HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/1996� MINUTPWATTACHED �
BOARD OF OOUNTV COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9,1996
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
C-01 IN'TTY COMMSSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Richard N. Bird (District 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Kenneth R Macht (District 3)
John W. Tippin _ (District 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1.
2. INVOCATION Rev. Elinor. O'Malley
Science of Mind Center
1 1 YY � � � �.II : ! ul � �► Ytl �i
13-A-1 Waiving landfill fees for marsh cleanup.
13-A-2 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
13-A-3 Suggestion Box,
1 1) � r1r. r. a j ZRINN I V W, ,
None
Regular Meeting of December 5, 1995
1 ► y �Y SII
A. Semi -Annual Bond Review
.+atoll Dz.-c-a-'fa bpi 20, 1995) 1
B. Approval of Out -of -County Travel for County
Commissioners to Attend FAC, 1996 Legisla-
tion
egislation Day, April 10 2
C. Bid Award #6019 - Blue Cypress Restroom Bldg.
(memorandum dated December 27,1995) 3-4
97 s-6
F",-
9 y so .,g
7.
CONSENT
A =F.NDA (ont' )
PAC,E
D.
Developer's Agreement to Construct One South-
bound Right Tum Lane and Related Improvements
Along 58th Ave.
(memorandum dated January 3, 1996)
5-7
E.
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009
. (memorandum dated January 2, 1996)
8-16
F.
Sebastian Riverfront Utilities Project
(memorandum dated January 3, 19.96)
17-20
8.
G01YERNMENTAT.
AGENCIES
_
None
9:05 A.M. 9.
P-11BIJEC
ITEMS'.
A.
RUBT IC HEARINGS
None
B.
PUIBUC DISCI ION MS
.
Review of Criteria for Mobile Pet Vaccination
Services & Other Temporary Use Permits
(memorandum dated January 2, 1996)
21-38
10.
None
11.
DEPAR31WENTAT-,
MATTERS
A.
Commnnit- Deveionment
Default of Frank & Tiphany Marotta's SHIP Loan
II'
(memorandum dated January 2, 1996)
39-43
B.
Emergeicv
None
C,
General Services
None
D.
Leignre Servicm
None
E.
Office of Management and Bn a
None
11. nEPARTMENTAT, MATTERS (ont'd )•
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
None
H. Utilities
1. West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Change Order #3
(memorandum dated December 19, 1995)
2. West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion, Engineering Work Authorization
Amendment
(memorandum dated December 29, 1995)
3. Wetland Project, Change Order # 3A & 3B
(memorandum dated January 3, 1996)
12. COUNTY ArrogNFY
None
13. COM1yIIscIO SITE
A. Chimirmnn Fran H- Ad�mq
C. Commissioner Richard M R*rd
D.
Crosswalk - New Courthouse ..
(deferred from meeting of 1/2/96)
E. Comtniaaloner John W T min
PAGE
44-50
51-56
57-64
9`2 so- &'
�
97 so_c
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSIBO RDS PAGE
A. FRmeromey S-•v:ees Mstriet
None
B. Solid Waste D'seocal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADMIUMRNNrFivT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAYBE 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 N EET NG MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT TYAcT AR unTTRc TAT AnvA'KTrM nV ?,A=V-rrwrr_
--- -� - • •• o .sari i avat vL- JLV&La i 111\ V.
Meeting broad=t live on:
TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast S: 00 p.m. Th:osday through 5.00 p.m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
INDEX TO MINUTES
January 9, 1996
Regular Meeting of Board of County Commissioners
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CONSENT AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Semi -Annual Bond Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Approval of Out -of County Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Award Bid #6019 - Blue Cypress Restroom Bldg. . . . . . 3
D. Developer's Agreement - 58th Avenue Improvements -
Hatfield Development Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
E. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009 - Salary Increases 6
F. Sebastian Riverfront Utilities Project . . . . . . . . . 15
REVIEW OF CRITERIA FOR MOBILE PET VACCINATION
SERVICES AND OTHER TEMPORARY USE PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
DEFAULT OF SHIP LOAN - FRANK & TIPHANY MAROTTA . . . . . . . . . 24
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - CHANGE ORDER #3 -
J. J. KIRLIN, INC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXTENSION - WORK AUTH. AMENDMENT - MALCOLM PIRNIE . . . . . . . . 31
WETLANDS PROJECT - WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT -
CHANGE ORDER #3A & #3B - COASTAL CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . 33
WAIVING LANDFILL FEES FOR MARSH CLEANUP OF ENTIRE
ST. JOHNS WATER BASIN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
SUGGESTION BOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
COURTHOUSE CROSS -WALK -- Deferred from Meeting of 1/9/96 . . . . 39
Tuesday, January 9, 1996
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, January 9, 1996,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K.
Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Kenneth R. Macht; 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. Rev. Elinor
O'Malley gave the invocation, and Commissioner Eggert led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Adams requested the following additions:
13-A-1 Waiving landfill fees for marsh cleanup.
13-A-2 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
13-A-3 Suggestion Box
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added the
above items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 1995. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 12/5/95, as
written.
JANUARY 9, 1996 1 BOOK 97 F'A;r 50 —D
L -dj
boox 97 51
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Adams requested that Item C be removed for
discussion.
A. Semi -Annual Bond Review
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/28/95:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THRU: Donna Anderson, Acting Personnel Director'.
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manageprr
DATE: 28 December 1995
SUBJECT: Semi -Annual Bond Review
9
Please consider this item for the Board of County Commissioners' January -A -;1996,
consent agenda.
Background
Chapter 137.05, Florida Statutes, requires the. Board of County Commissioners to review
the bonds of County officers twice annually. The Board last reviewed the bonds on June
13, 1995.
Analysis
We have reviewed copies of the bond for each Commissioner and Constitutional Officer
and, upon review, found them to be sufficient in keeping with the statutory requirements. A
copy of each bond is on file in the County Commission office.
Recommendation
Following review, no further action is required of the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the status of the Semi -Annual Bond Review as
submitted by Risk Manager Beth Jordan.
COPIES OF BONDS ARE ON FILE IN OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
B. Approval of Out -of County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for County Commissioners to
attend FACo 1996 Legislative Day in Tallahassee on
Wednesday, April 10, 1996.
2
JANUARY 9, 1996
C. Award Bid #6019 - Blue Cypress Restroom Bldg.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/27/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: H.T. "Sonny" Dean
General Services Direct
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell
Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Bid No. 6019
Project Name Blue Cypress Lake Restroom Building,- IRC Project No. 9533
JUA M: December 27, 1995
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: December 6. 1995
Specifications Obtained by: Six 6 Vendors
Replies:
Four ka Vendors -
BID TABULATION
UNIT PRICE
Tim Wright Construction
1177 18th Place
$ 78,895.00
Vero Beach, Fl.
Hearndon Construction, Inc.
8145 Evernia Street, Unit One
$ 69,797.00
Micco, Fl. 32976
Bill Bryant, Inc.
1550 Old Dixie Highway
$ 99,892.00
Vero Beach,Fl. 32960
Driveways Inc.
3300 Bobbi Lane
$96,185.00
Titusville, FL. 32780
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $ 69.797.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: FBIP Grant No. B96004
BUDGETED AMOUNT: Account No. ftl-210-572-066.51 ..$45,000
Bid came in over budget and Staff is requesting additional funds in the amount of $25,000, from
the State to cover the difference.
JANUARY 9, 1996
Boos 97 PrE 5
_I
Booz 97 PnE 53
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1. The Board award the contract to Hearndon Construction, Inc. and
direct the Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners. Staff further recommends that the Board direct that all bonds,
insurance certificates and other formalities as required by the terms of the contract
and bid documents be submitted and approved by the appropriate staff departments
responsible, including the Attorney's office prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed
by the Department of Public Works. Direct staff to request an additional $25,000
allocation from the Florida Boating Improvement Fund. The County's current
unobligated balance is approximately $60,000. If additional grant funds are not
available, the difference would come from General Fund Contingencies.
Alternative No. 2 The Board reject the bids and not award the contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. with the bid being awarded to Hearndon Construction, Inc.,
Micco, Florida as the lowest, most responsive bidder meeting specifications for construction of
Blue Cypress Restroom Building. The Contract Agreement is now being presented for approval and
execution by the Chairman and attesting by the Clerk. We have had four (4) Contract Agreements
executed in the original by the proposed contractor, Hearndon Construction, Inc.. Staff will work
closely with Risk Management and the Attorney's Office in getting those offices' approval of the
insurance certificates and bonds prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed.
In answer to Chairman Adams' inquiry, Administrator Chandler
advised that our chances are good for receiving $25,000 from the
State to cover the difference.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #6019 to Hearndon Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $69,797, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT AGREEMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
4
JANUARY 9, 1996
D. Developer's Agreement - 58th Avenue Improvements - Hatfield
Development Co.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/3/96:
im
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Direct((
Developer's Agreement to Construct One Southbound Right -Turn Lane and
Related Improvements Along 58th Avenue
January 3, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Hatfield Development Company, Inc will be developing a Target Retail Store in the
Indian River Square Shopping Center located north of SR60 west of 58th Avenue.
the Developer has agreed to construct a Southbound right turn lane and other
related improvements along Kings Highway.- The Developer will fund 100% of the
cost of the right turn lane and other related improvements.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSI
The following alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the Developer's Agreement and authorize the Chairman's
signature. No funding will be required by the County.
Alternative No. 2
Not approve the agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended. The Project will be funded 1000/6 by the
Developer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Developer's Agreement with Hatfield Development
Co., as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
F.'t,�
JANUARY 9, 1996 5 BOOK 97 54
L__ I
BOOK 97 P,�u 55
E. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009 - Salary Increases
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/2/96:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 2, 1996
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 009 -CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair,(
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for 1995/96 salary raises as
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The installation of sewer lines at Fleet Management and Road and.Bridge complex on
41st Street was approved in FY 1993/94. This entry appropriates the funding for Road
and Bridge expense.
3. This entry appropriates the funding for the maintenance agreement on the Dolman Video
System at the Courthouse. The warranty expired November 30, 1995.
4. An additional $15,000 was approved by the BCC at their September 19, 1995 meeting
to increase the County's contnbufion to the Council on Aging budget. These additional
funds were needed to maximize the amount of grant funds available to the Council.
5. The owner's of Copeland's Landing put up a Letter of Credit in the amount of $44,200
for improvements. The Letter of Credit was forfeited and the County is now making the
improvements. This entry allocates the Letter of Credit forfeiture.
6. The BCC approved to accept the FP & L Grant in the amount of $64,700. This is $533
more than was budgeted for FY 1995/96. The attached entry allocates the additional
funds.
7. At the February 7, 1995 meeting of the BCC, the board approved to accept the grant
agreements to replace the Wabasso Causeway and the Dale Wunbrow boat ramps. This
entry appropriates the funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment
009.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 009, as recommended by OMB Director
Joe Baird.
JANUARY 9, 1996
i
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM:. Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 009
DATE: January 2. 1996
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
See Attached
2.
EXPENSE
TRANSPORTATION FUND /Reserve for
Contingency
111-199-581-099.91
$0
$30,000
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Other
Improvements Except Buildings
111-214-541-066.39
$30,000
$0
3.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contingency
001499-581-099.91
$0
$13,500
GENERAL FUND/Court Reporter/
Maintenance Office Equipment
001-905-516-034.63
$13,500
$0
4.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Council on Aging -
001-110-564-088.32
$15,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$15,000
5.
REVENUE
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Reimbursements
111-000-369-040.00
$44,200
$0
EXPENSE
TRANSPORTATION FUND/
Roads and Bridges -Construction in Progress
111-214-541-066.51
$44,200
$0
6.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/Disaster Preparedness
001-000-342-041.00
$533
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/FPL Grant/Other
Operating Expense
001-237-525-035.29
$533
$0
7.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/DEP-Dale Wimbrow
Boat Ramp
001-000-334-724.00
$80,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/DEP-Wabasso Causeway
001-000-334-725.00
$120,000
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND /Parks/Other
Improvements- Except Buildings
001-210-572-066.39
1 $200,000
1 $0
JANUARY 9, 1996
' Boor 97 PAJF 56
SALARY BUDGET AMENDMENT -
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
GENERAL Ffi11T1)
BOARD OF COUNTY CONIIVEMONERS
Executive Salaries 001-101-511 -011-11
Regular Salaries -011-12
Social Security -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -01244
Medicaid -012-17
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
$2,020
Regular Salaries 001-102-514
-011-12
Other Salaries
-011-13
Social Security
-012-11
Retirement
-012-12
Life Insurance
-012-13
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
Medicaid
-012-17
RECREATION
Regular Salaries
- Other Salaries
Social Security
Retirement
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Medicaid
MAIN LIBRARY
Regular Salaries
Other Salaries
xetuement
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Medicaid
NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY
Regular Salaries
Other Salaries
Ketuement
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Medicaid
SOIL CONSERVATION
Social
ltetuement
Life Irmnance
Worker's Compensation
Medicaid
LAW LIBRARY
Social Security
Retirement
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Medicaid
001-108-572
001-109-571
001-112-571
-011-12
-011-13
-012-11
-012-12
-012-13
-012-14
-012-17
-011-12
-011-13
-012-11
-012-12
-012-13
-012-14
-012-17
-011-12
-011-13
-012-11
-012-12
-012-13
-012-14
-012-17
INCREASE
650
$7,141
$468
$1,444
$25
$21
$109
$16,135
$1,157
$1,072
$3,054
$53
$48
$251
$13,495
$1,080
$904
$2,574
$44
$506
$211
$25,362
$1,959
$1,694
$4,825
$84
$76
$396
$14,135
$940
$935
$2,662
$47
$42
$219
80'a 97 P,iu 57
DECREASE
001-118-537 -011-12
$2,020
-012-11
$125
-012-12
$357
-012-13
$6
-012-14
$6
-012-17
$29
001-119-516
JANUARY 9, 1996
-011-12
-012-11
-012-12
-012-13
-012-14
-012-17
8
$1,405
$87
$248
$6
$4
$20
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Regular Salaries
001-201-512 -011-12
$3,567
Social Security
-012-11
$221
Retirement
-012-12
$764
Life Insurance
-012-13
$12
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$10
Medicaid
-012-17
$52
PERSONNEL
Regular Salaries
001-203-513 -011-12
INCREASE DECREASE
GENERAL SERVICES
-012-11
$466
Regular Salaries
001-202-513 -011-12
$4,882
Social Security
-012-11
$303
Retirement
-012-12
$862
Life insurance
-012-13
$16
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$14
Medicaid
-012-17
$71
PERSONNEL
Regular Salaries
001-203-513 -011-12
$7,523
Social Security
-012-11
$466
Retirement
-012-12
$1,329
Life Insurance
-012-13
$25
Worker`s Compensation
-012-14
$21
Medicaid
-012-17
$109
VETERAN'S SERVICES
Regular Salaries
001-206-553 -011-12
$5,156
Social Security
-012-11
$320
Retirement
-012-12
$911
Life Insurance
-012-13
$19
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$14
Medicaid
-012-17
$75
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Regular Salaries
001-208-525 -011-12
$6,503
Social Security
-012-11
$403
Retirement
-012-12
$1,148
Life Insurance
-012-13
$22
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$18
Medicaid
-012-17
$94
PARKS
Regular Salaries
001-210-572 -011-12
$23,432
Social Security
-012-11
$1,453
Retirement
-012-12
$4,138
Life Insurance
-012-13
$72
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$813
Medicaid
-012-17
$340
VITA -"T,451
Regular Salaries 001-211-564
-011-12
$3,603
Social Security
-012-11
$223
Retirement
-012-12
$636
Life Insurance
-012-13
$12
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$10
Medicaid
-012-17
$52
AG EXTENSION
Regular Salaries 001-212-537
-011-12
$3,002
Social Security
-012-11
$186
Retirement
-012-12
$530
Life Insurance
-012-13
$9
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$8
Medicaid
-012-17
$44
9
JANUARY 9, 1996
Boa 97 Fa :F
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Regular Salaries
001-229-513 -011-12
BOOK 9; r, cn 59
YOUTH GUIDANCE
Regi. 001-213-523
-011-12
$2,989
Security
-012-11
$185
Social
Retirement
-012-12
$528
Life Insurance
-012-13
$9
$8
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$43
Medicaid
-012-17
$33
PURCHASING
Salaries 001-216-513
-011-12
$5,014
Regular
Social Security
-012-11
$311
Retirement
-012-12
$885
Life Insurance
-012-13
$16
$14
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$73
Medicaid
-012-17
,
Medicaid
-099.11
INCREASE DECREASE
BUILDING AND GROUNDS
Regular Salaries 001-220-519
-011-12
$23,818
Social Security
-012-11
$1,477
Retirement
-012-12
$4,206
Life Insurance
-012-13
$72
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$869
Medicaid
-012-17
$345
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Regular Salaries
001-229-513 -011-12
$7,771
Social Security
-012-11
$482
Retirement
-012-12
$1,372
Life Durance
-012-13
$25
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$22
Medicaid
-012-17
$113
ANIMAL CONTROL
-012-17
$33
Regular Salaries
001-250-562 -011-12
$6,642
Social Security
-012-11
$412
Retirement
-012-12
$1,173
Life Insurance
-012-13
$19
- Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$247
Medicaid
-012-17
$96
Regular Salaries
001-251-519 -011-12
$1,468
Other Salaries
-011-13
$812
Social Security
-012-11
$141
Retirement
-012-12
$403
Life Insurance
-012-13
$6
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$6
Medicaid
-012-17
$33
PROPERTY APPRAISER
Regular Salaries 001-500-586
-099.06
$18,708
Social Security
-099.06
$1,160
Retirement
-099.06
$3,304
Life Insurance
-099.06
$58
Worker's Compensation
-012.14
$52
Medicaid
-099.06
$271
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
Regular Salaries 001-700-586
-099.11
$9,771
Executive Salaries
-099.11
$255
Social Security
-099.11
$622
Retirement
-099.11
$1,798
Life Insurance
-099.11
$34
Worker's Compensation
-012.14
$28 '
Medicaid
-099.11
$145
10
JANUARY 9, 1996
CIRCUIT COURT
Regular Salaries
001-901-516 -011-12
$1.,082
Social Security
-012-11
$67
Retirement
-012-12
$191
Life Insurance
-012-13
$6
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$3
Medicaid
-012-17
$16
PROBATION
Regular Salaries
001-908-523
-011-12
$5,787
Social security
$1,020
-012-11
$359
Retirement
$32
-012-12
$1,022
Life Insurance
$168
-012-13
$19
Worker's Compensation
-012-13
-012-14
$215
Medicaid
-012-17
$84
Reserve for Salaries
001-199-581
-099-88
$308,037
Cash Forward
001-0-389
-040-00
$19,251
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT
)
INCREASE DECREASE
..T.
NORTH COUNTY RECREATION
$1,444
Regular Salaries
004-108-572
-011-12
$3,318
Other Wages
Social Security
-011-13
$242
Social Security
-012-11
$221
Retirement
$614
-012-12
$629
Life Insurance
-012-13
-012-13
$12
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$124
Medicaid
Medicaid
-012-17
$52
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Reserve for Salaries
Regular Salaries
004204-515
-011-12
$3,049
Social Security
1996
-012-11
$189
Retirement
-012-12
$538
Life Insurance
-012-13
$9
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$9
Medicaid
-012-17
$44
COUNTY PLANNING
Regular Salaries
004-205-515
-011-12
$19,923
Social Security
-012-11
$1,235
Retirement
-012-12
$3,518
Life Insurance
-012-13
$62
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$56
Medicaid
-012-17
$289
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Regular Salaries 004207-524 -011-12
$5,777
Social Security -012-11
$358
Retirement -012-12
$1,020
Life Insurance -012-13
$19
Worker's Compensation -012-14
$32
Medicaid -012-17
$84
FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION
Regular Salaries
004-234-537
-011-12
$950
Social qty
-012-11
$59
Retirement
-012-12
$168
Life Insurance
-012-13
$3
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$3
Medicaid
-012-17
$14
Reserve for Salazies
004-199-591
-099-88
$40,562
Reserve from Contingencies 004199-581
-099-91
$1,444
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Regular Salaries
107-226-554
-011-12
$3,476
Social Security
-012-11
$216
Retirement
-012-12
$614
-
Life ice
-012-13
$12
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$10
Medicaid
-012-17
$50
Reserve for Salaries
107-226-554
-099-88
$4,378
JANUARY 9,
1996
11
Boa 97 P, E 60
I
RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Regular Salaries 108-222-564 -011-12
Social Security -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid -012-17
Reserve for Salaries 108-222-564 -099-88
TRANSPORATION FUND
ROAD AND BRIDGE
Regular Salaries 111-214-541 -011-12
Social Security -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid -012-17
PUBLIC WORKS
Regular Salaries 111-243-519 -011-12
Social Security -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid -012-17
ENGINEERING
111-245-541 -011-12
Regular Salaries
111-244541 -011-12
Social Security
-012-11
Retirement
-012-12
Life Insurance
-012-13
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
Medicaid
-012-17
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Regular Salaries
111-245-541 -011-12
Social Security
-012-11
Retirement
-012-12
Life Insurance
-012-13
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
Medicaid
-012-17
Reserve for Salaries
111-199-581 -099-88
Reserve for Contingencies
111-199-581 -099-91
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT
114-120-522 -011-12
FIRE
Regular Salaries
Other Salaries and Wages
-011-13
Property Appraiser
114-120-522 -099.06
Social Security
-012-11
Retirement
-012-12
Life Insurance
-012-13
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
Medicaid
-012-17
Reserve for Salaries
114-120-522 -099-88
ALS
Regular Salaries
114-253-526 -011-12
Property Appraiser
114-253-526 -099.06
Social Security
-012-11
Retirement
-012-12
Life1nsurance
-012-13
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
Medicaid
-012-17
Reserve for Salaries
114-253-526 -099-88
12
JANUARY 9, 1996
$2,538
$157
$448
$9
$7
$37
BOOK 97 pxu 61
$3,196
INCREASE DECREASE
$81,776
$5,070
$14,442
$256
$2,862
$1,186
$10,136
$628
$1,790
$34
$28
$147
$26,326
$1,632
$4,649
$81
$147
$382
$18,984
$1,177
$3,353
$59
$106
$275
$17,971
$357
$1,916
$1,136
$3,237
$53
$51
$266
$10,092
$572
$626
$1,782
$19
$28
$146
$165,490
$10,036
$24,987
$13,265
COMMUNICATIONS
418-221-572
-011-12
Regular Salaries
120-133-519 -011-12
$736
Social Security
-012-11
$46
Retirement
-012-12
$130
Life Insurance
-012-13
$3
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$2
Medicaid
-012-17
$11
Reserve for Contingencies
120-133-581 -099-91
$673
INCREASE
REFUSE
418-221-572
-011-12
$20,384
Regular Salaries
411-209-534
-011-12
$7,384
Social Security
-012-11
$458
Retirement
-012-12
$1,304
Life Insurance
-012-13
$22
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$673
Medicaid
-012-17
$107
LANDFILL
Regular Salaries
411-217-534
-011-12
$37,551
Social Security
418-232-572
-012-11
$2,328
Retirement
-012-12
$6,632
Life Insurance
-012-13
$119
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$1,866
Medicaid
-012-17
$544
RECYCLING
-012-14
$34
Regular Salaries
411-255-534
-011-12
$17,876
Social Security
-012-11
$1,108
Retirement
418-236-572
-012-12
$3,157
Life Insurance
-012-13
$56
Worker's Compensation
-012-14 _
$888
Medicaid
-012-17
$259
Cash Forward
411-217-534
-099-92
$53
Rr1TVjrK11Tr_Ti
Regular Salaries
418-221-572
-011-12
$20,384
Other Wages
-011-13
$891
Social Security
-012-11
$1,319
Retirement
-012-12
$3,757
Life Insurance
-012-13
$59
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$738
Medicaid
-012-17
$308
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
Regular Salaries
418-232-572
-011-12
$4,612
Other Wages
-011-13
$1,407
Social Security
-012-11
$373
Retire -
-012-12
$1,063
Life Insurance
-012-13
$19
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$34
Medicaid
-012-17
$87
PRO SHOP
Regular Salaries
418-236-572
-011-12
$12,699
Other Wages
-011-13
$6,908
Social Security
-012-11
$1,216
Retirement
-012-12
$3,463
Life Insurance
-012-13
$53
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$680
Medicaid
-012-17
$284
Cash Forward
418-221-581
-099-92
13
JANUARY 9, 1996
$928
DECREASE
$82,332
$60,354
BOOK 97 P�rf, (32
I
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Regular Salaries
Social Security
Retirement
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Medicaid
Reserve for Salaries
441-233-524 -011-12
-012-11
-012-12
-012-13
-012-14
-012-17
441-233-581 -099-88
DEPARTMENT OF UMLUY SERVECES
WASTEWATER
Regular Salaries 471-218-536 -011-12
Social Security -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid -012-17
WATER
Regi Salaries 471-219-536 -011-12
Social qty -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid -012-17
GENERAL
Regi Salaries 471-235-536 -011-12
Social qty -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid . -012-17
SLUDGE FACILITY
Regular Salaries 471-257-536 -011-12
Social Security -012-11
Retirement -012-12
Life Insurance -012-13
Worker's Compensation -012-14
Medicaid -012-17
Reserve for Salaries 471-235-581 -099-88
$18,497
$1,147
$3,267
$56
$104
$268
wK 97 p �.� 63
$23,339
INCREASE DECREASE
$44,065
$2,732
$7,782
$125
$1,340
$639
$55,242
$3,425
$9,756
$165
$1,679
$801
$26,433
$1,639
$4,668
$75
$74
$383
$3,051
$189
$539
$9
$93
$44
$164,948
Regular Salaries
501-242-591
-011-12
$10,329
Social qty
-012-11
$640
Retirement
-012-12
$1,824
Life Insurance
-012-13
$31
Worker's Compensation
-012-14
$317
Medicaid
-012-17
$150
Reserve for Salaries
501-242-581
-099-88
$13,291
RISK MAKAGENUM
Regular Salaries
502-246-513
-011-12
$3,098
Social Security
-012-11
$192
Retirement
-012-12
$550
Life Insurance
-012-13
$12 -
Workees Compensation
-012-14
$9
Mid
-012-17
$45
Reserve for Salaries
502-246-581
-099.88
$3,906
JANUARY 9, 1996
14
_I
L�
F. Sebastian Riverfront Utilities Project
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/3/96:
TO: Board of Country Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 3, 1996
RE: Sebastian Riverfront Utilities Project
Before the County purchased the City of Sebastian utility system, the County
was in the process of constructing an assessment project for the City along
the riverfront. The agreement between the County and the City relating to
that project requires the County to complete the project and deed it over to
the City; however, since the County is now the owner of the Sebastian utility
system, once the City accepts the riverfront project the City.'will:.have to
immediately transfer the project back to the County.
It is the opinion of the Sebastian City Attorney that this procedure is
necessary and County staff has no objections to following the procedure.
Recommended Action: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
Interlocal Agreement between the County and City relating to finalization of
the riverfront project and to execute necessary transfer documents.
CPV/lk
Attachment: Interlocal Agreement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board, unanimously approved
the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Sebastian,
as recommended by County Attorney Charles Vitunac.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
REVIEW OF CRITERIA FOR MOBILE PET VACCINATION
SERVICES AND OTHER TEMPORARY USE PERMITS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/2/96:
15
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK 97 F.
,a
I
Box '97 65
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D2VIAION HEAD CONC NCE:
AW
obe t e g, A
Community Deve opme Director
FROM: Stan Boling 6AICP
Planning Director
DATE: January 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of Criteria for Mobile Pet Vaccination Services
and Other Temporary Use Permits
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of January 9, 1996.
BACKGROUND:
•Board Direction and Consideration
At its August 15, 1995 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
discussed various concerns and issues related to mobile pet
vaccination services. In addition to discussing pet vaccination
.services, the commission expressed some concerns regarding special
sales events allowed in shopping center parking lots and retail
store parking lots via temporary use permits.
At the end of its August 15th discussion on these issues, the Board
directed staff to review these issues and come back to the Board
with recommendations. County planning staff then reviewed current
LDR (land development regulation) allowances for temporary uses in
general and mobile pet vaccination services in particular. In
doing so, planning staff coordinated with the Environmental Health
Department, the County Attorney's Office, the City of Vero Beach
planning department, and the City of Vero Beach attorney's staff.
Planning staff then prepared a report and recommendation to be
considered by the Board at its September 12, 1995 meeting. At the
September 12th meeting, the Board postponed consideration and
discussion of these issues until a time when all interested parties
could participate in the discussion.
Since then, planning staff has contacted the various parties that
are involved or have an interest in these issues. The following
parties confirmed that they can attend a discussion of these issues
at the January 9, 1996 Board of County Commissioners meeting: J.C.
Cannon of Pet Vaccination Services; Environmental Health Director
Mike Galanis; Nancy Errett of Animal Control; Dennis Ragsdale of
the Vero Beach Planning Department; and county planning and legal
staff. Although local veterinarians Dr. Herman and Dr. Scarpinato
have been invited to attend the January 9th meeting, both declined
to commit to attending the meeting. In response to the invitation,
16
JANUARY 9, 1996
7_
Dr. Scarpinato indicated that he felt it
county would keep out mobile vaccination
that his interest in the issue has waned.
was unlikely that the
services and indicated
Despite an apparent lack of interest by two local veterinarians,
based on the Board's previous direction staff has scheduled these
issues for the Board's consideration at its January 9,- 1996
meeting.
•General Characteristics of Temporary Uses
As per the county's regulations, a temporary use is defined as a
use established for a fixed period of time with the intent to
discontinue such use upon a certain expiration date. Under the
LDRs, temporary uses are also uses set-up on a specific site, where
customers or employees are attracted to or brought onto the site.
Many types of temporary uses involve activities conducted outside
of enclosed buildings (e.g. tent meetings, special sales or sports -
related events). As such, temporary uses may involve activities
that, if conducted indoors, would require no special permit review
or approval. For instance, a shopping center or mall could have
vaccination services provided within a tenant unit without any
special permit review or approval by the. planning division.
According to current regulations, such a use- could•be conducted
outside of the shopping center or mall building for a limited time
period if a temporary use permit were issued and various conditions
satisfied.
•Temporary Uses Allowed Under Current LDRs
LDR Chapter 972 sets forth allowances and criteria for all
temporary uses. Certain temporary uses are specifically addressed
and regulated in Chapter 972 by zoning district type (agricultural,
residential, commercial, and industrial). These specifically
listed uses include:
- Model homes
- Temporary construction offices
- Temporary watchman's quarters
- Temporary meeting, recreation or amusement facilities
- Temporary real estate sales office
- Transient merchants (e.g. fruit and vegetable stands,
Christmas tree sales)
Special vehicle and boat sales events
Other uses are allowed under a broad category. of "similar temporary
uses", and still other temporary uses are allowed that are
accessory to a principal use (e.g. tent revival on a church site).
For several years, planning staff has treated plant sales and other
commercial events held in shopping center parking lots as similar
to special vehicle and boat sales events, which are specifically
allowed in such parking lots under certain conditions.
In summary, the current LDRs and staff's interpretation of "similar
temporary uses" allow temporary uses that have customarily and
historically occurred in the county, and allow special sales and
promotional events in parking lots where excess parking spaces
exist and where the temporary use is accessory to or similar to an
allowable use within the zoning district of a given site.
As with all temporary uses, temporary commercial events are subject
to general review standards (see attachment #2) which include:
1. Mitigation of nuisance or hazardous uses.
17
JANUARY 9, 1996
boa 97 P,u 66
I
Box 9�A '� 6
2. Adequate and safe traffic circulation and parking.
3. Adequate facilities and services such as utilities, drainage,
solid waste, and emergency services access.
4. Protection of the natural environment (e.g. no protected trees
are allowed to be removed to accommodate temporary uses).
5. Site suitability.
6. As short a duration of the use as practicable.
7. Protection of the public health (e.g. inspection of food
service operations by the Environmental Health Department).
Conditions may be added to permits to ensure that these general
standards are met. In addition to these general standards,
specific standards are provided in Chapter 972 for model homes,
temporary construction and watchman's quarters trailers, temporary
real estate offices, transient merchants (Christmas tree,
fireworks, and satellite seafood sales operations), and special
vehicle and boat sales events. An example of such a specific
standard is the limitation that model homes be open only between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
All temporary use permit applications are processed by planning
staff and are reviewed by other departments as necessary, depending
upon the proposed use or event and its location. Also, all
applications are reviewed and approved or denied by the community
development director.
*Mobile Pet Vaccination Temporary Uses
Within the last few years, county planning staff has received
several temporary use permit applications to allow special events
for temporary outdoor pet vaccination clinics. The requests
initially involved setting -up the clinics on portions of parking
lots of pet center stores. Later requests proposed such uses in
parking lots of site planned shopping centers. In each case, the
proposals were for a 1 or 2 day weekend clinic, and all facilities
were proposed only within site -planned projects where more parking
spaces were available than required by the off-street parking
ordinance.
Within the last year, 2 mobile vaccination clinic events have been
approved via the temporary use permit process in the unincorporated
area of the county. Both permits were issued to Pet Vaccine
Services, Inc. for 2 separate clinics in a portion of the Ryanwood
Shopping Center parking lot. One event was approved for Sunday,
July 9, 1995, while the other was approved for Sunday, August 6,
1995. Each permit contained a "condition" which stated that the
applicant was responsible for conducting the clinic. in accordance
with Florida Statutes and the rules and regulations of the Florida
Board of Veterinarian Services (FBVS). A copy of each permit was
sent to the FBVS and county animal control, and a copy of the
permit 4or the August 6th event was also sent to the environmental
health department.
.Planning staff's application of the TUP provisions is to allow
mobile pet vaccination clinics when accessory to a pet center or
veterinarian service use, or where such uses are allowed by zoning
such as in zoning districts where existing shopping center projects
are allowed. In staff's opinion, such an allowance for very short
term vaccination clinics is similar, in regards to zoning matters,
JANUARY 9, 1996
18
0
to allowances for special vehicle and boat sales events, which are
specifically allowed in the TUP provisions (see attachment #3).
At its August 15th meeting, the Board directed staff to contact the
Board if another TUP application for a mobile pet vaccination
clinic is received. To date, no applications have been received
for such events in either the unincorporated area of the county or
in the City of Vero Beach. In,response to a mobile pet vaccination -
clinic application request received several months ago, city staff
concluded that its regulations, like those of the county, would
allow such clinics to be conducted on a temporary basis in zoning
districts where permanent veterinarian clinics are allowed,
provided adequate parking and site issues are addressed. With
respect to that application submitted to the City, the applicant,
Pet Vaccination Services, did not pursue approval, and no clinic
event was held.
At its August 15th meeti;lg, the Board also expressed concerns
regarding certain aspects of mobile pet vaccination clinics,
including: health and safety for the animals (procedures, clean
facilities, outdoor conditions), enforcement of health and safety
requirements, and appropriateness of allowing such temporary
commercial services out-of-doors. The following analysis addresses
those issues.
ANALYSIS
•Health and Safety for the Animals
According to an opinion of the county attorney (see attachments #4
and #5), the state has already addressed animal health and safety
issues in its requirements for limited service veterinary medical
practice permits. Furthermore, it -is the county attorney's opinion
that the county is pre-empted from adding requirements on top of
the state requirements. Therefore, it appears that the county is
legally precluded from adding animal health and safety
requirements.
•Enforcement of Health and Safety Requirements
In terms of human health and safety, the county environmental
health director has stated that pet vaccinations serve an important
public health purpose. In regard to sanitation issues that affect
humans, as referenced in the county attorney's opinion, the county
environmental health director has stated that adequate state and
local sanitation regulations already are in force. Therefore,
staff's conclusion is that no new sanitation regulations are
needed. In regard to enforcement of animal health and safety
regulations and sanitation regulations, the environmental health
director has stated that his department will commit to inspecting
each pet vaccination clinic for compliance with state limited
services veterinarian clinic permit standards as well as state and
local sanitation requirements. Therefore, local staff are in place
to inspect and enforce these regulations.
•Appropriateness of Temporary Uses Including Temporary Outdoor
Commercial Events and Services
It has been the county's policy to allow certain temporary uses
including temporary outdoor commercial uses when properly regulated
in regards to nuisance impacts, traffic and parking, adequate
facilities, protection of the environment, site suitability,
duration, and public health. Under certain conditions, these uses
have been determined to be appropriate and even necessary. The
19
JANUARY 9, 1996 Bm 97 P,�tE
county has considered the following temporary uses to be
appropriate for the following reasons:
1. Transient merchant uses such as Christmas tree and fireworks
sales are traditional seasonal sales that have historically
been allowed on parking lots and vacant lots. Christmas tree
sales tend to involve a significant amount of sales space and
special handling that is best accommodated out of doors.
Other transient merchant sales such as fruit and vegetable
stands and satellite seafood sales also have a historical
basis in the county and are intended to allow, but not
require, a direct sales outlet for locally grown fruits and
vegetables and locally caught seafood. To keep such
facilities from becoming de facto grocery stores that do not
meet normal site development standards for grocery stores,
such stands are currently prohibited from connecting to
electrical, telephone, water, sewer and other utility
services.
2. _Temporary structures such as construction trailers and
watchman's quarters are necessary to accommodate construction
projects in terms of providing on-site management,
construction coordination, and security. Such structures also
allow some equipment and materials to be stored indoors, which
is generally more aesthetic than outdoor storage.
3. Accessory uses such as seasonal outdoor plant sales around
garden centers or tent meetings at churches allow for special
commercial and non-commercial events where site improvements
are already in place to accommodate a temporary "expansion" of
the permanent use.
4. _Special sales events such as car sales and mobile pet
vaccination clinics are not necessarily related to a permanent
on site use. Car sales events were specifically added to the
list of allowable temporary uses in 1987. At that time, the
county determined that car sales events, especially those
involving more than one dealership, require a significant
amount of space and should not be restricted to individual car
lots, due to general site constraints, or to the fairgrounds
site, due to its location which is remote from commercial
areas.
•Other Issues
One important issue related to temporary uses is the fairness of
allowing certain commercial activities via a temporary use permit
on sites that are not improved to the standard required of
permanent businesses. First, it should be noted that the allowed
temporary commercial uses have limitations not imposed on permanent
businesses. For example, fruit and vegetable stands (which are
approved as temporary uses) are not allowed to connect to water,
sewer, electric or telephone services. Also, it should be noted
that site criteria are applied to such uses, and that these
criteria are similar to temporary use or special use permit
criteria used in other jurisdictions. Although certain temporary
uses are justified, some inequities are bound to occur, since items
or services sold at temporary use sites or events are also sold at
permanent businesses.
Aesthetics is another concern, since outdoor events and sales tend
to be less aesthetic. Such events can create a negative visual
impact along a roadway, and such negative impacts are the main
reason that outdoor flea markets are strictly regulated in the
county and in other jurisdictions. Due to these possibly negative
20
JANUARY 9, 1996
0
impacts, the
within the
recommending
60 corridor
future.
Wabasso Corridor Plan prohibits outdoor sales events
Wabasso Corridor Plan area. Staff is considering
that the Board enact such a prohibition along the SR
when the Board reviews SR 60 Corridor issues in the
•Alternatives
The Board has several alternatives in dealing with temporary uses
in general and mobile pet vaccination services in particular.
These alternatives include:
1. Eliminate temporary uses. Although this alternative addresses
all fairness, aesthetic, and site improvement issues, it is
not practical. As previously described, certain temporary
uses are necessary and many have been allowed for many years
without a history of creating problems.
2. Restrict and further regulate temporary uses. More
restrictive, special regulations could be applied to address
specific nuisance or site development concerns. In staff's
opinion, however, the existing general review standards for
temporary uses already address such concerns.
3. Prohibit certain temporary uses in certain areas. As is the
case with the draft Wabasso Corridor Plan, certain uses can be
prohibited in certain areas for aesthetic reasons as long as
such uses are reasonably accommodated elsewhere. In staff's
opinion, all outdoor sales and service events, including
mobile pet vaccination services, could be prohibited from the
Wabasso and SR 60 corridors for aesthetic reasons. Under such
an alternative, similar commercial events would be treated
equally'and would be reasonably accommodated within the county
outside of those corridors.
4. Make no changes to temporary use regulations. The Board could
affirm the existing LDRs and staff's interpretation of the
existing regulations, as described in this report.
•Summary
In regard to animal health and safety issues, it is the opinion of
the county attorney that the state has already adopted regulations
to address these issues. These regulations, as well as state and
local sanitation regulations, can be monitored by environmental
health department staff without a change to current county LDRs.
In regard to zoning matters, mobile pet vaccination clinics are
similar to other temporary commercial sales or service events.
Such events are regulated in regard to public health, nuisance,
duration, and site suitability issues. Such uses may be conducted
only on improved sites where excess site use capacity exists due to
vacant tenant space, closed stores, or oversizing of improvements.
Staff's position is that any restrictions or prohibitions placed on
mobile pet vaccination clinics should also be placed on similar
temporary commercial sales and service events.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Affirm staff's current interpretation of temporary use
regulations as described in this report or provide staff with
policy changes that can be formally implemented in the next
round of LDR amendments.
21
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK 9 7 P.iGf. 7 0
I
Boaz '97 fAa 7
2. Direct staff to require that any future mobile pet vaccination
clinic temporary use permit applicants arrange for
environmental health department inspections for their events
and that such applicants comply with environmental health'
department directives given.to correct any items found not to
be in compliance with state and local health regulations.
Planning Director Stan Boling explained the four alternatives
listed in staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Environmental Health would be
available on the weekends to conduct these inspections, and
Director Boling responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Eggert remained concerned about pet owners having
to pay $50-$75 for rabies shots and other things necessary to
obtain a license for their pets. She asked if any local
veterinarians offered their services in this respect because she
had called around the last time this matter was discussed and was
unable to find one.
Dr. Denis scarpinato of Pinewoods Animal Hospital stated that
if pet owners called his office, they would be told they could get
a rabies shot for $10. He felt that could be said for several
veterinarians in this area. He noted, however, that the Humane
Society screens applicants before delegating neutering and spaying
services to specific veterinarians who provide those services for
a cost set by the Humane Society. Dr. Scarpinato advised that Dr.
Alan Baker has indicated that he intends to soon open a low cost,
vaccine, spay neuter clinic in Vero Beach. The clinic will be open
3 days a week in an enclosed building which will eliminate the
problems encountered with pets and their owners waiting in a hot,
sunny parking lot.
Dr. Scarpinato questioned the tolerant temporary use permit
regulations on flower sales in parking lots compared to those for
pet vaccination clinics.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that the big difference is that
our Ordinances do not require people to buy flowers, but we do
require people to have their pets vaccinated.
Dr. Scarpinato advised that his office gives a cursory
examination before giving the $10 rabies shot. However, a complete
head -to -toe examination is $25. He understood that Dr. Aiken, Dr.
Herman, and Dr. Moon also give cursory examinations before giving
rabies shots.
22
JANUARY 9, 1996
Commissioner Macht commented that is in conflict with calls he
has received about this matter.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the complaint she hears is
about the necessity of getting multiple shots and the high costs
for those shots.
Dr. Scarpinato emphasized that he has never refused to give a
$10 rabies shot to a healthy animal.
J. C. Cannon of Pet Vaccination Services, Lake Mary, Florida,
stressed that 1995 was a record year for the number of reported
cases of rabies in Florida. When Pet Vaccination Services comes
into a city, we like to contact every local veterinarian in writing
requesting them to take our referral cases. When our licensed vets
see an animal which has a problem, they like to refer them to a
local veterinarian. Unfortunately, all veterinarians in Vero Beach
have refused to sign a letter which allows for emergency coverage.
Pet Vaccination Services had to go to Dr. Ralph Goldman in Jensen
Beach to find a veterinarian who would provide emergency services.
However, Dr. Goldman has since requested that we take his name off
the contract list. At present there is no one inside the 30 -mile
radius (stipulated by the State) who will give Pet Vaccination
Services that simple letter of protection.
Mr. Cannon pointed out that Pet Vaccination Services is a new
service in Florida, but has been in California since 1978. They
give $5 rabies shots and try to hold booster clinics at 3 -month
intervals. They provide every opportunity for pet owners to get
their animals vaccinated at an economical cost. If an animal is
not healthy enough to receive the vaccination, they will not
vaccinate. If the animal has a skin problem, a lump, etc., they
recommend that they go to a veterinarian facility. If the animal
has a strong reaction to a shot, they recommend after stabilizing
the animal that they go to an emergency facility. Unfortunately,
there is no emergency clinic in Vero Beach or within the 30 -mile
radius.
Dr. Scarpinato questioned why local vets should be responsible
or available for Pet Vaccination Services' emergencies when they
are on call for just their own clients' emergencies. He pointed
out that even M.D.s send humans to emergency centers after hours.
Dr. Scarpinato felt the emergency center issue would be resolved
with the opening of Dr. Baker's clinic.
23
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK 97 PAGE 72
I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board by a vote of 4-1
(Chairman Adams opposing) approved staff's current
interpretation of temporary use regulations; and
directed staff to require that any future mobile pet
vaccination clinic temporary use permit applicants
arrange for Environmental Health Department
inspections for their events and comply with
Environmental Health directives given to correct any
items found not to be in compliance with state and
local health regulations.
DEFAULT OF SHIP LOAN - FRANK & TIPHANY MAROTTA
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/2/96:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE
0'rbe-3ft'li M. Keati , A
Community Devel pment irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: January 2, 1996
RE: DEFAULT OF FRANK & TIPHANY MAROTTA'S SHIP LOAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of January 9, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 17, 1995, the county's Affordable Housing Loan Review
Committee approved a SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership)
combination downpayment/closing cost loan and impact fee loan for
Frank and Tiphany Marotta, a very low income family. The total
loan was for $9,737.83, of which $8,624.83 was for
downpayment/closing costs ($5,500 downpayment and $3,124.83 closing
costs), and $1,113.00 was for traffic impact fees.
The county's subordinate mortgage document, promissory note, and
the First National Bank and Trust Company's construction loan were
closed on March 17, 1995. Versa Homes, the builder, then began
construction of the house. Before construction was completed and
the construction loan was converted to a permanent loan, however,
Frank and Tiffany Marotta decided that they did not want the home.
This action has affected the bank, the county, and the builder.
According to the builder, approximately $8,410.00 is needed to
finish the house completely. The bank's construction loan was
approved for $47,250, of which $32,413.10 has been dispersed to the
builder with a remaining balance of $14,836.90.
24
JANUARY 9, 1996
On December 11, 1995, county staff sent a letter to the Marotta's
and their attorney inquiring as to their intentions regarding
purchase of the house. In that correspondence, staff requested
that the Marotta's indicate how they intend to repay their SHIP
loan. That letter, however, was returned because the Marotta's,
have moved and left no forwarding address. While their attorney,
who has contact with the Marotta's, was copied on the letter, the
deadline for reply has since passed without any response.
Given the circumstances, it appears that the Marotta's intend to
default on their first mortgage and allow the property to go into
foreclosure. For that reason, the Board of County Commissioners
.must now make a decision regarding the county's subordinate
mortgage and promissory note.
ANALYSIS
According to the county's Local Housing Assistance Plan, each SHIP
loan recipient must repay his SHIP loan at the time the -SHIP
financed house is sold or transfered to another person. This is
consistent with the objective of the county's affordable housing
trust fund which was established as a revolving loan program. As
such, all SHIP loan payments go back to the housing trust fund and
are used for additional loans. For that reason, the county must
try to recapture as much of these funds as possible in cases of
foreclosure.
ALTERNATIVES
Regarding the Marotta's loan, the -Board now has the following
options:
• The first option is to allow the bank to foreclose the
loan and have the court clerk sell the unit in a
foreclosure auction. In this case, the bank, as the
first mortgage holder, will claim their money and their
foreclosure costs, with the county receiving any
remaining funds up to the amount of its loan. Most
likely, the foreclosure auction will not generate
sufficient money to repay the county loan.
Consequently, this option is unlikely to yield any money
to the county. If that occurs, the county could still
sue the Marotta's on their promissory note. Their SHIP
application showed zero assets, although a, wage
garnishment may be possible if the county prevailed in
such a suit.
• The second option is to allow the builder to assume both
the bank and county mortgage, finish the unit, put it on
the market, sell the unit, and then reimburse the bank
and the county. The builder, however, cannot qualify as
an eligible very low or low income applicant or sponsor,
and it is unlikely -the county's advance for closing costs
($3,124.83) could be recovered in a resale.
This option would be contrary to the county's Local
Housing Assistance Plan guidelines and procedures for
assumption of mortgages only by eligible persons or
sponsors. Although it is possible that the county could
recover $6,613.00 of its SHIP loan with this option, the
closing cost portion of the loan would probably have to
be written off.
25
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK 97 ulu 1
BOOK 97 F,1Iu 75
• The third option is for the county to assign its
promissory note and subordinate mortgage to the builder
at a discounted price. The builder would then assume the
bank loan, finish the home, sell it, and pay back the
bank's loan. The builder has offered to buy the county's
mortgage for $3,000.00.
While this option would ensure that the county would
recover $3000.00 of its $9,737.83 loan to the Marotta's,
there are problems with this option. By allowing -the
builder to pay a discounted price for assignment of the
SHIP loan, a precedent would be established that could in
the future lead to complicity between SHIP applicants and
builders to defraud the county.
• The fourth option is to do nothing and let the bank,
builder, and the applicant resolve the problem.
It seems that no option will guarantee that the county will recover
its full loan amount. With the first and second options, it is
uncertain how much, if any, money the county may finally recapture.
With the third option, the county would be assured of receiving
almost a third of its loan amount; however, that option would not
be a good policy to pursue, given the potential for fraud with that
type of arrangement.
Besides the options listed above, another alternative has been
pursued by staff. Since a number of people are on the waiting list
for SHIP loans, staff has contacted potentially qualified
applicants to determine if one would agree to assume the SHIP and
bank loans and buy the house. This would require bank approval.
As of this time, that effort has been unsuccessful.
Given these circumstances, planning staff and the county attorney's
office feel that bank foreclosure would be the best option.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff and the County Attorney's office recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners allow the bank to foreclose the
Marotta loan.
Community Development Director Bob Keating gave a brief
background of the SHIP loan program, noting that we have given out
a total of 131 loans and have encumbered $900,000 in loans. This
is the first time we have encountered a default of a loan. The
good news is that it looks like everything is going.to work out.
Staff has been working with other applicants and at least 5 have
considered assuming the loan. Even better news, the bank and the
builder have notified us that there is a cash buyer for the house
whereby both the County and the bank would be paid in full. It
appears that everybody will come out of this 100 percent. Director
Keating advised that it was staff's position to come to the Board
to get directives in how to proceed just in case the loan doesn't
close. Staff would like the Board to allow the bank to foreclose
if something happens and things fall through and the loan doesn't
close.
26
JANUARY 9, 1996
o ® r
Chairman Adams commended staff for their remarkable track
record in processing 131 loans. She was not pleased with the first
option simply because we would lose total control of the
investment. She liked the alternative of aggressively pursuing
other qualified buyers.
Commissioner Bird agreed. He pointed out that if necessary,
we could discount the $9,737.83. However, he didn't want us to be
too quick to jump into a foreclosure without pursuing another
buyer.
Commissioner Eggert agreed. She believed we should not set a
precedent in the event this loan doesn't close. If this doesn't
work, then it should come back.
Commissioner Tippin also commended staff on their track
record, and Commissioner Bird agreed with considering any future
defaults on a case by case basis.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve Option 4, td do
nothing and let the bank, builder, and the applicant
resolve the problem just as long as they get a
buyer.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird inquired about the
financing packages, and Director Keating explained that generally
the banks loan 90% of the appraised value of the house.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion carried unanimously.
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - CHANGE
ORDER #3 - J. T. KIRLIN, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/19/95:
27
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK
97 plGF 7
I
Box 97 Fm,c 77
DATE: DECEMBER 19, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVIC
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MCCAIN /w
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS ENG
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SER CES
SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER tI EATMENT PLANT CHANGE ORDER
NO. 3, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -04 -DC
BACKGROUND
On August 23, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved a contract with J. J. Kirlin Inc., for the above -referenced project.
The current contract amount is $5,545,100.10, which includes previously
approved Change Orders Nos. 1 & 2 (See attached agenda and minutes). The
County now wishes to receive approval for Change Order No. 3.
ANALYSIS
The total amount of the proposed change order is $193,823.65. For a detailed
breakdown of the items, please see the attached change order package summary
sheet. Items that'are unrelated to the original project and the associated
costs are as follows: -
1. Clear, grade remaining citrus $14,076.00
2. Seed and mulch, remaining citrus area 3,958.88
3. Install entrance road 72,415.16
4. Paint and grout existing plant tankage 26,757.00
5. Additional electric 11.590.00
Total outside project cost $128,797.04
The amount related to the original project/modifications is $65,026.61 or
1.17% of current project cost. The total additional cost to this project to
date is $297,923.75 or 5.5% which is still a very acceptable amount for a
project of this magnitude. The Utilities Department has a high level of
comfort with these negotiated costs and recommends Board approval. We are
also recommending approval of a 90 day contract time -extension due to weather
conditions/additional work items. Staff also requests approval to spend up
to $7,500 for miscellaneous mulching and small shrubs to further enhance
landscaping once contractor has installed his landscaping. This will be done
through the use of purchase orders and quotes from local vendors.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached change order with J. J. Kirlin, Inc. as presented and approval of
the additional expenditure of $7,500.00 for landscaping as described above.
28
JANUARY 9, 1996
r
r
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve Change
Order #3 with J. J. Kirlin, Inc. in the amount of
$193,823.65 and an additional $7,500 for land-
scaping described in staff's recommendation.
Under discussion, Chairman Adams noticed that this project's
costs are just about the same as the 800 MHz project. She asked
how many acres were still in citrus, and Capital Projects Engineer
Bill McCain advised that 13.62 acres remained in citrus.
Commissioner Tippin asked if this is the same tank that fell
down in the middle of the night several years ago, and Mr. McCain
confirmed that it is part of the same tank that actually didn't
fall down but slid a little.
Chairman Adams questioned the difference in the $14,076
clearing and grading costs mentioned in this memo and the $12,000
cost set out in Kirlin's proposal #8.
PROPOSAL
SPREAD SHEET
IRC WRWWTP 2MGD EXPANTION
John J. Karlin, Inc. of Fla.
Job *F4083
RE: Site Improvement
Revised JJK8
DESCRIPTION
HOURS UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
COST
TOTAL
Materials
$0
Prime Purchase Orders $0
Sales Tax 8.00% $0
SUB TOTAL
$0
$0
SUBCONTRACTOR'S
G.C. Work 113,855
SUB TOTAL
$113,855
$113,855
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Sales Tax 6.00% $0
SUB TOTAL
$0
$0
BOR
SUB -TOTAL $0
Overhead Bunsen 48.00% $0
TOTAL LABOR
$0
• $0
JOB COSTS
PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE $0
GENERAL CONDITIONS $0
SUB TOTAL
$0
$0
TOTAL COST
$113,855
JJK O.H.
10%
$11,386
SUBTOTAL
$125,241
JJK PROFIT
6%
$5,693
SUBTOTAL
$130,934
BOND
2.00%
$2.819
TOTAL
133,553
29
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK
97 PAGE 78
I
BOOK 97 F' u i
FON Indian River County West Regional
_ WasteWater Treatment Plant
Site Improvement JJK Proposal #(8)
hmn
hem Description
Unit
Proposal Cost
1
Clear, grade, remaining citrus tree areas:
Lump Sum
$12,000.00
In
Seed & Mulch remaining citrus tree areas: Approximate Area (135000 SF)
@ $0.07518F
Lump Sum
$3,375.00
3
Complete tum -key design and install for the delineated plant site area shown
on sheet 7 0f 9 of M&Ws plans
Lump Sum
$25,077.00
4
Plant 145 trees required by the landscape plan. JJK will pay and supply 81
live Oak trees and the county will pay for the remaining mix of 84 trees
Lump Sum
$11,888.00
5
Install the entrance road sub -base and top coat (Approxim. 4154 sy)
Lump Sum
$59,735.00
5a
Staking and Engineering for the entrance road
Lump Sum
$2,000.00
Total Proposals Cost
Lump
Sum
$113,855.00
Mr. McCain explained that the $133,553 total in Change Order
No. 3 Summary is comprised of several different items. In preparing
the change of summary sheet; he erroneously pulled out those
numbers without including the contractor's allowable overhead and
profit.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2.0 MGD
CHANGE ORDER NO.3 SUMMARY
30
JANUARY 9, 1996
Chairman Adams asked for confirmation that the request for a
90 -day extension is due to the weather, and Mr. McCain responded
that it predominantly is due to the weather. The hurricane came
through and with concrete casting on the job, it was a very
critical time: It delayed some very critical structures where you
couldn't start one without completing the other first.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion passed unanimously.
CHANGE ORDER #3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXTENSION - WORK AUTH. AMENDMENT - MALCOLM PIRNIE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/29/95:
DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS E G
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY S RVICES
SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION,
ENGINEERING WORK AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENT.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO US -93 -04 -DC
Background
On April 27, 1993 the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved an engineering services contract with
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., for the above -referenced project. As a
result of additions to the scope of engineering services and time
extensions on the duration of the project's construction, the
engineer has, per the articles in the contract, requested
additional compensation. The Utilities Department staff has
negotiated an acceptable fee with the engineer for these items.
(See attached contract amendment.)
Analysis
The proposed negotiated fee with the Engineer is $34,880.00 and is
broken down as follows:
31
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK 97 mu 8
I
BOOK 97 fl+ c 81
1) Engineering Services/inspection for $28,480.00
90 day extension
2) See Items 2 & 3 of proposed addendum 6.400.00
Total Additional Fees $34,880.00
For details of the proposed services, please refer to the attached
Work Authorization's Amendment. The Utilities staff is satisfied
with the proposed fee increase and feels it is in line with the
scope increase.
Recommendation
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the contract Amendment as
presented.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the Work
Authorization Amendment with Malcolm Pirnie in the
amount of $34,880, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Chairman Adams questioned the engineering
services fees if they are based on the 90 -day extension when the
contractor wasn't doing any work either.
Capital Projects Engineer -Bill McCain explained that there is
more than that involved. The Engineering Work Authorization lists
the following items as part of the project amendment:
PROJECT NAME: West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Expansion to 2.0 MGD
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AMENDMENT
1. Provide engineering services during 90 calendar day extension of the construction contract
to provide construction administration and resident project representation services.
2. Provide engineering services to coordinate revisions to the landscape planting
requirements as well as site drainage modifications for the area south of the WWTP.
3. Provide engineering services to coordinate and prepare design of effluent discharge piping
and skimmer at the wetland project, and the coordination of a new entrance road wearing
surface.
This Amendment is made with reference to the "Master Agreement for Professional Services"
dated July 27, 1993, and specific article numbers and paragraph number which are listed
hereunder to describe the scope of services and changes for the amended services.
Mr. McCain advised that there was work occurring at the site
during that time period, but they were not able to do critical path
item work. They were still required to have inspectors and
32
JANUARY 9, 1996
construction administration. Even though construction was impeded
by the rain, they were out there many days during that period.
Chairman Adams believed this is an excessive cost under those
circumstances. Just because he did a little bit here and a little
bit there, it resulted in an extra charge to us of almost $30,000
just for engineering fees. She didn't feel that the contractor or
the engineer was looking out for our best interests. She believed
that when a contractor cannot proceed in a normal path, he should
hold up everything he can to avoid additional costs for the project
owner.
Commissioner Eggert felt it was up to the Utilities Department
to keep on top of the project to see if there were other things
that they could be doing that they would have had to do anyway.
Mr. McCain explained that when it rains for 3-5 days, the
impact of that weather can last 30-45 days after the rain stops.
Chairman Adams stated that she was beginning to have a problem
with the engineering fee extensions that have been coming back to
us pretty regularly.
Mr. McCain pointed out that we are still doing very well on
our engineering fees on this project overall. The fees break out
at 7.3% and typically they run 8.9% -in a project of this size. He
believed the engineer would not do a project like this one again at
this price, even with the additional fees.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion passed unanimously.
WETLANDS
PRO TECT
- WEST REGIONAL
WASTEWATER
TREATI��NT
PLANT -
CHANGE ORDER #3A &
#3B -COASTAL
CONSTRUCTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/3/96:
33 BOOK 97 F'AE Of)
JANUARY 9, 1996
I
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BOOK 97 PiuE 83
JANUARY 3, 1996
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI SER ICES
ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
WETLAND PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3A AND 3B
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -05 -ED
On February 7, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement
with Coastal Construction of Brevard to construct the subject project. (See
attached minutes) The construction is nearing completion. Some work remains
to be done as requested by Indian River Farms Water Control District
(IRFWCD) as proposed in Change Order No. 3a and 3b. After a recent
inspection, Indian River Farms Water Control District requested the County to
clear approximately 2,200 linear feet of their right-of-ways (Lateral D
embankment) as the County requested permission to install one discharge pipe
to their canal system. As a result of this requirement, several meetings
have been held to negotiate with the Indian River Farms Water Control
District, where they have insisted that the County is required to clear the
subject right-of-ways.
ANALYSIS
The clearing of said right-of-ways is important to the IRFWCD because of
their inability to clear it from the southside of the canal (the canal is
very wide). The clearing and maintainability is the District's long range
target project when 4th Street (presently it is an IRFWCD's right-of-ways)
becomes a public road in the future. The District's explanation, is that the
requirement has nothing to do with the utility project. However, it is an
opportunity to clear the right-of-ways at this time. The cost for this is
$16,200.00. Change Order No. 3a is attached.
Along with this matter, the staff would like to present to the Board a
proposed Change Order (No. 3b), which covers some additional work required by
IRFWCD to finish this project. The work consists of the installation of six
drop -pipes to prevent erosion on the District canal embankment, removal of
two access driveways which presently restricts the canal water flow,
relocation of one discharge pipe to the 8th Street canal and the installation
of a crossing culvert. The total cost for Change Order No. 3b is $17,630.00.
RECOMMENDATION
1) The staff seeks approval from the Board of County Commissioners to
prevent any interruption in completion of this project. This
requirement is reflected in Change Order No. 3a, in the amount of
$16,200.00.
2) The staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve -Change
Order No. 3b, in the amount of $17,630.00.
If only Change Order No. 3b is approved, the contract amount will be adjusted
accordingly. If both Change Orders (Nos. 3a and 3b) are approved, the
contract amount will be to $1,862,676.40.
34
JANUARY 9, 1996
Commissioner Bird questioned whether this would be a Utilities
expense or a Public Works expense or a combination of both. If it
is approved, he felt it should be left up to Administrator Chandler
to do a proper cost allocation among departments.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that the permit
requirement in order for us to dump into the canal was to go in and
clear. Of course, we do whatever the Indian River Farms Water
Control District (IRFWCD) requires us to do and they asked us to
clear that area because they feel the future expansion of 4th
Street that borders this would require them to move to the side
where our project is to maintain the canal. In other words, the
construction of that road would cause the canal to be cleared on
the opposite side of our project. The District thought this would
be the proper time to do it only because we have contractors in
there working on a project and have to secure the area with a
fence. When it is necessary to clear the area in the future, it
would be difficult for them to come in and do the clearing. In
addition, they feel that because the 4th Street expansion would be
a road project, the County would be the one to clear it. Director
Pinto agreed with the District -- if it is going to be cleared, now
is the time to do it. He felt we should work out internally who
has to pay for it and when, but if the clearing has to be done, we
would rather go in and clear it before we finish our dikes and put
up our fence. When we secure the area, we will provide gates and
will work with the District to set the fences far enough back so
that they can get in to maintain the canal.
Chairman Adams had a real problem with IRFWCD making the
clearing a part of the requirement for the permit since the two
projects are not related. She felt that every time the District
comes to us they have this arm -twisting action and we get this wall
between us. The IRFWCD is a taxing district just like the County
and she didn't believe it was our responsibility to clear their
right-of-way when the two projects are not related at all.
Director Pinto commented that the County is just responding to
the permit requirements, but Chairman Adams felt if that is the
case that we need to make an agreement with them that we will do
the clearing and bill them for it.
Marvin Carter of Carter Associates, engineers for IRFWCD,
advised that this particular item goes back to some
miscommunication during the permitting stage. This particular
permit was only for discharge and to cross the District's right -of -
35 BOOK 97PnE 84
JANUARY 9, 1996
BOOK 97 Pnu 85
way into the District's canal. 4th Street is owned by the
District and this particular case relates to all the other permits
that have been necessary in getting clearance along other roads in
the District. This one may .be preconceived as an arm -twisting
deal, but the District thought that the clearing was part of the
original permit deal.
Commissioner Bird asked how long it would be before the
expansion of 4th Street would necessitate clearing the ditch on the
other side. Perhaps it would be better to clear it all at one
time.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that 4th
Street was not in the long range plan of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO).
Commissioner Bird wanted to maintain a cooperative
relationship with the District, but he felt that the clearing could
be done in conjunction with the road widening project and then
allocate the cost properly.
Director Pinto explained that the facilities have been
constructed; we are ready to move the contractor out. The County
could enter into an agreement whereby they commit to clearing the
rights-of-way when the time comes.
Mr. Carter advised that the District is meeting this Thursday
to discuss this issue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #3B; denied approval of Change. Order
#3A; directed staff to revisit the permit issue with
IRFWCD and agree to do the clearing in the future in
conjunction with the 4th Street expansion.
Commissioner Tippin philosophically observed that these change
orders involving additional costs of $300,000, or 5.5% of the
initial contract, are being viewed as "a very acceptable" amount.
Commissioner Tippin didn't consider that a "very acceptable"
amount. He suggested that verbiage be changed in the future. He
emphasized that he could remember back when any additional cost was
not acceptable.
CHANGE ORDER 3B IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JANUARY 9, 1996
36
WAIVING LANDFILL FEES FOR MARSH CLEANUP OF ENTIRE
ST. JOHNS WATER BASIN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/8/96:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM; FRAN B. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN
DATE: January 8, 1996
RE: Waiving landfill fees for marsh cleanup
The St. Johns River Water Management District has scheduled a marsh cleanup of the
entire St. Johns Water basin for March 2, 1996.
Holly Dill, Executive Director, Environmental Learning Center is our Indian River County
coordinator for the event. We are expecting approximately 300 volunteers to pick up trash,
both in the marsh and along the edges of roads and dikes. Harris Sanitation will be
providing bins.
We are hereby requesting a waiver of fees at the County landfill for the trash collected
during the marsh cleanup. We expect approximately 80 cubic yards of trash.
Administrator Chandler noted that normally there would not be
a fee for this- type of program. In the past, from a staff
perspective, we felt the type of debris from a cleanup program
could be taken to the transfer stations and a fee was not levied.
Therefore, there is no fee to waive.
Commissioner Eggert understood then that we are not setting a
precedent here, and Administrator Chandler responded affirmatively.
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/8./96:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: FRAN B. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN
DATE: January 8, 1996
RE: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
We have been approached by representatives of Brevard County who are interested in
perhaps forming another Regional Planning Council that would include. Brevard, Indian
River and Volusia Counties. Brevard and Volusia Counties feel dwarfed by Orange
County and don't feel that they have much in common with Orange County. I feel we are
sometimes dwarfed by Palm Beach County.
I'm requesting the assignment of a staff member to investigate the cost and rewards of
joining with Brevard and Volusia Counties to form a Central Coast Regional Planning
Council.
JANUARY 9, 1996 37 BOOK 9� PAGE 86
BOOK 9 7 Pi
.Commissioner Macht commented that we are paying $32,000 in
annual membership fees to have our best interests undermined.
Commissioner Tippin felt it would be worthwhile to investigate
this proposal as long as it doesn't cost us any more.
Commissioner Macht recalled that just two years ago this Board
asked for the TCRPC to be abolished.
Commissioner Eggert believed that an area from Martin County
north through Brevard County, including Okeechobee County, would be
more appropriate, but she would support taking a look at this
proposal.
Commissioner Bird preferred to look at it as a restructuring.
Commissioner Tippin preferred to do away with the TCRPC
completely, and Commissioner Macht noted that a change in the
Legislature may give us the opportunity to do that.
CONSENSUS was to look at it with staff.
SUGGESTION BOX
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/8/96:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: FRAN B. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN
DATE: January 8, 1996
RE: Suggestion Box
In light of our many recent conversations with staff, employees and the public, I would like
to establish a locked suggestion box to be placed by the Commission office in which
employees would be encouraged to place ideas, especially money -saving ideas. I suggest
that we form a committee with Jim Chandler, Joe Baird, Chairman of County Commission,
the Department Head for whom the idea would be used, as well as the person who
submitted the idea. In other words, we would have three permanent committee members
and two others, depending on where the suggestion came from. If implemented, I think the
employee should receive a percentage, such as 10%, reward or bonus for his savings for
the first year. We should also establish a mechanism whereby, if the employee does not
wish to be associated publicly with the idea, the identity can be protected.
The Board agreed to -try a Suggestion Box, as proposed.
38
JANUARY 9, 1996
0
a
COURTHOUSE CROSS -WALK -- Deferred from Meeting of 1/9/96
16 Tit AVEIJIIE
u
0 L0
w
E%18iTA _'PRESENTLY
II '
t
x
p
w
EXHIOIT $" _ vuvosm sY ST#rf
-F m
AGF.
JANUARY 9, 1996 39 BOOK 97 f' 88
W
DHISrr C - 'PROPO-4cD By
07MF LS
97 PAGE 8
C�
Commissioner Macht recommended that the Board not do anything
at this point.but follow staff's recommendation of Alternative #1
(Exhibit B) which is to put in- a sidewalk linking the sidewalk in
front of the parking garage to the crosswalk, fanning it out on the
sides.
General Services Director Sonny Dean explained that hedges
will be planted between the sidewalk and the curb to force people
to use the new sidewalk to reach the crosswalk.
Chairman Adams felt we could try it and see how it works; we
can go back and put the curb cuts in if necessary.
Barbara Bonnah, County resident, cautioned about planting
hedges between the sidewalk and the curb in front of the parking
garage. She felt the hedges would hide someone who might be lying
in wait for an employee coming out of the Courthouse alone and
entering the parking garage during the dark winter months.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to revisit this in 6 months after
the sidewalk is put in to consider the safety aspects.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation of Alternative #1 (Exhibit B)
with the Board revisiting the matter in 6 months
after the sidewalk is put in.
40
JANUARY 9, 1996
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. K. Barton, Clerk Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Minutes approved " G " 7 b
JANUARY 9, 1996 41 BOOK 9� FrhuF.