HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1995� MINUTESERTTACHED �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14,1995
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
61
AG S"
9:00 a.m. 1. ALL. TO ORD .R , PPP
A , . S
2. EN VOCATION None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. : 1 1 YY ► ►II : I ul : yITEMS
13-D Schedule public hearing - TEFRA
None .
T."TI-VITR FIT51 311ZI I V I
Regular Meeting of October 17, 1995
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board:
Report of Convictions, October, 1995
B. Award Bid #6025 / Anti-Scalant
(memorandum dated October 31, 1995) 1-5
C. Brian Sculthorp's Request for Final Plat Approval
for a Subdivision to be Known as Dunmore S/D
(memorandum dated November 6,1995) 6-12
D. Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County
Annual Audit - Budget Amendment 004
(memorandum dated November 8, 1995) 13-14
7. CONSENT AGENDA.(cont'd.),
PAGE
E. 4th Street Right -of -Way Acquisition; Parcel #111
(memorandum dated November 6, 1995)
15-19
F. Wabasso Causeway Boat Ramp / Dale Wimbrow
Boat Ramp - Partial Release of Retainage
(memorandum dated November 8, 1995)
20-22
G. Finalization of Indian River County Contracts
(memorandum dated November 8, 1995)
23
H. Ordinance Setting Forth in the Code A 6%
Franchise Fee - Request to Advertise Public
Hearing Date of November 28, 1995
(memorandum dated November 2, 1995)
24-27
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC IMMS
A. PUBLIC ARINGS
None
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUMN ADMMSTRATOR'S MATTRMS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
Consideration of Mining Regulation Changes
(memorandum dated November 3, 1995) 28-46
B. Emergency Services
Authorization to Advertise a Request for Proposal
for a Project Consultant/Engineer for a Computer
Aided Dispatch/Records Management System
(memorandum dated November 7, 1995) 47-48
C. Gen_ eral SeLyices
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS_(cont'd.): PAGE
D. Leisum.SerYices
None
E. Of ice-Management_and Budget
New Horizons In House Jail Program Funding
(memorandum dated November 8, 1995)
49-56
(continued from BCC meeting of 10/24/95)
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. 66th Ave. R -O -W Acquisition
(memorandum dated November 6, 1995)
57-62
2. 58th Ave. R -O -W Acquisition:,,`PaTce1-#T24-,-
Rivera Estates, Lot 1 and 2, Block 2
(memorandum dated November 6,1995)
63-66
H. Utilities
1. Central Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion to 2 MGD
(memorandum dated November 6,1995)
67-71
2. Wastewater Treatment Plant Continuing
Services
(memorandum dated November 6,1995)
72-83
3. North US I - Sebastian Waterfront Water
Project Change Order No. 6 & Retainage
Reduction
(memorandum dated November 2, 1995)
84-91
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R Macht
1. Suggested Terms for BCC Consideration of
County Administrator Pay
92
2. Change in Size of Paper from 8 %2" x 14"
to9Y2"XII"
(memorandum dated October 27,1995)
93
3. Commercial Bingo Halls
(no backup provided)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS jconVd.).: PAGE
B. Vic.-Chairman.Fran-B-Adams
C. Commissioner Richard N Bird
1 gun i�iui "inr
E. Oommiccioner _ ohn W Tipnrin
��� ��y •moi :; 1 �r
None
B. Solid Waste Dicnocal District
Paper Products Contract with Southeast Recycling
(memorandum dated November 1, 1995)
C. Environmental C ntrol Board
None
1 1 Flu 1 ►Y
94-98
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, November 14, 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, November 14,
1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran
B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of scheduling a
hearing on TEFRA (Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act) on issuing
low cost housing bonds with Escambia County Housing Authority.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the
above item to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF X MUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 17, 1995. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 10/17/95, as
written.
1
November 14 1995
� BOOK 96 FA,E 577
Pm 96 PAGE 518
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Report
Received and Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, October, 1995
B. Award Bid #6025 - Anti-Scalant
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/31/95:
DATE: October 31, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
T MU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Award Bid #6025/Anti-Scalant
Annual Contract/Utilities Department
BAMGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: October 25, 1995
Advertising Dates: October 11, 18, 1995
Specifications Mailed to: Three (3) Vendors
Replies: Three (3) Vendors
BID TABULATION UNIT PRICE PER POUND
FMC Corporation .74 lb Pfizer Flocon 100
Philadelphia, PA
Argo Scientific .7441b Hypersperse AS120
San Marcos, CA
Harn Ro Systems .75 lb BFGoodrich AF600
Venice, F1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
1. Award the bid for antiscalant to FMC Corporation as the
lowest most responsive, and _responsible bidder meeting
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
2. Establish an Open End Contract with FMC Corporation for
Pfizer Flocon antiscalant with a not to exceed amount of
$45,000.00 for the period November 1, 1995 through
September 30, 1996. Last year's expenditures totaled
$40,000.00.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase,
vendor acceptance, and the determination that renewal
is in the best interest of the County.
2
November 14, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #6025 to FMC Corporation in an amount not to
exceed $45,000, pursuant to staff's recommendation.
C. Final Plat Approval - Dunmore Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV O HEAD CON C RREN E:
R7WB-
ert M. Rea ing, CP
Community Developme t D ctor
THROUGH: Stan Boling,-AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 6, 1995
SUBJECT: Brian Sculthorp's Request for Final Plat Approval for a
Subdivision to be Known as Dunmore Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 14, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Dunmore Subdivision is a proposed 9.93 acre single family
subdivision containing 12 lots. The subject site is located
immediately south of Seminole Shores on the west side of SR A -1-A.*
The property is zoned RS -3 and RS -1, Residential Single Family (up
to 3 units per acre and 1 unit per acre, respectively) . All 12
lots are within the RS -3 zoning district, while the RS -1 zoning
district overlays only the extreme western portion of the
development. The density of the subject development is 1.2 units
per acre.
On October 13, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval for the Dunmore Subdivision. A land,
development permit was subsequently issued for infrastructure
improvements and site development. The roadway, stormwater'
management system, and utility improvements within the project have
now been completed. The developer is now requesting final plat-
approval,
latapproval, and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in substantial conformance with the approved
preliminary plat. The plat includes a conservation easement
over wetland areas that cover the western portion of the site.
2. A certificate of completion for all infrastructure
improvements.
3. A warranty/maintenance agreement for the publicly- dedicated
improvements.
3
November 14, 1995 BOOK 96 PAGE 579
BOOK 96 PAGEMU
4. A security agreement, acceptable to the county attorney's
office, to guarantee the warranty/maintenance agreement.
ANALYSIS:
A certificate of completion has been issued by the Public' Works
Department certifying that, with the exception of street lighting,
all improvements have been completed and accepted. The developer
has entered into an agreement with the City of Vero Beach Utilities
Services (see attachment #4) that guarantees the installation of
street lighting within the subdivision. Water and wastewater
service for the project have been inspected and approved by the
City of Vero Beach. All proposed subdivision improvements are
privately dedicated with the exception of the subdivision roadway,
which is being dedicated to the county via this final plat. The
developer has submitted a warranty/maintenance agreement for the
roadway and suitable security, approved by the county attorney's
office, to guarantee the warranty/maintenance agreement. With
these documents and acceptance of the final plat by all reviewing
county departments, the developer.has complied with the appropriate
requirements to obtain final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the Dunmore Subdivision and accept the submitted
warranty/maintenance agreement, and posted security.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for Dunmore Subdivision and
accepted the submitted warranty/maintenance
agreement and posted security.
WARRANTY/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
A Substance Abuse Council of IRC - Annual Audit - Budget
Amendment 004
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/95:
4
November 14, 1995
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 8, 1995
SUBJECT: SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ANNUAL AUDIT - BUDGET AMENDMENT 004 - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. B
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County is required to have an annual audit pursuant
to the Federal Anti -Drug Abuse grant. In the past we have paid for their audit since their existence
is a requirement of the grant.
Staff is recommending we allocate $2,000 toward the Substance Abuse Council of Indian River
County to have an audit done so we can continue to receive funds of approximately $145,000 from
the Federal Anti -Drug Abuse grant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $2,000 from General Fund Contingency to the Substance Abuse Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 004 in the amount of $2,000 from
General Fund Contingency to the Substance Abuse
Council.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. B
OMB Director
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 004
DATE: November 8. 1995
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Agencies
Substance Abuse Council
001-110-562-088.69
$2,000
$0
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$2,000
5
November 14, 1995
BOOK PA,
BOOK 96 PAGE. 582
E. 4th Street Right -of -Way Acquisition - Parcel #111
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
AND
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
�
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA L
County Right -of -Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: 4th Street Right -of -Way Acquisition; Parcel #111
DATE: November 6, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Additional right-of-way is required on 4th Street for paving
improvement widening and water retention area.
The property owner has executed a contract at $3,881.00. The
appraised value is $2.95 per square foot for land in the area and7
the 15' x 87.' (1,315.5 square feet), right-of-way parcel contract
is at the appraised value, $2.95 per square foot.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the
$3,881.00 purchase, and authorize the Chairman to execute the
contract.
FUNDING
4th Street, Parcel #111 - Funding to be from District 6 Traffic
Impact Fee Account No. 101-156-541-067.29.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the right-of-way purchase from Allied Investors,
Inc. in the amount of $3,881, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -
November 14, 1995
F. Wabasso Causeway Boat Ramp and Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp - Partial
Release of Retainage
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/95:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson,
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Boat Ramp
Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp
Partial Release of Retainage
DATE: November 8, 1995
Construction of Wabasso Causeway Boat Ramp is funded with a $120,000.00 grant from
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Dale Wimbmw Boat Ramp is funded
with an $80,000.00 DEP grant. The DEP requires that Indian River County cut a check
for the ramp construction by December 1, 1995. In order to met the grant deadline, the
County must release retainage on the ramp construction. Retainage will be held on the
construction of the docks until the projects are completed. The docks are scheduled to be
completed by December 29, 1995.
Staff recommends that the Board release retainage on the ramp construction at Wabasso
Causeway and Dale Wimbrow.
The majority of the ramp construction is funded by the DEP Special Waterways Project
Program. The dock construction is funded from optional sales tax.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the release of retainage on the boat ramp
construction at Wabasso Causeway and Dale Wimbrow
Park, as recommended by staff.
7
November 14, 1995
BooK w -E 583
soonFa 584
G. Finalization of Indian River County Contracts
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/95:
DATE: November 8, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRE OF UTILITIES
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINALIZATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CONTRACTS
BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS
The following is a list of contracts that are no longer used by the
Department of Utility Services and are recommended for termination:
1. Brown and Caldwell Consultants - 1992
2. Brown and Caldwell Consultants W/A #1 - 1993
3. Carter Associates, Inc., Water Plan Expansion, Phase 3-1991
4. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., North Beach Wells - 1990
5. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., R.O. Plants Consulting - 1990
6. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., South County R.O. Consulting, W/A
#11 - 1990
7. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc, South County Wastewater Plant -1991
8. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Western Effluent Disposal - 1991
9. CH2M Hill, Task#2, Sebastian - 1990
10. CH2M Hill, Task #3, Vero Highlands - 1990
11. Kimball Lloyd, Inc., Sea Oaks Wastewater Plant - 1990
12. Kimball Lloyd, Inc., Wastewater Base Maps - 1990
13. Kimball Lloyd, Inc., Wastewater Collection System -1990
14. Kimley Horn, Force Main - 1990
15. McQueen and Associates, Inc., Water Plan Expansion - 1991
16. Masteller & Moler, Inc., North Cty Sewer, W/A 4, Gifford -1990
17. Masteller & Moler, Inc., West Regional Wastewater Plant
Expansion - 1990
18. Masteller, Moler & Mayfield, North County Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion Effluent Disposal - 1991
19. Masteller Moler & Mayfield, Water Expansion Plan, Phase I-1991
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the termination of 'the
above -listed contracts as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the termination of the above -listed contracts, as
recommended by staff.
8
November 14, 1995
H. Scheduling of Public Hearing - Ordinance Setting Forth in the Code A
6% Franchise Fee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/95:
TO:
Board of
County Commissioners
FROM:
Terrence
P. O'Brien - Assistant
County AttorneyQ
DATE: November 2, 1995
9
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH IN 'THE CODE A 8%
FRANCHISE FEE
The proposed ordinance places in the code existing levies on electrical
energy sales in the County.
Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the ordinance and requests
permission to advertise it for a public hearing to be held on November
28, 1995.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously scheduled
a public hearing for November 281, 1995, as
recommended by staff.
CONSIDERATION OF MINING REGULATION CHANGES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/3/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator November 3, 1995
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keatin, AICP
Community Develo ment rector
.46-
FROM:
4Q-FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Mining Regulation Changes
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 14, 1995.
BACKGROUND:
On September 21, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners held a
public workshop to review and discuss the county's current mining
regulations (see attachment #1). At the end of that workshop,
Board members indicated that, overall, the county's current mining
regulations are adequate. The Board, however, directed staff and
the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) to assess
y
November 14, 1995
ROOK 96 PnE 5S
QpK96 PAGE 586
current county regulations relating to incidental to construction
mining operations, and bring more information and a recommendation
back to the Board. In addition, staff and the PSAC were also
directed to review timeframes for completion of long-term
commercial mining operations.
After the workshop, staff researched the issues raised by the Board
and presented these issues and corresponding analysis to the PSAC.
At its October 19, 1995 meeting, the PSAC considered staff's
comments and recommendations, and comments from Dean Luethje and
other interested parties, including long time local miner Bud
Jenkins. At that meeting, the PSAC recommended that the Board
direct staff to initiate certain changes to the county's current
mining regulations (see attachment #2). The PSAC's recommendation
is the same as staff's recommendation contained at the end of this
report.
The Board is now to consider the PSAC and staff recommendation and
determine whether or not to direct staff to initiate changes to
current county mining regulations.
ANALYSIS:
Staff and the PSAC have reviewed the following issues based upon
the Board's direction:
• The incidental to construction mining operation -12, lake depth
limitation.
• The incidental to construction mining operation 2 month time
limitation.
• Timeframes to complete long term commercial mining operations.
Staff's analysis of these issues is as follows:
•Incidental to Construction Allowances and Limitations
LDR Section 934.04(7)(b) allows excavation and hauling of material
incidental to an approved construction project where more than
5,000 cubic yards of material is exported off-site. Such activity
can occur throughout the county in all zoning districts, including
residential districts but is restricted in various ways (see
attachment #3). The restrictions are applied to incidental to
construction mining activities to protect the environment, address
road impacts, and to tightly limit the length of time and time of
day that such mining and hauling activity is allowed to impact
surrounding properties.
At the September 21st workshop, engineer Dean Luethje presented a
proposal to create a ±40 acre stormwater management and irrigation -
lake at the western portion of the Bent Pine development. Creation _
of such a lake would respond to the St. Johns River Water
Management District's desire for the Bent Pine golf course to be
irrigated from a source other than by Floridan Aquifer well water,
a source with a high chloride count. Creation of the lake would
produce an enormous amount of excess fill to be hauled off-site.
Mr. Luethje asserted that such a proposal could not be approved
under the current county LDRs because of the following:
1. The site does not have the proper zoning (agricultural) for a
long-term commercial mining operation, and
2. The incidental to construction provisions limit excavation and
hauling off-site to a 2 month timeframe, and lakes are limited
to a 12' depth. Under Mr.' Luethje's proposal, more time and
greater lake depth would be needed.
November 14, 1995 10
The purpose and intent of the current incidental to construction
_ mining provisions are to balance the concerns and needs of
developers with those of surrounding residents. Thus, the
incidental to construction provisions recognize and accommodate the
legitimate but rare need to haul excess fill from a construction
site. It should be noted, however, that PSAC members believe that,
since more and more lakes are likely to be dug to satisfy
stormwater management requirements for new development projects,
there may be more development projects that will "produce" large
quantities of excess fill material.
Incidental to construction mining operations are not restricted to
agriculturally zoned property and can occur in any zoning district,
including residential zoning districts. Thus, such operations are
allowed in higher density areas where more residents can be
impacted by the mining operation. In effect, the 2 month time
limitation is intended to minimize the amount of time nuisances
from off-site hauling are allowed to impact an area. However, the
current 2 month limitation may not accommodate large development
projects that may involve hauling large quantities of excess fill
material off-site.
The existing 12' lake depth limitation on incidental to
construction mining is to ensure that resulting lakes, which will
be integrated into development projects, will more easily function
as viable lakes. According to St. Johns River Water Management
District staff, lake depths below 12' can result in oxygen depleted
"dead zones" at lake bottoms. Such oxygen depletion can be
addressed by aeration and circulation techniques; however, those
techniques can require a high degree of maintenance. Therefore,
the 12' depth limitation serves the purpose of ensuring that the
resulting lake will function well without a high degree of
maintenance by project residents or owners. It should be noted
that PSAC members unanimously agreed that the current 12'
limitation should be retained since exceeding the 12' depth is not
necessary to provide for stormwater management.
*Alternatives to the 2 Month and 12' Depth Limitations
Planning staff's position is that the existing 12' lake depth is
justified for the reasons previously described. It is also staff's
opinion that the current 2 month limitation is also justified, but
that extending that timeframe for certain large projects could also
be justified.
There are numerous alternatives to the current 2 month time limit,
including alternatives that would allow the type of mining activity
proposed by Mr. Luethje. Six alternatives reviewed and discussed
by the PSAC are contained in the attached table (see attachment
#4).
In staff's opinion, the two alternatives that would limit off-site
hauling to less than 12 months are justifiable. Alternative 1,
which would allow minor extensions to the 2 month limit due to
weather delays, could be justified in that the total number of
mining operation days would remain the same and a limited degree of
flexibility could be given to account for weather-related delays or
"down-time". Alternative 5, which would allow developers of large
projects an opportunity to haul fill off-site for more than 2
months but less than 12 months, could be justified as a compromise
that allows developers of larger projects to justify, based upon
stormwater and/or environmental requirements, a longer period of
time to remove excess fill* material from a project site.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not be acceptable since each would
expose surrounding property owners to unmitigated mining operations
for significant periods of time (12-24 months). Alternative 6
11 �po� 96 5,97
November 14, 1995 pAu
BOOK 96 PAE 5,9
would require buffering; however, such buffering may not be
feasible or even desirable at the end of a project where new
residences could be buffered from normally desirable lake -front
views. Therefore, staff could support the type of changes
described in alternatives 1 or 5.
At its October 19, 1995 meeting, the PSAC discussed, at length,
various options for developers to request timeframes in excess of
2 months to excavate and remove fill from a development site. The
PSAC settled on a compromise motion to recommend keeping the 2
month limitation in place but allow a special, alternative permit
process that:
1. Could be used by applicants who could justify (for
environmental or stormwater reasons) an extended period.of
time for hauling material from a particular development site.
2. Would allow an initial 4 month period for off-site hauling
with the possibility of a 6 month extension, if warranted.
The total maximum time for off-site hauling would be 10
months.
3. All other."incidental to construction" criteria would apply,
including the 12' maximum lake depth limitation. No special
buffering or setback criteria would apply.
This compromise motion is consistent with alternative 5 and is
justifiable for reasons previously described.
•Timeframes for Long -Term Commercial Mines
The current Chapter 934 LDRs require timeframes to be established
for all long-term commercial --mining operations. However, in
practice, the county has essentially acknowledged timeframes
proposed by applicants and has extended the timeframes of
operations via annual mining permits. The existing LDRs contain no
specific guidelines for timeframes.
In its survey of other counties, staff found that a majority have
no definitive time limits on long-term commercial mining operations
(Brevard, Collier, Palm Beach, Volusia). The other surveyed
counties have various time limits, all of which can be extended by
county approval (Martin, Sarasota, St. Lucie). Martin County
imposes a 3 year time limit which can be extended. St. Lucie
County imposes a 6 year time limit for mines under 20 acres in size
and a 20 year limit for larger mines; both limits can be extended.
Sarasota County imposes time limits that correspond to the quantity
of material to be removed, as follows:
Less than 10,000 cubic yards.................................1 year
10,000 - 99,999 cubic yards.................................2 years
100,000 - 500,000 cubic yards...............................5 years
over 500,000 cubic yards...................................10 years
Note: commercial mining operations in Indian River County usually
exceed 500,000 cubic yards of material removed over the life of the
mine. For example, an 11 acre excavation pit with an average depth
(below ground level) of 10' would yield approximately 532,400 cubic
yards.
Sarasota County's approach of setting specific timeframes based on
the amount of material to be removed is reasonable in staff 's
opinion. In addition to these timeframes, a 6 month reclamation
and restoration deadline could be established. For example; a
600,000 cubic yard mine would need to be closed -down at the end of
10 years, and at the end of 10 years and 6 months, the site would
need to be reclaimed and restored. Such restoration generally
includes: final grading, grassing slopes, and establishing littoral
12
November 14, 1995
zones. Finally, the county could allow for extensions that
correspond to the period(s) of time a mine was inactive due to
market conditions, such as during an economic recession when fill
material for new development is not marketable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the PSAC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
direct staff to initiate changes to current county mining
regulations to:
1. Establish a special,' alternate permitting process for certain
incidental to construction mining operations, that:
a. Could be used by applicants who could justify (for
environmental or stormwater reasons) an extended period
of time for hauling material from .a particular
development site.
b. Would allow an initial 4 month period for off-site
hauling with the possibility of a 6 month extension, if
warranted. The total maximum time for off-site hauling
would be 10 months.
C. All other "incidental to construction" criteria would
apply, including the 12' maximum lake depth limitation.
No special buffering or setback criteria would apply.
2. Establish specific mining operation completion and restoration
timeframes, as follows:_ __
a. Establish specific timeframes, based upon quantity of
material removed, as follows:
Less than 10,000 cubic yards ....... 1 year
10,000 - 99,999 cubic yards ........ 2 years
100,000 - 500,000 cubic yards ...... 5 years
over 500,000 cubic yards .......... 10 years
b. Establish a 6 month "post -excavation activity" timeframe
for site restoration.
C. Provide for timeframe extensions based upon inactive time
periods due to market conditions, such as periods of
economic recession.
1 3 BOOK 96 PAGE
November 14, 1995
BOOK PAU
Commissioner Eggert understood that Item #2 relates
specifically to commercial mining.
Chairman Macht asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
Dean Luethje, engineer with Carter & Associates, representing
Bent Pine Golf Club, appreciated the time spent on this matter by
the Board, staff, and the Professional Services Advisory Committee.
He explained that approximately 5% of the 530 -acre Bent Pine
project is lakes, and the project is 5-10o short of the required
stormwater retention area. They have agreed to yield to the 12 -ft.
depth and they like the recommendation for the 10 -month time frame.
Mr. Luethje stated that he got the feeling at the PSAC meeting that
no one really objected to their project.
Commissioner Eggert wondered if the 10 -month time frame is
realistic, and Chairman Macht asked if they could come back for
another 4 months and another 6 -month extension.
Planning Director Stan Boling stated that it would be a one
shot thing.
Mr. Luethje stated that they probably could dig the lake in 10
months, but they would like more time because this is such a large
project. They understand, however, that the rules have to apply to
all projects.
Commissioner Tippin felt it should be 4 months and 6 months up
until a project exceeds 350 acres.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board stipulate that
after the first 6 -month extension, there would be
potential for another 4 -month extension for projects
over 350 acres.
Under discussion, Bud Jenkins, native of Indian River County,
urged the Board to tell the man to go get a mining permit. He knew
of a case that was turned down because of the impact to roads and
neighbors complaining, and that was a commercial mine. Mr. Jenkins
emphasized that a lot of people are in the mining business and
shouldn't be put down because they worked hard for everything they
got. He believed in fairness and giving everybody a chance, but
urged the Board not to do this because it is wrong. Let Mr.
Luethje get a commercial mining permit and comply with those rules.
14
November 14, 1995
Mr. Jenkins stressed that this project is really a 350 acre mining
operation. In conclusion, he urged the Board to treat everyone
fairly.
Commissioner Tippin noted that he has known Mr. Jenkins for
years and years and believed that what he says goes a long way. He
asked Director Keating what the biggest drawback would be for Mr.
Luethje to get a commercial mining permit, and Director Keating
explained that biggest drawback is that the property is zoned
residential.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Adams understood that all of this goes back to
the PSAC, and Director Keating advised that it will go to the PSAC,
the P&Z, and to the Board at the two LDR public hearings.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the remainder of staff's recommendation.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - PROJECT CONSULTANUENGINEER -
COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/95:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: November 7, 1995
SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for a Project Consultant/Engineer for a Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD)/Records Management System
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The 9-1-1 Central Communications Center at the Sheriff's Office is
using a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system which was developed in
the early 19801s. The software development for the system was
_coordinated by the St. Louis County, Missouri, Police Department
15
November 14, 1995
BOOK 96 Ru 591
Boa 96 PAA 592
using specifications and funds from a consortium of eleven
different agencies which included Indian River County. At this
time Indian River County is the only remaining agency using this
outdated software technology.
There are some deficiencies in the consortium software that have
never been eliminated, and the system is basic at best. The
software developer is not interested in improving the existing CAD
system inasmuch as Indian River County is the only user, and- the
County does not have access to the source codes for further
software development since the codes are owned by another entity.
The current Records Management -System at the Sheriff's Office
consists of several applications that the agency has attempted to
integrate over the years, primarily CARE (Computer Assisted Report
Entry) and Master Name Index. There is no integrated CAD/records
system supporting the Fire or EMS providers in the County.
The CARE system was also written by the St. Louis County, Missouri,
Police Department in the mid -1980's and was acquired by the
Sheriff's Office in 1988. That software still uses the antiquated
Data General hardware system that is being phased out of use in the
Sheriff's Office. CARE is a call-in reporting system replacing the
officer's hand written reports, but it provides little in the way
of management reporting and no ad-hoc querying or reporting.
Since Indian River County is planning to implement a county -wide
800 MHz Communications System over the next year which will include
upgrading the consoles in the Central Communications Center, staff
submits that the services of a qualified, proven, and unbiased
consulting firm is appropriate and needed to develop an integrated
information management system for the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The products and services requested in the RFP will include
performing a needs assessment to develop alternative approaches for
the design and implementation of a state-of-the-art Computer Aided
Dispatching and Records Management System that will appropriately
serve all system users. The implementation phase'will include
assistance by the contractor in preparing proposals for resources
required to implement the system, vendor selection, and supervision
of installation and testing of the new system.
If the Board approves the release of an RFP for the services noted
above, staff will follow the procedures outlined in the Consultant
Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) and return to the Board with the
firm selection and funding information for the scope of services to
be provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the release and advertisement of the
RFP for a Project Consultant/Engineer to provide a Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD)/Records Management System for Indian River County.
November 14, 1995
16
Commissioner Tippin had hoped that we could move forward
sometime soon without having to hire consultants, and Chairman
Macht felt we are going to have to consider this a progressive
matter as it goes along. It will have a good effect on our budget.
He anticipated that a presentation will be brought to the Board
soon.
Commissioner Tippin just hoped it is on the horizon while he
is still alive.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the release and advertisement of the RFP for a
Project Consultant/ Engineer to provide a Computer
Aided (CAD) Records Management System for IRC.
FUNDING OF IN-HOUSE TAIL PROGRAM - NEW HORIZONS
14
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/95:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 8, 1995
SUBJECT: NEW HORIZONS IN HOUSE JAIL PROGRAM FUNDING
FROM: Joseph A. Baird C
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the Board meeting of October 24, 1995 New Horizons made a verbal request for the County to
continue the In house Jail Substance Abuse program at a cost of $35,011.00.
The In house Jail Program was initiated utilizing the AntiDrug Abuse Grant funds. The program was
fundal through the Anti -Drug Abuse Grant for 1990/91; 1991/92; 1992/93 and 1994/95. They did
not obtain grant funds through the Anti -Drug Abuse Grant for 1993/94, but they were funded
through the Indian River County Drug Abuse Fund in the amount of $28,000. Under the Anti -Drug
Abuse Grant they are only eligible for four years of grant funding and therefore could not apply in
the 1995/96 fiscal year. New Horizons wrote a letter to the Board of County Commissioners, but
did not complete an agency budget packet and was not funded in the budget process.
i
At the October 24, 1995 Board of County Commissioners meeting, staff was directed to look at the
potential of funding the In house Jail Program through the County's Drug Abuse trust fund for the
1995/96 fiscal year. We have reviewed the cash position of the Drug Abuse trust fund as well as the
17 � Bou 96 F�cE5�3
November 14, 1995
96 pvE59
budgeted revenues and determined that there will only be sufficient money to cover the obligations
already budgeted.
Therefore, the In house Jail Program would have to be funded from the General Fund Reserve for
Contingencies if the Board of County Commissioners wishes to fund this program. In the future, if
New Horizons wants to be funded they need to complete an agency budget packet by the given
deadline and submit it as do other agencies.
OMB Director Joe Baird advised that an alternative to funding
this program from the general fund reserve contingencies would be
from the Sheriff's forfeiture account, but the Sheriff would have
to request it.
Commissioner Adams preferred to fund it from the Sheriff's
forfeiture account, and Director Baird stressed that in the future
New Horizons needs to go through the County's budget process. This
is the second time they have done this. They need to submit an
application.
Chairman Macht believed this should be a funded through
multiple resources.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board approve funding
in the amount of $35,011 from the Sheriff's
forfeiture fund, conditioned on his approval.
Nollie Robinson, director of criminal justice services at New
Horizons, noted that this is a worthwhile program and the cost is
small compared to the benefits received.
Commissioner Adams questioned the $1,250 travel expenses, and
Mr. Robinson explained that those travel costs are for Aftercare
trips to and from Indian River County.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion carried unanimously.
Dale McAndrews from the Substance Abuse Council introduced
their new business manager, Cory Westbrook.
18
November 14, 1995
66TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - METCALFE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THRoum James W. Davis, P.E. 9
Public Works Director
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA -1,
County Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: 66th Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition; Parcel #19-33-39-
0100-10001.0 --
DATE: November 6, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Two additional right-of-way parcels are required on the west side
of 66th Avenue for the paving improvement project.
The property owner has executed a contract to sell the grove
property right-of-way t9 the county for $10,135.00. The right-of-
way parcel is 20' x 1,0041 or 26,081 square feet (.60 acre). The
purchase price is $16,892 per acre, which is the willing price the
other parcel owner has also agreed to. Although the price per acre
is the upper limit of value, :the county has recently purchased
grove properties on 1st Street SW at $.40 per square foot and on
58th Avenue in a range from $11,000 to $16,000 per acre. The
contract price is still less than additional costs for appraisal
fees, attorneys fees and Emminent Domain to acquire the necessary
additional right.of-way.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the
$10,135.00 contract and authorize the Chairman to execute the
contract.
FUNDING
Funding to be from Account No. 109-214-541-
067,174.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of right-of-way from Virginia L.
Metcalfe in the amount of $10,135, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
19 BOOK 96 PA�,E ��
November 14, 1995
Fp�_ I
BOOB( 96 P'A ".E
58TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - PARCEL 124 - SILVA
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. or"",
Public Works Director
AND
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager r1
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA M �h.
County Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: 58th Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition;
Rivera Estates, Lot 1 and 2, Block 2
DATE: November 6, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
parcel #124,
Additional right-of-way is required on 58th Avenue for the paving
improvement project from SR 60 to 26th Street.
The property owner has executed a contract to deed the right-of-way
to the county for a selling price of $10,000 and the county to
construct a four foot high concrete wall. The contract price is
broken down as follows:
LAND, 15' x 140' (2,100 sq.ft.) $ 3,000.00
Approx. 10% depreciation attributable
to severance damage (yard & building) $ 7.000.00.
TOTAL: $10,000.00
There are no appraisal fees or attorneys fees. The cost to
purchase by Eminent Domain would-be more than the contract price
and the settlement is equitable in lieu of condemnation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the
$10,000.00 purchase, and authorize the Chairman to execute the
contract. _
FUNDING
Funding to be from Account No. 315-214-541-066.12.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
purchase of Parcel #124 from Victor H. and Ruth M.
Silva in the amount of $10,000, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
November 14, 1995
20
� � r
CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/95:
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTO OF UT T SERVICES
PREPARED WILLI F. MCC
AND'STAFFED CAPIT 'CTS ENGINEER
BY: DE T OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2 MGD
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -95 -23 -DC
On October 3, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the selection of and negotiations with the
firm of Camp Dressser and McKee, Inc., to provide design and
construction services for the above -referenced project. (See
attached agenda item and minutes..) The Utilities Department staff
has concluded negotiations with Camp Dresser and, McKee and is
prepared to proceed with the project.
ANALYSIS
The projected construction cost of this project is approximately
$7,000,000.00. The negotiated.engineering fees are as follows:
A) Services within typical fee schedule (Farmers Home
Administration)
*
3.
Site Plan
$ 18,000.00
*
4.
Design Services
268,000.00
*
5.
Bidding Services
14,000.00
*
6.
Engineering (Construction)
211,000.00
*
7.
Project Representation
52.000.00
Total
$563,000.00
B) Services outside typical fee schedule
structure
*
1.
Preliminary (Engineer's Report)
$ 21,700.00
*
2.
Permitting
30,000.00
*
8.
Subconsultants --
19,500.00
*
9.
Contingency **
15.000.00
Total $ 86,200.00
* Item numbers per contract designation
** To be authorized by the Utilities Department Director
should this expenditure be required for unforseen
permit issues, etc.
November 14, 1995 21 Boa6
BOOK 9
The total fees for items within a typical fee curve structure are
$563,000.00. In a comparison with other projects of this nature,
we find the fees to be well within acceptable limits. Given the
antiquated nature of the schedule. (i.e., FHA) pricing structure and
current market conditions, the Utilities Department is extremely
pleased -with the negotiated fee structure between the Engineer and
the County.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners -approve the proposed contract with
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. in
the amount of $649,200, as set out in staff's
recommendation.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONTENUING SERVICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/95:
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATQR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UT CES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M ^ N
AND STAFFED CAPITAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR F ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONTINUING SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -94 -08 -CO
BACKGROUND
On November 24, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved the selection of Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. as the consultants for
our Wastewater Treatment Plant continuing services work. (See attached•
agenda item and minutes.) The authorization for the work for the second year
has been completed along with the submittal of the year end annual report.
The Utilities Department is satisfied with the level of service we have
received from CDM and wish to renew their contract for an additional year.
November 14, 1995 22
ANALYSIS
In this contract, we have maintained the inspection on a quarterly basis with
the same detail level of the reporting and cost. In the previous year, we
expended $4,962.00 of the emergency engineering services and the entire
contract amount allocated for quarterly and annual reporting. For details
see attachment "B" of the proposed service contract. The proposed cost for
the services to be performed this year is as follows:
Quarterly and Annual Reporting $23,100.00
Emergency Engineering Services $10,000.00,
Total proposed costs $33,100.00
For details of service costs see attachment "C" of the attached contract.
Funds for this work will be from Account No. 471-218-536-033.13.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the proposed Work Authorization with Camp
Dresser McKee, Inc. as presented.
Commissioner Adams felt it is time to get fresh faces,
emphasizing that she is real tired of seeing the same firms getting
the same contracts.
Bill McCain, capital projects engineer, explained that the
original contract was set up for 4 years and this is the last of
the fourth year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. in the
amount set out in staff's recommendation.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NORTH U.S. #1 — SEBASTIAN WATERFRONT WATER PROTECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 & RETAINAGE REDUCTION — SPEEGLE
CONSTRUCTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/95:
23 BOOS 96
November 14 1995 Ara 599,
BOOK 96 PAGE
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF LIT;L TYSERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAI
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTSNGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH IIS 1 - SEBASTIAN WATERFRONT WATER PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 AND RETAINAGE REDUCTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -30 -DS
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 1995, Change Order No. 3 with Speegle Construction
was approved in the amount of $577,120.00 to extend water service
through the south end of Sebastian along Indian River Drive. (See
attached agenda item and minutes.). On March 14, 1995, Change Order
No. 4 was approved, which paid the contractor for oversizing the
water main to the County's Master -planned size. (See attached
agenda item and minutes.) The County is now requesting approval of
a final reconciliation change order and retainage reduction for
line oversizing.
ANALYSIS
The cost increase to the County for this change order is
$20,017.87. However, the County's North US 1 project is being
finaled with an overall cost below the awarded contract amount.,
Also, since the project is so near completion, the contractor has
requested a reduction in retainage from 10% to 5%. (See letter of
recommendation from Engineer.)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Change Order No. 6 and also the retainage reduction to 51% *as
reflected in the attached copy of Pay Request No. 5.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 6 with Speegle Construction and
reduced retainage reduction to 5% as recommended by
staff .
CHANGE ORDER #6 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
24
November 14, 1995
DISCUSSION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR"S SALARY
The Board reviewed the following information:
Suggested terms for BCC consideration of County Administrator pay
If automatic
1. The County Administrator's salary shall be adjusted by the
general increase percentage given by the Board of County
Commissioners to department heads and non-union represented
employees, and on the same effective date.
If not automatic
2. The County Administrator's salary shall be subject to the Pay
Progression System in the Administrative Policy, with each
wage change submitted for Board of County Commissioners
consideration.
3. In September of each year the Board of County Commissioners
shall evaluate the performance of the County Administrator and
consider an annual pay increase which, if approved, becomes
effective on the first pay -period of the new fiscal year.
N TE•
1. Provides the same as currently in place for the County
Attorney. Eligible for a general wage increase only.
2. Provides for a general wage increase plus a pay progression
increase.
3. Only commits the Board of County Commissioners to evaluate the
performance of the County Administrator and consider an
increase. Agrees with the initial contract when the County
Administrator was hired.
Chairman Macht noted that this matter was brought to his
attention by the Personnel Director who said that it had slipped
by. Chairman Macht felt the fact that we do not do any type of
evaluation is unfair to the County Administrator, the County
Attorney, and the taxpayers.
Commissioner Eggert recalled that up until the year
Administrator Chandler suggested that he take the same pay increase
received by the rest of the County employees, we did review his
performance each year. She felt we should continue to do so.
Personnel Director Jack Price advised that there is a need to
deal with the salary for the coming year.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that we also have a contract
with the County Attorney, but Attorney Vitunac interjected that it
doesn't include an evaluation.
After further discussion, CONSENSUS was reached for formal
evaluation of the County Administrator by the Chairman with salary
November 14, 1995 25 BOOK 96 pa F 601
BOOK 96 PALE �A
recommendation to be brought back to the Board and to defer the
matter of the County Attorney's contract until the Board has hadr
a chance to review it.
CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING TO LETTER SIZE PAPER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/27/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
DATE: October 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Change in size of paper from 8 1/2" X 14" to
8 1/2" X 11".
The State of Florida has converted its records to 8 1/2" x 11"
instead of the legal size of 8 1/2" x 14". This is very cost
effective, and takes up less storage space. I think the County
should give serious consideration -to converting its records to save
money and space.
CONSENSUS was "No".
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Macht announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene as the District Board of Commissioners of
the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being
prepared separately.
COMMERCIAL BINGO HALLS
Chairman Macht noted that any time you have commercial
gambling operations with a lot of money flooding through, the
sharpies come in and a lot of bad things -happen to the community.
He was glad the Board took the action it did on the bingo
ordinance.
No action taken.
26
November 14, 1995
SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TEFRA BONDS - ESCAMBIA
COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously scheduled a
public hearing on December 5, 1995 to consider TEFRA
bonds, Escambia County Housing Finance Authority.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:49 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. Barton, Clerk Kenneth R. Mcht, Chairman
Minutes approved
November 14, 1995
27
Booz 96 PATE 603
I