: 3- cJS
44
MARCH 28, 1995
_I
Boor
94 mu 72
Page
two
INDIAN RIVER COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 18 _
Item
#17
Add tamper proof switches to fire pump.
1,134.00
(ARCHITECT)
Item
#18
Change function of several door locks
1,344.00
to accommodate exiting in an emergency.
(ARCHITECT)
Item
#19
Relocate exit lights as per fire marshal.
529.00
(ARCHITECT)
Item
#20
Remove deadbolts from main entrance doors
200.00
as per fire marshal. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#21
Additional street striping as requested
8,055.00
by City. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#22
Change lock function on door #2181 as per
66.00
fire marshal. (ARCHITECT)
Item
#23
Modify grand stairs hand rails to meet
5,636.00
building code. (ARCHITECT)
Item #24 Modify slab on grade to provide better 2,028.00
drainage. (ARCHITECT)
Item #25 NOT USED -0-
Item #26 Connect fire pump to fire alarm system 371.00
as per fire marshal. (ARCHITECT)
Item #27 Add thresholds and change lock functions 614.00
on all elevator machine rooms. (ARCHITECT)
Item #28 Add floor stops to lobby front doors. 198.00
(ARCHITECT)
Item #29 Modify wood window trim to accommodate 594.00
lowered ceiling. (ARCHITECT)
Item #30 NOT USED -0-
Item #31 Extend telephone feeders in Room 2149. 2,328.00
(ARCHITECT)
TOTAL $59,077.00
New contract price is $10,210,828.02..
RECOMMENDATIONS:
v
The Construction Manager and Staff, recommends approval of Change
Order Number 18 as submitted.
HTD/eh(COURCOI8.MAR)
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
BY. i� s
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FOR: 3- cJS
44
MARCH 28, 1995
_I
DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
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 19
BACKGROUND:
This proposed change order to the contract between James A.
Cummings, Inc. and Indian River County is necessitated due to the
following construction changes on the subject project:
Item #1 Duress alarm modification for Judge $1,489.00
Benches. (ARCHITECT)
Item #2 Modify sprinkler heads in storage 1,455.00
closets due to conflict in documents.
(ARCHITECT)
Item #3
Relocate duct penetration and VFD's in
1,891.00
the interstitial mechanical room.
(ARCHITECT)
Item #4
Hollow Metal Frame galvanizing
509.00
verification. (ARCHITECT)
Item #5
Deduct to Contract for credits due
(39,386.62)
County for direct purchase items.
(COUNTY)
Item #6
Credit for acceptance of non -conforming
(3,983.00)
items (ARCHITECT)
Item #7
Correction of sales tax credit in vendor's
4,989.00
sales tax. (OWNER)
Item #8
Cost to replace damage acoustical
5,353.00
ceiling tiles. (OWNER)
Item #9
The furred out space between the corridor
1,500.00
windows was not clear on plans.
(ARCHITECT)
Item #10
Modify hollow metal door frames to
2,367.00
accommodate specified electric strikes.
(ARCHITECT)
TOTAL
(23, 816.62)
New Contract Price is $10,187,011.40
The construction Manager and Staff, recommends approval of Change
Order Number 19 as submitted.
45 BOOK 94 PAA 7?
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 9 �AGL 7?8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Orders 17, 18, and 19, as recommended by
staff.
Mr. Glenewinkel next addressed the close out of the Cummings'
contract for the project, referring to the following letter dated
3/14/95:
CENTEX ROONEY
March 14, 1995 CCNSTPUC.TION COMPANY
Mr. Sonny Dean
Director of General Services
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Closeout of the Indian River Courthouse Project
Dear Sonny:
In order to assist you in your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for the
close out of James A. Cummings' contract for the construction of -the Indian River Courthouse
and to review' all outstanding issues related to that contract, I offer the following
recommendations and opinions:
1. It is our recommendation that the County not pursue liquidated damages against the
contractor and that final payment be made per our recommendation as well as that of the
Architects (copies attached). Our basis for this recommendation are the result of two
factors. First, it is our opinion that while not required under the terms of the contract,
the County has not truly been financially damaged by the delay in the completion of the
courthouse.
Second, it is our opinion that the contractor has taken severe financial loss, due to no
fault of the County, on this project and would file a claim against the County in an
attempt to recover general condition cost and approved time extensions for the delays.
Should this happen, -we feel the contractoF could substantiate delays for at least half of
the total delay of approximately 101h months. Should this be the case, it could end up
costing the County additional funds. See attached Exhibit "A' which provides a
theoretical cost projection in the event of a claim with the contractor.
2. We are also recommending (except for items addressed in #3 and #4 below) that the
County not seek reimbursement against the Architects and Engineers for the minor
changes which resulted in the contract. The construction contract had a total of $638,023
of additions to the contract resulting from errors and omissions in the documents and
Owner changes. Of this, approximately 3 % or $388,000 is a result of the Architect and
Engineers documents to which we feel the Architect and Engineer, under the terms of
their contract, could be held directly accountable for no more than $55,000 (See Exhibit
attached). The balance would be considered added value. The percentages of
46
MARCH 28, 1995
increased cost are extremely low by any standards of the industry. In other words, while
there were an unacceptable number of minor errors and changes to the documents, the
over all design of the basic system and building was well done. The County should
understand that everyone has contributed financially to this project. The Architects and
Engineers were not compensated for the air quality changes or audio visual changes made
by the County. Additionally, everyone has accepted their own cost for the extended
duration of the project. Our rough estimate of these costs are as follows:
Contractor 101A mos. 0 45,000/mos. = 472,500
Arch/Eng. Design Fee on Air Quality changes = 15,000
Project Administration 101h mos. 0 6,000 = 63.000
78,000
Program Managers 101h mos. @ 16,000 = - 168,000
All of these firms have agreed not to attempt to recover any of these costs if we can just
close out the project per our recommendations.
Again, if you would visit Exhibit "A," you will note that the Architect and ourselves are
giving up any claim to recover our extended cost as a result of pursuing liquidated
damages against the Contractor. This, in the Architect's case, would off set any cost the
County would have against the Architect.
3. The Contractor has notified us of his request for arbitration of two issues. The first is
the failure and repair of the infiltrator beds in the amount of $278,000. The second issue
is an approximate $30,000 millwork issue which a formal request has not been received
yet, but the contractor has advised us he does intend to arbitrate.
Both of these issues will continue to be resolved under the arbitration process and we feel
the County has an excellent chance at defeating both of these issues. Should the County
be found liable under either of these issues, it is our opinion that they would have legal
recourse against the Architects and Engineers.
4. Finally, we recommend that the County issue, as soon as possible, a Purchase Order to
Mid -State Mechanical for the completion of the air quality changes to the building. This
Purchase Order in the amount of $64,986.00 is mandatory to make the system operate
properly. See -Exhibit "C" for a complete list of work involved in this change. We feel
that we have negotiated a fair price with Mid -State and must use them to maintain the
integrity of the new building warranties. The Architect and Engineers have agreed to
contribute to this cost based upon their share of responsibility. The amount of their
contribution has not been determined at this time, but we feel the work can not be
delayed. We will continue to evaluate what we estimate the cost split should be and
make our recommendation to the County upon our completion.
47 GOOK 94 PAG.,7
MARCH 28, 1995
PpCiK94 PALE:73U
Sonny Dean
March 14, 1995
Page 3 of 3
The above items are the only outstanding issues known by Centex Rooney at this time. You will
have our continued support throughout the completionrof these issues.
Sonny, in closing I would like once again to try to focus everyones attention to the positive
accomplishments of this project. It is so rare in this day and time that construction projects can
boast about all of the success we have had here.
• The late completion of construction of the project has fortunately not cost the County any
money, in fact, it may have actually created a savings for the County.
• Part of this added construction time has allowed the incorporation of the latest technology
and equipment to prevent Indian River County from being. added to the growing list of
Florida* Counties with sick buildings.
• All parties are willing to suffer the consequences of the extended construction time and
not pursue any claims against the County as a result of time. This is a major success and
should not be taken lightly by the County.
• The County has a state of the art Court House constructed of quality materials that would
be impossible to reproduce at the cost the County paid. When compared to comparable
Court Houses built by other Counties around the state, Indian River is one of the most
economical projects in the last several years.
• Total changes on the project, including Owner requested changes are less than 5 % of the
original contract amount and is within 2 % of the budget which was set .4 years ago. This
fact alone sets this -project apart from the majority of other public projects around the
state.
As always, I will be available to assist you in discussing any of these items in more detail or
help you explain them to any of the County Commissioners.
Sincerely,
CENTER ROONEY CONSTRUCTIOp%CO., INC.
;• e
. Glenewinkel
Senior Vice President
GWG/lf
encl.
48
MARCH 28, 1995
FR CENTEX ROONEY
D(HIBIT'A'
Cost model for Contractor being able to substantiate only 50% of extended time.
Assumptions: Contractor overhead cost 545,000/mo.
or $1,475/day
320 days over contract time
180 days justified by Contractor
180 days liquidated damages awarded to County
180 x 3,050
488,000
Total awarded to County
Less
100x$1,475=
<238.000>
Extended General Conditions awarded to Contractor
252,000
Less
180 x 1000 a
<180,000>
Project Manager's extended General Conditions per contract
92,000
Less
180 x 550 =
<88,000>
Architect/Engineem extended cost per contract
$4.000
Plus
County would retain from Architect/Engineer for cost of errors
55.000
and omissions
0•
Net to County
• This amount would not begin to cover the cost to the County to arbitrate this issue with the Contractor.
This cost model is based only on the Contractor substantiating 1/2 of the extended time. If he should
be able to prove more time, this could easily result in a net immediate cash out lay by the County.
[IV
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK 94 FA,,,,L 731
I
_I
'ROOK. 94 1, : , /_!
Mr. Glenewinkel noted that the proposed closeout involved a
lot of negotiation with the contractor. The project was extended
10-1/2 months and there is no doubt that the County has incurred
some costs that they would not have if the architect had designed
a perfect set of documents. However, the architects and engineers
went without reimbursement for any of their services in connection
with that. The inclusion of the HVAC system in midstream caused
considerable disruption to the project. The contractor bid the job
in a very competitive time, and out of the $13 -million contract had
$5 -million in subcontractors that went broke on him and he had to
come in and finish their work. This project has not been a
financial success for the contractor, and he has tried to maximize
every little error he could find by the architect and engineer in
order to recoup some of his costs.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the final close out and final payment as presented.
Commissioner Bird asked if we will get the release of liens,
etc., and Attorney Vitunac advised that we will and that Attorney
O'Brien will be participating in the two issues that are still in
arbitration between the contractor and one of his subcontractors.
50
MARCH 28, 1995
CENTEX ROONEY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY RECEfVED
MAR Z1 1995
March 13, 1995 C- NFRAt Sr*f%CHVICES
Mr. Sonny Dean
Director of General Services
Indian River County
1040 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Subject: *617 Indian River -County Judicial Complex
Dear Sonny,
Regarding the additional HVAC work required at the Indian
River County Courthouse, Centex -Rooney recommends removing the work
from JAC's contracted scope of work.
Centex -Rooney also recommends issuing a Purchase Order
directly to Mid -State Mechanical Contractors of Vero Beach for
$64,986.00.
These required changes to the HVAC system handled in the
described manner will alleviate the General Contractors stipulated
mark up. At the same time IRC's warranties will not be affected
since Mid -State Mechanical Contractors have been the Mechanical
Contractor on the nev. _facility.
If this office can be of any further _assistance or there are
any questions please call.
Sincerely, dA Vk
Na han L. Sink
r Project Superintendent
NLS/mf
Attachment
cc: Gary Glenewinkel
1413 21 st Street, Suite B - Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone (dn7) 77R_f,ROA - c: -v (dn7) 77R_,R?A
51
MARCH 289 1995
BOOK 94 PAu 3 31
.1
BOOK 9 Z-4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to issue a purchase order directly to Mid—
State Mechanical Contractors of Vero Beach for
$64,986 for additional HVAC work, as recommended by
staff.
CHANGE ORDERS 17, 18 AND 19 ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
contract is on file in the Offu¢e of the C3.erk to the Ward
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SPACE NEEDS
Postponed until meeting of 4/4/95.
FY 1995/96 ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING - CERTIFICATION
OF PARTICIPATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/22/95:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 22, 1995
SUBJECT FY 1995/96 ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING.
CERTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION
FROM: Joseph .A. Bair
OMB. Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Budget Office received a letter dated March 14, 1995 from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (FDCA) stating that Indian River County has been allocated $145,315 in grant
funds for FY 1995/96, to fiord local anti-drug abuse projects. The letter also requested the Board
to serve as the coordinating unit of government in applying for the funds. The Substance Abuse
Advisory Council will be soliciting for and receiving grant applications as well as evaluating those
applications and recommending to the Board what projects to fund and their funding levels. The
Substance Abuse Advisory Council's recommendations will be brought to the Board for approval
in May. The grant's sixth year will continue to be funded 75% from the state and 25% from the
county. The budgetary impact on the county will not exceed $50,000 especially since staff has
requested all matching funds for the 1995/96 fiscal year to be made by the grant applicants rather
than the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners would still have
to match the Substance Abuse Council portion since the grant requirement recommended the Board
of County Commissioners set up the council to administer the grant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board accept the invitation to serve as the coordinating unit of government
in the FDCA Anti -Drug Abuse act Grant Program and authorise the Board Chairman to sign the
Certification of Participation naming Joseph A. Baird, Budget Director, as the contact person.
52
MARCH 28, 1995
171
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to accept the invitation to
serve as the coordinating unit of government in the
FDCA Anti -Drug Abuse Act Grant Program, and
authorized the Chairman to sign the Certification of
Participation naming Joseph A. Baird, Budget
Director, as the contact person.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert asked about the current
administrative fees and the matching grants, and OMB Director Joe
Baird explained that organizations receiving funding on this anti-
drug abuse grant would be matching the grants. In the past we have
made the match, but the State has indicated that in most counties
the agencies receiving these grants match the funds. He felt it
was a good idea because it makes them buy into it and it makes them
more concerned about the costs. It will cut down on our match
substantially. Last year our match was $43,000 and this year he
expected our match to be less than $10,000.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION. The Motion
carried unanimously.
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CROSSING AGREEMENT - CR -512
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/15/95:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis,
Public Works Dir
FRObb
Roger D. Cain, P
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Florida East Coag
DATE:' March ,15, 1995
.ment, CR512
In November of 1990, staff brought before the commission a tentative agreement with the
Florida East Coast Railway and the Florida Department of Transportation for the
construction of a new crossing as part of the CR 512 widening project. The Minutes of that
meeting are attached. As construction of that portion of the project is now very close to
reality, staff is requesting that the agreement with F.E.0 11.11. be approved.
booK %94 FA�,L ESP
MARCH 28, 1995 53
BOOK 9 PACE 73
-The agreement approved by the Board in 1990 was to biose the crossings over the FEC at
Bay Street and at 87th Street. The County will be granted, a crossing opening for westbound
traffic on new CR 512, with the existing CR 512 crossing serving for Eastbound traffic on
CR 512.
AND ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Board direct the Chairman to execute this agreement on behalf
of the Board. As the Board previously approved this agreement no alternative is being
presented.
RBCOMMF,NDATim AND FUNDING
Funding to be from Traffic Impact Fee District 3, in the amount of $273,300.00.
Commissioner Adams recalled that when a previous Board had to
deal with this situation, they didn't have any choice in this
crossing.
County Engineer Roger Cain advised that we could go through an
administrative hearing if the Board so desired.
Commissioner Bird recalled that he voted for the crossing, but
he felt we may have to draw a line in the sand in the future and
object more strongly if asked to give up two crossings for one.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Stipulation of Parties
Agreement with the FEC, as recommended by staff.
STIPULATION OF PARTIES AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BLUE CYPRESS LAKE PARK - RESTROOM BUILDING -
ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/22/95:
54
MARCH 28, 1995
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Dir
SUBJECT: Agreement for Architectural/Engineering Services -
Blue Cypress. Lake Restroom Bldg.
DATE: March 22, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As previously authorized by the Board on Jan. 24, 1995, the Public Works department staff has
negotiated the attached Architectural/Engineering Services Agreement for replacement of the
Blue Cypress Lake Restroom Building with Edlund and Dritenbas Architects, Vero Beach, FL.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
0
The Scope of Work includes design of a new handicap accessible building including water system
and connection to the new sanitary sewer system. The compensation to the architect is $6,750,
which includes engineering services.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Architectural/Engineering Services Agreement be approved.
Funding to be from Florida Boating Improvement Program funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with Edlund & Dritenbas Architects,
P.A. for architectural/ engineering services in the
amount of $6,750 for a public restroom at Blue
Cypress Lake Park, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE*OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION FOR SEWER SERVICE - NORTH U.S. #1 BETWEEN 110TH
PLACE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/14/95:
55 BOOK 9 4 PAGE 7,37
MARCH 28, 1995
8m 94 m -'E '738
DATE: MARCH 14, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY VICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST N- ((����
AND STAFFED MANAGER -OF ASSEaT"PROJECTS.-
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR SEWER SERVICE
NORTH IIS 1 BETWEEN 110TH PLACE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -95 -07 -CS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received from the residents of the area along
the east.side of North US 1 between 110th Place and Riverside Drive,
requesting the County to provide sewer service. 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 tax
map) .
ANALYSIS
There are 9 non -platted properties owned by 7 property owners. The
6 signatures on the petition represent ownership of 85.71% of the
properties to benefit from this service. 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
sewer 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 authorizing the Department to proceed
with the design engineering work in preparation for 'the special
assessment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the above -listed project authorizing Utilities Dept.
to proceed with the design engineering work in
preparation for the special assessment, as
recommended by staff.
56
MARCH 28, 1995
SEBASTIAN LAKES SEWER CONNECTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated
2/20/95:
DATE: MARCH 15, 1995
TO:. JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO 11
DIRECTOR OF UTI T S QICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. cc IN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL GINEER
BY: DEPARTME UTILITY SERVICES
3/15/95 and
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN LAKES SEWER CONNECTION
INDIAN -RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. -.IIS -95 -02 -CS
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved an interlocal agreement for sewer service
within a portion of the City of Sebastian (see attached agreement).
The developer of Sebastian Lakes is funding a County project to
connect its development with the County's wastewater system. The
Utilities Department has completed design and permitting of this
project and is ready to commence construction.
ANALYSIS
In order to expedite construction of the project, the County
solicited three quotations for the above -referenced work. The
quotes are as follows:
1) Treasure Coast Contracting
2) Driveways, Inc.
3) A and R Utilities
$52,318.40
44,619.00
44,089.15
The low bid was A and R Utilities in the amount of $44,089.15. The
owner of the Sebastian Lakes development has provided the County
with funding for this work and all other costs incurred by the
Utilities Department (see attached memo dated February 20, 1995 for
total project costs). All permits have been received, and we are
prepared to award the project utilizing a purchase order to begin
construction. Funding for this project will be from Account No.
472-000-169-259.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of
Board of .County Commissioners
Utilities in the amount of
associated project expenditures
memo.
Utility Services recommends that the
approve the above award to A and R
$44,089.15 and approve all other
as outlined in the February 20, 1995
57 BOOK 94 Pd.1739
MARCH 28, 1995
not . 4 f A E 740
DATE: February 20, 1995
TO: HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIREC;ENGINEER
OF ILITY SERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. MCCA
CAPITAL PROJECT
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN LAKES SEWER CONNECTION PROJECT COSTS
The estimated construction cost was $50,000 and the bids came in as
follows:
Treasure Coast
Driveways, Inc.
A & R Utilities
$52,318.40
$44,619.00
$44,089.15
The quoted cost for the RTU system complete is: $5,850.00
Making the total construction cost: $49.939.15
Engineering cost as quoted is $5,000, plus $500 of .the $1,000 in
permit costs were used; therefore; the total project cost is as
follows:
Construction $44,089.15
RTU $ 5,850.00
Engineering $ 5,000.00
Permits $ 500.00
TOTAL COST: $551439.15
(Original total estimate $56,000)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the above award to A.and R Utilities in the amount
of $44,089.15 and approved all other associated
project expenditures as outlined in staff's memo of
2/20/95.
58
MARCH 28, 1995
WOODLAWN MANOR FORCE MAIN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/6/95:
DATE: MARCH 6, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI g�!q"
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVI
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M CAIN �����
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROD �nvEER
BY: DEPARTMEN ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WOODLAWN.MANOR FORCE MAIN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -07 -CS
FINAL -PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER
BACKGROUND
On September 6, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Driveways, Inc., for the
above -referenced project. (See attached agenda and minutes) The
project has been finalized and accepted by the Utilities
Department. We are prepared to make final payment to the
Contractor.
ANALYSIS
The original contract amount was for $59,160.20. Attached is a
change order reducing the amount by $510.00, making the final
contract amount $58,650.20. This reduction is a result of the
County supplying the 10" pipe material (a deduct) and a reduction
in the jack and bore, as well as additional compensation for
unforeseen construction obstacles. For details please see the
attached change order and final pay request from the contractor.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached final change order and pay request as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
final change order and pay request from Driveways,
Inc., as set out in staff's recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
59 600K94 Phi, 741,
MARCH 28, 1995
�1
HOOK �� f`k4E. '6
AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE DELIVERY OF REUSE WATER TO BENT
PINE GOLF CLUB, INC.
DATE:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/95:
MARCH 16, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT 0. WISEMEN; E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGI -
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILI ERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR FUTURE DELIVERY OF REUSE WATER TO
BENT PINE GOLF CLUB, INC.
BACKGROUND
The County has permitted future reuse water for the subject golf
course during processing of the DEP construction permit for the
rapid infiltration basin system at Bent Pine. The permitted
capacity for the subject golf course is 600,000 gallons per day (see
attachment). The County and Bent Pine Golf Club, Inc., have
negotiated an agreement for delivery of the reuse water for
irrigation water resources.
ANALYSIS
The golf course has agreed to receive the reuse water upon
completion of its irrigation pumping system modification.
Negotiations have been concluded, and an agreement is ready for
execution. The agreement covers jurisdiction of each party, point
of delivery, responsibility for maintenance, terms of agreement and
renewal, allocation for flow and cost of reuse water, water quality,
supplier and receiver covenants, notices, and miscellaneous.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
and execution of the agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement for future delivery of reuse water to
Bent Pine Golf Club, Inc., as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
60
MARCH 28, 1995
EMPLOYEE APPEALS TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/17/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners N co�Yjr
FROM: Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht A.
DATE: October 17, 1994
RE: EMPLOYEE APPEALS TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners, under County Code Section
101.03, has the -authority to employ and as a corollary discharge three
employees - County Administrator, County Attorney and Executive Aide
to the Commission. All other employees come under the jurisdiction of
one of these three employees.
The Board, under Section 101.08 of the Code, shall not "in any manner
dictate the appointment or removal of any county employee nor shall the
board or any of its members give orders or direction to any county
employee". The one exception being for the employees named in section
101.03.
Under the appeal process dictated in the personnel manual
AM -807.1(6) (b) an employee suspended or terminated may have that
decision heard and affirmed or reversed by the Board of County
Commissioners. This is in conflict with the limitations imposed by
Section 101.08 of the Code. Further, it is in conflict with the theory
of having a County Administrator. Under Section 101.05 of the Code
the County Administrator is charged with a wide range of
responsibilities; therefore, he should have final administrative say as to
all disciplinary matters affecting employees under his supervision just
as the County Attorney and Executive Aide should have final
administrative say over employees under their supervision. Any action
sought by an employee beyond this level should be to the Courts and
not to the Board.
Commissioner Macht noted that this change would not exhaust
employees appeals, it just extends them to the Courts rather than
to the Board of County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board directed the County
Attorney to come back with a change in the Employee
Manual.
1*1
MARCH 28, 1995
BOOK o4- F, ii 7�
ma 94 PAU 744
HRS REDUCTION INHEALTH COSTS FOR PRISONERS IN TAIL
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/22/95:
eri
�l�ff
GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
4055 41st AVENUE VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960.1808 PHONE 407 -569 -67S -
March 22, 1995
��2223242516�,��
The Honorable Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman MAR iTO. 5
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Streetr` RECEIVED
Vero Beach, FL 32960 ` , aWID COUtM w
Y COMMISSIONERS
Re: HRS Intent to Re -Write Chapter l OD -7, FAC Ql01 G
The HRS Medical Rules fer-Jails -
Dear Chairman Macht:
I believe the above mentioned subject has the potential of even a deeper financial burden on the
taxpayers of Indian River County depending on how these rules are re -written. I have attached
Tom Berlinger's memorandum from the Florida Sheriffs Association regarding this matter.
Someone from my office and/or the Board of County Commissioners should attend this meeting
to represent the taxpayers. Without representation, it is hard to tell what consequences we may
suffer. I intend to send Captain Bob Reese or Lieutenant Bill McMullen to represent this
department's interest.
If you want to have someone attend this meeting, let me now and perhaps they could attend
together representing Indian River County.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized Emergency Services Director Doug Wright
to send someone from his office to attend the HRS
meeting outlined in Sheriff Wheeler's letter.
62
MARCH ZS, 1995
RESOLUTION REINFORCING COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO TORT
LIABILITY AND COMPARATIVE FAULT IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
FOR COUNTIES
Chairman Macht reported that State Senator Patsy Kurth has
indicated that the tort liability and comparative fault bill has
passed out of committee and is being brought before the full
Senate. He suggested we send a resolution to the Legislature
reinforcing our opposition to this bill.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-52, to the Florida Legislature
regarding tort liability and comparative fault in
negligence cases for counties.
63
BOOK 94 PAu 745
MARCH 28, 1995
noF 94 FAGS 746
RESOLUTION NO. 95-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE REGARDING TORT LIABILITY AND COMPARATIVE
FAULT IN NEGLIGENCE CASES FOR COUNTIES.
WHEREAS, the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers has proposed .legislation
which will significantly limit a county's ability to shift fault to unnamed
party defendants in negligence actions; and
WHEREAS, the County has previously passed Resolution 95-49 which
indicated its opposition to this proposed legislation; and
WHEREAS, since that time the bill has passed out of committee and is
progressing toward presentation before the full Senate; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Association of Counties Trust has determined that
the fiscal impact of this legislation will be between $45 and $80 million in
increased judgments against local governments over the next five years, and
this estimate does not include the retroactive impacts of the bill nor does
it account for additional claims that may be filed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board strongly urges the Florida
Legislature and the *Governor of the State of Florida not to enact this
proposed tort liability change.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and
the'motion was seconded by'Commissioner Bird , and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird ' Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner .john W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 28th day of March, 1995.
s
K. Bar Clerk
MARCH 28, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SION AS
INDIAN VER COUNT , R A
:!
By
Kenneth R. 14acht
Chairman -
64
PAVING OF 14TH STREET EAST OF U.S11 - COUNCIL ON AGING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/21/95:
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Carolyn K. Eggert, County Commissioner Cg e
Date: March 21, 1995
Re: Council on Aging and Paving of 14th Street
East of U.S. #1
Please give consideration to the County's paying the
Council on Aging's final road paving assessment of
$4,909.32. As you recall at budget time, we did not fully
fund the Council on Aging and asked them to return to us if
necessary. This funding would come from general fund
contingency funds.
Arlene Fletcher, executive director of Council on Aging, was
100 percent in favor of paving 14th Street at any cost. She
requested that the County support the Council on Aging by paying
some of the cost. She noted there is 234 front feet at a cost of
$20.98 which totals $4,909.32; but 75 feet of that 234 feet is
already paved. They are being assessed for 75 feet that is already
paved, and she didn't understand why they are not being assessed
for just the 160 feet that is not paved. That would decrease the
assessment by $1,552.52 for a total of $3,356.80 instead of
$4,909.32.
Public Works Director Jim Davis was agreeable to assessing
them just on the unpaved portion rather than on the total frontage.
He explained that when staff prepared the assessment roll, they
went back to the previous project further to the east to determine
where that assessment stopped and picked up from there. He
believed they felt it was equitable to have a uniform assessment
for the two projects.
Commissioner Eggert felt it is much safer for people to
approach the center from U.S. #1 and turn in on 14th Street rather
than zigzagging in from 6th Avenue.
Administrator Chandler advised that staff's recommendation
would be to fund this from the transportation fund contingencies.
65 M(4 94 llkj'747
MARCH 28, 1995
"JP 94 F'41F 74,E
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
funding of the paving assessment on the unpaved
portion of the frontage from the transportation fund
contingency.
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately following adjournment,
the Board would reconvene as the District Board of Commissioners of
the Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are,being prepared
separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:47 a.m.
ATTEST:
1�
J. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved
RV.
MARCH 28, 1995