HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/1995� MINUTES ACHED �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
Tuesday, July 18,1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
• 11 I ORDER PAG
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. ADDITIONS to the AGAll / u1 ; V1l U.
7F Coastal Barrier Resources System
12B Department of Environmental Protection
13A Invested Securities/Investment Plan
Added 25% Tax Budget Reduction Recommendations
Announcement of Caucus regarding Teamsters Bargaining unit
':1 U Y I\ �� ': \Y 1►.
None
. ' ' : 1 ! u 11►1 11 Y
Meeting of June 13, 1995
1�K17�[. ►Y 17.
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
1. Sebastian River Water Control District:
(a) Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of Board
of Supervisors (6/7/95);
(b) Minutes of Annual Meeting of Land-
owners (6/7/95)
2. Report of Convictions, June, 1995
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected - Month of June
(memorandum dated July 7, 1995)
7. CONSENT AGENDA r on 'd 1• PAIGE
C. Equipment for Surplus Sale
(memorandum dated July 11, 1995)
D. Award Bid #5086 / Turf Vacuum, Sandridge Golf Course
(memorandum dated July 7, 1995)
E. Oslo Road & Old Dixie Hwy. Improvements - Release of
Retainage for Engineering Services
(memorandum dated July 10, 1995)
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, RELATING TO FINANCING CAPITAL
PROJECTS AND RELATED PURPOSES;
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF OBLI-
GATIONS BY THE COUNTY PAYABLE FROM
ANY FUNDS LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR SUCH
PURPOSE TO FINANCE OR REFINANCE THE
PROJECTS; AUTHORIZING THE INVESTMENT
OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF SUCH
OBLIGATIONS AND THE SECURITY FOR THEIR
PAYMENT IN CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
'a, 11113r 1343
1. Keith Hedin Appeal of Staff's Decision to
Deny Refund of a Political Sign Removal
Bond
(memorandum dated July 11, 1995)
2. Kathaleen Inman Appeal of Staff's Decision
to Deny Refund of a Political Sign Removal
Bond
(memorandum dated July 11, 1995)
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Communis Develo m n
Condemnation, Demolition and Removal of Unsafe
Structure: Larry Catron Investments, Inc. Abandoned
Gas Station, 8980 U.S. Highway 1, Wabasso, FL
(memorandum dated July 3, 1995)
(deferred from meeting of July 11, 1995)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (on 'd )• PAGE
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
1. Old Health Dept.. Building
(memorandum dated June 30, 1995)
2. Award Bid #5080 / Vero Highlands Water
Project, Part I
(memorandum dated July 11, 1995)
3. Award Bid #5081 / Vero Highlands Water
Project, Part II
(memorandum dated July 11, 1995)
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and -Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Evaluation of Submerged Reef Technology -
Final Payment
(memorandum dated July 11, 1995)
2. US #1 Sidewalk Between Vista Royale
Condominium and South Vero Square
Shopping Center
(memorandum dated July 12, 1995)
3. Authorization to Advertise for Professional
Civil Engineering and Architectural Services -
Misc. Road Widening, Park Development &
R -O -W Acquisition Projects
(memorandum dated July 10, 1995)
H. Utilities
1. Master Plan Amendment, North County Service
Area
(memorandum dated June 6, 1995)
2. North County R.O. Plant - Phase II, Engineering
Services Amendment No.. l
(memorandum dated June 29, 1995)
3. North County Sewer, South of Indian River Drive
Survey Services
(memorandum dated June 27, 1995)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS on 'd 1• PAGE
H. Utilitiescon_ tO
4. Proposed Contract Water Meter Reading Services
(memorandum dated July 10, 1995)
1191ork-ITOZINT.Vi, fol "IN DkA
Demand for Arbitration by J.A. Cummings and Martin Paving
Company
(memorandum dated June 20, 1995)
1• %11 • 1 1 7 11• Us !A0 e I
B. Vice Charman Fran B Adams
1 II II I I:M TIIT7, 1
1 I II II 1 1' 1 "Al • r
E. CommissionerJohn W Th. *
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 6/13/95
2. Fellsmere Recycling Collection Center
(memorandum dated July 7, 1995)
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in
advance of meeting.
Tuesday; July 18, 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, July 18, 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 Chairman Macht
led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Macht requested the addition of a resolution opposing
legislation regarding invested securities. (13.A.)
Administrator Chandler requested presentation of the
recommended 25% cuts in the proposed budget, if there was time at
the end of the meeting. (CLERK'S NOTE: Commissioner Eggert had
indicated she would need to leave by 11:30 a.m.)
Commissioner Eggert reminded the Board of the addition of
Commissioner Adams' item concerning Coastal Barriers Resources
System. (7.F.)
County Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of item 12.B.
concerning the Department of Environmental Protection's costs of
wastewater regulatory and surveillance fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
added the above items to the Agenda.
County Attorney Vitunac announced a caucus would be held
following the BCC meeting.
1
July 18, 1995
aoK 95 F,�c 70�.
noeK. 95 %O
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 13, 1995. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 13,
1995, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board:
1. Sebastian River Water Control District:
a) Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of Board of
Supervisors on 6/7/95;
b) Minutes of Annual Meeting of Landowners on
6/7/95.
2. Report of Convictions, June, 1995.
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected -.Tune 1995
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commission
FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tag Collec
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: July 7, 1995
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $1,757.39 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of. June, representing the issuance of 126 licenses.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted the
report.
2
July 18, 1995
C. Equipment for Surplus Sale
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 11, 1995:
DATE:
July
11,
1995
TO:
BOARD
OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County A istrator
H. T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Equipment for Surplus Sale
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The following equipment (attached list) has been declared
surplus to the needs of Indian River County.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of
County Commissioners to declare these%items surplus and
authorize its sale.
FUNDING:
The monies received from this sale will be returned to the
appropriate accounts.
RECOMMENDATION:
This will be placed on the Surplus Property Sale open to
the public as per State Statutes.
3 BOOK 95 FACS 7®3
July 18, 1995
1
.P
KK FLf195 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
KK FL#200 CHRYSLER
KK
KK FL*214 DODGE
a 706 1141/M
1982 AT FLT MOT
1982 AT FLT MOT.
a �vu awawe. iJd
1983 AT FLEET MGT,
24#924.60 1HTAA1759CAA15553 22
6#690.65 1B7014E1CS254S97
8#882.90 186WD34149115410258 22
KK FL*243 FORD
PROGRAM KKFIXRPG037KK
KK#1i#d411diKKKKKK#KKKKKKKKIFKKKK##KK#KKKKKK
36,850.00 iFDYW80U7DVA39854
22
FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED#
22
KK 0093-000000.7 UMS--
�'�'
1984 AT FLT MGT
K PURCHASING - I3FA SURPLUS
DATE:'`,
'�
7/10/9, TIME
13122134
AT FLT MGT.
1#750.00 1FABP39A4EG183392
K
KKKKK0F111FKi1KKKK�li1KKKJFKKKiF11KiiK-IiIHIKKKKKKKK
1 TO
KK FL1310 FORD
1VW6 FORD F350 A
1986 AT FLEET MGT,
PAGE 1
~
v
ASSET* SEGI CLASS DESCRIPTION/
FLEET 4 MANUFACTURER
DESCRIPTION/ LAST INV.DAIE
AQ. DATE HOW
CD DATE
11 539.00 2FTJW3m3OCA93912
f..1
KKKKIFI#KKKJFKKKKKI/KKKKil1:KK11KKKK1iKK1/KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKMKKKKKKKKKMNKNT
K1iKKKKKIFKKK1iKKiii1KKKKKK11iNIKKKKKKKKKKKKIFKKNK,,ALUE
ASSET
.KKKKMKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
FUNCTION
10518.00
56780
12
1215 PURCHASING — GFA SURPLUS
K0()02663
KHKVKYKKEKQKPKKKKHK/KDKKTTRACTORSKKIIKKKKKKIiMiG11KKK�IKKKKK1/KiHFKKi1KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK#Mill:iFKKKKKKKK1iKKK1iKKKKiHi1iKKKKK#KKKKKKK:♦KKKKKK
— -
LOCATION TOTAL VALUE--- 174647.10
KKKK
—000000K
KK
1977 MF 263 DIESrL TRACTOk
FL#O6J MASSEY FERGUSON
6/69/94
1977 AT FLT MGT
1/07/80 P
06%21%9@
-
513
-OOZE�9-000000
6.400.00
9A241891
12
+�+�HEAVY EIiUIP.% H/It MOWER-
KK FL4075 BUSH HOG
---- 1977 6v HUSH HO[3 ROTS MOWER 6/06%95
1%07%80 P
06%2195 � --�
- -
1977 Q FLT MGT. ATTACHED TO 6184
1#000.00
1100773
513
KK 003161--000000 HVY 1::;! 11 / H/D ACTORS —
1980 TK DIESEL 6600 FRAC/MOW
12
�* FL4059 FORD MOTOR CO
6/09/94
1978 AT FLT MOT
6/11/ 80 P
21#816.00
C561380
12
KK 003709-000000 TRUCKS / 1 TON
KK FLl179 CHRYSLER CORP.
1981 DODGE 350 C/C SERV TK 6/09/94
1981 AT FLT MGT
6/23/81 P
06/21/95
g 3
7630.10
6WD34TOBS170147 22
KK 003752-000000 HVY EQP / H/D TRACTORS
KK FL#184 CASE
1981 CASE 1490 TRAC/MOWER 6/06/95
1981 AT FLEET MGT.
8/28/81 P
06/21/95
513
27#957.00
11182527
22
KK 00 464—eennnn u+.ree
1
.P
KK FLf195 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
KK FL#200 CHRYSLER
KK
KK FL*214 DODGE
a 706 1141/M
1982 AT FLT MOT
1982 AT FLT MOT.
a �vu awawe. iJd
1983 AT FLEET MGT,
24#924.60 1HTAA1759CAA15553 22
6#690.65 1B7014E1CS254S97
8#882.90 186WD34149115410258 22
KK FL*243 FORD
.n.GVVV ac . Tu
..—& BR`
1983 RD b. BR
36,850.00 iFDYW80U7DVA39854
22
KK
22
KK 0093-000000.7 UMS--
KK FL*257 FORD
1984 AT FLT MGT
6 ---�
KK
AT FLT MGT.
1#750.00 1FABP39A4EG183392
22
1 TO
KK FL1310 FORD
1VW6 FORD F350 A
1986 AT FLEET MGT,
---�--
iF'1'CR14T1HPA58666
22
11 539.00 2FTJW3m3OCA93912
22
KK FL4321 FORD 1986
js
AT FL"GT
8#595,89
1FTCR14T9GPB67584
22
KK 0093-000000.7 UMS--
KK FL+326 FORD - 1987
AT FLT MGT.
— LT BRN 2WD P/U
9#092.87
iF'1'CR14T1HPA58666
22
FL#096A MOTT1991
AT FLT MOT
DECLRD 1/95 �59�4
10518.00
56780
12
— -
LOCATION TOTAL VALUE--- 174647.10
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS------ 14
�.
F�
C
cil
Lir
Cn
KKKKKKKKK*****KKKKK**KK***KKK*KKKKK*KKK
PROGRAM **FIXRPGO37** F-IXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED K
iFIfKiFK1FMNKKKKKK#MiiKK#ifiiKlldHIKK11KiF jfKK#KKKK
DATE 7/30/95 TIME 13t24t49
PAGE i
ASSETO BEG# CLASS DESCRIPTION/
0
m
CHO DATE F'UfFbildN
FLEET 4 MANUFACTURER
YEAR COMMENT
ASSET VALUE
I.D. 4
0
z
o
6005 PURCH. - ENTERPRISE SURPLUS
i't'
ASSET# BEQ4 CLASS DESCRIPTION/
"- 00727-3-000000 TRUCKS / 1/2 ---TON -
- - --l-984—CH-EV C-10 --- - -S%01%94
9/29/84 P
06/30/95- ---- -- 999
** FL0264 GM
►�7'
F..,
�
�i
-- 1986 CHEV C-10 --- - -- — - - 8/01/94
H•
O
a
w
o
20CDC14N501199100
H
*if 003077-666066 TRiA*S % 1/2 TON
W
m
N
06%21/95
999
It
N
a
N•
0
10BUCC3106
�
m
--^
O
z
T
m
a
** FLOW. GNC
1981
AT LANDFILL *SCRAPE*
.00
CE503ZI57662
`
42
m
tr,
1985 FORD LT9000 REF TRK 6/14/94
6/01/88
rt
�
999
#* FLO"! FORD
1985
L/F RESTRUCTURE
19,091.00
1FDZU90XXFXA55673
n
n
** I -TON
fD
6/01/88
G
06/21/95
999
O
1985
L/F
19,091.00
O
IFDZU90XSFVA55672
n
Ln
a
4/20/90
P
06/21/95
999
** FLf47u' 8M
1990
AT FLT MGT
90895.50
�
1BILT54TXLE165690
42 „
N
LOCATION TOTAL VALUE---
50952.50
b
N
N•
5
91
N
N.
N
a
�
Ul
rt
N
►i
'1
O
rt
tij
10
w
LQ
N
1
O
W
N
ft
0)
K
rt
N
W
co
0
fD
M
b
�
n
W
N
00
�
d
C
m
O
N
ti'
cn
ch
cil
Lir
Cn
KKKKKKKKK*****KKKKK**KK***KKK*KKKKK*KKK
PROGRAM **FIXRPGO37** F-IXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED K
iFIfKiFK1FMNKKKKKK#MiiKK#ifiiKlldHIKK11KiF jfKK#KKKK
DATE 7/30/95 TIME 13t24t49
PAGE i
ASSETO BEG# CLASS DESCRIPTION/
DESCRIRTION% LAST INV.DATE
AQ. DATE HOW
CHO DATE F'UfFbildN
FLEET 4 MANUFACTURER
YEAR COMMENT
ASSET VALUE
I.D. 4
#****###KKK##*iHf#K*K*�f#KKK*K*#KKKK#KKK*K*#*KKK****##***K***KK*KKKK#KKKKK#KKKKK#KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK#KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKMKKKKKiH1KK
6005 PURCH. - ENTERPRISE SURPLUS
ASSET# BEQ4 CLASS DESCRIPTION/
"- 00727-3-000000 TRUCKS / 1/2 ---TON -
- - --l-984—CH-EV C-10 --- - -S%01%94
9/29/84 P
06/30/95- ---- -- 999
** FL0264 GM
1984 ATFLT MGMT.
7.575.00
10CCC14D4EF373103
t 008640-000000 TRUCKS % 1/2 TON - --
-- 1986 CHEV C-10 --- - -- — - - 8/01/94
7/03/86 P -
06/30/95 --- -- - 999
K* FL031S GM
1986 AT FLT MGMT.
8,288.36
20CDC14N501199100
* 009278-000000 TRUCKS / 1/2 TON 1987 CHEV C-10 4X2 8/01/94 6/19/87 P 06/30/95 999 :
## FL0346 GENERAL MOTORS 1987 AT FLT MGMT. 8.,684.57 1GCDR14H7HSt64t02
. n
-
LOCATION TOTAL VALUE--- 24547.93
KK*KKK****K*KKK**KKKKK*K*KK*KKKKK*KKKKK
PROGRAM **FIXRP8037** # FIXED ASSETS BY LOCATION SELECTED
DATE 6/21/95 TIME 11t46t27
r',
�
r'VICW'7• — GIRIChTRLDC OYRPLVO w
.-nuc
a
KKKKK#KKKKKKKK#i1KK###MKKK###KK#KMKMKKK�IF
ASSET# BEQ4 CLASS DESCRIPTION/
DESCRIPTXON/ LAST INV.DATE
AQ. DATE
HOW
CHO DATE FUNCTION
FLEET 0 MANUFACTURER
YEAR
COMMENT
ASSET VALUE
I.D. 4
;
**********KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKifKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
6005
PURCH. - ENTERPRISE SURPLUS
#****************#******KKKKKKKI�KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKM
*if 003077-666066 TRiA*S % 1/2 TON
1979 FORD Fi00 6/14%94
3/06%79
P
06%21/95
999
** FL0039 FORD
1978
AT LANDFILL *SCRAPE*
2.875.00-
10BUCC3106
42
*a 003935-000016 TRUCKS / MULTI -TON -
--^
1981 GMC W/SEWER PUMP _..6/14/94
4/28/89
T
06/21%95 - -
999 -
** FLOW. GNC
1981
AT LANDFILL *SCRAPE*
.00
CE503ZI57662
`
42
** 007722 1 TWUMC980 /—FU--Tl-TON
1985 FORD LT9000 REF TRK 6/14/94
6/01/88
G
06/21/95
999
#* FLO"! FORD
1985
L/F RESTRUCTURE
19,091.00
1FDZU90XXFXA55673
n
n
** I -TON
1M FORD LT9000 R TK 6/14/9
6/01/88
G
06/21/95
999
** FL;290 FORD
1985
L/F
19,091.00
IFDZU90XSFVA55672
42
-
**01171&zouaw Auraw
19"I 4/ 5/2-3/95
4/20/90
P
06/21/95
999
** FLf47u' 8M
1990
AT FLT MGT
90895.50
1BILT54TXLE165690
42 „
LOCATION TOTAL VALUE---
50952.50
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS--
5
r',
Boa 95 706
D. Bid #5086 - Pifer. Inc. - Turf Vacuum, Sandridge Golf Course
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 1995:
DATE: July 71 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adm istrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, "rurchasi„g Manager
SUBJ-: Award Bid #5086/Turf Vacuum
Sandridge Golf Course
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
x Pifer
Jupiter, FL
Nucrane Machinery
Riviera Beach, FL
Lewis Equipment Co
Winter Haven, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
June 16, 1995
June 7, 14, 1995
Tuenty Five (25) Vcndors
!!hree (3) vendors
BID TABULATION
$ 6,300.00
$10,800.00
$10,820.00 -
$ 6,300.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Golf Course Operations Other Machinery
and Equipment - 418-221-572-066.49
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
$ 8,500.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Pifer, Inc
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 Adams, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5086 to Pifer, Inc. in the amount
of $6,300, as recommended in the memorandum.
E. Oslo Road & Old Dixie Highway Improvements - Release of Retainage
to Kimley-Horn for Engineering Services
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 1995:
July 18, 1995
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Oslo Road and Old Dixie Highway Improvements
Release of Retainage for Engineering Services
DATE: July 10, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: OSDIXIE . AGN
w
Construction of improvements on Oslo Road and Old Dixie are
complete. Kimley-Horn is requesting release of retainage in the
following amounts:
Work Order No. 2 - US 1 to Old Dixie $ 4,379.70
Work Order No. 3 - Old Dixie to Timber Ridge $ 2,252.80
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board release the retainage held on Work
Order No. 2 and Work Order No. 3 in the total amount of $6,632.50.
Funding is from Account # 101-156-541-067.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved release of the retainage held on Work
Order No. 2 and 3, in the total amount of
$6,632.50, as recommended in the memorandum.
F. Coastal Barrier Resources System
The Board reviewed a letter of July 17, 1995:
TO. Fran Adams
567-8000 x 490
770-5095 (fax)
FROM: Bob Bruce
589-7996 (home)
676-0010 x 163 (office)
Fran,
Sent by fax (2 pages total)
July i 7, 1995
Here is the letter that you requested. We (I and the other seven homeowners)
thank you very much!
One point: It is GOOD to be excluded from the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
It is BAD to be included in the CBRS. Any property that is included in the CBRS
cannot purchase flood insurance from NFIP, cannot partake in any FEhIA assistance
7 BOOK 9 5 FXAG 707
July 18, 1995
FF- -7
nrjw 95 r -,,u708
in the event of a disaster, cannot participate in a sewage project that is even
partially funded by EPA, ... etc. Basically, no Federally funded projects.
It Is important that this letter reach John Rayfield (Saxton's assistant) ASAP. The
hearing is on July 27 and written correspondence needs to be there at the end of
this week.
Rep. Fowler introduced HR 481 (and is the sponsor), Rep. Weldon is a co-sponsor
along with ALL Florida Representatives whose districts contain properties which
are included in HR 481.
Please send the following copies of the letter: _
Congresswoman Tillie Fowler Bob Bruce
Attn: Patty Wise 12396 North AIA
413 Cannon Building Vero Beach, FL 32963
Washington D.C. 20515
Congressmana Weldon
�p 1i 1? �j
Attn: Stuart Burns
432 Cannon Building
Washington D.C. 20515
3�6 �C,
Thanks,
Bobs
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved sending the suggested letter to
Representative H. James Saxton, as follows:
Tehn+one: (407) 567 -MM
July 19, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, dam Beach, Florida 32960
Representative H. James Saxton
Attention: John Rayfield
Chairman, Fisheries, Wildlife & Oceans Subcommittee
House Resources Committee
805 O'Neill
Washington, D. C. 20515
RE: HR 481
Dear Representative Saxton:
Please be advised that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida has actively pursued the exclusion of the
segment of land in Indian River County that is addressed in HR 481
("Technical Modifications to the Coastal Barrier Resources
System".) This 8.5 acre segment makes up the northern section of
the P10 Unit of the CBRS.
8
July 18, 1995
We have actively pursued getting this segment and other highly
developed segments excluded from the CBRS. We petitioned under
Section 4 of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (PL 101-591) to
have this segment excluded from the CBRS on November 11, 1991. Our
petition was turned down by U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service in a
letter,.dated April 24, 1992.
The segment of the P10 Unit that is addressed in HR 481 was
developed to a density of greater than one unit per five acres in
1983 and is clearly a part of the adjacent densely developed area
to its north that was released from the P10 Unit in PL 101-591.
In conclusion; the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida strongly supports excluding this 8.5 acre segment
from the P10 Unit'of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
Sincerely,
Fran B. Adams
Vice Chairman
FBA:aw
cc: Rep. -Tillie Fowler
Rep. Dave Weldon
PUBLIC HEARING - CONSOLIDATED ROME RULE FINANCING
ORDINANCE
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
PublUebed Daily
Vero beady Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that tie is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach M Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a Y_L4Y
In the matter of d __ ! / - I%lfLf'.
hd Lid
M the
fished in said newspaper in the issues of �[ +� l /' _9 /
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in sold Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has bean
entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In sold Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
a.'�dSleW before melhis' 7 day o A.D. 19
• my comm.
June 29, 1997
No. CMM72
July 18, 1995
(Business Manager
Btafo of Florida, lily Commncwn Lxp June 29.1907
Corrlmissgn Number. CC30072
Nalwy BARBARA C RPRAGOF.
7
No=Re: Ordna+Ice — II Rule — Land Bolds : i
N_ Caemya Fbr� her ft provides notice of
PUSIX HAJQ sdreduled for
9.0x5 A.M. an
T e in 1 f 1995, atCounty AdrtYnk MaIsU ton BUIdng,
1840 25th Street, Vac Beach. Morlds, to dsmw a
pr d adho of Aldan River Cc", Fbdit
nlaesreo Parnas may appear at the meeting end
Anyone whNod o�w� to prop sed add.
mince mey do so at the Office m the- Gerk to Ahe
�1 who
1840 Bah, Florida.
may may Wish to appeal ery I Igim which
be made et tl11s n vA need to amee
81st a valcath record of the praoeedrW Is made,
Which
Is n WstlwV and avidaioe upon which
the Weeln�stlAnyone
who needs a Specht aoconmodatbn for
with DlsabWtles Act (ADA) Coord*w'
at 667-
800D. Ext. 408, at bast 48 ham In edwnos of the
.Aare .1995 1212387
Boa 95 FAcE 709
vor 95 FACE 710
The Chairman read the title of the proposed ordinance.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that bond counsel had
suggested this ordinance and wanted it in place before closing on
the LAAC bonds next week.
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the Chairman opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance No. 95-16 relating to
financing capital projects and related
purposes, authorizing the issuance of
obligations by the County payable from any
funds legally available for such purpose to
finance or refinance the projects; authorizing
the investment of the proceeds from the sale
of such obligations and the security for their
payment in certain instruments, as recommended
by staff and bond counsel.
ORDINANCE NO. 9s- 16
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO FINANCING CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND
RELATED PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
OBLIGATIONS BY THE COUNTY PAYABLE FROM ANY
FUNDS LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR SUCH PURPOSE TO
FINANCE OR REFINANCE THE PROJECTS: AUTHORIZING
THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF
SUCH OBLIGATIONS AND THE SECURITY FOR THEIR
PAYMENT IN CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS) AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the
"Consolidated°Home Rule Financing Ordinance."
10
July 18, 1995
M M
ORDINANCE NO. 95-16
SECTION 2. AUTHORITY FOR ORDINANCE
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 1, Florida Constitution (1968), Chapter 125, Florida
Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law.,
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
It is hereby found, determined and declared by the Board
of County Commissioners (the "Board") of Indian River County,
Florida (the "County") as follows:
A. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1, Florida
Constitution (1968), and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, the County
` has all powers of local self-government to perform county functions
and to render county services in a manner not inconsistent with
general or special law, and such power may be exercised, among
other ways, by the enactment of county ordinances.
B.- -It is necessary for the public health, safety, and
general welfare of the County and its citizens that provision be
made (1) to acquire, construct, improve, and equip from time to
time capital projects which serve a county purpose, and (2) to
finance the cost of such projects by the issuance of certain
obligations, as described below.
C. Section 125.31(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes a
county to enact an ordinance specifying investments for surplus
public funds in pits control or possession, if the desired
investments are not otherwise set forth in Section 125.31, Florida
Statutes.
D. The County desires maximum flexibility in the
investment of proceeds from the sale of its obligations and the
security for payment of its obligations.
E. Notice of intent to consider this ordinance has been
published and made. available to the public for inspection in the
manner provided by law.
11 eooK 95 F-nUE 711
July 18, 1995
8onK 95 �V%E 712
ORDINANCE NO. 95-16
SECTION 4. PROJECTS
The County is hereby authorized to acquire, construct,
improve and equip county capital projects (the "Projects"),. as the
same may be determined by the Board from time to time in accordance
with applicable law.
SECTION S. OBLIGATIONS
To pay the cost of the projects and other costs necessary
or incidental thereto, including but not limited to the. costs of
issuance of such.obligations, the County is authorized to issue, or
cause to be issued.on behalf of "the County, as the case may be,
bonds, notes, certificates, lease -purchase obligations (including
certificates of participation) and other forms indebtedness
(collectively, the "Obligations") from time to time: Such
Obligations may be issued in bearer form or fully registered form;
may be delivered by means of physical certificates or a book -entry
system, or any combination thereof; may be in such denomination or
denominations; may bear interest at such rate or rates not
exceeding the maximum rate allowed by law, payable on a current
basis or at maturity; and may mature at such time or times; all as
shall be determined by the Board at or prior to the time of sale of
the Obligations. The Obligations may be made redeemable before
maturity, at the option of the County or the holders thereof, at
such price or prices and under such terms and conditions as shall
be fixed by the Board prior to their issuance. The Board shall
determine the place or places of payment of the principal,
redemption premium, if 'any and interest on the Obligations, which
may be at the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the
County, ex officio Clerk of the Board (the "Clerk"), or any bank or
trust company within or without the State of Florida. The
Obligations shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of
the Chairman of the Board, and attested by the manual or facsimile
signature of the Clerk, and may further be authenticated on behalf
12
July 18, 1995
� � r
ORDINANCE NO. 95-16
of the County by the Clerk or a bank or trust company which may be
acting as registrar of the Obligations, whichever is applicable;
provided, that such Obligations shall bear at least one signature
which is manually executed thereon; and shall have the .seal of the
Board affixed, imprinted, reproduced or lithographed thereon; all
as shall be prescribed in the resolution or resolutions authorizing
the issuance of the Obligations. The Obligations may be sold at
public or private sale at such price or prices as the Board shall
determine. In connection with or as a result of the issuance of
the Obligations or any other outstanding indebtedness of the
County, the County may issue or cause to be issued and/or
delivered, derivative products including, but not limited to,
detachable call options, interest rate swaps and forward refunding
options.
SECTION 6. REFUNDING OBLIGATIONS
The. County may issue Obligations to refund any
Obligations issued under the authority of this ordinance and
provide for the rights of the owners thereof. Such refunding
Obligations may be issued in an amount sufficient (a) to pay any
expenses of the issuance and sale of such refunding Obligations and
(b) together with the income from the investment of a portion of
the proceeds of sale of such refunding Obligations, to pay (i) the
principal of the outstanding Obligations, (ii) the interest due and
payable on the outstanding Obligations, and (iii) the redemption
premium, if applicable, on the outstanding obligations.
SECTION 7. SECURITY
The prificipal of, redemption premium, if any, and
interest on the Obligations issued under the authority of this
ordinance may be payable from and/or secured by (a) a lien upon and
pledge of any funds of the County legally available for such
purpose; or (b) a covenant to (i) budget and appropriate or (ii)
13
July 18, 1995 Boa 95 FnE 71
BOOK 95 PAGE 714
ORDINANCE NO. 95-16
direct an appropriate officer of the County to submit to the Board
for budget approval, as the case may be, from any funds of the
County legally available for such purpose, an amount sufficient to
pay the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on
the Obligations (collectively, the "Security").
SECTION S. NEGOTIABILITY
The Obligations shall be -negotiable instruments under the
Uniform Commercial Code -Investment Securities laws of the State of
Florida.
SECTION 9. INVESTMENT OF FUNDS
Proceeds of the sale of any Obligations and any Security
securing payment of the Obligations may, at the option of the
County, be invested in the following manner:
A. Any investments authorized or permitted from time to
time by Section 125.31, Florida Statutes, or any other -law of the
State of Florida controlling the investment of surplus public funds
of a county.
Board.
B. Shares of the Florida Counties Investment Trust.
C. Any other investments specified by resolution of the
The County shall, in any resolution authorizing the
issuance of its Obligations providing for the investment of the
proceeds of the.sale of such Obligations, select all or any portion
of the above investment vehicles as permitted investments under
such resolution, and, in its discretion, may provide additional
restrictions to such investments in the resolution.
The provisions of this Section 9 shall not be deemed to
amend any resolutions or ordinances authorizing the issuance of any
outstanding obligations of the County.
14
July 18, 1995
ORDINANCE NO. 95-16
SECTION 10. NO IMPAIRMENT
The County does hereby covenant with the owners from time
to time of Obligations issued pursuant to this ordinance that it
will not enact any ordinance which will impair (a) the rights of
such owners under the resolutions which authorized such
Obligations, or - (b) the pledge of the Security to the payment of
principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on
Obligations issued.under the authority of this ordinance.
SECTION 11. SPECIAL.ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
If any of the Obligations shall be payable from and
secured by special assessments levied against specially benefitted
property, to the extent permitted by law, the County may by
separate ordinance incorporate those provisions of Chapter 170,
Florida Statutes, it deems necessary and desirable, or otherwise
set forth the procedures for the levy and collection of the special
assessments in such ordinance.
SECTION 12. POWERS VESTED IN BOARD/ EXERCISE= REFERENDUM
All power and authority granted to the County by the
provisions of this ordinance shall be exercised by the Board or its
successors as the governing body of the County. The powers granted
hereunder may be exercised by resolution duly adopted by the Board.
No referendum in the County shall be required for the exercise of
any of the powers granted by this ordinance, unless such referendum
is required by the Constitution of Florida.
SECTION 13. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY
This ordinance shall be considered as supplemental and
additional authority for the County to implement the powers
authorized by this ordinance.
SECTION 14. REPEALER
All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are, to the extent of such conflict,
hereby repealed.
15 Boa 95 pi�u 71.5
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 716
ORDINANCE NO. 95-16
SECTION 15. SEVERABILITY
The proJisions of this ordinance are intended to be
severable. If any one or more sections, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses or provisions shall be held to be illegal or invalid, the
remaining sections, sentences, clauses and provisions of this
ordinance shall nevertheless stand and be construed as if the
illegal or invalid sections, sentences, clauses or provisions had
not been included herein.
SECTION 16. EFFECTIVE DATE
A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be
filed by the -Clerk with the Office of the Secretary of State of
the State of Florida within 10 days after enactment, and this
ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary
of State.
DONE AND ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, this 18 day of July , 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero -Beach Press
Journal on the 2 9 day of .Iiinp , 1995,_for a public hearing
to be held on the 18 day of 111 , 1995, at which time it
ways moved for adoption by Commissioner Tip pin , and the motion
wan seconded by Commissioner Eggert, and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed
and adopted this 1$_ day of'' .1111 V , 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attests
'eFran B. Adams
J fff ey K. sar n, clerk Vice Chairman
Od&;a�r_
EFFECTIVE ISATE: owledgment by the
Florida Department of State received
on this 24th day of July 01
1995.
16
July 18, 1995
Indi9n River Cn AjVraved Dale
Admin. f L- .? 9S
LergaI J
Bud.gel
Dept
Risk Mgr.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - KEITH HEDIN APPEALS DENIAL OF
POLITICAL SIGN REMOVAL BOND REFUND
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois reviewed a
Memorandum of July 11, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD
Ro-bert M. Kea'ti
Community Devel
FROM: Roland M. DeBloils;-AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUBJECT: Reith Hedin Appeal of Staff's Decision to Deny
Refund of a Political Sign Removal Bond
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July -18, 1995.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This agenda item pertains to Mr. Reith Hedin's appeal of staff's
decision to deny refund of a $250 political sign removal bond due
to the applicant's noncompliance with county sign ordinance
requirements. In accordance with County Code Section 902.07, such
appeals of staff's decisions are heard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and may be further appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting of May 25, 1995"
heard Mr. Keith Hedin's appeal and, by a vote of 4 to 3, upheld
staff's denial of the bond refund (see attached minutes excerpt).
Mr. Hedin has now appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision -to the Board of County. Commissioners.
Background
During the Fall, 1994 election period, a number of political
candidates placed political signs throughout the county. Within
the unincorporated area, County Code Section 956.15 (1) provides
regulations for temporary political campaign signs (see attached).
On October 21, 1994, staff advised Mr. Hedin by letter that several
Hedin campaign signs were observed in the unincorporated county
without a required sign permit. Mr. Hedin thereafter submitted a
sign application, and on October 28, 1994, county staff issued a
sign zoning permit to Mr. Hedin, allowing the placement of
temporary political signs throughout the unincorporated county.
The permit included specific conditions relating to sign location
and size allowances.
17
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 PAGE 717
BooK 95 PAGE E718
Subsection 956.15(1)(c) of the County Code requires the posting of
a $250 security bond prior to the placement of political signs, and
specifies that this bond may be forfeited for any of the following
reasons (paraphrased):
1. Failure to remove all signs within five days of the
applicable election;
2. Placement of signs on any tree, utility pole or similar
object;
3. Placement of any sign without permission of the
applicable property owner; or
4. Authorizing placement of sign(s) or allowing sign(s)
to remain more than two days after notice of any signs in
violation of county regulations. Illegally placed signs
are prima facie evidence that a candidate placed or
authorized placement of said sign(s). [NO'M'E: this
paragragh was amended in Nay, 1995, but was in effect at
the time of sign permit issuance and bond refund denial.]
On November 8, 1994, the day of the general election, code
enforcement staff removed a number of political campaign signs,
including 9 Hedin campaign signs, from road rights-of-way in the
county. Specifically, Hedin campaign signs were removed from
rights-of-way at:
- US #1 in Wabasso (abandoned gas station) -
- Intersection of 129th Court & Roseland Road
- Polling places of Precincts 36, 41, 44, 46, & 53
- Intersection of 4th Street & 43rd Avenue
Based on staff's observance and removal of illegally placed signs
in road rights-of-way, the $250 bond refund was denied, and Mr.
Hedin was notified of the denial. On December 16, 1994, Mr. Hedin
submitted a letter of appeal, stating that "...any signs that were
found in road right-of-ways were not, repeat not, placed in said
areas by me [Mr. Hedin] or anyone connected with me or my campaign,
nor did I authorize placement of any sign in an unauthorized area".
Mr. Hedin also states in his letter that he has "every reason to
believe that someone, not my people, deliberately moved my signs".
ANALYSIS
Points Raised by Mr. Hedin
Staff has no information as to who specifically placed Hedin
campaign signs in road rights-of-way, whether the signs were placed
by Mr. Hedin, one or more of his supporters, or someone else.
However, County Code Subsection 956.15(1)(c)4. provides that "the
illegal placement of'any political sign advertising a particular
candidate shall be prima facie evidence that the candidate placed
or authorized the placement of said sign". On this basis, the
candidate is ultimately responsible for code compliance, and
consequently staff has denied refund of the sign bond.
Section 902.07 Appeal Guidelines
Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the review of this appeal.
Under 902.07, the Board of County Commissioners is to make findings
in the following four areas:
18
July 18, 1995
1. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures?
2. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) act in an arbitrary or capricious
manner?
3. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) fail to consider adequately the effects
of the proposed development upon surrounding
properties, traffic circulation or public health,
safety and welfare?
4. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) fail to evaluate the application with
respect to the comprehensive plan and land
development regulations of Indian River County?
In staff's opinion, the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not fail in any of these four areas and made a
logical decision in its interpretation of County Code Section
956.15(1), as hereafter explained. -
Appropriate Review Procedures
The Planning and Zoning Commission found that staff reviewed the
issue of bond forfeiture appropriately, finding that one of the
reasons specified in Code Section 956.15(1)(c) for bond forfeiture
had occurred: signs were placed on property without owner
permission (public rights-of-way).
Arbitrary or Capricious Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission found that planning staff did
not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Of 20 political sign zoning
permits issued, staff denied refund of 15 bonds due to
noncompliance with county regulations, primarily relating to
political signs illegally placed in road rights-of-way.
Impact to Surrounding Properties,
Health, Safety and Welfare
County sign zoning regulations relate largely to aesthetics
control, in the public interest. The unaesthetic nature of
literally hundreds of political signs along road rights-of-way has
contributed to the need for the County to regulate political signs
and prohibit those types of signs in public rights-of-way. The
Planning and Zoning Commission found that staff considered these
impacts in taking enforcement action against illegally placed
political signs.
Comprehensive Plan, LDR Requirements
Enforcement of County political sign
with County Code Section 956.15(1)
furthers Comprehensive Plan Future
states:
19
July 18, 1995
requirements, in accordance
(as previously explained),
Land Use Objective 9, which
soa 95 PAcE71
Boa 95 Fa,E `42,0
"Indian River County will continue to enhance the
aesthetic quality of the community through land
development regulations that include landscape design
requirements, regulate the usage of signs, provide for
traffic and parking control and incorporate the use of
natural buffers."
Conclusion
The Planning and Zoning Commission upheld staff's denial of the
political sign bond refund to Mr. Hedin based on staff's observed
violations of the County Code. The purpose of the required bond is
to provide an incentive for applicants to comply with county
regulations. Denial of bond refunds in instances of noncompliance
is important to prevent similar, recurring political sign
violations in future elections.'
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
appeal and uphold staff's determination that the political sign
bond refund be denied due to noncompliance with County Code
requirements.
Mr. DeBlois pointed out that the definition of right-of-way
was the matter in question. He also emphasized that staff had been
consistent in looking at all of the signs of all candidates.
Commissioner Bird wondered what guidelines the Board was to
use in making their determination, since it appeared to him that
the appeal guidelines were not applicable to this appeal because
they were designed for Planning and Zoning appeals, and two of the
four did not pertain at all.
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that
while staff realized Section 902 needed to be amended to contain
criteria that would serve for all appeals, these were the
guidelines they were required to use. He assured the Board that
staff was looking at criteria, for the next round of LDR's, that
would serve for all appeals.
County Attorney Vitunac thought the Board could fall back on
the general appeal, if they found that staff may have
misinterpreted or made some mistake that would have harmed the
appellant prior to the issue coming to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. If they found for the appellant, he doubted that
Director Keating's office would appeal it further.
Keith Hedin, 1205 Old Dixie Highway, commented this had been
a long battle, the main basis of which was a proper determination
of right-of-way. He was before the Board still fighting to get his
20
July 18, 1995
M M M
money back. He asserted the reason it has taken so long was
because Planning and Zoning had some doubts about it. The
definition of right-of-way in the Code has been amended since he
and Kathaleen Inman had raised the issue. He recounted his version
of the process and the problems he had encountered and assured the
Board that if he had been given a two-day notice, he would have
corrected the problem. He quoted the old definition pertaining to
road rights -of -ways and cited reasons why the definition was very
unclear. He added that a lot of people misunderstood, but only two
were willing to stand up and fight. He asked the Board to remember
that he was being penalized for something that happened when the
rules were unclear.
Commissioner Eggert asked for clarification whether the
statement was made that the new ordinance defines right-of-way in
the same way as it was being used before it was put in writing, in
order to understand how staff was determining violations, and
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised they were
looking at the poles and sidewalks, but not necessarily the 20 feet
which was put in the ordinance to provide something definite.
Chairman Macht asked if Mr. Hedin had failed to respond to
notification to remove his signs, and Mr. DeBlois explained that
Mr. Hedin had been notified in October when signs were first
observed and had complied with the notice and obtained a permit,
but no other notice had been issued to him.
Commissioner Adams felt that clarifying the ordinance would
not solve the problem. She felt they would either have to
eliminate election signs entirely or have a place for them. She
felt that the present rules have only created more work for staff
and what bothered her in this instance was that they had tried to
comply, but still got punished while others were not. She believed
signs were an incredible aggravation and it seemed to her that they
were going about the solution in the wrong way, but was not sure of
the correct way to do it. She did not fault staff, but predicted
they would be discussing it again after the next election, and
asked the other Commissioners if they agreed.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she had handled it by not
using signs.
Commissioner Tippin commented that, with a law this vague,
there was little hope of ever fairly enforcing it.
Chairman Macht detected a motion forthcoming and suggested an
"amnesty motion" might be in order to grant the appeal and not
prejudice the law.
21 l �..
July 18, 9 1995 300A ' r:AtI" .I?
BOOK 95 FACE 722
County Attorney Vitunac thought the Board could find an
exception, seeing that we have since amended the law and we'll
enforce the new law, and because the old law was too confusing to
enforce against these two candidates.
Commissioner Bird wondered what to do with the other political
candidates that had their bonds retained, but did not bother to
appeal.
Chairman Macht commented that it was not the same situation;
the others were very flagrant with signs everywhere and without
permits. That was why he suggested the motion ought to be along
the lines of amnesty.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to grant the
appeal because of the ambiguities in the old
ordinance, and to not prejudice but to enforce
the new law. (CLERK'S NOTE: Kathaleen
Inman's appeal [next item] included in this
motion.)
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird commented that it was not
just the ambiguities in the ordinance, but also the ambiguities in
the appeal process. He wanted an appeal process set up where the
guidelines pertain to this situation so that it's clear to the
appeal board what the duties are. He believed the County needs a
strong political sign ordinance, which staff could enforce, and the
candidates need to understand that there is a risk if they did not
abide by the ordinance. He hoped that would avoid appeals in the
future, because it would be spelled out so everyone knew what was
right and what was wrong.
Director Keating reviewed the penalties if a permit were never
obtained, which were the typical misdemeanor violation penalties,
a $500 fine or 60 days in jail. He suggested other ways which the
law might be amended including starting a Code Enforcement action
with a special master in order to fast track the process, and
institute a fine per day for those who have not obtained a permit
and not posted a bond. Director Keating commented that only part
of what had been discussed had been corrected thus far. They still
have more corrections to cover the situation if a sign is moved to
22
July 18, 1995
� � r
an illegal place by an unauthorized person, and he was not sure
exactly what should be done.
Commissioner Bird believed it was obvious that a two-day
notice had to be given prior to 48 hours before the election and it
seemed to him that the penalty should be more severe for someone
that does not post the bond. Commissioner Eggert reiterated that
the penalty was $500 or 60 days, and Commissioner Bird agreed that
was more severe, if we enforce it.
Chairman Macht felt there should be no problem with signs
provided the candidate cooperated with Code Enforcement. He then
asked, if the motion carried, if the amnesty would include the
second appellant, Kathaleen Inman, as well.
There was CONSENSUS that Kathaleen Inman's
appeal was included in the motion.
Commissioner Adams suggested that, on the sign permit
application, perhaps a special emergency phone number could be
assigned regarding election signs.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - KATHALEEN RWAN APPEAL
DENIAL OF POLITICAL SIGN REMOVAL BOND REFUND
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 11, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D R NT HEAD CONCUR ENCE:
Obert M. Ke t ng, A1CP
Community Developm nt Di ctor
FROM: Roland M. DeBloigPrICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUBJECT: Kathaleen Inman Appeal of Staff's Decision to Deny
Refund of a Political Sign Removal Bond
23
July 18, 1995 BOOK 95 ma 723
BOOK 95 PIKE �_X
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 18, 1995.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This agenda item pertains to Rathaleen Inman's appeal of staff's
decision to deny refund of a $250 political sign removal bond due
to the applicant's noncompliance with county sign ordinance
requirements. In accordance with County Code Section 902.07, such
appeals of staff's decisions are heard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and may be further appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting of May 25, 1995,
heard Ms. Inman's appeal and, by a vote of 4 to 3, upheld staff's
denial of the bond refund (see attached minutes excerpt). Ms. Inman
has now appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to
the Board of County Commissioners.
Background
During the Fall, 1994 election period, a number of political
candidates placed political signs throughout the county. Within
the unincorporated area, County Code Section 956.15-(1) provides
regulations for temporary political campaign signs (see attached).
On September 27, 1994, county staff issued a sign zoning permit to
Ms. Inman, allowing the placement of temporary political signs
throughout the unincorporated county. The permit included specific
conditions relating to sign location and size allowances.
Subsection 956.15(1)(c) of the County Code requires the posting of
a $250 security bond prior to the placement of political signs, and
specifies that this bond may be forfeited for any of the following
reasons (paraphrased):
1. Failure to remove all signs within five days of the
applicable election;
2. Placement of signs on any tree, utility pole or similar
object;
3. Placement of any sign without permission of the
applicable property owner; or
4. Authorizing placement of sign(s) or allowing sign(s)
to remain more than two days after notice of any signs in
violation of county regulations. Illegally placed signs
are prima facie evidence that a candidate placed or
authorized placement of said sign(s). [NOTE: this
paragraph was amended in May, 1995, but was in
effect at the time of sign permit issuance and bond
refund denial.]
On November 8, 1994, the day of the general election, code
enforcement staff removed a number of political campaign signs,
including 26 Inman campaign signs, from road rights-of-way in the
county. Specifically, Inman campaign signs were removed from
rights-of-way at:
- Polling places of Precincts 36, 41 and 42
- 58th Ave. and S.R. 60
- 6600 block of S.R. 60
- 85th Street and Old Dixie Hwy.
- U.S. #1 and 85th Street
24
July 18, 1995
(3 signs)
(4 signs)
(1 sign)
(1 sign)
-(2 signs)
- 8700 block of U.S. #1
(1
sign)
- U.S. #1 in Wabasso (abandoned gas station)
(1
sign)
- U.S. #1 (Pelican Shoppes)
(1
sign)
- Roseland Road and U.S. #1
(1
sign)
- 655 Old Dixie Hwy.
(2
signs)
- 12th Street and 43rd Ave.
(1
sign)
- 8th Street and 43rd Ave.
(2
signs)
- 82nd Ave. and S.R. 60
(1
sign)
- 90th Ave. and S.R. 60
(2
signs)
- 90th Ave. and 16th Street
(1
sign)
- 1700 block of 82nd Ave.
(2
signs)
Based on staff's observance and removal of illegally placed signs
in road rights-of-way, the $250 bond refund was denied, and Ms.
Inman was notified of the denial. On December 20, 1994, Ms. Inman
submitted a letter of appeal, including the following points:
• Ms. Inman did not authorize the placement of political
signs in violation of the sign ordinance, carefully
instructing her supporters to place the signs on private
property outside of rights-of-way.
• Some of Ms. Inman signs may have been relocated, because
signs she knew were in a certain spot when she went to
pick them up were no longer there.
Ms. Inman did not receive a notice giving her two days to
remove signs in violation, which notice is provided for
in County Code Subsection 956.15(1)(c)4.
ANALYSIS
Points Raised by Ms. Inman
Concerning Ms. Inman's indication that she did not authorize
illegal placement of signs, and that some of her signs may have
been moved, County Code Subsection 956.15(1)(c)4. provides that
"the illegal placement of any political sign advertising a
particular candidate shall be prima facie evidence that the
candidate placed or authorized the placement of said sign". On
this basis, the candidate is ultimately responsible for code
compliance, and consequently staff has denied refund of the sign
bond. -
Regarding Ms. Inman's point that she did not receive a staff letter
giving her two days notice to remove illegal signs, it is staff's
position that County Code Subsection 956.15(1)(c)4. does not
require a two day courtesy notice. Moreover, a proliferation of
illegal Inman campaign signs was found on the day of the general
election, and therefore a two day removal allowance would be
largely moot. This is because after sending a notice by certified
mail, it would then be close to 5 days after, the election, when all
signs are required to be removed anyway.
Section 902.07 Appeal Guidelines
Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the review of this appeal.
Under 902.07, the Board of County Commissioners is to make findings
in the following four areas:
1. Did the reviewing official (Planning and -Z-oning
Commission) fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures?
N
July 18, 1995
Boa 95 PACS 725
BOOK 95 FACE 726
2. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) act in an arbitrary or capricious
manner?
3. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) fail to consider adequately the effects
of the proposed development upon surrounding
properties, traffic circulation or public health,
safety and welfare?
4. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning
Commission) fail to evaluate the application with
respect to the comprehensive plan and land
development regulations of Indian River County?
In staff's opinion, the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not fail in any of these four areas and made a
logical decision in its interpretation of County Code Section
956.15(1), as hereafter explained.
Appropriate Review Procedures
The Planning and Zoning Commission found that planning staff
reviewed the issue of bond forfeiture appropriately, finding that
one of the reasons specified in Code Section 956.15(1)(c) for bond
forfeiture had occurred: signs were placed on property without
owner permission (public rights-of-way).
Arbitrary or Capricious Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission found that staff did not act
arbitrarily or capriciously. Of 20 political sign zoning permits
issued, staff denied refund of 15 bonds due to noncompliance with
county regulations, primarily relating to political signs illegally
placed in road rights-of-way.
Impact to Surrounding Properties,
Health, Safety and Welfare
County sign zoning regulations relate largely to aesthetics
control, in the public interest. The unaesthetic nature of
literally hundreds of political signs along road rights-of-way has
contributed to the need for the County to regulate political signs
and prohibit those types of signs in public rights-of-way. The
Planning and Zoning Commission found that staff considered these
impacts in taking enforcement action against illegally placed
political signs.
Comprehensive Plan, LDR Requirements
Enforcement of County political sign requirements, in accordance
with County Code Section 956.15(1) (as previously explained),
furthers Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Objective 9, which
states:
"Indian River County will continue to enhance the
aesthetic quality of the community through land
development regulations that include landscape design
requirements, regulate the usage of signs, provide for
traffic and parking control and incorporate the use of
natural buffers."
July 18, 1995
M
26
M
M
® ® r
Conclusion
The Planning and Zoning Commission upheld staff's denial of the
political sign bond refund to Ms. Inman based on staff's observed
violations of the County Code. The purpose of the required bond is
to provide an incentive for applicants to comply with county
regulations. Denial of bond refunds in instances of noncompliance
is important to prevent similar, recurring political sign
violations in future elections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
appeal and uphold staff's and the Planning and Zoning Commission's
determination that the political sign bond refund be denied due to
noncompliance with County Code requirements.
(CLERK'S NOTE: No separate discussion on this
item. Appeal granted; see previous item for
discussion and complete motion.)
UNSAFE STRUCTURE - ABANDONED GAS STATION. 8980 U.S. #1
WABASSO -.CONDEMNATION. DEMOLITION & REMOVAL
(Deferred from meeting of July 11, 1995)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 3, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: July 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Condemnation, Demolition and Removal of Unsafe Structure:
Larry Catron Investments, Inc. Abandoned Gas Station
8980 U.S. Highway 1, Wabasso, Fi
THROUGH:. Robert M. Seating, Director /AK
Community Development Department
FROM: Ester L. Rymer, ;
Building Division
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 11, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This item was initially presented to the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting
of June 20, 1995. Because of legal questions regarding liability, the Board directed staff to
research this issue in more detail and report back to the Board. Since then, staff from
building, planning, road and bridge, environmental health, and the county attorney's office
have met and analyzed the situation in more detail. This is the revised staff report.
27
July 189 1995 .8-00K�
BOOK 95 PAGE 728
As indicated by staff at the dune 20, 1895 Board meeting, the abandoned gas station at 8980
U. S. Highway 1. in Wabasso has been the subject of code enforcement action for over a year.
Despite various attempts, staff has been unable to serve the owner with formal notice of code
enforcement action. In this case, code enforcement would probably be ineffective anyway,
because soil contamination has severely reduced the property's value. Consequently, code
enforcement staff recently requested that building division staff inspect the property.
Upon inspection, building staff condemned the referenced structure and ordered the structure
repaired or removed. Said- structure is considered unsafe and detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the general public.
As per county code requirements, the Owner of the property was issued notices to repair or
remove the structure, and advised of his right to appeal the condemnation order before the
Indian River County Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In addition,
condemnation cards were posted on the property. Because staff could not obtain legal service
on the property owner for the. condemnation notice, a public notice was posted at the Indian
River County Courthouse.
ANALYSIS:
The subject structure has been vacant for a considerable time. During that time, the building
has continued to deteriorate and has been frequented by vandals and transients. Not only has
the owner failed to maintain the structure in compliance with the Minimum Standard Codes, he
has failed to bring the structure into compliance as required by posted notice. Since the owner
has not filed an appeal to the condemnation order, the County may now proceed with demolition
of the structure.
Because of site remediation liability concerns; stag has been cautious in proceeding with
demolition of the referenced structure. on dune 23, 1995, county stag met with Charles Vogt
of the Environmental Health Department to discuss the most effective means of demolition of the
nuisance structure, while limiting any County liability for environmental clean up.
Mr. Vogt advised stag that, based upon prior work done on the site, he could stake out the
location of the underground tanks. This will allow for heavy, rubber -wheeled trucks to
approach the building from the rear and demolish it without disturbing the tanks themselves.
He advised that any attempt to remove the tanks would probably cause an event of ,discharge
because they are already cracked and may have -as much as 10% of the tanks' fuel remaining in
them.
Using a truck -mounted clam shell claw, county road and bridge crews can demolish the bulk
of the building, with hand labor finishing off the work as necessary. The estimated cost of the
demolition, including landfill fees, is approximately $6,500. With the rubber wheeled truck,
clam shell claw, and hand disassembly, Mr. Vogt and county attorneys agree that the county
will not incur liability for total site clean-up that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
With respect to the fuel pumps an site, Mr. Vogt has recommended that a specialty contractor
be hired to accomplish removal. At an estimated cost of'$500, the contractor can disconnect
and cap any piping leading from the below -ground tanks to the. station's pumps. This, too,
should ensure that the county does not incur additional liability.
Besides the abandoned building and pumps, there is a large dirt pile on the site. The dirt was
recently stockpiled on site by a county utility contractor installing a wastewater line or
U.S.#l. Because the dirt was excavated from the U.S.#1 right-of-way adjacent to the ga
station site, the contaminated dirt was deposited on the subject property while the excavation
was backfilled with clean fill.
Whether or not the dirt piles can be removed is dependent upon the type of contamination.
Testing to determine the type of contamination will cost $2, 000.00. If the dirt is simply
contaminated with petroleum, this is considered non -hazardous and may be disposed of at a
burn facility. This cost would be approximately $5,000. If, however, the dirt piles are
contaminated with heavy metals or other hazardous materials, any shipping or disposal of the
dirt pile would make the County liable for the clean up of the entire contaminated site,
including any underground contamination.
ALTERNATIVES:
The county has several alternatives with respect to this matter. These are as follows:
1. Proceed with the demolition as outlined above. This would involve staking out the
underground tanks; identifying safe routes for trucks to enter and demolish the
building from the rear; having a pollution specialty contractor cap off any piping
and remove the dispensing pumps; testing the dirt piles for signs of any
hazardous materials or heavy metals; and removing the dirt piles to a burn facility
If only petroleum is found. The total cost for this alternative would be
approximately $14,000.
28
July 18, 1995
Z. Same as Alternative No. 1, except the dirt piles would be disposed of even if they
were found to contain hazardous materials. With this alternative, the County
would be liable for environmental clean up of the entire site, including
underground soil contamination. The cost to the county could be several hundred
thousand dollars if it is found liable.
3. The county could opt to have the entire site and affected off-site areas cleaned up
and apply for reimbursement from the state. The cost would be several hundred
thousand dollars, and prospects for reimbursement are slight.
4. The cornty could board up/secure the building, but not remove any structures.
5. No action.
RECONMUMATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
Staff further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners declare said structure a
nuisance, and order the.building demolished with related debris removed from the property by
the County Road and Bridge Department.
Staff also recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Building
Official to report the county's demolition and debris removal cost for the structure to the
County Attorney for the preparation and recording of a lien to be placed on the real property
of the owner for the purpose of recovering the county's costs.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that at the last
meeting the Board had been presented with some alternatives on how
to proceed with the problem and had delayed a decision on this
issue to investigate whether there was money available for testing
the dirt piles and explore whether the mortgage holders would be
willing to come in and clean up the property, so the County would
not have to get involved.
Attorney Collins advised they had determined that the first
mortgage holder, First Citizens Savings & Loan Association, was
taken over by the Resolution Trust Company (RTC) in 1991. The
mortgage had been auctioned, bundled with others, to different
investor groups, but he had no personal knowledge who they were.
He did know that local people were contacting the mortgagee to see
whether or not they would be interested in assigning their mortgage
rights and perhaps local investor groups could do something about
getting the property back on the underground tank list and getting
some cleanup of the site.
Attorney Collins continued to say that the second mortgage was
held by First American of Indian River County. They would be
interested in assigning their mortgage rights, according to their
attorney, and willing to work with anyone that came forward.
Then Attorney Collins explained that while there were several
alternatives for action, the Board should be warned as to the
difficulty of proceeding with the recommendation of staff, as it is
highly unlikely that the County would ever recover any costs due to
29 Boa 95 PAGE 7$6,?
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 PAf c 130
outstanding judgments on the property for $150,000 and $23,000,
which are accruing interest. These liens and any mortgage
foreclosure actions would be superior to the County's liens and
would likely wipe out our liens entirely.
Attorney Collins went on to advise that we could go forward in
part in having the soils tested and if they do not contain
hazardous materials, have them removed using the money from the
Environmental Health Department. Another suggestion would be to
proceed as recommended at the last meeting, by simply boarding
up/securing the property, trying to make it look as good as
possible, and not put any money at risk.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if the County would be
responsible if anyone were hurt on the property if it were boarded
up. Deputy Attorney Collins advised that, at this point, it might
be considered an "attractive nuisance", and the County would not
have any liability. If we were to make it less of a nuisance by
boarding it up, he believed the County would not have -any liability
for trying to abate a nuisance.
Commissioner Adams thought boarding the building was a waste,
and as much as she wanted to see the eyesore removed, she could not
support it because of risking the money. She believed, however,
that the County had an obligation to remove the dirt and the funds
were available for that.
Attorney Collins suggested that one of the least expensive
matters was the removal of the pumps, but a few Commissioners felt
that should not be done.
Commissioner Bird felt the testing and removing of the dirt
was as much as the County should be involved in. Because the
property was quite valuable, he believed the private sector would
succeed in resolving the situation.
Chairman Macht did not want to risk losing taxpayers' monies
through the expense and possible liability. He felt it was too
great a risk to take.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to direct
staff to have the dirt piles tested for
hazardous materials and, if none were found,
to remove the dirt piles from the property for
proper disposition. If tests reveal there are
hazardous materials, then the matter is to
come back to the Board.
30
July 18, 1995
Under discussion, a couple
W
of ideas were suggested if
petroleum is found, but it was decided to wait and see what happens
with the testing.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
OLD HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING - REJECT BID, USE FOR
CONDITIONED STORAGE
General Services Director Sonny Dean reviewed a Memorandum of
June 30, 1995:
DATE: JUNE 30, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRII: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUWECT: OLD HEALTH CLINIC BUILDING
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this year, the Board authorized staff to proceed with
advertising the subject building to sell as per Florida Statiks .
In accordance with this, the facility was advertised and sealed
bids were received on June 21, 1995.
New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc., submitted a bid of
$90,250.00. No other bids were received. The 1995 appraised value
of this building is $250,000.00. This is a building consisting of
approximately 5,872 gross square feet on a piece of property which
contains approximately eight tenths of an acre.
ANALYSIS: -
Since this time, the Board has authorized sale of the State
Attorney Building, Old Courthouse, and Courthouse Annex to the
Indian River County School District. The State Attorneys building
was being used as conditioned storage for certain records we are
required to keep and maintain over a period of time. The Clerk is
required to keep copies of the audio/visual tapes of court
proceedings in storage off site of the new courthouse. This does
not take into consideration the enormous amount of financial
records he is required to store. Emergency Services has a great
deal of medical type records and emergency items that require
storage space. We do not have a place to keep these items.
31
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 731
r
BOOK 95 PnE 732
The cost to rent conditioned storage runs anywhere from $7.00 to
$11.00 per square foot depending on the size space leased.
However, available conditioned space is very limited. Our demands
for this space may or may not be available.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is staff's recommendation that the bid submitted by New Horizons
be rejected and the subject building be used for conditioned
storage until such time as other space is available to meet our
needs.
Commissioner Adams interrupted Director Dean's presentation to
raise a question about the wording on the memo because she did not
remember that the Board had "authorized the sale of the State
Attorney's Building, the Old Courthouse, and Courthouse Annex ...
." Administrator Chandler responded that the Board had authorized
staff to see if a situation could be worked out with the School
District. They were not looking at putting the buildings on the
market yet, just investigating to see if the School Board had an
interest in those buildings.
Commissioner Adams commented that the memo sounds like the
Board had already approved a sale and they had not.
Director Dean clarified that they had entered into
negotiations with the School District for their use of those
buildings, which would not allow us use of the buildings any
longer, and staff is recommending rejection of the bid for $90,250
from New Horizons of the Treasure Coast.
Commissioner Eggert, who had read the appraisal and consulted
with Tax Collector Karl Zimmerman, believed that the building
needed extensive renovation. She also was concerned about the air -
conditioner and the roof and she was not entirely convinced it was
the best place for record storage.
Commissioner Bird thought that if record storage was being
discussed, maybe some inexpensive modifications, such as better
insulation or sealing up some openings, to make the air -conditioner
work more effectively would be in order.
Administrator Chandler indicated that staff was trying to keep
options open until they get down to the bottom line, depending on
the proposals they received.
Commissioner Eggert realized the bid was $90,000, but she
understood New Horizons would have to spend at least $125,000-
$150,000 for renovations to make it usable.
32
July 18, 1995
M M M
Chairman Macht reminded his colleagues that it was a very nice
piece of property, large and well -located and the building was not
all that bad, either.
Bob Camis, of 714 Avenue H, Ft. Pierce, representing New
Horizons, presented the following documents and reviewed the
information with the Board.
New Horizons
OF THE TREASURE COAST, INC.
RICHARD L MILLS
PRESIDENT WW CEO
ADMNISTRATIYE OF MCES
' P 3400 June 16, 1995
(407) "S -SW
Sur=m 240-M
Board of Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioners:
New Horizons of the Treasure Coast is submitting this bid of $90,250 on the declared
surplus property, parcel I.D. #02-33-39-000010-03000000.1. A deposit of $9,025 is enclosed
with our bid.
The bid price was determined by evaluating the property, building, and necessary
improvements for our future. use. We conducted a site visit, accompanied by members of the
building and grounds department of the County. During our site visit we noted potential
environmental issues such as asbestos floor tiling and fiberglass insulation. We then calculated
the cost of necessary improvements and determined our price for this bid.
It is New Horizons' .intention to close on the property as a cash deal in a relatively short
time frame following acceptance of this bid. The building interior would be renovated during
the next three months and New Horizons would occupy the property upon completion of
renovations. The Vero Beach outpatient treatment center of New Horizons would be relocated
to this facility following renovation.
We believe that an owner occupied facility in Vero Beach would be in the best interest -
of the County. We look forward to a positive response to our bid.
Sincerely,
k
RM/hf Richard Mills
President and CEO
cc: Robert E. Camis
NPw TNnri7nnc of the Treasure Coast
YOUR COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER
Unna
Wy
33
July 18, 1995
Boa 95 PAGE 73
New Horizons
OF THE TREASURE COAST. INC.
RICHARD 4 MILLS
PRESIDENT and CEO
BOOK 95 PAGE 734
July 18, 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
714 Avme H
FatQ18-5 Farida 34M(407)) 468.5600 TO: Indian River County Commission
Surmm 240-56W
FROM: Richard Mills, CEO 011
RE: Public Health Department Building
New Horizons' Bid
Regretfully I could not be at your meeting this morning.
Bob Camis, our Chief Financial Officer, and Linda Wakefield,
our Manager of Physical Plant Operations, will ably represent
New Horizons and respond to any questions you may have for
US.
Thank you for your support.
����
YOUR COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER FMW
vew
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Public Health Unit Building
AoDraised Values
Income Approach $225,000
Market Value (Fee Simple Interest) 250,000
Sales Comparison Approach 270,000
Cost Approach 325,000
New Horizons Projected Cost:
Land & Building 90,250
Estimated Renovations 184,420
Total $274,670
34
July 18, 1995
r
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT BUILDING
ESTIMATED RENOVATION COSTS
Boundary Survey
1,100
Phase I Environmental Audit
1,750
Asbestos Audit
550
Permits/Plans Review
475
Asphalt Sealing and Striping
1,450
Concrete (Ramps/Plumbing Foundation Repair)
600
Plumbing
4,700
Vanities and Cabinets
5,800
Lumber and Shelving Material
1,950
Labor/Carpentry
2,800
Insulation (Walls 1,750/Ceiling 1,900)
3,650
Drywall
9,400
Paint (Interior & Exterior)
8,200
Electrical (Emergency & Exit Lights,
Lighting Fixtures)
8,800
Doors (Solid Core) and Frames
2,800
Door Closures
1,750
Door Hardware/Locks
11500
Ceiling Tile Replacement
650
Floor Covering and Base
10,200
Telephone Wiring
1,200
Fire/Security Alarm System
2,800
Ceramic Tile
3,200
Mirrors
250
Wallpaper
2,200
Appliances (Kiln 2,300/Fridge 750/
2 Micros 200)
3,250
Window Treatments 125 x 30
3,750
Windows (Material & Labor)
3,900
Air Conditioning
21,500
Asbestos Abatement 5000 s.f. @ $2(?)
10,000
Demolition
2,600
Dumpster
720
Cleanup
600
Landscaping/7,500 Trees & Plants/3,800 Sod/
4,000 Sprinkler & Well
15,300
Exterior Signs
1,900
Interior Signs
550
Contingency 10%
Architect (5%)
General Contractor
July 18, 1995
SUB -TOTAL
141,845
14;200
7,100
(5% Overhead; 10% Profit) 21,275
TOTAL $
35
184,420
BOOK 95 FACE 735
Fr-
Boa 95 PAGE 736
Mr. Camis added that they'd been operating in Vero Beach since
1978 and have been renting in the same location since 1986. They
felt that an owner -occupied building is better than a landlord -
tenant relationship. They considered the building too valuable for
storage and believed they rendered valuable services to about 2,000
clients per year from the county, which could probably be increased
with a building such as this.
Commissioner Bird explained the divergence of values on the
building is because they valued the building in an improved
condition and the appraisal was based on "as is" condition.
Director Dean had no knowledge that the building contained
asbestos, but also commented that if the building consisted of
5,872 square feet and were constructed now, it would be about
$60/square foot, or about $350,000, plus the value of the land.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that if they bought the
building it would remain off the tax roles, because they were a
not-for-profit group.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Eggert, to reject the offer.
Commissioner Eggert cautioned, if the building is to be used
by the County for storage of records, that staff not be blind to
some of the problems that are there.
Chairman Macht suggested all it needed was dehumidification.
Commissioner Tippin warned that the building was also
inhabited by rats, and Director Dean responded that the
exterminating people had been to the building at least twice trying
to take care of that problem.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Tippin wished New Horizons well in finding a new
facility to continue their work in the area. Commissioner Eggert
agreed.
Commissioner Bird said he would be open to a better offer as
long as the County could get good value out of the building.
36
July 18, 1995
BID #5080 - VERO HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECT, PART I -
AWARDED TO DRIVEWAYS, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 11, 1995:
DATE: July 11, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean,
Director,,p
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell,
Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid ,5080/Vero Highlands Water Project,
Part I, Utilities
Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
June 28, 1995
Advertising Dates:
June 7, 14, 21, 1995
Advertisement Mailed to:
Twenty Three (23) Vendors
Replies:
Six (6) Vendors
Statement of "No Bid"
-0-
VENDOR
BID TOTAL
Driveways, Inc
$409,182.90
Titusville, FL
Treasure Coast Contracting
$436,754.50
Vero Beach, FL
InterCounty Engineering Inc
$444,325.00
Hollywood, FL
Martin Paving
$473,756.00
Vero Beach, FL
Speegle Construction
$517,000.00
Cocoa, FL
Tri -Sure Corporation
$563,181.00
Auburndale, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
$409,182.90
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Assessment Fund
473-000-169-230.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMMMATION
$426,340.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Driveways, Inc
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder
meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation
to Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney.
37
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95, PACE 737
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5080 and approved an agreement
with Driveways, Inc., in the amount of
$409,182.90, as recommended by staff in the
memorandum.
AGREEMENT PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
95 FACE 738
BID #5081 - VERO HIGHLANDS WATER PROTECT, PART H -
AWARDED TO TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 11, 1995:
DATE: July 11, 1995 -
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #5081/Vero Highlands Water Project,
Part II, Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: June 28, 1995
Advertising Dates: June 7, 14, 21, 1995
Advertisement Mailed to: Twenty Three (23) Vendors
Replies: Seven (7) Vendors
Statement of "No Bid" -0-
VENDOR BID TOTAL
Treasure Coast Contracting $403,504.00
Vero Beach, FL
Driveways, Inc. $416,627.10 -
Vero Beach, FL
InterCounty Engineering Inc $434,940.00
Hollywood, FL
Martin Paving $467,086.00
Vero Beach, FL
Tri -Sure Corporation $519,615.00
Auburndale, FL
Speegle Construction $523,000.00
Cocoa, FL
JoBear, Inc $579,081.00
Palm Bay, FL
38
July 18, 1995
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
$403,504.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Assessment Fund
473-000-169-230.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
$406,705.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Treasure Coast
Contraati g as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth
in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #5081 and approved an agreement
with Treasure Coast Contracting in the amount
of $403,504.00, as recommended by staff in the
memorandum.
CONTRACT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
EVALUATION OF SUBMERGED REEF TECHNOLOGY - FINAL
PAYMENT TO FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 11, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director CP
FROM: Don G. Donaldson,
Coastal Engineer
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Evaluation of Submerged Reef Technology - Final Payment
July 11, 1995 FILE: FITFINAL.AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In September, 1994, Indian River County and the Florida Institute
of Technology (FIT) entered into an agreement for FIT to provide
engineering models of the PEP Reef, professional engineering
recommendations, and additional related miscellaneous services.
After some delay, FIT completed the report in May, 1995.
39
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 PAGE 739
BOOK 95 F,,GE 740
The completion of the model. study and report was delayed due to
additions of work requested by staff, corrections to survey data
and improvements to the model to better resolve the nearshore
hydrodynamic regime. Notwithstanding these delays, staff is
satisfied with the results of the numerical model study. The FIT
model will be calibrated using the results of the monitoring of the
PEP and can be used to analyze other areas of the coastline.
Engineering services are now complete and FIT is requesting final
payment including retainage in the amount of $13,606.39.
RECONNHNDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize final payment and release
of retainage in the amount of- $13,606.39. Funding to be from
Tourist Tax Revenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
authorized final payment and approved release
of retainage in the amount of $13,606.39, as
recommended by staff in the memorandum.
U.S. #1 SIDEWALK - VISTA ROYALE CONDOAMIUM/SOUTH VERO
SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davlecto
P.E.,
Public Works
SUBJECT: US 1 Sidewalk between Vista Royale Condominium and South Vero Square
Shopping Center
DATE: July 12, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
For the past few years, the Vista Royale Condominium POA has requested
construction of a sidewalk between their south driveway on US 1(Forest Park
Drive) and South Vero Square Shopping Center (approximately 800 lineal feet).
There are many residents of the 2,000 unit development who wish to walk to
Publix and various stores within the shopping center, thereby avoiding travel via
auto on US 1.
40
July 18, 1995
Last year, the County staff began the Florida DOT application process to permit
the project, but DOT staff was reluctant to issue the permit due to clear zone
encroachments. Last month, however, staff was successful in obtaining a permit.
lice cost to construct the sidewalk is approximately $8,000. The possible funding
source is 1994/95 Local Option Sales Tax(Fund 315-214-541-066.32, balance as
of 6/30/95 is $95,422). The 20th Avenue sidewalk between 8th Street and the
new Oslo Middle School is estimated to cost $80,000, so funds are available to
construct the US 1 sidewalk.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives presented are as follows:
Alternative # 1
Approve the project and authorize staff to proceed to construct.
Alternative # two
Since this section of sidewalk is included in the ISTEA Enhancement
Application for the South County Recreation Path project (not yet
funded by DOT), delay the project until DOT funding is approved.
This would delay the project for up to five years.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since the 800 lineal feet of sidewalk is needed at this time, staff recommends
Alternative # 1. Funding to be from 1994/95 Local Option Sales Tax revenue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the project and authorized staff to
proceed with construction, as recommended in
the memorandum. (Alternate #1)
41 Box 95 PACE 741
July 189 1995
booK. 951,,%[ 742
MISCELLANEOUS ROAD WIDENING PARK DEVELOPMENT &
R -O -W ACQUISITION PROJECTS - AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE
FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING & ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise_ for Professional Civil Engineering and
Architectural Services - Miscellaneous Road Widening, Park
Development and Right -of -Way Acquisition Projects
DATE: July 10, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The following Public Works Department projects have been funded by the Board
and are now ready for architectural/engineering design and related services:
Park Development Funding Source undin
1. Hobart Park Ballfield FY94/95 Local Option Sales Tax(LOST) $ 40,000
Lighting
2. Gifford Park Improvements 1995/96 DEP FRDAP Grant $ 97,500
Ballfield, Picnic Shelter FY94/95 LOST $ 45,000
Court Resurfacing
3.
West Wabasso Park FY94/95 LOST
$
55,000
Ballfield Lighting
4.
Fellsmere Basketball Cts. 1995/96 DEP FRDAP Grant
$
40,000
5.
Round Island Park East 1996/97 LOST
$
555,000
Restrooms. Parking Lot, etc.
6.
Donald MacDonald/Dale 1996/97 LOST
$
300,000
Wimbrow Park - Parking Lot, Road Improvements, etc
7.
South County Park, Phase II 1996/97 LOST
$ 635.000
Ballfields, Tennis Courts, etc.
Subtotal
$1,767,500
Road Widening Funding Source
Funding
8.
43rd Ave. - 22nd St FY95/96 Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT)
$
500,000
to 12th St
9.
Oslo Road - 6th Ave SW FY95/96 Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT)
$
700,000
to 66th Ave - 3 Lane Widening Expandable to 5 Lanes
10.
CR510 - Frangipani Av. to Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) - Dist 1
$
100,000
East end of Wabasso Bridge Road Widening
11.
CR512 - Roseland Road to TIF - Dist. 7
$
100,000
I-95. 5 Lane Widening - Engineering Only
W,
July 18, 1995
M M
Bikepath/Sidewalk/Right-of--Way Acquisition
16. General Surveying Services LOST (95-99)
R/W Acquisition $ 6.410,800
Bikepath/Sidewalks $ 400.000
Subtotal $ 6.810.800
Grand Total Budgeted $12,018,300
c►jV\1:V \+/ .Y�l��lZ _: ,&I
Since the County Engineering Division staff (3 Engineers and 3 CADD
Technicians) are fully scheduled with petition paving design, development review,
project management and responding to citizen inquiries, the current staff does not
have the resources to perform in-house design of the 16 projects listed above. The
following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Advertise for Professional Civil Engineering, Architectural, and related
services for the above 16 projects. Since there are numerous
projects, two or three consultants to perform the park design and
four or five consultants to perform the road projects are suggested.
To manage the consultants, an additional staff engineer should be
hired. Salary funding shall be distributed to the various projects
based upon a percentage cost factor. Anticipated cost, including
benefits, is $70,000/year.
Alternative No. 2
Delay some of the above projects until existing staff can manage the
projects. Since road capacity demands and grant deadlines are
critical, this alternative will result in lost grant funds and denying
some development projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative # 1. Funding to be from various sources as listed
above for each project.
43
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 743
Road Widening Funding Sourc
Fundin
12.
53rd St. - Kings Highway TIF - Dist 4
$ 100,000
To US 1 4 Lane Roadway - Engineering Only
13.
1st Street SW- 27th Ave. 95/96 LOGT
$ 100,004
To 20th Ave - Construct 2 Lane Paved Road
14.
Old Dixie Highway - TIF - Dist 5
$ 70,000
1st St. SW to 16th St. TIF - Dist 6
$ 70,000
- 3 Lane Widening 95/96 LOGT
$ 700,000
15.
66th Ave. - 4th St to 95/96 LOGT
$ 1.000.000
SR60 Construct 2 Lane Road
Subtotal
$ 3,440,000
Bikepath/Sidewalk/Right-of--Way Acquisition
16. General Surveying Services LOST (95-99)
R/W Acquisition $ 6.410,800
Bikepath/Sidewalks $ 400.000
Subtotal $ 6.810.800
Grand Total Budgeted $12,018,300
c►jV\1:V \+/ .Y�l��lZ _: ,&I
Since the County Engineering Division staff (3 Engineers and 3 CADD
Technicians) are fully scheduled with petition paving design, development review,
project management and responding to citizen inquiries, the current staff does not
have the resources to perform in-house design of the 16 projects listed above. The
following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Advertise for Professional Civil Engineering, Architectural, and related
services for the above 16 projects. Since there are numerous
projects, two or three consultants to perform the park design and
four or five consultants to perform the road projects are suggested.
To manage the consultants, an additional staff engineer should be
hired. Salary funding shall be distributed to the various projects
based upon a percentage cost factor. Anticipated cost, including
benefits, is $70,000/year.
Alternative No. 2
Delay some of the above projects until existing staff can manage the
projects. Since road capacity demands and grant deadlines are
critical, this alternative will result in lost grant funds and denying
some development projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative # 1. Funding to be from various sources as listed
above for each project.
43
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 743
BOOK. 95 FACE 144
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to approve
staff's recommendation as set forth in the
memo. (Alternative #1)
Under discussion and in response to Commissioner Eggert's
question on item #14, Old Dixie Highway, Public Works Director Jim
Davis explained that because of the concern certain members of the
M.P.O. had regarding 4-laning through the city of Vero Beach, it
was decided to terminate the project at 16th Street instead of
extending it north to the "Twin Pairs". In addition, as they
perform the engineering, they will evaluate each link to determine
if a 3 -lane section would be adequate, instead of 4—lane.
Commissioner Bird almost had a heart attack when he first
looked at the memo and saw "LOST" not realizing at first that it
was an acronym for Local Option Sales Tax. He felt that staff was
overwhelmed right now and thought that we desperately needed to get
all this done, to get these things on track and on schedule and
take advantage of the grants.
Commissioner Eggert agreed.
Commissioner Adams urged that since we are running about three
years behind on petition paving, we bid out a few of those items
and get caught up.
Administrator Chandler explained that the Local Option Sales
Tax was approved by the voters for a 15 -year period and we are now
in the second 5 years of that 15 -year period with the major thrust
being roads, bridges, and things of that nature.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
44
July 18, 1995
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - NORTH COUNTY SERVICE AREA -
BROWN AND CALDWELL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 6, 1995:
DATE: JUNE 6, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR (W UTIL Y SERVICES
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
CAPITAA L;P TF S ENGINEER
DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
MASTED/)LANS AMENDMENT
NORTH COUNTY SERVICE AREA
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. MP -95 -15 -ST
On March 23, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a continuing Master planning service
agreement with the engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell. The
Utilities Department is now requesting authorization to perform a
major modification of the Utility Master Plan in the North County
service area. The revision is necessitated for the following
reasons:
1. Evaluation of the impact to the County Utilities Master Plan of
the proposed acquisition of Sebastian Utilities prior to a
public hearing. (On May 7, 1995, the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to proceed with preparations for a
public hearing and acquisition of the City of Sebastian's
Utilities.)
2. The removal of the Sea Oaks WWTP from service and its flow
being transferred to the North County WWTP (project at 99%
design completion). An evaluation of this was previously
performed by Brown and Caldwell.
3. Evaluation of the proposed removal from service of the North
Beach R.O. Plant and its conversion to a repump facility due to
high operations cost of the facility.
ANALYSIS
The total proposed cost of this Master Plan addendum is $64,000.00,
with a $10,000.00 project contingency for a total of $74,000.00.
The work will include the following:
1. Water supply, treatment, and distribution systems analyses.
2. Wastewater collection and treatment systems analyses.
3. Effluent reuse and disposal systems analyses.
For a detailed description of the individual tasks and costs
associated with each task, please reference the attached proposed
Work Authorization with Brown and Caldwell. Funding for this
project will be from the Utilities Department impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the Work Authorization with
Brown and Caldwell as presented.
45
July 189 1995 B��x � �v 14
Boa 95 PnE 746
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to approve
Work Authorization #7 with Brown and Caldwell
as per staff's recommendation as set forth in
the memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams inquired when the last
Master Plan Amendment was done, and Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto responded that it was about three years ago and provided a
brief explanation of the need for this approval.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 7 ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NORTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT - PHASE H, CAMP DRESSER AND
MCKEE, INC. - ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 29, 1995:
DATE: JUNE 29, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF LITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. !!;J�ILSERVICES IN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL P GINEER
BY: DEPARTMEN
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT - PHASE II
ENGINEERING SERVICES AMENDMENT NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -03 -WC
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.,
(CDM) for engineering services on the above -referenced project.
During the permitting process, we have additional and unanticipated
engineering. These services are now required due to a change in
state permitting requirements caused by a combining of the EPA,
NPDES permitting process, and the DEP's industrial waste program.
For a detailed explanation of the additional services, please
reference the attached Work Authorization Amendment No. 1
(Attachment A) and DEP correspondence dated May 19, 1995.
46
July 18, 1995
ANALYSIS
We have negotiated a contract amendment with CDM for the additional
services as outlined in the attached amendment. The proposed fee
for these services is $7,477.00. An hourly breakdown is provided in
Attachment A of the amendment for the Board's review. Funding for
this work will be from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Work
Authorization amendment as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved the Work Authorization amendment with
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. for a fee of
$7,477, as set out in staff's recommendation.
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NORTH COUNTY SEWER - SOUTH OF INDIAN RIVER DRNE
SURVEY SERVICES-_MASTELLER. MOLER AND REED
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 27, 1995:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
JUNE 27, 1995
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
WILLIAM F.
CAPITAL PIR
SERVICES
SERVICES
NORTH COUNTY SEWER, SOUTH OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE
SURVEY SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -95 -07 -CS
On Tuesday, March 28, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the commencement of the above -referenced
project (see attached meeting minutes and agenda item).- The project
is to provide gravity sewer service to an area south of Indian River
Drive on the east side of US 1. We have acquired quotes for the
required survey work (see attached) and are ready to proceed.
47
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 PACE 747
J
Box 95 PnE 748
ANALYSIS
The quotes for the required survey work are as follows:
Masteller, Moler and Reed
Carter Associates, Inc.
H. F. Lenz Company
$2,320.00
2,880.00
5,220.00
The low quote is from Masteller, Moler and Reed in the amount of
$2,320.00, and the Utilities Department is seeking Board approval to.
proceed with this survey work. This project will be funded through
assessment of the benefitted property owners but will be funded in
the interim through the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the Utilities Department to
issue a purchase order to Masteller, Moler and Reed in the amount of
$2,320.00 for the above -outlined survey work.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
authorized the Utilities Department to issue a
purchase order to Masteller, Moler and Reed in
the amount of $2,320, for survey services, as
set out and recommended in staff's memorandum.
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER METER READING SERVICES CONTRACT - MATVEST INC.
d/b/a BERMEX, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 10, 1995:
DATE: JULY 10, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E.ASHE
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRE OR
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONTRACT WATER METER READING SERVICES
48
July 18, 1995
BACKGROUND:
The Department, in its continuing effort to control operating and maintenance
expenses, reviewed its actual annual meter reading costs versus estimated contract meter
reading services.
In its investigation, the Department contacted other South Florida utilities who are
utilizing these services. The utilities contacted reported annual savings along with
associated problems during the transition.
Based upon this analysis the Department recommended that an Invitation To Bid
(attached) be advertised and issued to vendors who provide Contract Meter Reading
Services and a final analysis be made upon firm costs.
The Department's Meter Reading Division currently has eight (8) positions. The
positions are as follows: Supervisor -1; Utility Service Worker -1; Meter Readers - 6. In
the Department's analysis it was proposed to retain the Supervisor position to coordinate
and supervise the contract meter reading services and to perform other associated duties
with customer service. The cost effectiveness of the Utility Service Worker position which
performs turn-on/turn-offs and other duties associated with this function was to be
evaluated after receipt of proposals. The Department would propose to release the six (6)
meter reading positions and utility service worker position if bids were projected to be
cost effective.
The Department advertised and received bids for proposed Contract Meter Reading
Services on May 5, 1995. Three firms who specialize in providing these services responded
to the Invitation To Bid. They are as follows:
MBR Services, Inc. 8401 NW 53rd Ter Miami, F1
Municipal Meter Reading Service, Inc. 5140 Davie Road #7 Davie, Fl
Matvest, Inc. d/b/a Bermes, Inc. 29500 Southfield Rd Southfield, MI.
During the bidding process, the Department met with the employees of the meter
reading division and explained the economic reasoning for the actions being taken. The
employees were assured that an effort would be made to place each of the employees
affected with the County in other positions if possible. During the bidding process one of
the employees received a job offer from the private sector and resigned. The vacant
position has not been refilled. In the interim, these duties have been performed by the
Supervisor of the meter reading division.
A summary analysis of current annual costs (schedule attached) associated with six
(6) meter reader and (1) utility service worker position is as follows:
Total Salary and Benefits $168,406
General and Administrative $ 121,484
Vehicle Expenses S 36
*1162
Total Labor and Other Direct Costs $ 217,052
Total Annual Meters with 7% increase, 221,439
(including 14,400 Turn-on/turn-off work orders)
Total Current Cost Labor and ODC (per meter) $ .9801
49
July 18, 1995 BUCK 95 f,A.t1749
BOOK 95 P.cE 750 7
A schedule and graph of the number of Meter Readings By Month reflecting
growth is attached.
An analysis of the bids with the following options is as follows:
ANALYSIS OF BIDS RECEIVED FOR
CONTRACT METER READING SERVICES
MBR, Inc.
MBR, Inc. Bermex
Bermex Municipal Meter
Municipal Meter
Reading
Unit Price
Total Bid
Unit
Total Bid Unit
Total Bid
Unit Total Bid
Price
Price
Item Description Monthly
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
No.
No.
-
1 Meter Readings 16,150 $0.46
$89,148
$0.50
$96,900 $0.54
$104,652
2 Customer Turn- 1,200 $5.00
$72,000
$3.75
$54,000 $4.20
$60,480
Offs,
Offs,
Locks, Turn -Ons
Locks, Turn -Ons
$1�
$161,148
$1��
$165,132
Current Meter Reading Costs Incl. Turn-
$217,052
$72,000
$217,052
$217,052
on/Turn-off
Total Annual Bid - Meter Reading Services
$89,148
$96,900
Projected Savings
$55,904
$66,152
$51,920
Ranking of Bidders - Option 1
#2
$178,485
#1
#3
OPTION 2
ANALYSIS OF BIDS RECEIVED FOR
CONTRACT METER READING SERVICES
Less Item 2 - Customer Turn-offs, Locks, Turn -ons
MBR, Inc.
MBR, Inc. Bermex
Bermex
Municipal Meter
Reading
Unit Price
Total Bid
Unit
Total Bid
Unit Total Bid
Price
Price
Item Description Monthly
Annually
Annually
Annually
No.
1 Meter Readings 16,150 $0.46
$89,148
$0.50
$96,900
$0.54 $104,652
2 Customer Turn- 1,200 $5.00
$72,000
$3.75
$54,000
$4.20 $60,480
Offs,
Locks, Turn -Ons
Total Annual Bid
$161,148
$150,900
$165,132
Less Item 2 Bid
$72,000
$54,000
$60,480
Total Annual Bid - Meter Reading Services
$89,148
$96,900
$104,652
Only
Current Costs - Meter Reading Only
$178,485
$178,485
$178,485
Projected Savings
$89,337
$81,585
$73,833
Ranking of Bidders - Option 2
#1
#2
#3
Based upon the above analysis the most cost effective action would be Option 2.
Under Option 2, the County would contract for meter reading services only and retain the
utility service worker position to perform the customer turn-on/turn-off and associated
functions. This action will require the reassignment of (5) meter readers to other County
positions if possible.
50
July 18, 1995
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the approval of Option
2, to award the Contract For Meter Reading Services to MBR Services, Inc., 8401 NW
53rd Terrrace, Miami, Florida, 33166 with contract services to begin October 1, 1995 to
coincide with the 1995/96 budget year.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that that low bidder had
withdrawn as indicated by the following memo and letter of July 17,
1995.
DATE: JULY 17, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PI ==
NTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S RVICES
FROM: HARRY E. ASH
ASSISTANT DIRE T �ROF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONTRACT METER READING SERVICES
The Department has just been advised by telephone and fax that FPL
Group, the parent company of MBR Services, Inc., will no longer pursue
additional meter reading service contracts. MBR Services, Inc., was
the recommended low bidder for the proposed contract meter reading
services for the County.
The Department will recommend at the Board of County Commissioners,
meeting on July 18, 1995, that the contract be awarded to the next low
bidder, Bermex Contract Services, because the recommended low bidder
has withdrawn.
Should you require additional information, please contact me at
770-5312.
51
July 18, 1995
Boa 95 FACE 751
JUL-17-95 MON 03:14 PM MBR*SERVICES
@err • y �.: �:
A MBR SERVICES, INC.
an P Group Com n P Po Y
Mr. Harry E. Asher
Assistant Director
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32980-3394
Dear Mr. Asher.
BOOK
— - — 305 5922991
July 17, 1995
95 PUE 752
We regret to Inform you that FPL Group, our parent company, announced today that MBR
Services will no longer pursue additional contracts. This decision was made based upon revised
long term strategic objectives of FPL.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your support and interest In MBR
Services. We will miss working with you In the future and developing a long term relationship.
Please do not hesitate to call us if we can be of any assistance or if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
_/
ry Fink
General Manager
8401 N.W. 53 Terrace, Suite 208, Miami, FL 33166
305-S92-9922 - Fax: 305-592-3991
Commissioner Adams inquired why Option 2 was better, and
utility services Director Terry Pinto explained that we had looked
at several options and felt that when we analyzed cost overall it
was more cost effective to keep some supervision and retain the
turn-on/turn-off abilities and just subcontract out the meter -
reading. He wanted it understood that there was no dissatisfaction
with the performance of the County employees and added that the end
product would not be any better by hiring a private company to read
the meters, but economically it will be better for the County.
Staff is proposing a one-year contract and four-year renewals at a
maximum increase of 3%. We consider it to be a trial situation,
and if it does not work out, it will be easy to resume doing it
ourselves.
Director Pinto advised that we are benchmarking each part of
our operation to see if we can cost-effectively subcontract it out.
If we can and there's a savings, then we will recommend doing it.
52
July 18, 1995
P-02
After other brief comments and inquiries, Commissioner Bird
asked for an explanation of how savings were achieved, and Director
Pinto responded that savings came from a couple of areas: the State
pension plan contributions and other employee benefits. The
private company's prime business is meter reading; therefore, there
is an economy of scale for them since they can move people around.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved awarding a contract for meter reading
services to Matvest, Inc. d/b/a Bermex, Inc.,
with contract services to begin October 1,
1995, to coincide with the 1995/96 budget
year.
There followed a brief discussion on the savings the County
would achieve which Director Pinto estimated to be $89,000.
Another real benefit is that the contract provides that if the
contractor makes a mistake, it will cost them.
CONTRACT PLACED ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NEW COURTHOUSE - DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION BY T.A.
CUMIVI NGS AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 20, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney ---rm
H.T. "Sonny" Dean - Director General Service
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUBJECT: DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION BY J.A. CUMMINGS AND
MARTIN PAVING COMPANY
On October 20, 1992 Indian River County entered into a contract with
James A. Cummings, Inc. for the construction of the Indian River
County Judicial Complex. The architect for the project is Pierce,
53
July 18, 1995 sooK 95 PACE 753
FFF--
BOOK 95 FACE
54
Goodwin, Alexander, and Linville of Tampa, Florida. In turn, the
architect engaged as its civil engineer L. Robert Kimball & Associates,
Inc. (f/k/a Kimball -Lloyd, Inc.) who had an office in Vero Beach,
Florida. The Construction Manager is Centex Rooney Construction Co.,
Inc.
Local building requirements require on site retention of stormwater for
a specified period. To this end, the contract contained specifications
to provide compliance with these stormwater retention requirements.
Specifically, Section 02724 entitled "Stormwater Underdrain Systems"
was included in the specifications. Among other things, this section
required that:
The leaching chambers shall be as manufactured by the
Infiltrator" Systems, Inc., Old Saybrook, Connecticut;
Hancor, Inc . , Findlay, Ohio or approved equal.
The contractor or his subcontractor for this particular phase of the
project (Martin Paving Co.) or Martin's sub -subcontractor selected the
"Infiltrator Systems".
The Civil Drawings prepared by Kimball -Lloyd, Inc., as civil engineer
for the project indicated 3 infiltrator beds. The drawings called for
Bed #1 west of the Courthouse, Bed #2 east of the Courthouse and
adjacent to the Judge's parking apron and Bed #3 south of the parking
garage
During the course of construction these three beds were installed.
Beds #2 and #3 failed in that the infiltrators were apparently crushed
and the soils subsided. The original infiltrator units were removed and
replaced. As a consequence of the removal of Bed #2 it was discovered
that the concrete apron and trellis installed thereon was not constructed
in accordance with. contract documents. This necessitated the removal
and replacement of the concrete apron of the Judge's parking lot and
the trellis.
The Claimant, J.A. Cummings on behalf of Martin Paving Inc . , now
seeks to have the County pay for the replacement of the failed Beds #2
and #3 and for the replacement of the improperly installed Judge's
parking lot apron and trellis. They are seeking a total of $277,967.00
in damages from the County.
An objective analysis will show that the following explanations exist as
to why the infiltrators failed: -
1. J.A. Cummings failed -to protect the work area as
required by the contract documents.
2. Martin Paving failed to properly install the infiltration
beds.
3. The product manufactured by Infiltrator failed.
Under 1) and 2) there would be no cause of action against the County.
Under 3) the owner (County) could be held responsible to the
contractor because the specifications indicated that "Infiltrator" was a
suitable product for the stormwater underdrain system. It should be
noted that Martin Paving could also proceed in court against Infiltrator
rather than the County.
An objective analysis of the claim for repair for the improperly installed
judges' parking lot would show no County responsibility whatsoever.
On June 16, 1995 the County, architect, engineer and vendor
(Infiltrator) met in a mediation session with Cummings/Martin at their
request. The mediation failed. Cummings/Martin would not provide
any information as to the breakdown of the demand for $277,976.00.
54
July 18, 1995
a
They claimed to have evidence which clearly establishes their case
but refused to produce it. The County had previously provided its
complete files to Martin/Cummings under the public records law. When
the County earlier had asked for very limited discovery to ascertian all
the facts Cummings/Martin refused to accommodate the request.
It is my suspicion that this "stone wall" position is based on the
following strategy. Infiltrator has submitted a $50,000.00 invoice to
Martin for the chambers it provided which has not been paid by Martin
but which is contained in the $277,967.00 claim. Cummings/Martin will
appear before the Arbitration panel and try and prove their entire
claim. It is highly unlikely that they will receive a 1005 award and it
is also highly unlikely that they will receive a 0% award. However,
whatever they receive will have an additional $50,000.00 kicker because
they won't pay Infiltrator and Infiltrator will probably not sue on the
invoice. If mediation had proceeded the Infiltrator claim would have
been part of the give and take.
The action of Cummings/Martin in this matter while within the bounds of
law is not forthright. They are using the law as a sword rather than a
shield. It is our opinion that the County should restrict its contractual
relationships to those parties who take the latter view of the law.
Under Section 105.04 (g) , Indian River County Code, the County
Commissioner may award a contract to the bidder that "is in the overall
best interest of the County." It is not, in our opinion and as a
general rule, in the best interest of the County to have a future
contractual relationship with a party who behaves in this manner.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the attached letter which expresses
this sentiment be approved.
The Board reviewed two letters of July 10, 1995:
LAW OFFICES
CUMMINGS, LAWRENCE & VEZINA, P. A.
1004 •DESOTO PARK DRIVE 1600 SOUTHEAST MH
STREET CAUSEWAY
POST OFFICE BOX 589 PLEASE REPLY TO: POST OFFICE BOX 1116
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302-0589 FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33302-1116
TELEPHONE (904) 878-3700 TELEPHONE (305) 761-8700
FACSIMILE (904) 656-0329 FACSIMILE (305) 524-6927
Ft. Lauderdale
July 10, 1995
VIA TELEFACSIMILE (407) 770-5095
ILI
4
JUL 1995
Terrence P. O'Brien, Esq. vtwcl,421,
Office of the County Attorney M 0ouliTy fiT o ae1 ,
Indian River Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Case 33 -110 -00028 -95 -DO;
James A. Cummings, Inc. for the use and benefit of Martin
Paving Company
-and-
Indian River Board of County Commissioners;
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
Martin Paving Company and James A. Cummings, Inca object to
and protest your recommendation that the Indian River Board of
County Commissioners retaliate against the two contractors for
55
July 18, 1995 sooK 95 PACE 755
Fr- -7
Boa 95 rACE 756
exercising their contract rights and obligations. Your
recommendation that the County consider an attorney's initiation of
the arbitration proceedings and Martin's and Cummings' actions in
the privileged mediation proceedings in evaluating future bids on
County projects is unprecedented and unlawful. Such action would
constitute a violation of Martin's and Cummings' constitutional
rights under Article 1, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution and
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States.
Let me first point out the ludicrous history of the County's
and your actions. The County first required Martin and Cummings to
tear out and replace almost $300,000 of work. The County denied
all liability, and then directed the contractors to proceed to
arbitration. When the arbitration demand was filed, and thousands
of dollars in arbitration fees incurred, and you agreed to a date
for the arbitration, you then filed a complaint in circuit court
alleging the arbitration was illegal. You asked for, and the
American Arbitration Association scheduled, a mediation. At the
mediation you compelled the County's selected Infiltrator vendor to
offer to pay 25% of all proven damages if the contractors provided
proof of the damages. Our damage backup was present at the
mediation site, but there was absolutely no use to go through the
laborious task of documenting the costs if you were not offering to
pay all documented costs.
From a legal standpoint, the merits of Martin's and Cummings'
claims against the County is an issue for decision by the
arbitrators and, subsequently, the court. It is unlawful for the
County to retaliate against Martin and Cummings for legitimately
pursuing their contractual rights to seek redress for injury caused
by the County. Such retaliation violates the protected right of
access to courts. Article I, Sec. 21, Fla. Const. The County
cannot deny Martin and Cummings future contracts in -retaliation for
previous claims and for complying with the dispute resolution
procedures established by the County's contract.
The contractors initiated the arbitration proceedings against
the County in good faith and based upon a legitimate belief that,
pursuant to the terms of the express written contract, the County,
together with its engineer, consultant and chosen manufacturer,
caused Martin and Cummings to suffer increased costs. We are not,
as you suggest, maintaining a "stone -wall" position. Rather, as
you well know, the mediator appointed by the American Arbitration
Association agreed with Martin's and Cummings' position and was
dumbfounded by the County's meager offer. The "stone -walling" in
these proceedings, and at the mediation, is by the County's alone.
It is the County that seeks to avoid its contractual
responsibilities by improperly hiding behind its engineer,
consultant.and chosen manufacturer.
We will take whatever measures are necessary to protect
Martin's and Cummings' constitutional and contract rights. Should
you or the County continue to threaten these rights, we will, at a
minimum, bring this matter to the attention of the American
Arbitration Association, the arbitrators, and Circuit Court Judge
Makemson. No party can retaliate during protected arbitration,
mediation and judicial proceedings and expect to go unpunished.
Although we obviously disagree with the County's position in
the referenced proceedings, we accept the County's decision to
defend against the contractual claims at issue. We have an equally
strong belief in our position and expect the County to similarly
accept our opposing position without engaging in unconstitutional
and improper coercive conduct. Martin and Cummings are resolved to
not allow you to intimidate and penalize them for the exercise of
protected constitutional rights and for invoking procedures
required by the County in its contract.
56
July 18, 1995
Please advise me immediately if this matter continues to be
scheduled for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
its July 18 meeting. If it is not withdrawn from the Board's
consideration by July 13, I will request an emergency hearing of
the AAA Arbitrators, and will file appropriate pleadings with Judge
Makemson.
Best regards.
�'ncerely,
Jo ep W. Lawrence, II
C Ings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A.
JWL'gP
cc: � Martin Paving Company
James A. Cummings, Inc.
MART/N
July 10, 1995
Mr. Kenneth"R. Macht
Chairman
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: Request for Arbitration
THE MARTIN COMPANIES
1801 SOUTH NOVA ROAD
SOUTH DAYTONA, FLORIDA 32119-1733
OFFICE: (904) 781-8383
ROBERT D. MARTIN M LIS
CHAIRMAN OR THE BOARD ANDaTRI _UTInNT�,�T�'
�V
Commission
415
itAdminiss-trajor A7
��
N
� P�lINtQi�OB�Y
.:.
!. communijyrMOM
'
cGEti- �
.:.I
.--•�
^�
n
C�f.�t�atice
Q
Dear Mr. Macht: .-LL : Ems-
offsk
This letter is in response to the information being pi&hemt_ ed o
you by Mr. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney.
From our point of view, we were hired by the James A. Cummings,
Inc. organization to provide a-stormwater underdrain system in
accordance with plans and specifications which were provided to
us. We did the work exactly as specified in accordance with the
plan. The -system failed and did not function as we all had hoped
it would. James A. Cummings directed us to do the work a second
time. Our position is that the failure was caused by factors
beyond our control and we should be paid for the work we were
directed to do.
Our work was inspected continuously by the architect, as the
county's agent and by the manufacturer of the infiltrator system.
Comments were made by the infiltrator system inspector that the
installation procedure should have been video taped for use in
training others in the correct way to install the system.
When the failure occurred, the County chose to blame the failure
on Cummings/Martin totally and directed us to redo'the work using
different specifications. We felt we were being treated
57
July 18, 1995
Baal 95 mu 757
Fr- 7
BOOK 95 PAGE 150
unfairly. The County took the position that it's not their
problem and they do not care how we feel. This left us with our
only option, to seek restitution in accordance with the terms of
our contract.
The contract provided that disputes would be settled by
arbitration. We did not prepare the contract. The contract was
presented to us under a condition that we could sign it or they
would find someone who would.
The action that the Assistant County Attorney is asking you to
take still does not solve your problems in the future. In fact,
will only cause you more problems and cost your taxpayers more
money.
It has been proven over and over again that Governments that make
unilateral decisions that are considered unfair by their
contractors cost the Government as well as the contractor more
than the problem should cost. Lawyers don't know how to build
buildings or any other government facility. We need to find ways
to keep the lawyers out of the process. When you leave someone
with their only option to call their lawyer everybody loses.
We feel we gave you an honest day's work which met your plans,
specifications and directives and you should pay us. I would very
much like to have an opportunity to sit down with you and discuss
this in detail.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
MART .N PAVZK COMPANY
1
Robert D. Martin
Chairman and CEO
Cummings /Martin
Dear Gentlemen:
The Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July
18, 1995 reviewed information presented by the staff. A copy of
that report is enclosed for your information.
It is our opinion that in your recent demand for arbitration against
the County you have used the law as a sword rather than a
shield. The County does not feel that it is usually in its best
interest to enter into contracts with persons who use the law in
that manner.
If you should bid on any future County projects, the County will
under Section 105.04(g) of the Indian River County Code consider
this aspect in evaluating your bid.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth R. Macht
Chairman
58
July 18, 1995
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien addressed points in
the letter from Joseph Lawrence of Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina and
advised that denying their client their constitutional right was
the farthest thing from his mind in making his recommendation to
the Board in this matter. He wanted to be in court on this matter
because we are at a very bad disadvantage under these facts
concerning this case. The County is being sued by Cummings and
Martin, and the County is the sole player that has done nothing
wrong and will be the only party at risk. If the arbitration panel
decides we owe money to Martin and Cummings, we have to pay them.
In order to recover that money, we have to go to court to sue the
architect, who will bring in the engineer, who will bring in the
vendor, and the County will have to prove certain elements that
will be very difficult to prove.
Attorney O'Brien read the following excerpt from his letter to
Mr. Lawrence dated March 30, 1995:
Your client has had the benefit of discovery of all County
documents under the public records law. The County does not
enjoy that privilege and advantage. The County, therefore,
requests certain limited discovery concerning documents that are in
the possession of your client. Specifically, would you please send
me a copy of all field reports or other reports from the
contractor's field supervisor or Martin Paving concerning the
Infiltrator System.
The records were never sent.
Attorney O'Brien described Mr. Lawrence's second paragraph
comments as absolutely contrary to the fact and detailed the
sequence of events of the attempt at mediation and in his
estimation there was no mediation whatsoever. He felt it was
actually bad faith on the part of the attorney representing Martin
& Cummings.
Attorney O'Brien suggested the Board consider for future bids,
all aspects of the bidders' profile, as enumerated under Section
105.04(g), F. S. This would allow selection of the bidder who would
fit the overall best interest of the County, but would not prevent
anyone from submitting a bid, it could just go into the equation
when bids were considered.
Chairman Macht understood Attorney O'Brien's recommendation
was to reject any request for arbitration and proceed to circuit
court.
Attorney O'Brien agreed that was his recommendation and added,
as a matter of fact, that he had filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment asserting our rights, challenging the arbitration. Mr.
Lawrence's motion to dismiss was just recently denied. So the
59
July 18, 1995 BOOK 5 F'AGE 759
BOOK 95 FACE 760
County has one foot in the door in court and the other one in
arbitration.
In response to Commissioner Bird's question, Attorney O'Brien
gave a chronology of events which led to the mediation and
speculated as to what might happen in court.
Commissioner Adams asked if we might save time by arbitration,
and Commissioner Eggert countered by asking if that was good for
the County. Discussion ensued and Attorney O'Brien interjected
that if we win in arbitration, fine, but we can't make that
assumption. Worst case, if we lose, we have to go into court and
sue to get our money back and we will be lined up against everyone
in a very tough position to prove product failure.
Rick Martin, co-owner of Martin Paving Company, recounted how
they had initially made a perfect installation of the infiltrator
according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In fact, the
manufacturer, who was present during the first installation, made
the comment that he wished he had made a video tape of the
installation because it was picture perfect. A couple of months
after that, a very large rainfall caused some settlement. Some
exploratory work was done, and it was discovered that the
infiltrators had settled into the aggregate to some degree, and the
County ordered that they be entirely removed and replaced with
different specifications. His company performed that work and
tried to negotiate getting paid for redoing it, because it was
quite apparent it was a design problem which caused it to fail,
particularly when it was done differently the second time, at the
County's direction. They completed the second installation and the
County had to choose whether to side with the engineers or side
with Martin. The County chose to side with the designers and blame
the installation.
Mr. Martin went on to say that their only recourse was to
follow the -contract, which called for arbitration. Arbitration was
scheduled, then Attorney O'Brien wanted to cancel arbitration and
put it into the court. His company had not gotten paid and it
would take an extended period of time to get the matter resolved in
court.
Mr. Martin believed they had not acted in bad faith and added
that they have done numerous projects for the County, with good
results. They rarely make claims and rarely have any conflict
resolution required. He reasoned that mediation had failed because
they were so far apart it wasn't worth spending the money and
wasting everybody's time.
N -N
July 18, 1995
Mr. Martin appreciated that the County was in a difficult
position; it was not really the County's fault, but a design
problem. But his position was more difficult; he was out a
quarter of a million and unable to get compensated. He believed it
failed because of a design problem which was out of their control.
He felt it was not in the best interest of the citizens of the
county to prevent them from doing work for the County, because they
were a good contractor and it was a unique problem.
In response to Chairman Macht's request, General Services
Director Sonny Dean described what occurred to cause the County not
to accept the work and require the second installation. He stated
that there has been no problem with the second installation. The
size of the aggregate was changed, and also there was geogrid
placed on top of it.
Attorney O'Brien reiterated that we don't know who is to
blame, he just wants to bring all the players into court and let
the court decide. He reminded them that the motion for declaratory
judgment was still alive and had survived a motion to dismiss.
Attorney O'Brien responded to additional questions from
Commissioners concerning the court process.
Commissioner Adams felt it was very unfair to hold this
problem against Martin on future bidding.
Discussion ensued, whereupon County Attorney Vitunac suggested
asking the other side why they would not go to court and insisted
on arbitration.
James Cummings, owner of James A. Cummings, Inc., thanked the
Board for the opportunity to address them. He felt it was odd how
two versions of the same occurrence could be so different. His
company has had no litigation and hasn't been involved in an
arbitration in 20+ years. It really incensed him when he read the
memoranda because the parties were so far apart in what they
thought happened. He voiced his objections to the symbolic
sword/shield simile in Attorney O'Brien's letter and in his opinion
the stonewalling was coming from the County, not the contractors.
He saw two basic problems why the matter couldn't be settled.
First, there was no continuity of the contracts. His contract
contained the standard arbitration clause, which calls for those
with technical expertise to resolve the problem. He had asked for
a copy of the architect's contract and found that the arbitration
61 Boa 95 ew 761
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 PAGE 762
clause was specifically excluded from their contract. Second, as
a technician, he wants to know why something failed.
Mr. Cummings characterized the rainfall, prior to the failure,
as being like a 100 -year flood. He thought, because of the rain,
it caused a subsidence in the system. When they looked further to
the design calculations of the designer of the infiltrator, they
were advised they didn't have any. That got them nervous. When
they called the architect and the engineer and asked to see what
they used to design the system, they did not receive anything.
They went to another civil engineer and asked them to call
Infiltrator System for their current data on how to install the
system. He received anew brochure which was totally different
from what they installed. There had been mention of venting and a
question was asked, why. He felt what happened was the system
heaved from all the water. They put concrete, not asphalt, over
the second installation. All the information was in the hands of
the County's architects and engineers. There was no need for a
subpoena, because they were given daily reports of what was done.
As far as he knew, all the information was available, and he just
wants an expedited resolution. The stonewalling, in his opinion,
was because of the architect. He felt when the technicians got
involved and the lawyers were out of it, it would be resolved. The
County had a problem because there was no continuity of architects.
Mr. Cummings stated that Martin is one of the finest
subcontractors that he has had the pleasure of dealing with and he
felt the County would be cutting -off -their -nose -to -spite -their -face
to not have them do County work.
Commissioner Adams wanted to see the arbitration run its
course, but Chairman Macht disagreed because he felt it was not in
the best interest of the taxpayer to go to arbitration. He
supported the County Attorney's office recommendation.
Commissioner Bird thought they had to honor the contract, go
to arbitration and then go to court and recover through the court
because the other contract does not provide for arbitration.
Commissioner Eggert disagreed with Commissioner Bird's
suggestion.
Attorney O'Brien responded to questions with respect to the
process.
County Attorney Vitunac wanted the Board to know that going to
arbitration puts the County at risk. Everyone agrees that the
County is an innocent party, and it may be that Martin and Cummings
are innocent; Therefore, three innocent parties would be going to
62
July 18, 1995
arbitration. He agreed that Attorney O'Brien's suggestion was the
only forum available to get the most likely guilty party in there,
and the court has agreed we have the legal right to get out of the
arbitration if we want to. The Board could decide to go to
arbitration, if they wished, but they also needed to understand the
risk of a possible judgment against us. In that event, we would
have to get our own outside expert in order to sue our own
engineer.
Attorney O'Brien recommended not giving up any legal rights,
but if the Board doesn't want to send the letter, that was okay.
In response to Commissioner Bird's question if the suit and
arbitration could run in tandem, Attorney O'Brien assumed that the
arbitration panel would not hold the arbitration because of the
denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Only one action would count.
Chairman Macht pointed out it is not fair to risk the
taxpayers' dollars and by taking it to court, the court would
determine responsibility.
Mr. Cummings suggested if the Board was looking for
responsibility, they might look to whomever wrote the architect's
contract which specifically excluded the standard arbitration
clause, because that was why all the parties cannot come together.
In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, Attorney O'Brien
estimated the court time table and indicated a declaratory judgment
might be available as early as October.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Eggert, to pursue Attorney
O'Brien's recommendation to seek resolution of
the matter in court, but to not hold Martin
Paving Company or James- A. Cummings, Inc. in
an area of prejudice in future bidding.
Under discussion, Chairman Macht understood that the motion
would withdraw sending the proposed letter to both Martin and
Cummings, would reject the demand for arbitration, and proceed
forward with the declaratory judgment.
Commissioner Bird explained that his motion was very much
based on the opinion given by the County Attorney's Office that the
County would not be in violation of the contract with the
63
July 18, 1995
BOOK '95 PAGE 76
BOOK 95 PAGE 7764
contractor, but that it was an additional remedy available to the
County to resolve the matter in court.
Commissioner Tippin wanted to proceed to court post haste.
Commissioner Adams advised that she reluctantly supported the
motion, because she felt the arbitration clause should be honored.
She agreed a mistake had been made initially by not including
arbitration in the architect's contract.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Macht, Commissioners Bird and Adams asked that the
provisions of the architect's contract be researched and
information brought back at the next meeting.
Mr. Cummings indicated that he had a copy of the contract and
Director Dean advised he had a copy in his office.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGULATORY PROGRAM AND SURVEILLANCE FEES
WASTEWATER PERMITS
County Attorney Vitunac presented the Board with the first
page of a Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing to the State
of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, concerning an
invoice submitted to the County relating to the costs of wastewater
regulatory and surveillance fees, pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S.,
and Rule 62-4.052, Florida Administrative Code.
Chairman Macht reminded the Board that this matter was before
them pursuant to their direction to staff to forward an appeal and
follow it up with a lawsuit.
County Attorney Vitunac explained that in preparing the
petition, it turned out that the actual fee itself was set out in
Florida Statutes, so the DEP was following the law precisely.
Since it was really a political/ legislative matter, instead of
filing a useless challenge, he recommended they authorize
correspondence with the Florida Association of Counties (FACo) to
challenge the law on a statewide level. He believed Commissioner
Adams was a member of that Board and might carry it to FACo.
64
July 18, 1995
On MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved staff's recommendation to authorize
correspondence with the Florida Association of
Counties (FACo) to challenge the law on a
statewide level.
INVESTED SECURITIES - EWESTAIENT PLAN
Chairman Macht reminded the Board of their direction to staff
to draft a resolution supporting Escambia County's position on
asking the Legislature not to prohibit investors who own
stocks, bonds, or other securities from using the federal courts to
recover money if they are defrauded.
He briefly reviewed the following announcement and Chapter 95-
194 of the Florida Statutes:
r—n-as, u�rs
c-mrnissiorers _A -0, -
Administrator — William C. Weaver, Ph.D. & Associates
F ttcrn�r . _ 1�g�Q 111213��,s
persa��nsl -UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA W01kS
rO
Cammijnity Gev. _ —• COLLEGE OF BUSINESSt %
I.
titiiiti83 ✓ ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32816- 1400 M ;�
407/823-5313 Qi
01;11!
Er1e19. Sety.
;•,;i:r- ._�i}g; governor Chiles signed into law a bill requiring every city, county
constitutional officer and school district in the state to produce a written
investment plan outlining their investment policies together with an annual
investment report for the public. The law becomes effective on October 1,
1995. We can provide you with a plan that meets these new requirements and
that is customized to your individual needs, investment horizon and risk
preferences. We also provide an "annual report template" that you can use to
produce your annual reports by merely adding appropriate numbers using your
own word processor!'
We are members of the Department of Finance, College of Business, of the
University of Central Florida (UCF) and we have extensive experience with
both public and private investment planning and consulting. We have completed
similar work for individuals, companies, cities, counties and the State, on time
65
July 18, 1995 �uoK �5 FAGr 765
BOOK 95 FAt E 766
and on or under .budget. We have no affiliations with other financial service
providers and do not sell financial products. We can guarantee unbiased advise
with no risk of later legal complications.
You may, of course, elect to write your own investment plan and annual
investment report. However, there are clear advantages to having us provide this
service; time savings, no chance of later bias claims & legal complications, an
annual report template with all the writing, editing and graphics work already
completed and, most important, no interruptions from your already busy
schedule.
We offer very professional work requiring the minimum of paperwork on your
part, and we deliver on time, at extremely competitive rates which are
guaranteed in advance. Specifically, we can provide you with a complete
investment plan that exceeds the requirements of the Statutes within 60 days of
agreement for a fixed price of $2,375. This price includes the annual report
word processing template so that you may more easily meet your annual
reporting requirements.
If you would like more information about this or other financial services that we
can provide, please. contact Dr. William C. Weaver (407/823-5313).
We look forward to working with you.
July 18, 1995
M
CHAPTER 95-194
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2090
Approved by the Governor June 8, 1995
Filed on Office Secretary of State June 8, 1995
Act to Take Effect October 1. 1995
An Act relating to investment of public funds; creating s. 218.415, F.S.;
requiring that cert4in investment activity of units of local government shall be
consistent with a written investment plan; providing for establishment of
certain investment policies which place priority on the safety of principal and
liquidity of funds; providing scope; providing for investment objectives;
providing for performance measurement; requiring a description of the level of
prudence and ethical standards to be followed; providing for listing of authorized
investments; providing for establishment of maturity and liquidity requirements;
providing for portfolio composition; providing for appropriate diversification to
minimize risk; providing for specification of authorized investment institutions
and dealers; providing for third -party custodial agreements; providing for
repurchase agreements; providing for competitive bidding; providing for
establishment of internal controls and operational procedures; providing for
reports; specifying alternative investment guidelines to apply where there is no
investment plan; amending s. 218.403, F.S.; redefining the term "unit of local
government" to include county constitutional officers; amending ss. 125.3 1,
166.261, 218.345, 219.075, and 236.24, F.S., relating to investment of local
government surplus funds by counties, municipal , special districts,
county officers, and district school boards, to conform; providing an effective
date. (October 1, 1995)
A full copy of the act is available upon request.
M
M
M
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that the investment plan is
a State requirement and the responsibility of Clerk of the Circuit
Court Jeff Barton, who was working on it right now.
Director Baird advised that an Investment Advisory Committee
had been put together by Clerk Barton. The Committee consists of
members of the community who deal with investments, as well as
himself and Clerk Barton. The Committee's first meeting is
scheduled for tomorrow.
Chairman Macht requested a report on the proceedings of that
meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved Resolution No. 95-85 opposing Senate
Bill 240 regarding lawsuits to recover money
lost from invested securities.
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 85
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE UNITED STATES
SENATE OPPOSING SENATE BILL 240 REGARDING LAWSUITS
TO RECOVER MONEY LOST FROM INVESTED SECURITIES.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Senate is now considering legislation that would
effectively prohibit investors who own stocks, bonds, or other securities
from using the federal courts to recover their money if they are defrauded;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed bill would have grave consequences should any of
the County's investment or retirement funds suffer losses due to fraud in the
future; and
WHEREAS, several. counties have been defrauded by derivative securities
investments and have losses totaling over $3 billion; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the counties to be able to maintain the
ability to fully pursue securities dealers who have perpetuated a fraud on
their taxpayers; and
67 95 f,�,�E 767
July 18, 1995 �UGK
BUCK 95 rnE 768
RESOLUTION NO. 95-85
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board strongly urges the U.S. Senate
not to enact this proposed legislation and to preserve the counties' right to
recover monies lost in invested securities by being able to pursue fraudulent
securities dealers.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird. Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye_
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 18 day of July , 1995.
Attest:
Je Barton Clerk
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Board recessed at 11:00 AM to convene for a short meeting
as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
68
July 18, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ByQP-9
Fran B. Adams
Vice Chairman
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Board recessed at 11:00 AM to convene for a short meeting
as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
68
July 18, 1995
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA
Because of the early hour, the Board unanimously agreed to add
consideration of budget reduction recommendations. Commissioner
Eggert had indicated she would have to leave at 11:30 AM for an
appointment. The meeting of Board of County Commissioners recessed
briefly and reconvened at 11:13 AM.
25% TAX BUDGET REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 17, 1995:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: July 17, 1995
SUBJECT: TAX BUDGET REDUCTIONS
FROM: acnes E. Chandler J
o Baird
County Administrator
Attached are the suggested reductions and changes in the budget to reach the goal set
by the Board of County Commissioners at the budget workshop on July 12, 1995. The
goal of reducing the increase by 25% of $1,982,687 equates to an amount of
$495,672.00. Staff suggests we discuss the budget changes at the end of the Board of
County Commissioners meeting.
Administrator Chandler briefly reviewed each of the suggested
reductions under the "Public Safety" heading which totals $274,675.
He reviewed the more significant reductions under the "Other"
heading for a total of another $170,996. The grand total of
recommended expenditure cuts is $445,671. There is also an
adjustment made to the Revenues of $30,000 under Transportation.
The bottom line, when applied to the taxes, amounts to a reduction
of $498,926.
69
July 18, 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 769
Other:
BOOK 95 pnE 77
PROPOSED CUTS
Health Department
Expenditures
Public Safety:
(27,000)
Emergency Services
Air conditioning for Hobart
Eliminate one Winter Beach Paramedic I
($42,677)
Manning of Fellsmere Station 2/1/96 rather than 1/1/96
(36,587)
Takeover for Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance 1/1/96
(32,057)
Building Maintenance - repairs to EMS Main Station
(25,000)
Cut Special Operations Vehicle
(20,000)
Reduce ALS overtime ($7,750 before benefits)
(9,954)
6 radios
(8,400)
Subtotal - Emergency Services
(174,675)
Sheriff Cut from total request of $442,184 for vehicles
(100,000)
Subtotal - Public Safety
(274,675)
Other:
Health Department
(27,000)
Communications
Air conditioning for Hobart
(3,000)
No. County Library
Shelving
(6,500)
Veterans Services
Computer and software
(1,889)
Emergency Management Other Operating Supplies
(1,000)
Office Equipment Maintenance
(1,000)
Office Supplies
(1,000)
Parks
2 radios
(1,900)
Buildings & Grounds
Carpeting
(13,580)
Animal Control
Other Operating Supplies
(500)
Auto insurance
(500)
Auto maintenance
(1,000)
Communication Equipment
(1,000)
Clerk of Court
(5,000)
Tax Collector
(5,000)
Circuit Court
Travel & Tuition
(800)
Dues and memberships
(1,500)
County Court
Travel & Tuition
(1,425)
Dues and memberships
(750)
Public Defender
Computer equipment related to new courthouse
(4,126)
Probation
Computer
(1,876)
County Planning
2 computer upgrades
(2,600)
Road & Bridge
Water & sewer services
(1,000)
Landscaping
(3,000)
Petition paving materials
(10,000)
Auto maintenance
(5,000)
Heavy equipment maintenance
(6,000)
Dump trailer (additional equipment)
(13,000)
County Engineering
2 radios
(1,050)
Traffic Engineering
Electric services
(6,000)
Land Acquisition Bond
Property Appraiser fees
(3,000)
Tax collector fees
(3,000)
Cash forward expense
(37.000)
Revenues
Transportation
July 18, 1995
Total Other (170,996)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE CUTS ($445,671)
Additional petition paving revenues $30,000
70
M M
Effect of Proposed Cuts
Proposed
12 Revised Change
Ad Valorem Taxes:
General Fund $24,950,869 $24,801,400 ($149,469)
MSTU 5,109,006 4,988,680 (120,326)
ESD 11,135,737 10,951,869 (183,868)
Bond 1,810,766 1,765,503 (45,263)
($498,926)
' a e:
1994/95
.x/12/95
Revised
Change
General Fund
4.2266
4.3368
4.3109
(0.0259)
MSTU
1.5650
1.6420
1.6033
'(0.0387)
ESD
2.1285
2.3517
2.3129
(0.0388)
Aggregate
6.8158
7.1604
7.0816
(0.0788)
Bond
N/A
0.3147
0.3069
(0.0078)
Commissioner Adams was willing to accept the month's delay in
manning the Fellsmere station, but wanted to make sure that the
North County Library did not get cut to the point where it was
unable to expand. She was also concerned about the Health
Department's cut, but was glad to see the cut from the Sheriff's
budget, and the reductions in travel, tuition, dues and
memberships. She asked for an explanation of the disparity between
the Sheriff's employees' 4% raise and the County employees' 3%
raise, and Director Baird explained the County was giving a 3% COLA
effective December 1 (2.7% if annualized), and the Sheriff was
giving a 2.7% COLA and the 1.3% was an adjustment in salaries.
Sheriff Gary Wheeler advised that he recently learned that
sometime in 1996, FCIA (run by FDLE) will be changing computer
software. This change will cost his department about $50,000-
$55,000 in order to stay on-line,- and he will probably be coming
back to the Board since it was not included in his budget.
Sheriff Wheeler believed his department had already pared down
their budget. He predicted that services will continue to suffer
if funding continues to be cut. He recounted the reasons he had
asked for fewer employees than needed, why he needed them, and why
he needed the additional vehicles. He felt the cut of $100,000 was
just a number selected, without any real thought, and reiterated
that his initial request was only a 3.59% increase over last year.
Sheriff Wheeler reminded them of the savings to the County for
providing security at the new Courthouse. He didn't know where he
was going to take the cuts from.
71 Bou 95 PAGE 7 7JI
July 18, 1995
Boa 95 PAGi 772
(NOTE: Commissioner Eggert left at 11:30 AM
during the prior speaker's remarks.)
Jean Kline, Nursing Director, Indian River County Public
Health Unit, petitioned the Board to reevaluate and restore the
requested funding in order to keep people out of the hospital
emergency room, which would be much more expensive and costly to
the taxpayers.
Commissioner Bird predicted the judges would soon be before
the Board concerning the cuts to their travel and dues funding,
whereupon Director Baird advised that Judge Smith had written a
letter.
Director Baird explained that the funding was for their
assistants (secretaries) and he has been put in the uncomfortable
position of having to review their expenses. He requested the
Board to make a policy statement with respect to the travel -
tuition -dues -memberships for State employees.
Administrator Chandler supported Director Baird's request for
a policy statement.
Commissioner Bird wanted to make certain that the cuts in
radio parts and equipment would not affect safety issues, and
Administrator Chandler explained that many of these cuts were
predicated on the assumption we would be moving to the 800 MHz
system with the upcoming system installation and begin to replace
all the departmental radios the following year.
Commissioner Adams commended staff on the recommendations and
reminded everyone of the County's primary responsibilities. She
suggested we look at how some of the surrounding counties have been
cutting; however, she did not agree with some of the policies which
eliminate environmental preservation. She thought a slow, easy
cutting of expenses was owed the taxpayers and reminded them of the
items not addressed, as follows:
Open Item List from Budget Workshops•
Soil and Water Conservation $6,133
Alpha Health Services 6,100
New Horizons 38,000
State Health Department 60,000
Hibiscus House 25,000
$135,233
Veterans Services Software ?
July 18, 1995
M
72
M
Commissioner Bird asked if the "wish list" was being dropped,
and inquired about the Hibiscus House. Director Baird responded
that he was not comfortable with their accounting and had spoken
with them. Commissioner Bird suggested the Board could address
that in the future if their accounting improved.
Commissioner Adams commented on the loss of Soil and Water
Conservation to Ft. Pierce, and Chairman Macht felt that while he
hated to see it moved, it was best that they consolidate since they
had all their resources in one spot and it didn't make sense to
fragment.
Chairman Macht summarized that the Board had reached CONSENSUS
and that staff was on the right track, although none of the
recommendations were absolute between now and actual budget time,
and additional cuts could be made or maybe an unexpected windfall
might occur.
The Preliminary Budget Hearing was scheduled for Wednesday,
September 6th, at 5:01 PM.
The Board decided to proceed with a brief caucus in the County
Attorneys office.
Although the rest of the Commissioners had left the Chambers,
Chairman Macht recognized Clerk of the Circuit Court Jeff Barton
who was present and prepared to address the Board concerning the
question that had arisen earlier concerning the Investment Advisory
Committee.
Clerk Barton explained his role in the passage of the new law,
its requirements, and the status of the new committee.
Chairman Macht thanked him for the information because he was
unaware of the law and the existence of the committee.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:47 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved on Y-,za `95-
73
July 18, 1995
"4enneth R. Macht, Chairman
BOOK 95 FAcE773