HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/23/1995� MINUTMATTACHED �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 23, 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) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2)
John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
00 A.M. 1. CALI, T1 ORDER PAGE
2. DMOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANM Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
MONS h,e : EN : lEME: y YII m
8.B. Sabonjohn Property - Environmental Violations
11.E. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding
13.D. Medevac Ad Hoc Committee meeting
5.
None
6. APPROVAL OF MMiTEs
A. Regular Meeting of April 18, 1995
B. Regular Meeting of April 25, 1995
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: Report - St. of Fla., Audit of IRC
District School Board for FY ended 6/30/94
B. Award Bid #5059 / Engineering Copier
(memorandum dated May 15, 1995)
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): PAGE
C. Award Bid #5060 / Furnish & Install Computer
Hardware/Network -Housing Authority
(memorandum dated May 15, 1995)
D. Award Bid #5068 / Concrete Pipe
(memorandum dated May 2, 1995)
E. M.A.C.E. Grant (Multi -Agency Drug Enforce-
ment Unit) Project Generated Income
(memorandum dated May 17, 1995)
F. Agreement / IRC & Mr. & Mrs. Paul V. Quimby
Temporary Water Service
(memorandum dated April 18, 1995)
G. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #018
(memorandum dated May 15, 1995)
H. County Tax Deed Applications
(memorandum dated May 18, 1995)
I. Request for Floodplain Cut & Fill Balance
Waiver - Residence at 430 Live Oak Drive
(memorandum dated May 17, 1995)
J. FEC Railroad Grade Crossing License Agree-
ment - 45th St. (No. Gifford Road)
(memorandum dated May 17, 1995) _
S. CONS TTIONA . OT L _ERS and
Clerk of Coury Auditor Selection Committee Recommendation
(memorandum dated May 16, 1995)
9:05 A.M. 9. RUB11 C ITEMS
A. PUBIUC HgAgiiNTGs
Proposed Change (Minor Amendment) to the
DeBartolo (Indian River Mall) DRI Development
Order
(memorandum dated May 16, 1995)
B. PUBLIC D SCU4. ION rMMS
None
1�Y11 uIICl 1IYITA u r;1V WVDl11 Ll
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS PAGE
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
Old Courthouse Restoration Grant
(memorandum dated May 16, 1995)
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works -
1. Bid No. 50-62 / Intersection Improve-
ments to CR510 & 66th Ave.
(memorandum dated May 15, 1995)
2. Indian River County PEP Reef
Construction Notice to Proceed
(backup provided under separate cover)
H
1. Countryside Mobile Home Park - Res.
#85-61, Between Realcor-Vero Beach
Assoc. & Indian River County
(memorandum dated May 10, 1995)
2. Cross Connection Control Program
(memorandum dated May 9, 1995)
3. Removal of the Mid -Florida Elevated
Storage Tank, Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated May 15, 1995)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Disclosure Council for Land Acquisition Bonds
(backup provided under separate cover)
0. COMMUSSIONERSEY_M. '
A. Chainnan Kenneth R, Macht
C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird
E. Commissioner John W. 1io, DL
14. SPECIAL DISnUCTS
A. Emergency Services District
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 2/28/95
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 3/7/95
3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 3/14/95
4. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 3/28/95
5. Purchase of Replacement Scanner for -
Records Retention with Funds from
Existing Capital Equipment Budget
(memorandum dated May 11, 1995)
B. Solid Waste D'spoal District
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 4/4/95
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 4/11/95
3. Waste Tire Recycling
(memorandum dated May 9, 1995)
15. A )URNMIENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting w
ill 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 x408 at least 48 hours in
advance of meeting.
Tuesday, May 23, 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, May 23, 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 Patricia Ridgely, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ENIMGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of the following:
13.D. Medevac Ad Hoc Committee meeting
11.E. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding
8.B. Sabonjohn Property Environmental Violations
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
added the above items to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of April 18 or 25, 1995.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meetings of April 18
and 25, 1995, as written.
1 'Inti 5 rad' {
May 23, 1"5
BOOK U Pr1GE �®
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested the removal of Item 7.C. for
discussion.
A. Reports
The following report has been received and placed on file in
the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
State of Florida, Audit of Indian River County District
School Board for fiscal year ended June 30, 1994.
B. Award
Bid #5059
- Engineering
Copier
The
Board
reviewed
a Memorandum of May 15, 1995:
TE: May 15, 1995
TO: - BOARD -OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director. -
General services
-20 FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid 05059/Engineering Copier
Engineering Department
GROUND INFORMATIO
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Advertisements Mailed To:
Replies:
Statement of "No Bid"
VENDOR
K & E Imaging Systems
Orlando, FL
Oce -Bruning
Orlando, FL
Lengemann of Florida
Altoona, FL
Milner Document Products
West Palm Beach, FL
AYS Business Systems
Vero Beach, FL
DDI (Xerox)
Orlando, FL
EGP Inc
Ft Pierce, FL
2
May 23, 1995
March 24, 1995
March 11, 17, 1995
Fourteen (14) Vendors
Seven (7) Vendors
2 -
PRICE FOR COPIER UNIT ONLY
$4,026.00
$4,935.00
$6,000.00
$8,600.00
$8,680.00
$10,995.00
$12,850.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
$4,026.00 (COPIER)
+ 416.00 (STAND)
$4,442.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS 111-244-541-066.41 - County Engineering
Office Furniture and Equipment
ESTIMATED BUDGET $7,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to H & 8 Imaging
Systeme as the lowest, most responsive and responsible
bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the..
Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5059 to K & E Imaging Systems in
- the amount of $4,026.00, as recommended by
staff and set forth in the memorandum.
C. Award Bid #5060 - Housing Authority Computer Hardware/Network
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 1995:
DATE: May 15, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admin strator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager, W
SUBJ: Award Bid #5060/Furnish & Install Computer
Hardware/Network
Housing Authority - Rental Assistance
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
No Bids:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
TMS Computer & Software
Vero Beach; FL
Progressive Data
Vero Beach, FL
Vetrol Data
Vero Beach, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
3
May 23, 1995
April 5, 1995
March 22, 291 1995
Twelve (12) Vendors
One (1)
Three (3)
TOTAL BID
$ 9,595.00
$ 9,742.000
$ 10,040.00
$ 9,595.00
BOOK 95 w E 161
Boa 95 m1u,16
SO CE OF EMS 108-222-564-066.41 Rental Assistance
Off ce Furniture and Equipment
$ 9,200.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to TMS Computers
& Sot re as the lowest, most responsible bidder
meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to
Bid.
Commissioner Adams wondered what the difficulty had been in
connection with this bid, and General Services Director Sonny Dean
advised that there was a misunderstanding on the part of one of the
vendors who claimed that the low bidder did not meet all of the
specifications. A conference was held and they went over all the
specifications and it was decided that the low bidder did meet all
of the specifications. Indian River County Housing Authority
Executive Director Larola Gamble's concern was satisfied and she
agreed the'bid should be awarded to the low bidder.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5060 to TMS Computers & Software,
in the amount of $9,595.00, as recommended by
staff and set forth in the memorandum.
D. Award Bid #5068 - Concrete Pipe
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 2, 1995:
DATE: May 2, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager`
SUBJ: Award Bid #5068/Concrete Pipe - 48" x 76"
.Road & Bridge
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: April 28, 1995
Advertising Dates: April 14, 21, 1995
Specifications Mailed to: Thirteen (13) Vendors
No Bids: Three (3)
Replies: Three (3)
4
May 23, 1995
BID TABULATION TOTAL BID
Joelson Concrete $19,760.00
Venice, FL
Hydro Conduit $21,440.00
Orlando, FL
Southern Culvert $21,920.00
Pinellas, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $19,760.00
SOMCE OF FUNDS 111-214-541-035.32 Road and Bridge
Pipe and Culvert
BUDGETED AMOUNT $20,000.00
RECONIIKENDATION :
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Joelson
Concrete as the lowest, most responsible bidder
meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to
Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5068 to Joelson Concrete, in the
amount of $19,760.00, as recommended by staff
and set forth in the memorandum.
E. Multi -Agency Drug Enforcement Unit (M.A.C.E.) Project
Generated Income
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 17, 1995:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 17, 1995
SUBJECT: M.A.C.E. GRANT (MULTI -AGENCY DRUG ENFORCEMENT UNIT)
PROJECT GENERATED INCOME - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County Sheriffs Department wants to apply to the state to use anti-drug abuse grant
M.A.C.E. Unit income in the amount of $2,218.06. The M.A.C.E. Unit income was generated from
confiscating property in drug related activities. The Sheriffs Department will use the funds to purchase
the items as shown in the attachment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of funds for equipment and
authorize the Chairman to sign the Project Generated Income Agreement.
9
May 23, 1995
R���M 95;mclor 3
nor 95 PAGE,164:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the use of grant funds in the amount
of $2,218.06 to purchase equipment specified
and approved Project Generated Income
Agreement, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF PROJECT GENERATED INCOME AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. Temporary Sewer Service Agreement - Ouimbx
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 18, 1995:
DATE: APRIL 18, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR O UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED AND WILLIAM F.
AND CAPIT ECTS ENGINEER
STAFFED BY: DEP4 F UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MR. AND MRS. PAUL V. QUIMBY
TEMPORARY SEWER SERVICE
BACKGROUND
Paul V. and Lenora L. Quimby have requested that temporary sewer
service be installed from the sewer manhole on the Glendale school
property to service their property -at 4990 10th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, prior to the installation of sewer service on 10th Street.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary sewer service to
the Quimbys until such time that sewer service is constructed on
10th Street by assessment. They agree to pay all fees required to
make this connection. They further agree to participate in any
future assessment and to reconnect to this assessed sewer line as
required by IRCDUS.
RECOMME) DATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. and
Mrs. Quimby.
May 23, 1995
M
C.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Agreement with Paul V. and Lenora
L. Quimby for temporary sewer service, as
recommended by staff in the memorandum.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
r 1.
G. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #018
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 1995:
TO: _ Members of the Board DATE: May 15, 1995
of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 018
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. B'
OMB Directo
DESCRIPZTON AND CONDTITONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. During Tropical Storm Gordon, the engine in Unit 731 was damaged
beyond repair. It was necessary to obtain a replacement engine on an
emergency basis and requested that the funds come from the contingency
account. The cost of the engine was $5,800. This entry allocates the
funding.
2. The legal fees for the County Court budget are going to be more than
anticipated for fiscal year 1994/95. It is estimated that $12,000 more is
needed to be transferred from General Fund contingencies.
3. This entry allocates donations received by the North County Library
amounting to $3,656.
4. At the October 18, 1994 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners,
the board approved an agreement for $20,000 with Atlantic Coastal Title
Corp. for the purpose of identifying and locating Murphy Deed road
reservations in Indian River County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment
018.
7
May 23, 1995 8PK 9 PAcF 165
QOQK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved Budget Amendment #018, as recommended
by staff in the memorandum.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair C
OMB Director'
.l
95 pAcF166
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 018
DATE: May 15. 1995
Entry
Number
- Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
ESD/ALS Maintenance Auto.
114-253-526-034.64
$5,800
$0
Reserve for Contingency
114-253-526-099.91
$0
$5,800
2.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/County Court/Legal Fees
001-902-516-033.11
$12,000
$0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$12,000
3.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/N. Cty. Library
Donations -N. Cty. Library - Books
001-000-366-100.00
$3,656
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/N. Cty. Library/Books
001-112-571-035.45
$3,656
$0
4.
EXPENSE
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Other
Professional Services
111-244541-033.19
$20,000
$0
Reserve for Contingency
111-199-581-099.91
$0
$20,000
8
Y" 9 1995
H. County Tax Deed Applications
The Board reviewed a letter dated May 16, 1995 and a
Memorandum of May 18, 1995, as follows:
May 16,1995
Mr. Charles Vitunac
Indian River County Attorney
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Tax Deed Applications
Dear Charles:
There are eight (8) tax certificates held by Indian River County which
are now eligible for tax deed applications. A list is enclosed.
Should you wish to apply for tax deeds on these parcels, please sign the
enclosed applications and return to this office with a check made .payable
to Karl Zimmermann for $472.00 to cover the cost of the 20 -Year Tax
Search fee at $59.00 per search on these parcels.
If we may be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
Karl Zim ermann i}}4t-
Tax Ce ector
TO: Board of County Commissioners
a
�v, k. *4e&,1,, -'
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CIA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: May 18, 1995
RE: County Tax Dead Applications
Mr. Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector, has notified us that there are eight tax
certificates held by Indian River County that are eligible for tax deed
application; therefore, it is necessary for the Chairman to sign the eight
attached applications on behalf of the Board and then return them to the Tax
Collector along with the required fee, i.e., $472 for the cost of the 20 -year
tax search fee at $59 per search.
Requested Action: Board authorize the payment of $472 and the Chairman to
sign the attached tax deed applications.
9
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 7
BOOK 95 Pv i 168
KARL ZI N
/;I -v ( i)llnloy'
TAX CERTIFICATES HELD BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY NOW ELIGIBLE
FOR TAX DEED APPLICATION.
CERTIFICATE NO.
93-3012
93-3016
93-3087
93-3065
93-3060
93-3031
93-3007
93-3004
DATE OF SALE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
6-1-93
TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES
UNIT 2 PBI 5/65 LOTS 7 6
9 BLK 10 (OR BK 4SS PP 82)
6-1-93
TOWN OF FELLSMERE PBS 2-3
64 LOTS 12,13614 BLK 51
(OR BK 459 PP 78)
6-1-93
JACKSON SUB PBI 2/54 LOT
14, LESS N 105.67 FT AS R
BK 248 PP 311 6 LESS W 60
FT THEREOF
6-1-93 HILLCREST SUB NO 2 PBI
2/92 LOT 9 BLK 7 (OR BK
408 PP 478 )
6-1-93 HILLCREST SUB PBI 2-67
LOTS 364BLK 2
6-1-93 SEBASTIAN HIGHALNDS SUB
UNIT 17 PBI 8-46 TO 46P
LOTS 16617 BLK 611
6-1-93 HALL,CARTER 6 JAMES SUIT
PBS 3/2631 LOT S5 BLK 2
OR BK 418 PP 98)
6-1-93 OCEAN BREEZE HTS SUB PBI
2/7 LOT 3 BLK 9 (OR BK
430 PP 83)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the eight (8) applications for tax
deed as listed above and authorized the
payment of the required fee in the amount of
$472, as recommended in the memorandum.
COPIES OF NOTICE TO TAX COLLECTOR OF
APPLICATION FOR TAX DEED ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
10
May 23, 1995
I. Floodplain Cut & Fill Balance Waiver - 430 Live Oak Drive
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 17, 1995:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator Q'
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Duect0
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Residence at 430
Live Oak Drive
REFERENCE: Project No. 95040105
DATE: May 17, 1995 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDMONS
Fashion Homes has submitted a building permit application for a single family residence on
the subject property, and has requested a waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement of
Section 930.07(2)(d) of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. The
site is located in special flood hazard area Zone AE with base flood elevations of 8.0 ft.
N.G.V.D. The ten year flood elevations are 5 and 6 ft. N.G.V.D. The proposed
displacement of the floodplain below 4.0 ft. for which the waiver is requested is 444 cubic
yards as indicated in the survey and attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated May
11, 1995.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)1.
of being situated in an estuarine environment within the 100 year floodplain along the
Indian River and in staffs opinion it appears that all other Stormwater Management and
Flood Protection Ordinance requirements can be met without adverse impact on other lands
in the estuarine environment.
Alternative No. 1
Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-site balance of cut and
fill.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
11 BOOK 95 PAJE 169
May 23, 1995
L
sooK 95 P,,, E VG
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the cut and fill balance waiver
request for the residence at 430 Live Oak
Drive, as recommended in the memorandum.
(Alternative No. 1)
45th Street (North Gifford Road)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 17, 1995:
TO:. - James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis. P.E.
G'
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: F.E.C. Railroad Grade Crossing LiAgreement
45th Street (North Gifford Road) 7
RE: Letter from W.S. Stokely, F.E.C. d to C.R. Mora
Dated May 8. 1995
DATE: May 17. 1995
The Gifford Road improvement program initiated inthe mid 1980's provided for three
lane road widening and pedestrian improvements along North Gifford Road. At this
time. the attached Grade Crossing Agreement h been prepared to provide for the
improvements.
The cost of the County's share of the work is estimated to be $227.854.87. The .
County is also obligated to pay yearly maintenance costs in the amount of $2.657.00.
Approve the license agreement and authorize the chaizman to execute it on
behalf of the County.
F41 Lri, I4 - ;�
Deny approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FLrnmnv[`=
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the agreement is approved. Funding to
be from Gifford Road Improvement Fund 316.
12
May 23, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the license agreement with Florida
East Coast Railway Company for crossing at
45th Street (North Gifford Road) and the
amount of $227,854.87 from Gifford Road
Improvement Fund 316, as recommended in the
memorandum.
LICENSE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CLERK OF THE COURT: AUDITOR SELECTION COM1VIP=E
RECOMI��NDATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 1995:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MAY 169 1995
SUBJECT: AUDITOR SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERK OF +CIRCUIT COURT
BACKGROUND
The contract with the County's auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, was completed with the audit of
the 1994 Fiscal Year. Section 11.45, Florida Statutes establishes the procedure to be followed in
acquiring the services of an independent certified public accountant to perform the audit of the
County. Section 11.45, F.S. requires the establishment of an auditor selection committee composed
of the clerk of the circuit court, the property appraiser, the sheri$ the supervisor of elections, the tax
collector, and one member of the board of county commissioners. The purpose of the auditor
selection committee is to obtain information from certified public accountants who desire to provide
auditing services to the county, to evaluate the capabilities and other factors of those who desire to
provide auditing services, and to "select no fewer than three (3) firms deemed to be the most highly
qualified to perform the required services". The names of the firms selected are provided to the board
of county commissioners and the board negotiates a contract with one of the -firms.
The Auditor Selection Committee received a draft of a "Request For Proposal For Auditing
Services" (RFP) on March 10, 1995. The Committee reviewed the draft RFP and approved the final
copy at their March 17, 1995 meeting. This RFP was mailed to the national accounting firms, all
local accounting firms and other out of County firms which hath expressed an interest in receiving
an RFP. Responses were due by April 20, 1995. Eight firms resp nded to the Committees RFP as
follows:
13 BOOK 95 PAGE 171,
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 PA6c 172
O'Haire Moran & Co.,chartered / Ernst & young LLP
Coopers & Lybrand
Fogal, Lynch, Johnson & Long / Davis Monk & Company
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Purvis Gray & Company
Berger I Harris I Toombs I Elam & McAlpin
Averett, Warmus, Durkee, Bauder & Dayhoff
Rachlin Cohen & Holtz / William F. Donovan, CPA
Copies of these responses were distributed to each member of the Committee, the Housing Authority
Director, the Director of OMB, the Finance Director and the Assistant Finance Director. After
reviewing all the responses, the Committee met on May 5, 1995 to discuss the responses and to
develop a short list of firms to make oral presentations. Four firms were selected to make oral
presentations:
Berger I Harris I Toombs I Elam & McAlpin
Coopers & Lybrand LLP
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
O'Haire Moan & Co.,chartered / Ernst & Young LLP
On May 12, 1995, the Committee listened to oral presentations from all four firms. After listening
to the presentations, the Committee members ranked the four firms as follows:
1) Coopers & Lybrand LLP
2) O'Haire Moran & Co.,chartered / Ernst & Young LLP
3) Berger I Harris I Toombs I Elam & McAlpin
4) KPMG Peat Marwick LLP -
The Auditor Selection Committee recommends that the Board of County Commissioners negotiate
a five (5) year contract with the Committee's top ranked firm, Coopers & Lybrand LLP, starting with
the 1994-1995 Fiscal Year.
c: Auditor Selection Committee members
Commissioner Eggert announced that she had inquired and was
advised by the County Attorney that she did not have a conflict of
interest in this matter because one of the firms being considered
does her tax returns.
Clerk of the Circuit Court Jeff Barton, chairman of the
Committee, briefly reviewed the process the Committee used which
led to their recommendation to the Board. He advised it was now up
to the Board to name a team to negotiate with the firms on the
short list and present an audit contract for approval. He gave the
Board copies of the rankings by the Committee and the tally sheet.
Clerk Barton believed all four firms were qualified for the
job and detailed the Committee's process in selecting the final
14
May 23, 1995
four which was based on guidelines set out by County Attorney
Vitunac.
The Board members discussed negotiations based on price and
giving preference to local firms.
County Attorney Vitunac informed them that there, was no
A
provision in the Code which allows a preference for local bidders.
He then reviewed the negotiation regulations in this particular
type of bid, including that they could rerank the firms based on
any factors they wished and that they could get a bid on the price.
Chairman Macht felt the ranking of the firms should stand but
wanted a caveat that the team was to negotiate with all four firms
and make price a part of the negotiations.
Clerk Barton advised he had no problem with that and requested
to be on the negotiating team because he is the one most affected
and is legally responsible under the Florida Constitution.
Commissioner Eggert agreed he should be on the team.
Commissioner Bird suggested the County Administrator should
head up the negotiating team and should be allowed to supplement
that team with whomever he feels he needs. Commissioner Eggert
thought that was true, but agreed with Clerk Barton that he's in a
peculiar/unique position.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that we've been trying to increase
using local firms. Also, she had listened to the tape of the Audit
Selection Committee's meeting, listened to the presentations and
questions and credited Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson with
asking many good questions of the presenting firms. It concerned
her whether or not the original submissions were indeed carefully
read by everyone on the panel and whether the firms, in fact, had
answered all the questions on the original submissions.
Clerk Barton explained decisions that had occurred at previous
meetings of the Committee and agreed there were unanswered
questions, not just by the finalist firms, but also by the ones
that had been eliminated.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, to set up the
negotiating committee with Administrator
Chandler and Clerk Barton to negotiate with
all four firms.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin wanted the negotiating
team to be instructed that preference be given to those with local
15BOOK 95 FACE 173
May 23, 1995
Bou 9 5 �,{,i 174
people since the County Attorney had said it was not prohibited.
County Attorney Vitunac thought that the State had recently
passed a law prohibiting that, but believed it was not effective
yet.
Chairman Macht believed that would be a dangerous practice
because you run into the phenomenon of reciprocity with other
communities and the surrounding communities may exclude our people.
He also felt that sometimes using an out-of-town firm may have its
advantages.
Clerk Barton explained that there are four different elements
to be negotiated and the fifth is price. He advised that last year
the auditor services cost either $110,000 or $115,000.
Commissioner Bird, who had served on the Committee, felt the
members had read the materials and, based on the resumes of the
firms, believed that the reason for the wide gap between the second
ranked and the #1 ranked firm was based largely on their extensive
governmental experience. Clerk Barton agreed.
Sheriff Gary Wheeler, one of the Committee members, concurred
with Commissioner Bird's remarks and agreed that Ms. Robinson did
a fine job of asking questions.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird asked about timing on making the selection,
and Clerk Barton advised it was proposed initially to bring a
contract back to the Board in early June and have everything in
place by the second meeting in June.
As a personal note, Chairman Macht advised that he is going to
start a lobbying campaign with the Legislature to revise the
Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) procedures to give
the ability to discuss price in negotiations with professional
consultants.
Clerk Barton agreed it would be helpful to have the bid price
on all professional services as part of the criteria.
Commissioner Bird added that if there is a change in the
bidding process then the procedure must change and it would be
necessary to allow all the prospective bidders to come in, spend a
lot of time to learn in depth and understand the responsibilities
so they can bid properly.
Clerk Barton agreed, it would be a longer procedure but
everyone would be dealing with the same hand and know exactly what
they were bidding on.
16
May 23, 1995
SABONTOHN PROPERTY (43RD AVENUE TRAILER PAM
ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS
Environmental Control Officer Michael Galanis for Iridian River
County reviewed Memoranda of May 4, 12, and 19, 1994:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABIL.I N-nV'9~ 1 1 �
URS - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTI'IJIVk �` 4`� : -1
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ' C� TELEPHONE
1900 27TH STREETl �S,OM
VERO BEACH. FL 32960 llf _ -
r'21 .I-TUTIQUIIs1
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM G;r;rtrrl:r�iazr�ers .�_
Admiiit tlraior
DATE: May 4, 1995
MEMO TO: Board -of County Commissioners sitting as `'°•`')'I'' lh'a;Ikt-
Environmental Control Hearing Board :Fnt'.<r.' 'Day. ------
t.�fi;i+"��:
Indi a County -
Ri r, wme
FROM:4Ga ''s 1V- "P" 14: 0 1W �'�,,
Ertlnrg. Sarv.
En o ental Control Officer R;sk
- ndian River County Public Health Unit rjd�*:r
SUBJECT: Sabonjohn Property
43rd Avenue Trailer Park
Vero Beach, FL
The Indian River County Environmental Control Office has foreclosed a lien for unpaid
environmental fines against property owned by Florence and Peter Sabonjohn located at
43rd Avenue and 41st Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The final judgment of foreclosure
awards Indian River county the $1800 fine plus $3085.35 for attorney's fees and costs
incurred in foreclosing the lien, as well as post judgment interest.
If the total $4885.35 plus interest is not paid by June 6, 1995, the property will be sold at
auction and the proceeds of the sale will be used to pay the county. If the property goes
to auction, Indian River County should protect its interest in the property by bidding that
amount ($4885.35 plus interest) for the property. In addition Indian River County will
need to advance to the Clerk of Courts the expenses of the auction, which are recoverable
as soon as the property is auctioned.
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize its staff to advance
costs and bid at the auction.
17 95 FKE 175
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 PAGE 1 p 6
STATE OF FLORIDA
' DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
HRS - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TELEPHONE (407) 778-6321
1900 27TH STREET SUN -COM 240-6321
VERO BEACH. FL 32960 FAX 778-6303
DATE:
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
May 12, 1995
James Chandler
Administrator
Indian River County
M. ams, . P. H.
E ' o ental Control Officer
dian River County Public Health Unit
My Memo to Board of County Commissioners dated 5/4/95
re: Sabonjohn Property
Mr. Sabonjohn has appealed the Final Judgment of Foreclosure on his property which
will stay the Final Judgment.
Accordingly, no action from the Board of County Commissioners is required at this time.
Please withdraw my May 4, 1995 memo from the Board agenda if it has already been
placed on the agenda
■" STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
HRS - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TELEPHONE (407) 778-6321
1900 27TH STREET SUN -COM 2404321
VERO BEACH. FL 32960 FAX _ 778-6303
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 1995 n' 94 */y .
s S :
l 1,
MEMO TO: James Chandler No��' r�'
Administrator
,—),.j,ndiaqMyer County F�� 9 g
FROM: M. G anls',1Vl:H"`� v
En o ental Control Officer
-In 'an River County Public Health Unit
SUBJECT: Sabo%olh Property
Please place the attached matter on the Board of Commissioners' agenda for action.
Although Mr. Sabonjohn has appealed, he has failed to post bond and obtain a stay of
execution, and the foreclosure sale of his property remains scheduled for June 6, 1995.
18
May 23, 1995
s � s
Officer Galanis strongly suspected that someone would come in
at the last minute and pay the fine and court costs.
Commissioner Bird agreed with the recommendation and asked who
would represent the County at the auction. County Attorney vitunac
suggested his office could represent the County and would only need
authority to pay the costs and fees for advertising. The minimum
bid would be the lien plus the other costs of the sale, which would
be recovered if someone else buys it. If no one else bids, the
County will end up owning the property for the cost of the lien and
fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved staff's recommendation to advance
costs and bid at the auction and authorized
the County Attorney's office to represent the
County. (4-0, Commissioner Adams being
temporarily absent)
PUBLIC HEARING - DeBARTOLO DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER
AMENDED - INDIAN RIVER MALL
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vera Reach, Indian River County, Florida 1
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authoritypersonally appeared J. J. Schumann, it. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach PrassJoumal, a daily raawapaper published
at ��VOW Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached COPY of advertisement, being
a 1iti�f_U
in the matter
r
r
Tis
a
-
�.�l Mr h111131. The OtIJBI,'1 of tin
aloptlon of astir Ir101L-
in the Court, was Pub-
/
nsow «w(e- I ptoro ftt �tlng d11e1'
Y� (O".0.. ttj � The lona) . Es
%
Iiehed in said newspaper in the issues of_/c'LLli
�a�ee� emerlb
oonOtlps attadne
aev>gs
N�sarelise
�pprp�o�lt
also tIMY�esfl am W 7D1Zyn. m�a�e�e�
eidea961h Maua.
PI1119 MB bluckowe .
Affiant further gays that the said Vero Beach Prese•JOumal is a news a
newspaper Published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida.
IIeof
All nlanibelB at >b OIafD we Y b aaaW
OW 0 � P � f�tep AMPwhaVft
and that the sold news per has heretofore
been continuously Published in said Indian River County.
be
"_gY°vmPsnYmM nae ro eM. stn
Fonda, each dally and has been
entered as serape class mail year n at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun•
ty. FlorWa for a period of orre year next
s va-
ISBr1 IMaov�e
auras sa =ly. aid 0—= a m Wift din rp
preceding the first publication of the attached copy o}
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promfeed a
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for Me Purpose pY person, If
rpose
Dobbona
ANYONE YSID 1� A �ACCOMMODM
TON FOR TMs MEETNS UM CONTACT THE
of securing this
�vertisemenI for publication In the said newspaper.
D 19ifY'S AMS Wirt pBaLm s ACT
T'ADROriATpi AT s9R9990 30108 AT
r JYSE Vulbed beforeme this-_ �1• �, of �" r , J
19 C, 0-7,
e�jrj LL .gypp
. �s 11p1R9 N AINIiICf 71E NGET,
.
�-AD.
.r C ;ice• r `�✓ /1'i81S
gh�Bowlofa'
-,
Manages
MAY/.1888. a'•IrIwM.QmnNn .IW496
BARBARA C SPRAGUE. NOTARY PWLIG.
NnauY. BAR3ARA C £i
19
COOK
May 23, 1995
95 PA: 1177
BOOK 95 F',1u 178
Planning Director Stan Boling, using graphics and overheads,
reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 1995:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
ION HEAD
Community De��vl1elo#
FROM: Stan Boling, ACP
Planning Director
DATE: May 16, 1995
SUBJECT: Proposed Change (Minor Amendment) to the DeBartolo
(Indian River Mall) DRI Development Order
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
.meeting of May 23, 1995.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On July 19, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
development order (D.O.) approving the development of regional
impact (DRI) known as the Indian River Mall. The project is
located between SR 60 and 26th Street east of 66th Avenue (see
attachment #1), and consists of a mall, a shopping center, and
several commercial outparcels along SR 60. On October 25, 1994,
the Board approved some minor D.O. amendments as part of a
stipulated settlement agreement with the State Department of
Community Affairs (DCA).
Among the many conditions within the approved D.O. are several
transportation conditions which specify the configuration and
timing of road improvements necessary to maintain acceptable
service levels on the county's road network after project
construction. The D.O. also references a future developers
agreement that is to provide more details about the conditions,
such as vesting for traffic initial concurrency, and specifying
developer and county responsibilities for constructing the required
improvements. On March 29, 1995, the developer filed proposed D.O. _
amendments that represent such a developers agreement, and that
would incorporate specific developer and county road construction
responsibilities, as well as vesting for traffic concurrency, into
the D.O.
Pursuant to FS 380.06 which governs DRIB, the county may determine
that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation. If
such a determination is made, the request may be treated as a
proposed change or "minor amendment". As a minor amendment, a
change in an approved D.O. can be made by the Board of County
Commissioners without a formal recommendation from the Regional
Planning Council.
Pursuant to LDR Section 916.05(1), the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the request (see attachment #5), and at -its
May 11, 1995 meeting, voted unanimously to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners:
20
May 23, 1995
1. Determine that the request does not constitute a substantial
deviation, and
2. Approve the amendments, as recommended and presented by staff.
The Board is now to consider the request, and is to determine
whether or not the request constitutes a substantial deviation. If
the Board determines that the request is not a substantial
deviation, it must take action to approve, approve with changes, or
deny the proposed amendments.
ANALYSIS:
*Determination: Not a Substantial Deviation Request
The developer has stated that the proposed D.O. amendments should
not be considered a substantial deviation request because the
amendments will not increase project area or intensity or impacts,
and. will not change the timing or configuration of required
transportation improvements. County staff agree. Furthermore,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) staff have reviewed the proposed amendments
and have no objections to the changes. Furthermore, TCRPC and DCA
Staff have stated that the request does not appear to constitute a
substantial deviation (see attachment #3 and #4). Therefore, it is
staff's position that the request does not constitute a substantial
deviation.
•Effects of Amendments
Public works and planning staff have reviewed the request and have
worked closely with the developer to structure the amendments in a
manner agreeable to county staff and the developer. This agreement
commits the county and the developer to performing certain roadway
improvements within specified timeframes. The proposed amendments
would amend a concurrency finding, and would replace 4 of the 15
transportation conditions contained in the existing D.O.: the
remaining 11 transportation conditions would not be changed.
The proposed changes would assign developer and county
responsibilities as follows:
1. Six-laning SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue would be
designed, permitted, secured with posted security, and
constructed by the developer. Costs associated with any SR 60
right-of-way acquisition would be borne by the developer. As
stated in the existing D.O., the six-laning improvement must
be completed prior to the mall opening [issuance of a
certification of occupancy (C.O.)].
2. Signalization of 66th Avenue/SR 60 and SR 60/Access F
intersections would be installed by the developer as approved
by FDOT. As with signals at other public road intersections,
the county would accept maintenance of the 66th Avenue/SR 60
signal. The county would also accept maintenance of the SR
60/Access F (a private, project driveway) signal subject to a
maintenance agreement that would, among other things, require
the developer to pay for maintenance and operation costs.
3. Four-laning 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 16th Street would
be the responsibility of the county, and is already listed on
the county's adopted capital improvements program. Under the°
existing D.O. and the proposed amendment, this improvement
would need to be completed or under construction prior to ,
issuance of a C.O. Four-laning these segments of 58th Avenue
is part of a larger project to design and permit the four-
laning of 58th Avenue from 26th Street to a point south of 4th
Street, and to accommodate future four-laning from that point
21 FcoK 95 P4GE X79
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 N�'HEISO
to 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road). This larger project is just
now entering the design stage, and the county has "packaged"
the project as a whole, to minimize design and permitting
costs. The Public Works director has informed the applicant
that the currently estimated timeframes for permitting and
designing the overall 58th Avenue project will not accommodate
the developer's desire to have construction started on the
26th Street to 16th Street segment to allow the opening of the
mall by September/October 1996.
Staff and the developer have devised a workable alternative to
separate -out the 26th Street to 16th Street segment and speed-
up the timeframes for commencing construction on that segment.
This option would accommodate the developer's timeframes but
would increase the county's project costs. The developer has
recently agreed to pay for these increased costs, which are
estimated to be about $15,000. The proposed amendment
references this arrangement, and should ensure that roadway
construction can commence by the September 1, 1996 deadline
stated in the proposed amendments.
The amendment also references a second alternative, which
could be implemented in the future. Implementing the
alternative would involve future amendment of the county's
comprehensive plan and LDRs to allow for more liberal
concurrency requirements. Currently, the county's concurrency
requirements are more restrictive than requirements enacted by
the State in 1993. The more liberal State requirements would
allow for construction of necessary roadway improvements to
commence up to 3 years after development project C.O. s are
issued. The county cannot apply these more liberal standards
unless and until its comprehensive plan and LDRs are changed.
Referencing the concurrency alternative in the D.O. amendment
merely enables the developer to take advantage of any future
comprehensive plan and LDR changes to liberalize concurrency
rules, if such changes are ever made.
4. Paving 26th Street from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue would be
the construction responsibility of the county, would be funded
jointly by the county and the developer in a petition paving
type of arrangement, and would involve right-of-way
contributions by benefitting property owners. Under the
requested proposal, the county would be committed to
completing the paving project by September 1, 1996, and, as is
required under the existing D.O. , the paving must be completed
prior to the mall opening (C.O.). At its May 16, 1995
meeting, the Board authorized staff to issue an RFP for
engineering design services for this project, to be -funded 50%
by special assessment and 50% county (1 cent local option
sales tax).
In discussions with staff, the developer has agreed to an
arrangement whereby the developer would prompt property owners
on the north side of 26th Street to dedicate property for
right-of-way (see attachment #6). These property owners
would not be assessed for any further contributions to the
paving project. The developer and the county would split the
project costs, with the county contributing not more than 50%
of the costs, in accordance with past practice for the
petition paving of other collector roads such as 33rd Street
(Cherry Lane). Under the proposal, right-of-way acquisition
costs incurred over and above fair market land value, due to
eminent domain and "quick take" right-of-way acquisition,
would be borne by the developer.
5. Intersection at 26th Street/Northern Project Entrance includes
a left -turn lane into the mall project and would be the
responsibility of the county as part of the 26th Street -paving
22
May 23, 1995
M M M
construction project. The county's construction
responsibility would involve work performed only within the
26th Street road right-of-way, and the developer would pay for
the left turn lane servicing the project entrance. The
developer would be responsible for constructing its 26th
Street sub -lateral canal crossing and driveway improvements.
Under the existing D.O. and the proposed amendment, this
improvement must be completed prior to the mall opening
(C.O.). Under the proposal, the county is committed to
completing the improvement by September 1, 1996. Also, the
developer would be responsible for installing a signal at the
26th Street/Northern Project Entrance, intersection, when
warranted and approved by the county. The developer would be
required to fund all maintenance and operation costs for such
a signal via a signal maintenance agreement with the county.
6. SR 60/58th Avenue Intersection involves through and turn -lane
improvements. The developer would be responsible for
improvements that can be easily incorporated into the SR 60
six-laning project. The county would be responsible for
improvements that can be easily incorporated into the 58th
Avenue four-laning project. .These improvements will need to
be completed or under construction prior to the mall opening
(C.O.). The same concerns previously described about county
timing commitments for the 58th Avenue four-laning
improvements also apply to the 58th Avenue turn lane
improvements.
7. SR 60/Access F Intersection improvements are the developer's
responsibility and must be completed prior to the mall's
opening (C.O.).
8. Allowable Delays language, similar to language contained in
the approved Harbortown Mall D.O., accounts for possible
delays beyond the control of the developer and county.
Concurrency Finding
The proposed amendment would also grant initial traffic concurrency
vesting for the entire project, subject to:
1. A transportation impact fees and credits agreement that is to
be approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a future
date. [Note: As of the date of this report, staff -is waiting
for the developer to submit design and cost information needed
to evaluate the agreement.]
2: Traffic monitoring conditions contained in the existing D.O.
3. A December 31, 1999 build -out date, as stated in the existing
D.O. and DRI application's traffic impact analysis.
Thus, once the above referenced transportation impact fees and
credits agreement is approved, the project would be vested for
initial traffic concurrency through December 31. 1999.;,
.RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Determine that the request does not constitute a substantial
deviation request.
2. Adopt the attached resolution amending the Indian River Mall
D.O., and approving the proposed changes.
23 BOOK 95 Rtl-)L 181
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 PA -UH 182
Director Boling pointed out and explained changes to be made
to the agreement (pages 3, 4, and 5) as follows:
al accelera4i MW
tb4ol s G g S 9 %.H dA � �j
Mmiyalent ) , as SL may Aft amenaWQ xX-ww I..6GUW w Mawv /
which would allow for issuance of final certificates) of
occupancy prior to construction of the Seth Avenue
Section I Improvement being underway, then the Developer
shall be entitled to a final certificate(e) of occupancy
in accordance with the Concurrency XAnagement System, as
modified.
It is estimated that the 56th Avenue Suction I
Improvement shall be completed from an operational
standpoint within eighteen (18) months of commencement of
construction of the Seth Avenue Section I Improvement.
por the Seth Avenue Section I Improvement, the County
agrees to obtain from the contractor surety in the fo=
of a performance bond, letter -of -credit, or other surety.
Completion of the Seth Avenue Section I Improvement from
an operational standpoint shall fully satisfy this
condition of the Development order.
C. Four -lane Seth Avenue from SR 60 to l6th Street:
The County shall acquire necessary right-of-way and
temporary construction easements, design, obtain permits
for and construct a four -lane section of Seth Avenue from
the .northern approach of the Seth Avenue/ SR 60
intersection to the southern approach of the Seth
Avenue/16th street intersection (the *58th Avenue Section
II Improvement"). The Seth Avenue Section II Improvement
is depicted on Exhibit W, attached hereto and
incorporated herein. The Seth Avenue Section II
Improvement shall be designed in accordance with adopted
Indian River County standards.
The County acknowledges that the 58th Avenue Section Ii
Improvement is included within the first three years of
Indian River County's adopted CIP.
No final certificates of occupancy shall be issued for
the Development until construction of the Seth Avenue
Section Ii Improvement is underway (temporary or
conditional certificates of occupancy may be issued for
purposes other than opening buildings to the public, such
as for purposes of training employees, receiving
inventories, stocking shelves and displays, and similar
preparation activities prior to opening to the public, in �.—..
accordancewi,th a lic le Indian Ri or Count Codes .
T 'Mjj� j C,,Zj A'ri*c1AkA a �t[te�RC�'Ah� 4�t ':��P� AMb�Y� 9t�Ci)I!� V_ � �d&*%V
The,
Pw..wft- __..soft ♦w wwwxrewww ww �w.w�i ww wf ri.n MQ'k avenno .rA.Ik&%I
CODINGS Blocked-oct
are additions.
in to be deleted. Words underlined
3
24
QA,CKf,
F(V" 43,
May 23, 1995
M M M
ecruivalentl, arc it may ne amenaea trom tsme to time,
which would allow for ie8uance of final certificate(6) of
occupancy prior to conatructiori of the 38th Avenue
Section 11 improvement being underway then the Developer
shall be entitled to a final certificate(s) of occupancy
In accordance with the Concurrency Wknagenteqt system, as
modified.
D. Paving of 26th Street Betveen 66th Avenue and 58th
Avenue: _
r
C
CODING: Blocked -out wording is to be deleted, words underlined
are additions.
4
25
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 FavE 183
W -r4 t&
Baas 90' pAb SSM
intesseation Expansion at 26th Street/Northern Project
Entrance:
1.
CODING$ Hiocked-out wording is to be deleted.
are additions.
S
May 23, 1995
26
m
Words underlined
w,4, A
j, I& -See hbfi
Anpry Vt.menA-S
a� to64" Avt/
,lack
M M
Director Boling explained a change to intersection F on the
Off -Site Roadway Improvements map (page 104 of the backup
material), as follows:
27
May 23, 1995 BOOK 95 FACE 85
BOOK 5 P.AU 186
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 Bird, the Board unanimously
determined that the request does not
constitute a substantial deviation request and
adopted Resolution No.. 95-64, as recommended
by staff. (VOTE: 4-0, Commissioner Adams
being temporarily absent)
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 64
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, making findings of fact and
conclusions of law pertaining to Indian River Mall, a
Development of Regional Impact, and constituting this
Resolution as an amended Development Order by Indian
River County in compliance with law; and providing an
effective date.
WHEREAS, on July 19, 1994, Indian River County adopted
Resolution No. 94-93 approving a development order (the
"Development Order") for Indian River Mall, a Development of
Regional Impact ("DRI"), pursuant to the provisions of Subsection
380.06, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 1994, the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs ("DCA") filed a Notice of Appeal to the State
of Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("FLWAC")
appealing the Development Order, case no. APP -94-081 (the
"Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1994, Indian River County adopted
Resolution 94-137 approving a first amendment to the Development
Order (the "First Amendment"), which fully resolved all issues on
appeal (hereinafter the Development Order, as amended by the First
Amendment shall be referred to as the "Development Order"); and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1994, FLWAC entered a Final Order of
Dismissal of the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, ON March 29, 1995, DeBartolo Properties Management,
Inc. (the "Developer") filed a Notification of Proposed Change to
a Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact Subsection
380.06, Florida Statutes, for the Indian River Mall DRI (the
"Development") in accordance with Subsection 380.06, Florida
Statutes, (hereinafter the "Notification of Change"). This
Notification of Change is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit 111"; and
WHEREAS, the Notification of Change proposed to amend the
Development Order to revise Conditions 39, 41, 42, and 44 of the
Development Order to establish the responsibilities for design,
rights-of-way acquisition, permitting, construction, and required
28
May 23, 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95-64
roadway improvements scheduling, under the Development Order; to
amend and restate Finding of Fact 5 of the Development Order to
recognize that the revisions to Conditions 39, 41, 42, and 44,
along with a local agreement for transportation impact fees and
credits approved by the county (which agreement shall not diminish
the obligations and responsibilities of the parties herein), and
along with the traffic monitoring conditions contained in the
Developer Order, will satisfy initial concurrency transportation
requirements; and to include a new legal description of the real
property subject to the Development Order in order to correct a
scrivener's error in the original approved legal description (the
"Proposed Changes"); and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Changes to the Development Order shall
constitute the second amendment to the Development Order; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing
body of Indian River County having jurisdiction, pursuant to
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to
consider the Notification of Change and the Proposed Changes; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on May 23, 1995,
held a duly noticed public hearing on the Notification of Change,
in accordance with the requirements of Subsection 380.06, Florida
Statutes, and applicable local ordinances, and has heard and
considered testimony and evidence at such hearing; and
WHEREAS, Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires
that the Development Order be amended to reflect the approval of
the Proposed Changes.
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that the Development Order, be
amended as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are
made:
a. DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc. (the "Developer")
submitted the Notification of Change to Indian River
County, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, and all
affected agencies, as evidenced by the Developer's
Certification attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit 112"; and
b. The Notification of Change, attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit 11111, proposed to amend the
Development Order to revise Conditions 39, 41, 42, and 44
of * the Development Order to establish the
responsibilities for design, rights-of-way acquisition,
permitting, construction, and the required roadway
improvements scheduling under the Development Order; to.
amend and restate Finding of Fact 5 of the Development
Order to recognize that the revisions to Conditions 39,
41, 42, and 44, along with a local agreement for
transportation impact fees and credits approved by the
county (which agreement shall not diminish the
obligations and responsibilities of the parties herein),
and along with the traffic monitoring conditions
contained in the Development Order, will satisfy initial
concurrency transportation requirements; and to include
a new legal description of the real property subject to
2 9 95 PEE 107
boa
May 23, 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 188
RESOLUTION NO. 95-64
the Development Order in order to correct a scrivener's
error in the original approved legal description, all as
more particularly described in the Notification of Change
(the "Proposed Changes"). This Notification of Change is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 111";
and
c. The Proposed Changes were considered by the Board of
County Commissioners at a duly noticed public hearing
held on May 23, 1995, pursuant to Subsection 380.06,
Florida Statutes; and
d. The Proposed Changes, attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit 911111, do not create a change to a
previously approved Development of Regional Impact
constituting a substantial deviation under the provisions
of Subsection 380.06, Florida Statues, nor do they create
any type of regional impact not previously reviewed by
the regional planning agency pursuant to Subsection
380.06, Florida Statutes, and therefore the Proposed
Changes do not constitute a substantial deviation under
the provisions of Subsection 380.06(19), Florida
Statutes; and
e. The Proposed Changes are consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan; and
f. The Proposed Changes are consistent with all local land
development regulations and the local comprehensive 'plan;
and
g. The Proposed Changes do not unreasonably interfere with
the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State
Land Development Plan applicable to the area; and
h. All statutory procedures and procedures required by
agency rule have been adhered to; and
i. All Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made in the
Development Order are incorporated herein by reference,
provided however, that to the extent that a finding of
fact or conclusion of law in the original Development
Order, or any amendments thereto, conflicts with another
finding or conclusion in a different amendment, the more
recent in time shall control.
2. The Development Order is hereby amended to revise Conditions -
39, 41, 42, and 44 of the Development Order to establish the
responsibilities for design, rights-of-way acquisition,
permitting, construction, and the required roadway
improvements scheduling under the Developer Order; to amend
and restate Finding of Fact 5 of the Development Order to
recognize that the revisions to Conditions 39, 41, 42, and 44
will satisfy initial concurrency transportation requirements;
and to include a new legal description of the real property
subject to the Development Order in order to correct a
scrivener's error in the original approved legal description,
all as more particularly described in the Notification of
Change (the "Proposed Changes"). This Notification of Change
is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 111".
Accordingly, the Proposed Changes are hereby approved, subject
to the terms and conditions herein, and the Development Order
is hereby amended to incorporate the Notification of Change as
follows:
30
May 23, 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95-64
a. Conditions 39, 41, 42, and 44 are amended and restated in
their entirety as set forth in Exhibit 113" attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
b. Finding of Fact 5 is amended and restated in its entirety
as follows: '
5. The conditional concurrency requirements for
drainage, solid waste, water, wastewater,
recreation, and transportation have been.met under
the Indian River County Concurrency Management
System. Subject to county approval of a local
agreement for transportation impact fees and
credits (which agreement shall not diminish the
obligations and responsibilities of the parties
herein), and subject to the traffic monitoring
conditions in this Development Order (as amended),
the road improvements contained in Conditions 39,
41, 42, and 44 as amended and presented in Exhibit
"3" attached to and incorporated in the second
amendment to this Development Order, will satisfy
the initial concurrency transportation requirements
of the Indian River County Concurrency Management
System through buildout of the Development
(December 31, 1999) as stated in this development
order, and as may be amended.
C. The legal description of the real property which is the
subject of the Development is hereby amended to correct
a scrivener's error and to incorporate the revised legal
description for the Development, attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit 114".
3. The Development Order is hereby reaffirmed in its entirety
except as amended by this Resolution.
4. This Resolution amending the Development Order shall become
effective upon rendition by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes.
5. The Developer shall record a notice of adoption of this
modification to the adopted Development Order in accordance with
Subsection 380.06(15)(f), Florida Statutes.
6. Upon adoption, this Resolution shall be transmitted by the Ex
Officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, by certified
mail, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, the Developer, and any other
recipients specified by statute or rule.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in a public hearing held on this the 23
day of May , 1995.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Vice Chairman, Fran B. Adams
Commissioner John B. Tippin
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
31
May 23, 1995
Eggert
and,
Ay_
.Absent
Aye
Ay
yeAy e
Aye
BOOK 95 PAU 189
$CORS 90 9
RESOLUTION NO. 95-64
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 23 day of May , 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDZirmhan,
ER C FLORIDA
By: 1-64,vr•�
Kenneth R. Macht
Community Devel
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PfGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins, Esq.
Deputy County Attorney
u\c\s\irmdoa.res
32
May 23, 1995
OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION GRANT
General Services Director Sonny Dean reviewed a Memorandum of
May 16, 1995:
DATBY MAY 16, 1995
TO$ HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRUS JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FRONS H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
8UB.7ECTt OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION GRANT
On March 14, 1995 at their regular meeting, the Board awarded a
contract to Donadio and Associates, Architects, to write a grant
application for restoration of the old courthouse. Mr. Donadio had
until May 31, 1995 to compile the applicable information and write
the grant application.
On May 10, 1995, staff met with Tony Donadio-and his grant writer,
Ruth Stanbridge to review the approximated restoration costs as
presented. Ms.' -Stanbridge had been in contact with Tallahassee to
ascertain matching funds and how they related to the priority list
for awarding the grant. She was informed that the amount of
matching funds decided where the applicant was placed on the list.
Ruth recommended that in order for us to be considered at the 1996
legislative session, we would need to pledge approximately 50% of
the monies requested in hard dollars and/or "in-kind" matching
funds.
Mr. Donadio has recommended the restoration process be carried out
in three Phases. Phase I being the Research and Architectural
Planning at a cost of $34,500, which is what has already been done
by his firm and paid for by the County. The second Phase would
consist of the Exterior and Building Stabilization at an estimated
cost of $950,785. The third Phase would be Interior Restoration
and Detail at an estimated cost of $421,432. A'breakdown of the
various costs is attached to this memorandum.If it is the
decision to proceed as recommended by Ms. Stanbridge, a 50% match
would equate to approximately.$686,000 cash dollars and "in-kind"
services. According to Ms. Stanbridge, the monies expended on
Phases I and II would be counted as matching funds for Phase III,
thereby reducing Indian River County's cash contribution.
ANALYB18s
Upon completion of the restoration there will be approximately
10.,000 square feet of space available for leasing. The average
cost for leased space in the downtown area is ten to twelve dollars
per square.foot depending on the amenities offered with the lease
agreement. Staff has estimated the annual maintenance cost
including utilities for the entire facility to be approximately
$123,500. These costs to the owner would vary based on how a lease
agreement was structured.
Tony Donadio and Ruth Stanbridge will be in attendance to explain
the renovation process and grant procedures. They will be able to
provide historical data on similar grants and their respective
awards.
in order to meet a deadline of May 31, 1995 for submittal of the
application, staff requests Board direction as to what course of
action to take from this point.
33 BOOK95 1,91
May 23, 1995'
BOOS aft 192
Anthony Donadio, president of Donadio and Associates,
Architects, supplied background information and advised that his
work has been completed. They are ready to submit the application,
but need a pledge from the County for matching funds, dollars and
in-kind services. Mr. Donadio advised that the building is sound,
and gave a brief overview of the services which had been performed
and reviewed his preliminary cost estimates as follows:
DONADIO AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHI'T'ECTS, P.A.
,&RCHMCTM .PLANNING . CONSTRUCTION MANACvKMF.NT
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
OLD INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE RESTORATION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PHASE 1
RESEARCH & ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING
9432
Research & Arcttltectural Planning
934.540.00
PHASE D
EXTERIOR & BUILDING STABILIZATION
9432
Cmncaal Conditions
75,000
Impact Few
6+000
Asbestos Abatemert
16,000
Foundation Repans
3.000
I.andwaping
10,650
Cmc Wit Sty -
15,000
Handicap Ramps
12,500
Interior Demolition
29,500
Exterior Demolition
7,500
Concrete Walkway Demolition
27,500
MasoW Rcpdrs
58,750
Miscellaneous Metals
10,200
ScafTolding
21,230
Roof Repair
32,000
Sealant -R,500
Wroofing .
aterp
3,500
Water Repellant
89000
Windows
409000
painfift
10,500
Stucco Repair
2,.500
Plater Repair
4.000
Flooring
19,500
Interior Walls
9+000
Acoustical Ceiling Tile
100500
Interior Wafscot
MOD
Plumbing
30,000
HVAC
200,000
Fire Sprinkler
100,000
Electrical —
30,000
Arei,itertural &_ Engineering Feex
�••
Sub Total
$864,350
IQ%QantingnGSW �,,,
s86'435
Total -
S"0+70
34
May 23, 1995
DONADIO AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, PA,
ARCHITECTURE. PLANNING. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PRELIMINARY COSI' ESTIMATE
OLD INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE RRSTORAT10N
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PHASE 111
INTERIOR RESTORATION & DETAIL
9432
Qmaal Cnndiduto
30,000
Impact Hasa
000
Asbestos Abatement
10,000
Poundation Repaivu
5,8W
Interior Demolition
17,620
Duurdhardwem;
100,000
Painting
22,000
Ply Repair
8,500
A- O(Wing_
1R,t10I1
Wood Flooring Re -Fieri&
51000
Intaiur Waini t
61000
Plumbing
15,000
120.000
Fire Sprinkler
75,0W
Mectriswl
12,000
Sub Total 383,120
1 ft.C�tiniimcm R-111
Total . S4210432
Mr. Donadio and his team had developed a three-phase plan for
renovation: 1) research and planning; 2) exterior building
stabilization; and 3) interior restoration and detailing. The cost
per square foot will be $56; the County's share, 50%, is $28/square
foot.
Commissioner Eggert and Commissioner Tippin posed questions on
the estimates with respect to costs listed for demolition.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about the specific design for
the interior space and believed there was no use designing the
interior space until it is known what will be happening there. Mr.
Donadio said he is keeping the wings for utilities and flexible
space, air-conditioning closets and extra restrooms to bring it up
to code. They envision using the second floor courtroom as a large
conference area. They think the ground floor might possibly be
used for archival storage.
Chairman Macht commented that rental opportunities for a large
number of square feet at a very profitable rate should be able to
3
BOOK 195 PAU
May 23, 1995 35
BOOK JO PA,u P94
amortize the cost in a relatively short time and provide
maintenance over the -years.
Commissioner Bird wanted to find a use for the building above
and beyond the normal office -type use of other buildings downtown.
He hoped new ideas and new uses of the building could be found,
because he did not want the County to compete with downtown
building owners.
Chairman Macht thought there should be lots of opportunities
for that.
Ruth Stanbridge, grant writer and research historian, advised
that this grant request would fall under a special category and
shared information and results on some of the recent applications
for this special category.
Ms. Stanbridge reviewed her memorandum of May 15, 1995:
1V1404 1 01 1JZi
T0: Soiiiiy'Desact DireGtt�acAepartmeGee.S.e„c�s
THROUGH: Anthony Donadio, Project Architect
FROM: Ruth Stanbridge, Project Historian QA
SUBJECT: Background of Special Category Grants - Florida Courthouses
Twelve (12) counties requested funding for restoration of their
courthouses in the 1995 Special Category (May 1994 Cycle). Five (5) were
recommended for funding after the Historic Preservation Advisory Council
review in September 1994. Those five are listed below: NOTE the amounts
between requested and recommended. Staff and the review board shift these
figures around so more projects could be accommodated. These were all
approved during the legislative session with funds available July 1st.
REQUESTED RECOMMENDED
*Palm Beach County Courthouse 550,000 500,000 _
*Lake County Courthouse 650,000 356,832
*Old Citrus County Courthouse 270,000 270,000
*Orange County Courthouse 500,000 480,000
*Volusia County Courthouse 353,000 258,000
*Matching funds were all 502 or more with a combination of cash, inkind
services, donated services, or donated materials. _
David Ferro, preservation architect, met with us at the courthouse on
May 10th and we discussed the best possible approach to securing the grant.
He suggested that the restoration project would be best received and have a
better chance if we could use a phased plan. I have usedphasing in the past
and it has been successful as each phase builds on each other allowing
additional flexibility in the planning. It is also easier to find money for
phased projects.
I recommend a three .phase approach which would include:
Phase One: Research and Architectural Planning
Phase Two: Exterior and Building Stabilization
Phase Three: Interior Restoration and Detail
Phase One is the phase we are completing now. Fundinghas alreadybeen
approved. The expenditures for research, documentation, schematics and e_
grant writing can be used as part of the match for Phase Two.
36
May 23, 1995
Phase Two will be the 1996 SpecialCategoryGrant to be submitted by the
end of May 1995. This grant will cover the stabilization of the roof,
exterior walls, foundation and basement, also retrofitting of the basic
systems. The wings would be brought back to leasable space while miu m = work
of restoration of the interior of the core building v141 be done_MjFundinD for
Phase Three will be the 1997 Special Category grant to be submitted in
May 1996. This grant would complete the restoration of the interior of the
core building. _Funding for this match would include Phase One expenditures,
Ms. Stanbridge suggested ways to be creative in determining
dollars for matching grants which would not be out-of-pocket
expenditures, and told of the assistance expected at the State
government level and the preparation necessary.
Commissioner Bird hoped the County was looking at acquiring
additional property in the area for parking or talking to the City
of Vero Beach to make sure there will be sufficient parking for the
future,
Mr. Donadio assured him that they had looked at that in their
study and didn't see it to be a problem.
Administrator Chandler recommended that sales tax monies be
designated in order to meet the time frame for application. He
advised that there may be a potential need to re -prioritize some
projects in the future and staff would be coming back with some
recommendations for required changes in the sales tax program.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, to move
forward and submit the grant application and
use sales tax monies for the funding.
Frank tore, 2044 Deleon Avenue, Vero Beach, suggested they
check with the City of Vero Beach to see if they would consider
rezoning the location to residential for apartment house use, put
it on the open market to free enterprise, set a minimum price and
auction the building and get out of it.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
May 23, 1995
COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
37 BOOK 95 FAu
Boa c 95 PA10Z 196
ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING - FY 1995-96
OMB Director Joe Baird reviewed a Memorandum of May 18, 1995:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 18, 1995
SUBJECT: FY 1995/96 ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING
EMERGEIVCYAGE1VDA ITEM
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
BACKGROUND
For the previous five fiscal years, Indian River County has been allocated grant funds from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) to fiord local anti-drug abuse programs. The Board
funded the following programs last three years:
Agency
Implementing
Agency
1993/94
1994/95
Proper
1995/96
1. Substance Abuse Council of IRC
Indian River County -
$18,509.00
$17,352.00
$19,375.33
2. Multi -Agency Drug
Enforcement Unit (MACE)
IRC Sheriff
$63,880.00
$50,000.00
$64,080.00
3. Felhmere Coalition for a Drug
Free City
City of FelLmnere
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$0.00
4. Florida First Start
IRC School Board
$49,999.00
$0.00
$0.00
5. Just Say No Program
Indian River County
$27,700.00
$0.00
$0.00
5. Inhouse Jail Program
Indian River County
$0.00
$36,623.00
$0.00
6. Conflict Resolution
IRC School Board
$0.00
$44,546.00
$66,624.00
7. IRC Adolescent Substance Abuse
Counseling Program and
Aftercare Program
New Horizons
$0.00
$0.00
$43,674.00
TOTAL
$185,088.00
5173 21.00
S193,753.33
The County Administrator's Office received a letter dated March 14, 1995 from FDCA stating that
Indian River County has been allocated $145,315 in federal grant funds for FY 1995/96, $15,174
more than last year, to fund local anti-drug abuse programs. The letter also requested the Board to
serve as the coordinating unit of government in applying for the funds. The Board, during its March
28, 1995 regular meeting, accepted the invitation to serve as the coordinating unit of government and
named Joseph A. Baird, Office of Management and Budget, Director, as the contact person.
38
May 23, 1995
CURRENT
The Substance Abuse Council Advisory Board recommended four (4) programs as listed below:
*Indicates a continuation from the previous fiscal year.
State share totals $145,315, match totals $48,438.33 and the grand total of all four projects is
$193,753.33. Fa project cannot be implemented due to the budget cuts, then the money allocated
for the project will be redistributed to other projects already listed.
The M.A.C.E. Unit and the Substance Abuse Council received their match from Indian River County
Board of County Commission funds since they are agencies of the County. The Conflict Resolution
Program received $4,164.00 ofthe match from United Way and $12,492.00 from the School Board.
New Horizons made the entire match themselves.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations and authorize
the Board chairman to sign the grant applications and other necessary related documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Substance Abuse Council's
recommendations
applications,
memorandum.
May 23, 1995
and authorized the grant
as set forth in staff's
COPY OF GRANT—RELATED DOCUMENTS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BOOS(
PAE
State Share
Matching
programs to be Funded
Implementing Agency:
750/6
25%
Total
IRC Adolescent Substance
Abuse Counseling Program and
Aftercare Program
New Horizons
$32,755.50
$10,918.50
$43,674.00
Conflict Resolution Program*
School Board
$49,968.00
$16,656.00
$66,624.00
Multi -Agency Drug Enforce.
Unit* (MACE.)
IRC SheriffDepartment
$48,060.00
$16,020.00
$64,080.00
Substance Abuse Council of
Indian River County*
Indian River County
$14,531.50
$4,843.83
$19,375.33
TOTAL
$145,315.00
$48,438.33
S1932753.33
*Indicates a continuation from the previous fiscal year.
State share totals $145,315, match totals $48,438.33 and the grand total of all four projects is
$193,753.33. Fa project cannot be implemented due to the budget cuts, then the money allocated
for the project will be redistributed to other projects already listed.
The M.A.C.E. Unit and the Substance Abuse Council received their match from Indian River County
Board of County Commission funds since they are agencies of the County. The Conflict Resolution
Program received $4,164.00 ofthe match from United Way and $12,492.00 from the School Board.
New Horizons made the entire match themselves.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations and authorize
the Board chairman to sign the grant applications and other necessary related documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Substance Abuse Council's
recommendations
applications,
memorandum.
May 23, 1995
and authorized the grant
as set forth in staff's
COPY OF GRANT—RELATED DOCUMENTS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BOOS(
PAE
BOOK 95 mu 198
AUTHORIZATION OF RE -BID FOR
INTERSECTION EM PROVEMENTS CR -510 & 66TH A�
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Dire
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.
County Engineer
DATE: May 15, 1995
SUBJECT: Bid No. 50-62
Intersection Improvements to CR510 & 66th Avenue
IRC Project No. 9301
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: May 3. 1995
Specifications Obtained by: Four 4 Vendors
Replies: Three a Vendors
BID TABULATION
UNIT PRICE
Martin Paving Company
$493,834.25
9400 N. U.S. #1, Unit #9436
Sebastian, FL 32958
Ranger Construction
$479,08655
P.O. Box 3265
Ft. Pierce, FL 34948
Jobear, Inc.
$564,043.25
1950 Danr Drive N.E.
Palm Bay, FL 32905
Dickerson of Florida purchased bid documents, but did not submit a bid.
BUDGETED AMOUNT: Account No. 101-153-541-067.68. $300.000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that revisions be made to the plans to reduce the work, that the current
bids be rejected and that all firms purchasing bid packets be asked to submit revised bids
on that basis as a means of expediting re -bidding this work because of the health and safety
aspect and general public concern surrounding this project. In anticipation of Board's
approval, and to shorten time frames, these revisions have already been sent to the
contracting firms and bids can be opened immediately and a recommendation of award be
presented to the Board at its next meeting if the Board approves this procedure. -This
approach has been discussed and tentatively approved by both the county attorney's office
and Purchasing Department. This project was included with the intersection of CR510 and
CR512 as work necessary with the construction of the North County High School.
No other alternatives are presented.
40
May 23, 1995
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, to approve
staff's recommendation as set forth in the
memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked what ran the bid
up, and County Engineer Roger Cain explained that market conditions
are different from when CR -512 was done because contractors are
busy now with other projects and asphalt costs are up along with
gasoline prices. In addition, when the CR -510 / CR -512
intersection was done, CR -512 corridor improvements were included,
so they got a little economy of scale. In contrast, this is an
isolated project which tends to increase costs. He went on to say
that reworking and widening 66th Avenue from the intersection up to
Sebastian was included in the bid, but not technically part of that
budget.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained they*had decided to
include resurfacing and construction of paved shoulders on the
half -mile section of 66th Avenue while the contractor is mobilized
because heavy hauling on the roadway in front of the Fischer mining
operation had aggravated the old paving. That part could be
eliminated as well as some sidewalk work and pipe replacement under
the existing road. That work had necessitated changing the
contract plans a little and going back out to the bidders to try to
reduce the cost.
Commissioner Adams asked if the intersection at 66th Avenue
would be paved all the way to Barber Street, and Mr. Cain replied
it would be paved to the city limit, just south of Barber Street.
Commissioner Adams suggested that perhaps some of those costs could
be negotiated down, and Mr. Cain responded it could be done to some
extent, but not on something unusual. He added that when bids come
in higher than anticipated, it is customary to make some changes,
if necessary, and rebid.
Commissioner Tippin commented that if there's some way to get
the cost down, the difference would buy us a couple more bridges
that we need desperately.
Commissioner Adams agreed, if that is what we need to do to
get that intersection done. Mr. Cain commented that the
intersection was supposed to be done in order to get the approval
of the high school, so it is needed.
41
BOOK F'
May 23, 1995
Boa5 'Pw �- 20`0
Director Davis explained that they wanted to do the project
this summer when there is less traffic since the nature of the work
will require a lot of traffic maintenance.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the widening on 66th Avenue would
include any sidewalks, and Director Davis responded there is
sidewalk on the east side south of CR -510 for about 1/4 mile. He
added that an ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act) enhancement project for the north county area is coming up.
This sidewalk could be eliminated from this project and we could
wait for the enhancement project. Commissioner Eggert thought the
sidewalk should not be delayed if it means school children getting
safely to school. Director Davis reported there are very few
children living south of CR -510 on 66th Avenue. Most of the
children would come via CR -510 to the east, and they are looking at
that as an independent project.
Doyle Vernon, 2324 lst Place SW, urged that there be sidewalks
in the area of Pelican Island School and thought sidewalks on 86th
Lane should be considered. The County could be saving money by
having the students walk.
Director Davis declared that Mr. Vernon had been very helpful
in working on sidewalks. Staff believes it is safer for children
to use local roads whenever possible and stay off CR -510. He added
that the Whitfield Subdivision will have sidewalks as soon as CDBG
(Community Development Block Grant) funds are approved.
Commissioner Adams and Mr. Vernon exchanged ideas on where
sidewalks might best be placed keeping in mind rights-of-way, the
safety of the children, and saving taxpayers' money.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
42
May 23, 1995
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PEP REEF
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 18, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Don G. Donaldson, P.E.,
Coastal Engineer
SUBJECT: Indian River County PEP Reef
Construction Notice to Proceed
DATE: May 18, 1995 FILE: REEFNTP . AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Beaches and Coastal Systems has issued a draft permit for the
installation for the PEP Reef project. Staff has requested the
DEP modify Specific Condition No. 2.4, so that the County may
proceed with the installation of the Breakwater without having to
complete the Historical Shoreline Erosion Study prior to
installation. The Coastal Engineering Research Center (.CERC) has
already incorporated this study into. the Test Plan and will have it
completed before the first annual survey report. Staff has
completed. the necessary modifications to the Test Plan and has
submitted it to the DEP for final approval. Acceptance of the Test
Plan and approval of the specific condition modifications allow the
DEP to sign the permit. Staff does not know of any obstacles that
would prevent the permit from being signed.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) permit was delayed pending
a report from the State Historical Officer. The State Historical
Officer has issued a favorable report to the USACOE, Jacksonville
District and does not object to the placement of the Reef. However,
they would like five anomalies investigated prior to installation
or provide buffer around those anomalies. The archeologist that -
was subcontracted by American Coastal Engineering, Inc. does not
-feel that any significant objects are to be found there other than
modern debris. Staff has corresponded with the Jacksonville
District and they are requesting six anomalies be investigated or
provide a 150' no construction buffer. A 150' buffer would
eliminate approximately 1/4 of the project therefore, staff has
requested American Coastal Engineering, Inc. determine the time and
expense for this added survey. Staff is confident that this survey
-can be accomplished in time for the Army Corps to issue a
prior to August 1995. Permit
DEP staff has approved the Erosion Control Line survey and has
scheduled it to be signed within the next -two weeks. The County*
will then be required to record this as a plat. In addition, DEP
staff has reviewed and approved the description of easement for the
state submerged land that is to be occupied by the reef units.
This easement is to be granted within the next two to four weeks.
43
May 23, 1995D UPALS
r
soak 95 P, -,z, X02
In summary, all state and federal permits and land easements have
either been issued or Will be issued within the next two to ten
weeks. American Coastal Engineering has provided the County -with
a critical path schedule for installing the reef during the summer
of 1995. The Beach Committee and the County-- Commission have
directed staff and American Coastal Engineering, Inc. to work with
all agencies and parties involved to- insure that a summer 1995
installation can occur. Staff has determined that May 22, 1995 is
the last date the County can authorize American Coastal Engineering
to begin fabrication and be guaranteed of a complete installation
prior to the fall storms.
The decision to authorize American Coastal Engineering, Inc. to
mobilize and begin: fabrication has three risk elements at this
time.
1) The State DEP Permit can be stopped by any individual that
files for an Administrative Hearing pursuant the Chapter 120
process. This process will delay the permit's effective date
until a hearing is held and the Hearing Officer has rendered
a decision.
2) Should the County authorize American Coastal to proceed and
installation is delayed pending an Administrative Hearing, the
mobilization cost ($200,925) cannot be recovered.
3) The unidentified magnetometer anomalies may have a significant
cultural resource and prevent the installation of some of the
breakwater segments.
Staff received today,(May 18, 1995)a copy of a letter from Frank
Zorc dated May 16th to the Beach Committee and County Commissioners
that states his intent to file a petition or petitions for a formal
Administrative Hearing under Section 120.57 and 161.053 of the
Florida Statutes. A petition for hearing revokes the permit until
the hearing process is complete.
Once the permit is issued, a person has fourteen days to file for
an Administrative Hearing, the State of Florida then has fifteen
days to respond to the petitioner and set a date for hearing. If
it is shown that the petitioner is not a person of standing, then
the request for hearing will .-be denied, this wgil-1 take
approximately twenty-nine days. However, staff has been informed
by the County Attorney's office, a person of standing is broadly
defined, therefore, staff is assuming that Mr. Zorc will be
considered to have standing.
Staff will be meeting with American Coastal Engineering to
determine the minimum construction schedule and if delaying a
notice to proceed for appeal procedures will jeopardize the project
for this summer. In addition, the County Attorney's Office is
being consulted regarding what actions the County can take if a 120
Hearing is requested. Staff will make a recommendation regarding
the issuance of a Notice to Proceed at..the Commission Meeting.
Draft PEP Permit
Letter from American Coasta3 Engineering, Inc.
Letter from Frank Zorc
Letter from State Historic Officer
44
May 23, 1995
� � r
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that Coastal Engineer
Don Donaldson has been vigorously pursuing the permits from the
Department of Environmental Protection as well as the Army Corps of
Engineers for the PEP reef project and time is of the essence. A
decision whether to issue a Notice to Proceed for the project needs
to be made today. Mr. Donaldson will provide a current status
report on his permitting efforts and make a recommendation
regarding a Notice to Proceed.
Coastal Engineer Don Donaldson advised that American Coastal
Engineering had informed staff that they cannot guarantee a
complete installation for this year unless the County issues a
Notice to Proceed today. We have a permit from the FDEP, Bureau of
Wetland Resource Management, and a draft permit from the FDEP,
Bureau --of Beaches and Coastal Systems. State lands issues have
been resolved and we expect the FDEP to authorize the ECL and the
submerged lands easements shortly. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit has not been issued because they are waiting for
a State Historical Officer's report. This report has been issued;
however, the Historical Officer has asked the County to revisit
five anomalies, or obstacles, found in the project area or to avoid
the area by placing a buffer around them and not placing the units
within that buffer. The archeologist, on contract with the County
through American Coastal Engineering, Inc., does not feel any
significant resource will be found at these five locations. Staff
has requested the Corps of Engineers condition their permit so that
these additional anomalies may be investigated at the time of
construction. Recent correspondence with the Corps of Engineers
indicates that this condition may not be possible and that they,
too, would request that we place a 150' buffer adjacent to these
anomalies or investigate them prior to construction. Because this
buffer is not feasible, staff has requested American Coastal
Engineering to provide the County with the cost for this additional
work. - In talking with the contractor and their subcontractor,
staff feels that the work can be accomplished in a relatively short
time, in time for the Corps of Engineers to issue their permit and
in time for an installation this summer. Therefore, staff does
believe that all the necessary permits and land use rights can be
obtained for a summer installation, except Mr. Frank Zorc has
presented the County with a letter stating his intent to file
petition(s) for a formal administrative hearing under Section
120.57 and 161.053 of the Florida Statutes. Vero Beach Mayor
Winchester contacted staff and stated he knew of two other
45 BOOK �cJ
May 23, 1995
Boox 55 P,�-H 204
individuals who were going to file a petition. If all of them
follow through on their promise, there will be three separate
petitions filed against the FDEP/Beaches and Coastal Systems
permit. Filing for a hearing pursuant to Statute 120. process does
nullify the permit until the request is denied or the hearing is
complete, a hearing officer has made a report of findings with a
recommended order, the FDEP Secretary has issued a new order, and
all subsequent appeals, if any, are final. The process will take
several months and has the potential to last even longer if appeals
are granted.
That being the case, Mr. Donaldson advised that staff is
recommending that the Board of County Commissioners not authorize
a Notice to Proceed until the administrative hearing process is
complete and all appeals are final. Staff also requested that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize tourist tax revenues for
legal expenses to defend the actions of the State in issuing the
permit.
Beth Mitchell, vice president of American Coastal Engineering,
Inc., reviewed her letter of May 10, 1995:
May 10, 1.995
AMERICAN COASTAL ENGINEERING, INC -
201 N. F7agler Drive, west Palm Beach, Florida 33401
407 833-9919 407 8334929 Fax
working to Preserve America's Coastline
Don Donaldson, P.E.
Indian River County Public Works Department
1850 25th St.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: PEP Reef Project, Vero Beach
Dear Don:
The purpose of this letter is to review the status of the PEP Reef project, and to provide
information regarding the scheduling requirements and limitations in order to complete the
project during the summer of 1995. The three major phases of the project are as follows:
Mobilization - A minimum of six weeks is required during which we will modify ten forms,
obtain bonds and insurance and order materials including reinforcing steel and rebar.
Fabrication - The project will require 215 units. We estimate that approximately 20 units per
week can be fabricated, using 10 forms. Therefore a minimum of 10 weeks should be
allocated for -fabrication. - -
Installation - We estimate that trucking, barging and installation of 215 units will require a
minimum of six weeks. As noted in our contract,
weather conditions. this phase is critically dependant upon ,
46
May 23, 1995
The critical path schedule for project completion in the- summer of 1995 is attached to this
letter.
We remain available to respond to any requests for information or to answer any questions
which may arise from this schedule.
Very truly yours;
AMERICAfiN COASTAL ENGINEERING, INC.
1 �
Beth L. Mitchell
Vice President
Enclosure : Critical Path Schedule
cc: Commissioner Fran Adams
Ms. Mitchell advised that if the County issued the Notice to
Proceed today, there would be no price increases for the year 1994-
95; however, if the project is delayed until next year, the
contract price would increase approximately 10%-12%. She suggested
a third option to the County was to issue a Partial Notice to
Proceed and the project would be done in increments. This would
give the contractor the ability to try to complete the project this
summer, depending on what unfolds in the administrative hearing
process.
Ms. Mitchell advised that they also are requesting a Partial
Notice to Proceed to mobilize. She explained that the first phase
includes putting bonds and insurance in place, modifying the forms,
and ordering some materials. After they complete that phase, they
would come back in 30 days and request a Notice to Proceed to
fabricate. If, during the next couple of months, they continue to
experience delays, the units would be fabricated. They may lose
the "window of installation" to actually get the units in the
water, but the units would be built, stored at no cost, and could
be installed next spring.
Ms. Mitchell asked the Board to make a decision whether they
wanted to install the project this summer and, if not, they would
be happy to come back next year. However, they would prefer to get
going now.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the $200,000 to mobilize would be
lost and have to be paid again next year, and Ms. Mitchell
explained that it would not have to be paid again on that
mobilization cost. She went on to say that the second mobilization
cost actually had to do with installation of the units and if they
had to store the units, there would be a 10%-12% increase on that
portion, or roughly about $90,000.
!tri
May 23, 1995 Boa 95 ?Au 205
Bo x 95 fAu206
Chairman Macht asked staff's recommendation relative to Ms.
Mitchell's suggestion, and Mr. Donaldson responded that the
contract was not clear on the point, therefore, the contract would
need to be amended just for clarity. He estimated the costs for a
partial Notice to Proceed to include mobilization and fabrication
would be $890,000. A 10%-12% increase for installation next year
on the remaining portion of the project would ultimately add about
5% to the overall project total, instead of a 10%-12% increase if
they decide to wait on the entire project until next year.
Mr. Donaldson believed that the County Attorney might be able
to give information about the 120 hearing process and how to
proceed, and he recommended deferring until all appeals are over
before issuing any Notice to Proceed.
County Attorney Vitunac presented two scenarios: if we win the
appeals, and if the appeals are successful. There would be a
minimum of 30 days, probably longer, just to win the case, which
becomes a factor affecting the installation opportunity this
summer. If the appeals are successful against us and the permits
are withdrawn permanently, the units would have been built and
could not be put in place. He hasn't seen the challenges yet.
They may be invalid or have some merit, and he could give no
opinion of the odds. A decision to proceed or not was a "risk
analysis" of how important it is to have them made this summer
versus waiting.
Chairman Macht asked if the appellants had standing to file,
and County Attorney Vitunac said Frank Zorc was the only one he was
aware of. He explained the law required an appellant to be a
significantly affected party with the legal right and the right has
to be one that was affected by this permit, within the same
influence; thus, generally, beachfront owners within the area would
have standing. He advised they would look heavily into the
standing issue.
Commissioner Adams suggested that in environmental concerns
just about everybody has standing.
Commissioner Bird asked staff what additional cost might be
incurred if they did not issue the Notice to Proceed, but pursued
the final permits, and went through the 120 hearing process.
Mr. Donaldson was not sure of the legal expenses, but the cost
to wait until next year would be approximately 10% more. He hoped
the cost to reinvestigate the anomalies would be less than $5,000.
48
May 23, 1995
M - M
Chairman Macht asked who would be defending the permit, and
County Attorney Vitunac explained the challenge process and advised
that his office would defend the County as the permit holder.
Commissioner Adams felt that we would be well-advised to seek
counsel with experience in these hearings.
Public Works Director Jim Davis recounted the County's
successful defense in 1990 of the Boulevard Phase III 120 hearing.
During that 6 -month process, the DER's legal counsel worked with
the County's legal counsel and expert testimony was also involved.
Commissioner Bird felt that they had asked Commissioner Adams
and staff to do a job and, as far as he was concerned they couldn't
have done it better. The amount of energy, effort, and persistence
was phenomenal. However, in spite of their excellent efforts, he
felt there are some real questions whether or not the PEP reef has
the odds behind it to do what we want to maintain and, perhaps,
enhance our beach. He would like to continue to pursue the permits
and defend ourselves at the 120 hearing, but if we're buying
ourselves additional time, he wanted to have some other options
explored. He remained unconvinced, based on expert testimony, lab
tests, etc., that the PEP reef was a proven procedure for
protecting or enhancing the beach. With the expense involved, he
would not be satisfied to merely maintain the present beach. He
believed that people wanted to see the beach restored, but added
that additional beach was needed for protection, recreational and
tourist benefits, and a multitude of other reasons. As unpopular
as it is, the most proven method to enhance the beach has been
sand -pumping. He knew it has been considered before, but pointed
out that it is still a viable option. He suggested going back to
the State and the Federal governments to see what other options are
available in restoring the beach, find out if they would permit
such a thing, and determine if there any State or Federal funds
still available for such a project. He also believed something
needed to be done about the sand being stopped by the north jetty
on the Sebastian Inlet.
Commissioner Bird wanted to see Commissioner Adams or someone
pursue some other options in addition to the PEP reef. Even though
our conditions are not exactly the same as Palm Beach, their
experience should raise a red flag before we spend the kind of
money necessary on an experimental PEP reef project.
Commissioner Adams responded to Commissioner Bird's remarks
and suggested there was a misconception that perhaps the committee
has had their head in the sand. Half a million dollars has been
49
May 23, 1995
Boa P 4U
soap 95 ?�H 208
spent in looking at beach options and the Committee has come up
with a solution they felt was economically viable and feasible and
very good for the county. She hoped sand -pumping never occurs here
to cover up that beautiful reef. As far as the leadership and work
that has been done, she felt Commissioner Bird had had plenty of
time to take a leadership role and to try to do something about the
beach. It galled her that he sat there as an "armchair
quarterback" about what the Committee had done for 18 months. The
Committee has looked at options, paid consultants, visited
different places and attended beach conferences. They have talked
to the State and to the Feds, and she thought it was very unfair to
the Committee and unfortunate that Commissioner Bird had taken that
position.
Commissioner Bird countered that he had started his remarks by
complimenting her and he certainly included her committee and staff
on the job that they had done and he thought they had done the
absolute best job that they could, but the test results and the
expert opinions were not in harmony. Some experts have said the
PEP reef might even enhance erosion. He reiterated his suggestion
to continue pursuing the permits to be in a position for next
summer; that if PEP reef is the way to go, that's the way to go.
He did not rule out the PEP reef, but wanted to see if there are
any other options out there, and sand -pumping may not be the only
other option.
Commissioner Eggert commented that this was not a duplicate of
the Palm Beach reef; they did not do the modelling, they put in a
continuous line without breaks in it.
Chairman Macht added that no two sections of beach are alike.
Commissioner Tippin recounted his historical knowledge of
beach erosion, commenting that groins work on the west coast, but
not on the east coast. The issue of beach erosion has been debated
and studied for years. He expressed his sympathy to Mr. Zorc for
the burden he carried of having the monopoly on all the right.
answers. He would vote to proceed, but wanted to force Mr. Zorc to
move forward with his intended appeal.
Commissioner Eggert understood staff's recommendation was to
not proceed until we see the appeal.
Chairman Macht reiterated staff's recommendation, not to
approve the Notice to Proceed either partially or totally.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to issue a
partial Notice to Proceed, to allow
May 23, 1995
50
EA
r
mobilization, then issue another Notice to
Proceed to go to the prefabrication phase.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert had trouble voting for
that motion because of uncertain costs and because we do not know
the cost for mobilization next year.
Chairman Macht felt it was a big risk for a substantial amount
of money if we lose the appeal.
Frank Zorc, 2044 DeLeon Avenue, Vero Beach, appreciated
Commissioner Tippin's remarks. He understood the $200,000 for
mobilization would have to be paid immediately. He hoped the Board
would not give the Notice to Proceed, but if they did, they should
get a better breakdown of the $200,000. He had stood before them
almost a year ago, expressed his concerns about the "experimental
animal", and begged them not to sign the contract. He cAlso was
concerned that no monies were to be set aside in case it had to be
removed. He felt the failure at Palm Beach presented an abundant
example of the uncertainty of success in this type of product. He
believed it was still too experimental and has decided to file the
appeal on behalf of himself and 200 others who signed his petition.
He thought a poll would result in 80% of the citizens against
spending.the money on the experimental reef. He asked that they
postpone any commitment until such a device has acquired a record
of positive success somewhere. He added that it was not easy to
fight the ferocious wrath of Mother Nature.
Commissioner Eggert asked Attorney Vitunac if a partial Notice
to Proceed could be contingent on waiting the time period for any
appeals that might be filed.
Commissioner Tippin asked if there was any time limit on the
appeals.
County Attorney Vitunac advised they could condition the vote
today to make it when the permits are finally issued, without
further- appeals available to a challenger, then the Notice to
Proceed is valid. Challengers would have 14 days to file against
the permit.
Director Davis explained the three scenarios available and the
attendant costs.
County Attorney Vitunac pointed out a 4th scenario suggested
by Commissioner Adams -- to give the Notice to Proceed but not
issue the notice to fabricate for 30 days.
51
May 23, 1995
BOOS 95 FALE 209
r
80OK &5 PA�Gf..210
Administrator Chandler thought that's what Beth Mitchell
pointed out, and Commissioner Eggert added that we could still lose
everything if we did not win at the hearing. She had a hard time
voting to issue a partial Notice to Proceed based on that.
Michael Walther, president of Coastal Technology Corporation,
advised that he has been accepted as an expert in coastal
engineering by the Department of Environmental Protection in
conjunction with 120 hearings and in dealing with coastal erosion
and coastal erosion control. Mr. Walther offered some technical
perspective, suggested that the County may not get a permit for a
PEP reef and detailed his reasons. With regard to cost on the 120
hearing, the County might expect costs of $50,000 to $100,000 to
defend the issuance of a permit. Ultimately, he strongly
encouraged the Board not to issue any Notice to Proceed until such
time as the permits are actually in place and they have confidence
that this is going to have a positive impact on the shoreline. Mr.
Walther strongly encouraged the County to reevaluate alternatives
that are available. He is prepared to offer alternatives to
Commissioner Adams' committee and the Board as may be appropriate.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that $70,000 had been spent on
studies that said there was no erosion in this project.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
MOTION FAILED 2-3. (Commissioners Adams and
Tippin in favor, Commissioners Bird, Eggert
and Macht opposed)
Commissioners Eggert and Macht reiterated their reasons for
their "no" votes.
Chairman Macht asked to hear another motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board approved
staff's recommendation to pursue the permits
and defend the County in a 120 hearing, but
not go forward with the Notice to Proceed at
this time, by a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner
Adams opposed).
May 23, 1995
52
Chairman Macht called the decision a painful one and expressed
his thanks to Commissioner Adams for all her efforts.
Commissioner Eggert hoped that Mr. Donaldson would keep them
completely informed of the happenings in this issue.
COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK - SCI MULE PUBLIC
HEARING - REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOC. - RES. #85-61
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto reviewed a Memorandum of
May 10, 1995:
DATE: May 10, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
_. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF iJTILI VICES
PREPARED ANA ANDERSON(
AND STAFFED 'FRANCHISE C00 INATOR
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARR
RESOLUTION NO. 85-61, BETWEEN REALCOR-VERO
BEACH ASSOCIATES & INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On April 11, 1995, the Department of Utility Services received a
request from Gary Brandenburg, the attorney representing
Countryside North, to postpone the public hearing scheduled for
April 18, 1995. At the BCC meeting on April 11, 1995, the Board of
County Commissioners approved postponing the hearing for one month.
( See attached agenda item and minutes) . We are before the Board of
County Commissioners to reschedule the public hearing for the
above-mentioned franchise and discuss the outstanding franchise
requirements previously presented.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing date for
discussion of these issues.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved staff's recommendation to set a
public hearing on June 20, 1995, for
discussion of the issues. (NOTE: Motion was
subseauently reconsidered and .the public
hearing date was changed. See later in the
minutes.)
53
May 23, 1995
60DK '9 R
r
boeK 95 PAu 212
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 1995:
DATE: MAY 9, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UTI CES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAIr
AND STAFFED CAPITAL S ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR TILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Indian River County Utilities Department is required to
establish a cross connection control program by the provisions of
the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act (F.S. Section 403.850-864). We
have established a cross connection control program with policies
and specifications (see attached copy). The policies and
specifications provide a detailed --explanation of cross connection
control along with details of the program. We are now in front of
the Board of County Commissioners requesting the adoption of this
program as outlined in the Florida Statutes and by DEP Code
17-555.360.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends adoption
of the cross connection control program as presented.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to approve
staff's recommendation as set forth in the
memo.
Commissioner Adams asked if we had an estimate on total cost
for this mandate, and Utility Services Director Terry Pinto advised
that the mandate was to put it into a certain form for the
Department of Environmental Protection. The necessary equipment
was acquired previously.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
May 23, 1995
54
MID -FLORIDA ELEVATED STORAGE TANK REMOVAL
FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 1995:
DATE: MAY 15, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI"ERVI
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM P
AND STAFFED G.I.S. COORDINATOR
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF THE MID -FLORIDA ELEVATED STORAGE
TANK, FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUNDA AND ANALYSIS
On July 29, 1994, area demolition contractors were contacted for
quotes for the removal of the above -referenced facility. On
January 24, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners awarded the contract to Pittsburg Tank and Tower
Company, Inc., in the amount of $8,675.00. The work has been
completed and all Department requirements have been satisfied. The
contractor has submitted his request for final payment. (See
attached agenda item.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the final pay request to
Pittsburg Tank and Tower Company, Inc., in the amount of $8,675.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved the final pay request to Pittsburgh
Tank and Tower Company, Inc., in the amount of
$8,675.00, as recommended in the memorandum.
FINAL PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
55
May 23, 1995
BOOK zJ15 PALE 213
"a z �.
Box
COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK - RECONSIDERATION OF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE (Reconsideration of item taken earlier in
the meeting.)
Ed Nelson, president of the Countryside Mobile Home Park
Homeowners Association, was recognized by Chairman Macht. Mr.
Nelson asked to speak concerning the hearing date the Board had
scheduled and informed the Board that the subject in question was
never brought to the Homeowners Association and the Association
never gave permission nor authorized any communication. On behalf
of many owners who would be leaving for the summer, he requested
that the hearing be held as soon as possible.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
agreed to reconsider the matter.
County Attorney Vitunac explained that letters had been
received from two attorneys, one representing Realcor and the other
representing a group of homeowners who wished to buy the park. He
advised that the problem lies in knowing what authority a certain
group has with the whole property owner's association.
Mr. Nelson reiterated that the subject was never brought up
before the association and no authorization was given to the Park
Acquisition Committee chairman to meet with anyone nor ask to
postpone the meeting. It appears at this time that only 22% -of the
people wish to buy the park, but they need at least 40% and they
are short over $2 million. Mr. Nelson felt the purchase of the
park would not happen. He stressed that Mr. Cowling did not have
the authority or permission of their board to postpone any.
meetings.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved setting the public hearing for the
earliest date possible that meets legal
advertising requirement.
56
May 23, 1995
r � �
DISCLOSURE COUNCIL FOR LAND ACQUISITION BOND ISSUE
The Board reviewed the letter of May 17, 1995:
3414... /.9a l'Y,-Y Yww
✓`- /9ot1 'vs -?9ee
Re: Disclosure Counsel for Land Acquisition Bonds
Dear Joe:
In.accordance with our telephone conversation this morning
understand that the County is interested in retaining our firm as
disclosure counsel in connection with the above bond issue, the
size of which will range between $10,000,000 and $26,000,000. We
propose that our fee (which includes cut -of -pocket expenses) for
serving as disclosure counsel in connection with this issue be
based upon the hourly rates of the attorneys and legal assistants
assigned to this matter, but that such fee not exceed $10,000.
We propose that our scope of sen•ices for serving as
disclosure counsel be as follows:
I. Preparation of preliminary and final official statements.
2. Conduct of diligence of review necessary in order to
render an opinion to the County regardi
Official statement. ng the accuracy of the
If. the bonds are sold after July 3, 1995, the new SEC
continuing disclosure rules will be applicable, and the County will
be required to covenant with future bondholders to make continuing
disclosure of the type set forth in the rules, which .includes
filing with each national repository, annual reports updating
information in the official statement, and the filing of notices of
material events, as they occur. We will be happy r_c discuss this
additional responsibility it more detail with vo.j -
at -our
convenience, and are available to assist the County -with
compliance, for a fee mutually agreeable between the County and our
firm, if you so desire.
If you have any questions, please call me.
57
May 23, 1995
ver- trul yours,
Ju o Freeman, Jr.
'BOOK P1�
G
4•�KrA
p - X � /
May 17, 1995
Mr. Joe Baird
Director, Office
of Management and Budget
Indian River County
1840,25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
3414... /.9a l'Y,-Y Yww
✓`- /9ot1 'vs -?9ee
Re: Disclosure Counsel for Land Acquisition Bonds
Dear Joe:
In.accordance with our telephone conversation this morning
understand that the County is interested in retaining our firm as
disclosure counsel in connection with the above bond issue, the
size of which will range between $10,000,000 and $26,000,000. We
propose that our fee (which includes cut -of -pocket expenses) for
serving as disclosure counsel in connection with this issue be
based upon the hourly rates of the attorneys and legal assistants
assigned to this matter, but that such fee not exceed $10,000.
We propose that our scope of sen•ices for serving as
disclosure counsel be as follows:
I. Preparation of preliminary and final official statements.
2. Conduct of diligence of review necessary in order to
render an opinion to the County regardi
Official statement. ng the accuracy of the
If. the bonds are sold after July 3, 1995, the new SEC
continuing disclosure rules will be applicable, and the County will
be required to covenant with future bondholders to make continuing
disclosure of the type set forth in the rules, which .includes
filing with each national repository, annual reports updating
information in the official statement, and the filing of notices of
material events, as they occur. We will be happy r_c discuss this
additional responsibility it more detail with vo.j -
at -our
convenience, and are available to assist the County -with
compliance, for a fee mutually agreeable between the County and our
firm, if you so desire.
If you have any questions, please call me.
57
May 23, 1995
ver- trul yours,
Ju o Freeman, Jr.
'BOOK P1�
County Attorney Vitunac explained that additional counsel was
needed as "disclosure counsel" in connection with bond issues, that
Squires, Sanders & Dempsey was the second -ranked firm in the bond
counsel selection process, and that disclosure counsel was needed
to comply with requirements having to do with ethics in government.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved Squire, Sanders & Dempsey as
disclosure counsel.
MEDEVAC AD HOC COMNIITTEE ALTERNATE NAMED
The Board reviewed a letter of May 18, 1995:
(insert I --1`
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS • •
Commissioner Carolyn K Eggert
1840 251h Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: Medevac Ad Hoc Committee
May 18, 1995
DENNY GREEN
COMMISSIONER
t•
Dear Commissioner Eggers:
This Is to confbm the fust meeting of the Medevac Ad 116c Committee. The meeting date and location is as
follows.
DATE: June 1, 1995 -
TIM& 1:00 p.tn.
LOCATION.Law Library
Sb Lucie County Administration Building
2300 Vuginia Avenue
3rd floor .
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
This building is located on the corner of Virginia Avenue and South 23rd Street Parkbig is on the northside of
the building.
If you find that you are unable to attend, please send someone to represent you.
Ifyou need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call at (407) 462-1406
Best regards,
• .0-4
• -
-
Shirley A. elaune
Administrative Assistant jos
St. Lucie County Commissioner/Chairman Denny Green
58
May 23, 1995
Commissioner Eggert explained that Emergency Services Director
Doug Wright would not be available for the June 1 meeting and
advised that Director Wright had asked that Jimmy Judge be
authorized to go in his place.
The Board reached CONSENSUS that Jimmy Judge be the alternate
for the June 1 Medevac Ad Hoc Committee meeting in Ft. Pierce.
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
Chairman Macht announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the
Emergency Services District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Macht announced that immediately upon adjournment of
the Emergency Services District meeting, the Board would reconvene
sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
Chairman Macht announced there would be no regular meeting
next Tuesday. There will be an LDR meeting next Wednesday at 5:01
p.m.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:09 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. on, Clerk Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
&//
Minutes approved on
59
May 23, 1995
Boa 95 PALE 217