Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/22/1997BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A Tuesday, April 22,1997 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4) Fran B. Adams (District 1) Caroline D. Ginn (District 5 Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP PAGES 2. INVOCATION None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 7.C. Redesignated 9.A.2. AMMONS: 9.A1. Ordinance prolnbitina solicitation on Cogly right �f--wav (as advertised) 13.3.1. Membership in the Florida Tourist Association 138.2. Attendance at Governor's Council for Sustainable Florida —1997 Annual Svnmsiwn in Orlando 13.C. Seawall Contractor, 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 1, 1997 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated April 10, 1997) 1-9 B. Ratification of Sebastian's Appointment to LAAC (memorandum dated April 11, 1997) 10 C. James & Lauri Simpson's Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Use Approval for an Agricultural PD to be Known as the Pomelo S/D (memorandum dated April 16, 1997) 11-23 D. Award Bid #7045/Re-Roofing of IRC Sheriff s Admin. Building & Jail Complex, Phase I (memorandum dated April 15, 1997) 24-28 E. Award Bid #7038 / CR 512 & Louisiana Ave. Water Main a. (memorandum dated April 14, 1997) �� -�' Pr "49-43 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 6010K PAGES None 9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS None B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. F.D.R. Tomey Request to Discuss Personal Problem - Landfill Fees (correspondence dated Feb. 14, 1997) 44-48 2. Consideration of the Proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan (memorandum dated April 16, 1997) 49-175 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development 1. Public Nuisance Abatement and Assessment; Property at 2666 13th Place Owned by James A. McCasland (memorandum dated April 14, 1997) 176-184 2. Request that the Board Authorize FloridAffinity, Inc. to Subcontract with Bellomo-Herbert and Company, Inc. to Develop a Management Plan for the Cairns Tract (memorandum dated April 15, 1997) 185-201 B. Emergency Services None C. General Services 1. Excess Real Property (memorandum dated April 15, 1997) 202-203 2. Telecommunications Grant Program (memorandum dated April 7, 1997) 204-240 D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget 1. Request by Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. for Industrial Development Bond Financing in an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $10,000,000 Issued in One or More Services (memorandum dated April 16, 1997) 241-306 2. I.R.C. Firefighter's Request for Funding of Fireworks (memorandum dated April 16, 1997) 307-308 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): BACKUP PAGES F. Personnel None G. Public Works 1. Intersection Improvements, 43rd Ave. and 41 st Street (memorandum dated April 11, 1997) 309-312 2. As -Built Resolution & Assessment Roll for Paving & Drainage Improvements to 1st St. SW between 66th Ave./ & 58th Ave. (memorandum dated March 31, 1997) 313-322 3. Larry and Cheryl Gerstner/Alleged Permit Violation for Construction of a Seawall (correspondence dated April 10, 1997) 323-334 H. Utilities 1. Developer's Agreement with Vance McCown Construction Co., Inc., for the Rex Store Corp. (memorandum dated April 14, 1997) 335-349 2. 5th St. S.W. Water Main and Drainage Conflict (memorandum dated April 8, 1997) 350-352 3. Hickory Sands Water Service 5th Place, West of Old Dixie Highway (memorandum dated April 11, 1997) 353-371 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert B. Vice Chairman -John W. Tippin C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 372-374 E. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS f,G;? F'AG�Ei ( A GESS A. Emergency Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District None C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5: 00 p.m. Thursday through 5: 00 p. m. Friday Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening INDEX TO MINUTES APRIL 22,1997 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. CALL TO ORDER»»»„»»..........»»..................»....»........».............»»»»»»»»......»...�...»»..» 1 2. INVOCATION».»»......».».».»» ..... .....».......... ».... »... ...... ...»»»......». "---I I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,„,„„»„„,.„„».........................»........»„».„„„.„.. „„„„.„ 1 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/CHANGES »... „.„.... „„„»..„„„„.„„„..„„„.......»......,„.„„,„.»».....„„..„ 1 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ».„....... .....»»„.»„........»..»..».„........„„..„„...................... 2 7. CONSENT..»»........»....»...»....»»......».»»........................„»»»..........»»..............»....»..................».2 7.A. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS..................................................................................................................... 2 7.8. LAAO APPOINTMENT BY CITY OF SEBASTIAN RATIFIED....................................................................... 10 7.C. POMELO SUBDIVLSION - JAMES & LAM SHvlPSON'S REQUEST FOR PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FORAGRICULTURAL PD.................................................................................................................................... 10 7.D. AWARD BID #7045 - RE -COATING ROOF OF SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND JAIL COMPLEX, PHASE I, LUCAS WATERPROOFING..................................................................................................................... 10 7.E. AwARD BID #7038 - CR -512 & LOUISIANA AVENUE WATERMAIN, TREASURE COAST ......................... 11 CONTRACTING, DIC.......................................................................................................................................... 12 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SOLICITATION ON COUNTY RIGHT—OF— WAY 15 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING—PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR AN AGRICULTURAL PD: POMELO SUBDIVISION REQUESTED BY JAMES & LAURI 5Il1IPS ON.»N.........».N.»..»..N»N».»».......»..I».N»»....»»...».».».»»»».»»....».N.».»..»N.NN...N».NN.»».».....»....... 1 VQ 9.B.L F.D.R. TON EY - LANDFILL FEES...................»......»»....»........».»»......»..»»....».....»..»».»»»...». 23 9.B.2. CORRIDOR PLAN FOR SR-60».........»........»...............».».»...»..»..»»..».........».»».....»...»........».» 25 ILA -1 PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND ASSESSMENT — JAMES A. MCCASLAND — 2666 13THPLACE»»».»..».....»»»....»......»...............»...........»......»......»........».....»....».».»...».........».............»..». 41 11.A.2. CAIRNS TRACT — FLORIDAFFINTTY AUTHORIZED TO SUBCONTRACT WITH BELLOMO—HERBERT AND COMPANY, INC. TO DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN .„„»............. 45 11.C.1. EXCESS REAL PROPERTY DECLARED SURPLUS AND AUCTION BY KARLIN DANIELS AUTHORIZED„».......».»............»....».»................... »»».... »..».»... .......»..»»..»...............»»»...........»»....»»... 49 11.C.2. TELECOMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAM„„„„,„., 51 11 -E -L OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND FINANCING NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000._.._._.__..._. . ....... . .. o ...... . . ....... . . ...........».»............»»..» 53 11.E.2. FIREWORKS FUNDING - FIREFIGHTERS ....... „„...... »„...„,»....»..»».......„».„,.„...»............ .. 61 11.G L RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE FROM HUNTER — INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - 43RDAVE. & 41ST ST. ... .....»»...... ...»».........»........................................»............»................»..........».......... 62 11.G 2. PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS -1ST STREET S.W. (58TH AVENUE TO 66TH AVENUE) — AS—BUILT RESOLUTION & ASSESSMENT ROLL„ ......... ......... „„....... ....„„..„,..µ,„»...��. 63 i1.G 3. LARRY & CHERYL GERSTNER - ALLEGED PERMIT VIOLATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SEAWALL - 60 -DAY EXTENSION GRANTED,„ 82 11.H.1. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH VANCE MCCOWN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR THE REX STORE CORP. (REX T{)„„„N..»».».N..».».NNN.........N...N».».»».......N...».»N...»»»..»........N».„N.. 84 11.$3. HICKORY SANDS WATER SERVICE - STH PLACE, WEST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY„, 87 13.B.1. FLORIDA TOURISM ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP...----...... . . . ................ . 95 13.B.2. ATTEND TOURISM SEMINAR ............ NNN........ „............. ..H ...... ..NN.I..N..N.N.N»....NNNN..»N 95 13.C. SEAWALL CONTRACTOR/CANGIANELLI - WABASSO BEACH PARK.,„.„,...„.„„„.„„...„... 95 13.D. UTILITY ADVISORY COMIVIITTEE ESTABLISHED............N..NNNNN..NNN...NN....N..N........... NN 96 DOCUMENT MADE PART OF THE RECORD: CORRECTION DEED - PURCHASE FROM GRE% M - EASEMENT LIMITATION.„.„..,N».N.....NN»N.......NN..N..N.N.NNN.»..NN..»»N»»N...... NN.N..NNN.NNN....NN.....N 100 Tuesday, April 22, 1997 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session in County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; and Caroline D. Ginn. Kenneth R Macht was absent due to illness. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator, Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, and Patricia. Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and announced that Commissioner Macht was absent due to illness. 2. 11WOCATION Commissioner Tippin gave the invocation 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tippin led the Pledge. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/CHANGES Chairman Eggert announced the addition of item 9.A 1., an ordinance prohibiting solicitation on County right-of-way, which had been advertised to be heard at today's meeting. Chairman Eggert advised that item 7.C. (James & Lauri Simpson's Request for PD Special Exception Use Approval for an Agricultural PD to be known as the Pomelo Subdivision - pages 11-23 in the backup) was advertised as a Public Hearing and, therefore, shall be redesignated as item 9.A.2. Chairman Eggert stated that Commissioner Tippin had requested addition of two items under his matters: 1) Membership in the Florida Tourist Association (13.B.1.); and 2) Authorization to attend the Governor's Council for Sustainable Florida -1997 Annual Symposium in Orlando (13.B.2.) Chairman Eggert announced the addition of an item for Commissioner Adams concerning the Seawall Contractor (13.C.) 1 April 22, 1997 60or, .4 rAL 1 ,`t; � ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macbt absent) made the listed corrections & additions to the Agenda. 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 1997. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 1997, as written. 7. Consent Items removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion: 7.D. by Commissioner Ginn 7.E. by Commissioner Adams 7.A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 10, 1997: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL 10, 1997 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of April 3 to April 10, 1997. 2 April 22, 1997 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board during the period April 3-10, 1997, as requested. CHECK .NAME COCK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0018310 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF 4/03/97 64,872.74 0018311 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE 4/03/97 21.50 0018312 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND 4/03/97 906.90 0018313 FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM 4/03/97 317,906.57 0018314 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE 4/03/97 138.50 0018315 BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE 4/03/97 166.79 0018316 ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE 4/03/97 135.20 0018317 ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF THE 4/03/97 541.75 0018318 VELASQUEZ, MERIDA 4/03/97 200.00 0018319 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF 4/03/97 2,979.08 0018320 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 4/03/97 175.00 0018321 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. 4/03/97 2,004.00 0018322 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT 4/03/97 86,106.21 _0018323 TRANS GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE 4/03/97 3,232.20 0018324 AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA) 4/03/97 2,119.90 0018325 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 4/03/97 268.31 0018326 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE 4/03/97 232.96 0018327 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769 4/03/97 3,514.05 0018328 NACO/SOUTHEAST 4/03/97 3,282.51 0018329 KEY TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA 4/03/97 989.18 0018330 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF 4/03/97 174,574.73 0018331 JACKSON COUNTY CLERK OF THE 4/03/97 124.80 0018332 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 4/03/97 6,650.00 0018333 DOUGLAS COUNTY CLERK OF COURT 4/03/97 23.08 0018334 TRANSOUTH FINANCIAL CORP 4/03/97 155.72 0018335 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 4/03/97 122.00 0018336 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 4/03/97 58.00 0018337 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 4/04/97 225.46 0018338 JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES 4/04/97 150.00 0018339 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF 4/04/97 1,368.06 0018340 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF 4/04/97 6 643.44 0018341 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF 4/04/97 1,368.06 0018342 FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF 4/04/97 1,368.06 0018343 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF 4/09/97 1 136.00 0018344 GOLLNICK, CHARLES L & CAROL 4/09/97 31,342. 0 0219022 INTERNATIONAL PALM SOCIETY,INC 3/13/97 0219335 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY 3/20/97 �c� `-.0_0 0219430 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF 3/20/97 vE� 0220512 ACE PLUMBING, INC 4/10/97 0220513 ACTION TRANSMISSION AND 4/10/97 44.95 0220514 AERO PRODUCTS CORP 4/10/97 46.45 0220515 AIRBOURNE EXPRESS 4/10/97 772.56 0220516 APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY 4/10/97 49.58 886.27 0220517 ACTION DIESEL INJECTION 4/10/97 94.11 7 790.00 0220518 AQUAGENIX LAND -WATER 4/10/97 0220519 ALPHA HEALTH SERVICE, INC 4/10/97 0220520 A T & T 4/10/97 1 366.66 0220521 ALL FLORIDA BEVERAGE & OFFICE 4/10/97 281.06 0220522 ALRO METALS SERVICE CENTER 4/10/97 53.50 0220523 ADDISON OIL CO 4/10/97 137.30 0220524 CAPITOL ADVANTAGE 4/10/97 571.73 0220525 ALDEN ELECTRONICS, INC 4/10/97 22.90 0220526 A T & T 4/10/97 1,860.00 0220527 A B C CUTTING CONTRACTORS, INC 4/10/97 80.64 0220528 ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 4/10/97 780.20 0220529 ADVANCE MARKING SYSTEMS 4/10/97 55.18 1,081.86 3 _ April 22, 1997 BOOK 101 PACE 0098 10 1 PALE 1A CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK SER DATE AMOUNT 0220530 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 4/10/97 1,053.63 0220531 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 4/10/97 6,788.25 0220532 APPERSON CHEMICALS,INC 4/10/97 311.30 0220533 AMERICAN REPORTING 4/10/97 1,204.00 0220534 A -AUTO INSURANCE WORLD 4/10/97 98.00 0220535 BAKER & TAYLOR, INC 4/10/97 1,466.56 0220536 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 4/10/97 4,711.25 0220537 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4/10/97 4,265.61 0220538 BENSONS LOCK SERVICE 4/10/97 40.00 0220539 BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY 4/10/97 4,519.20 0220540 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 4/10/97 70.97 0220541 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 4/10/97 653.00 0220542 B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. 4/10/97 474.22 0220543 BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS 4/10/97 8.47 0220544 BONET, JAMES RN 4/10/97 80.00 0220545 BRODA, JANICE C 4/10/97 31.90 0220546 BAILES, EMORY 4/10/97 42.00 0220547 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 4/10/97 20.28 0220548 BOOKS ON TAPE 4/10/97 520.88 0220549 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 4/10/97 60.65 0220550 BELLSOUTH 4/10/97 683.38 0220551 BEAZER HOMES, INC 4/10/97 500.00 0220552 BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION 4/10/97 120.00 0220553 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 4/10/97 7,854.00 0220554 BECHARD, RAPHAEL & EMELDA 4/10/97 198.05 0220555 BROWN & CALDWELL 4/10/97 7,391.77 0220556 CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC 4/10/97 34,000.00 0220557 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC 4/10/97 194.00 0220558 CENTRAL AUDIO & VISUAL, INC 4/10/97 3,180.00 0220559 CHUCK'S ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC 4/10/97 848.00 0220560 COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS 4/10/97 177.46 0220561 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 4/10/97 728.67 0220562 CORBIN, SHIRLEY E 4/10/97 42.00 0220563 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4/10/97 27,964.89 0220564 CLARK WATER CONDITIONING 4/10/97 10.00 0220565 COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC 4/10/97 6,717.37 0220566 CLARKS, DOROTHEA 4/10/97 49.59 0220567 COMPUTER & PERIPFERrAL. 4/10/97 160.00 0220568 CHIP HARVESTORS 4/10/97 150.00 0220569 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 4/10/97 1,387.11 0220570 CHILBERG MAYFIELD, INC 4/10/97 500.00 0220571 CINDY'S PET CENTER, INC 4/10/97 43.22 0220572 CLEANNET USA 4/10/97 19,691.94 0220573 CUES, INC 4/10/97 925.74 0220574 C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC 4/10/97 28.44 0220575 CLIFFORD, MIKE 4/10/97 100.00 0220576 COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP 4/10/97 2,541.00 0220577 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 4/10/97 114.00 0220578 CD USA -DIRECT SALES-- 4/10/97 64.10 0220579 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 4/10/97 642.00 0220580 DAVCO 4/10/97 293.10 0220581 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 4/10/97 227.77 0220582 DELTA SUPPLY CO 4/10/97 2,027.95 0220583 DEMCO INC 4/10/97 156.94 0220584 FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT 4/10/97 3,328.52 0220585 DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC 4/10/97 1,503.36 4 April 221 1997 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0220586 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD 4/10/97 250.00 0220587 DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC 4/10/97 692.97 0220588 DIXON, PEGGY C 4/10/97 252.00 0220589 DATA SUPPLIES, INC 4/10/97 1,015.42 0220590 DERRICO CONSTRUCTION CORP. 4/10/97 17,579.10 0220591 DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS 4/10/97 13.94 0220592 DUAL DOLPHIN PUBLISHING INC 4/10/97 94.50 0220593 E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC 4/10/97 15.75 0220594 ELLIS K PHELPS AND CO, INC 4/10/97 279.00 0220595 EMPIRE ENGINEERING, INC 4/10/97 50.00 0220596 ENVIROMETRICS, INC 4/10/97 21,571.75 0220597 E G P, INC 4/10/97 245.00 0220598 EAST COAST SOD 4/10/97 53.50 0220599 EXPEDITER INC, THE 4/10/97 39.63 0220600 EAST COAST LASER & TONER 4/10/97 145.00 0220601 EMERGENCY LINEN SUPPLY CO 4/10/97 935.75 0220602 ERICSSON, INC 4/10/97 280,216.66 0220603 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC 4/10/97 11,167.69 0220604 FACTS ON FILE NEWS SERVICE 4/10/97 430.00 0220605 FIRESIDE THEATRE, THE 4/10/97 22.94 "0220606 FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS 4/10/97 50.00 0220607 F P & L 4/10/97 2,376.27 0220608 FLORIDA TODAY/USA TODAY 4/10/97 78.00 0220609 FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING 4/10/97 60.00 0220610 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC 4/10/97 1,614.60 0220611 FLORIDA DETROIT DIESEL -ALLISON 4/10/97 168.36 0220612 FLORIDAFFINITY, INC 4/10/97 5,431.25 0220613 FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER 4/10/97 38.00 0220614 FITZGERALD ENTERPRISES PUBLISH 4/10/97 78.25 0220615 GENE'S AUTO GLASS 4/10/97 236.00 0220616 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC 4/10/97 321.03 0220617 GENERAL MEDICAL CORP 4/10/97 571.36 0220618 GEORGE W FOWLER COMPANY 4/10/97 180.79 0220619 GOODYEAR TIRE COMPANY 4/10/97 1,068.80 0220620 GALE RESEARCH, INC 4/10/97 830.55 0220621 GOVERNOR'S HURRICANE 4/10/97 90.00 0220622 GEAC COMPUTERS, INC 4/10/97 5,232.98 0220623 GARD DISTRIBUTING CO 4/10/97 672.00 0220624 GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER 4/10/97 1,089.81 0220625 GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE 4/10/97 1,922.00 0220626 HARRIS SANITATION 4/10/97 1,702.81 0220627 HARRISON UNIFORMS 4/10/97 10,960.03 0220628 HAZELLIEF, JEANNIE E 4/10/97 59.50 0220629 HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH 4/10/97 10,360.00 0220630 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLY 4/10/97 910.92 0220631 HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC 4/10/97 500.00 0220632 HARPER, MAX R 4/10/97 63.00 0220633 HELD, PATRICIA BARGO 4/10/97 178.50 0220634 HAILE DEAN SEED CO- 4/10/97 159.00 0220635 HILL MANUFACTURING CO. INC. 4/10/97 328.50 0220636 HORIZON NURSERY 4/10/97 578.75 0220637 HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L 4/10/97 66.50 0220638 HANDI PRO HOMEOWNER SERVICE 4/10/97 365.00 0220639 HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE 4/10/97 6,500.00 0220640 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 4/10/97 450.00 0220641 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 4/10/97 3.00 BOOL 101 PAGE B April 22, 1997 800r 101 PAGED l CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0220642 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 4/10/97 100.00 0220643 INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE 4/10/97 302.47 0220644 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 4/10/97 96.28 0220645 INGRAM 4/10/97 995.47 0220646 INDIAN RIVER ANIMAL HOSPITAL 4/10/97 15.00 0220647 INMAN, KATHALEEN A 4/10/97 1,112.50 0220648 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 4/10/97 98,808.21 0220649 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 4/10/97 600.84 0220650 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY 4/10/97 75.00 0220651 HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER 4/10/97 74.75 0220652 JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC 4/10/97 313.47 0220653 J R REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC 4/10/97 156.00 0220654 J A WEBSTER, INC 4/10/97 3.00 0220655 JIMMY'S WELDING & AUTO REPAIR 4/10/97 140.00 0220656 J A SEXAUER INC 4/10/97 859.64 0220657 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA 4/10/97 725.90 0220658 JONES & JONES, INC 4/10/97 500.00 0220659 JARA, INC 4/10/97 56.00 0220660 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 4/10/97 115.15 0220661 KELLY TRACTOR 4/10/97 1,488.79 0220662 KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY 4/10/97 1,459.66 0220663 KLINK, RICHARD 4/10/97 880.00 0220664 KELL TELEPHONE 4/10/97 38.00 0220665 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 4/10/97 150.12 0220666 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 4/10/97 2,040.57 0220667 LRP PUBLICATIONS 4/10/97 135.00 0220668 LIVE OAK LAWN SUPPLY INC 4/10/97 7,466.00 0220669 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 4/10/97 65.20 0220670 MAC PAPER, INC 4/10/97 2,010.00 0220671 MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY 4/10/97 176.57 0220672 MARPAN SUPPLY CO, INC 4/10/97 516.36 0220673 MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP 4/10/97 1,485.56 0220674 MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES 4/10/97 177.66 0220675 MCCAIN, WILLIAM F 4/10/97 67.17 0220676 MIKES GARAGE 4/10/97 35.00 0220677 MILNER BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC 4/10/97 600.00 0220678 MISCO, INC 4/10/97 187.77 0220679 MOSES AUTO PARTS 4/10/97 17.07 0220680 MUNICIPAL CODE CORP 4/10/97 1,734.81 0220681 MYRON L COMPANY 4/10/97 234.92 0220682 MATRX MEDICAL, INC 4/10/97 517.59 0220683 MARTIN PAVING COMPANY 4/10/97 447,362.25 0220684 MASTELLER & MOLER, INC 4/10/97 10,080.00 0220685 MOUTENOT, ANNE 4/10/97 8.12 0220686 MORNINGSTAR, INC 4/10/97 2,900.00 0220687 M & R RECYCLING SYSTEMS & 4/10/97 1,068.65 0220688 MAGNUM ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 4/10/97 50.00 0220689 M D MOODY & SONS, INC 4/10/97 84.49 0220690 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 4/10/97 51.85 0220691 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET 4/10/97 344.66 0220692 MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC 4/10/97 4.49 0220693 MARC INDUSTRIES 4/10/97 401.64 0220694 MISSION INN 4/10/97 80.00 0220695 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 4/10/97 522.35 0220696 NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE 4/10/97 5.50 0220697 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY 4/10/97 32.94 April 22, 1997 CHECK NAME NUMBER CHECK DATE 0220698 NEFF MACHINERY, INC 4/10/97 51.83 0220699 NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS, 4/10/97 929.27 0220700 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO 4/10/97 23.70 0220701 NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF CHILDREN 4/10/97 82.00 0220702 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 4/10/97 525.00 0220703 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 4/10/97 335.36 0220704 O'BRIEN, TERRENCE 4/10/97 193.31 0220705 0 BRISKY BOOKS 4/10/97 487.28 0220706 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 4/10/97 189.15 0220707 OFFICE DEPOT, INC 4/10/97 341.94 0220708 ORLANDO SENTINEL, THE 4/10/97 504.40 0220709 O'NEIL, LEE & WEST 4/10/97 9,092.79 0220710 O'KEEFE, BEVERLY 4/10/97 2,000.00 0220711 PAGENET 4/10/97 84.67 0220712 PAN AMERICAN ENG CO 4/10/97 210.00 0220713 PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC 4/10/97 471.43 0220714 PETERSON'S 4/10/97 27.36 0220715 PETTY CASH 4/10/97 71.25 0220716 PHILLIPS, LINDA R 4/10/97 38.50 0220717 PUBLIX SUPERMARKET 4/10/97 95.00 0220718 PETTY CASH 4/10/97 58.56 0220719 PETRILLA, FRED J JR PHD 4/10/97 500.00 0220720 PHYSIO CONTROL 4/10/97 19,065.34 0220721 PORT PETROLEUM, INC 4/10/97 840.02 0220722 PRESS JOURNAL 4/10/97 1,528.86 0220723 POOLER, RAYMOND W. & SUSAN 4/10/97 120.30 0220724 PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY 4/10/97 295.00 0220725 PANGBURN, TERRI 4/10/97 10.00 0220726 QUALITY BOOKS, INC 4/10/97 179.93 0220727 RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD 4/10/97 1,000.00 0220728 ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 4/10/97 53.00 0220729 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC 4/10/97 882.20 0220730 RUSSO'PRINTING, INC 4/10/97 73.50 0220731 RAY PACE'S WASTE EQUIPMENT,INC 4/10/97 4,846.54 0220732 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA 4/10/97 937.56 0220733 REED REFERENCE PUBLISHING CO 4/10/97 265.00 0220734 RECORDED BOOKS 4/10/97 89.25 0220735 R & G SOD FARMS 4/10/97 60.00 0220736 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS 4/10/97 37.83 0220737 REGIONAL ENGINEERING 4/10/97 1,730.00 0220738 RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 4/10/97 150,005.34 0220739 RED LINE HEALTHCARE 4/10/97 392.60 0220740 ROY CLARK 4/10/97 2,700.00 0220741 ROSATO MD, RALPH M 4/10/97 500.00 0220742 ROSS, MARVIN & MARCY 4/10/97 124.47 0220743 SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 4/10/97 150.25 0220744 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 4/10/97 79.68 0220745 SCOTTY'S, INC 4/10/97 2,269.95 0220746 SEBASTIAN SUN 4/10/97 594.00 0220747 SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 4/10/97 96.00 0220748 SECURITY TITLE OF INDIAN 4/10/97 8,503.92 0220749 SENTINEL COMMUNICATIONS 4/10/97 1,437.20 0220750 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 4/10/97 740.54 0220751 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 4/10/97 219.55 0220752 SIR SPEEDY 4/10/97 95.53 0220753 SKISCIM CAMERA STORE, INC 4/10/97 35.66 BOOK 110-01 PAGE4 85 April 22, 1997 BOOM 101 FACEI86 CHECK NUMBER NAME CHECK CHECK DATE AMOUNT 0220754 SOUTHARD, TERRY 4/10/97 0220755 0220756 SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF SOUTHERN ELECTRIC 4/10/97 42.00 2,873.39 0220757 SUPPLY ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC 4/10/97 4/10/97 464.74 0220758 0220759 STURGIS LUMBER& PLYWOOD CO SUN 4/10/97 62.70 204.31 0220760 COAST CLEANING SUPPLIES, SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES, INC 4/10/97 4/10/97 41.90 0220761 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMEN 4/10/97 202.96 275.00 0220762 0220763 SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC SIMON 4/10/97 364.45 0220764 & SCHUSTER CONSUMER STECK-VAUGHN COMPANY 4/10/97 4/10/97 512.42 0220765 SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY 4/10/97 16.95 105.14 0220766 SAFETY EQUIP COMPANY 4/10/97 41.50 0220767 0220768 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL SALEM PRESS, INC 4/10/97 6,522.57 0220769 SUPERIOR PRINTING 4/10/97 4/10/97 258.00 0220770 SHELLY TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO 4/10/97 544.00 95.19 0220771 0220772 SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO SUDDEN IMAGES 4/10/97 120.62 0220773 SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF 4/10/97 4/10/97 241.36 1,091.00 0220774 0220775 SA SO COMPANY SULLIVAN SR, CHARLES 4/10/97 4/10/97 202.38 0220776 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH 4/10/97 43.00 78.60 0220777 0220778 SIGNS ETC , INC SESSIONS, ALESIA 4/10/97 4/10/97 1,015.00 0220779 SOUTHWIND GRAPHICS 4/10/97 240.00 232.00 0220780 0220781 STAPLES, INC THOMAS, DEBBY L 4/10/97 35.18 0220782 TRODGLEN PAVING, INC 4/10/97 4/10/97 87.50 0220783 TROY FAIN INSURANCE,' INC 4/10/97 3,854.80 93.97 0220784 0220785 TEXACO REFINING AND TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC 4/10/97 4/10/97 1,183.39 0220786 0220787 TRANS PARTS CENTER OF SOUTH TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 4/10/97 2,572.00 303.45 0220788 TCI MEDIA SERVICES 4/10/97 4/10/97 227.50 0220789 TORRES, MANUEL F 4/10/97 125.00 0220790 USI, INC 4/10/97 10.00 0220791 UNIVERSITY PRESS OF FLA 4/10/97 40.71 52.92 0220792 0220793 UTILITY SUPPLY OF AMERICA ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT BOOKS 4/10/97 4/10/97 341.64 0220794 U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION,INC 4/10/97 611.75 25,124.42 0220795 0220796 VELDE FORD, INC VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE 4/10/97 4/10/97 41.19 0220797 0220798 VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL VERO 4/10/97 15.00 856.24 0220799 BEACH, CITY OF VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,_INC 4/10/97 4/10/97 41,376.30 0220800 0220801 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC VERO BEACH, CITY OF 4/10/97 320.25 21.95 0220802 VERO LAKE ESTATES -VOLUNTEER 4/10/97 4/10/97 55.00 0220803 VERO BEARING & BOLT 4/10/97 29.00 318.14 0220804 0220805 VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN VISION VIDEO 4/10/97 85.61 0220806 W S DARLEY & CO 4/10/97 4/10/97 181.55 0220807 W W GRAINGER INC 506.81 0220808 WILLHOFF, PATSY 4/10/97 167.81 0220809 WISSEL CONSTRUCTION, INC 4/10/97 130.00 500.00 April 22, 1997 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0220810 WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC 4/10/97 146.12 0220811 WATERWORKS CAR WASH 4/10/97 138.00 0220812 WSCF-FM 4/10/97 300.00 0220813 WAL*MART STORE 931 4/10/97 149.91 0220814 WELLINGTON HOMES 4/10/97 500.00 0220815 W G MILLS, INC OF 4/10/97 500.00 0220816 XEROX CORPORATION 4/10/97 331.98 0220817 YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC 4/10/97 1,135.11 0220818 TIMBER RIDGE INC 4/10/97 78.27 0220819 NARDONE, ALBERT L 4/10/97 58.66 0220820 GRAND HARBOR 4/10/97 70.10 0220821 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS, INC 4/10/97 54.62 0220822 KELLY, STEVE 4/10/97 46.54 0220823 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 4/10/97 49.42 0220824 WALBRIDGE, LUTHER 4/10/97 37.04 0220825 STEPHENS, GENE 4/10/97 39.62 0220826 PADGETT, APRIL 4/10/97 6.74 0220827 GULAVITA, NANDA K 4/10/97 31.80 0220828 MCANENEY, THOMSON J 4/10/97 35.36 0220829 0 DANIEL, JAYME CLAIRE 4/10/97 25.24 0220830 GHO VERO BEACH, INC 4/10/97 61.20 0220831 WRIGHT, COLEMAN E 4/10/97 3.30 0220832 GARDNER, ELWOOD H 4/10/97 86.38 0220833 WILSON, WINONA 4/10/97 33.50 0220834 STEPHENS, JAMES R 4/10/97 89.10 0220835 BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA, INC 4/10/97 76.56 0220836 FLORES, GEORGE 4/10/97 26.11 0220837 STIEH, RUSSELL 4/10/97 39.85 0220838 COTTON, DONALD R 4/10/97 38.65 0220839 PULVERMACHER, BONNIE 4/10/97 9.99 0220840 KYLE'S RUN 4/10/97 2,177.00 0220841 HUNTER, JOHNNY M 4/10/97 33.20 0220842 GROSS, FREDERICK C 4/10/97 65.83 0220843 KLETTER, KLARA S 4/10/97 49.11 0220844 BEUTTTELL, LILIAN 4/10/97 19.54 0220845 JORDAN, WILLIAM 4/10/97 17.44 0220846 WELCOME HOME 4/10/97 36.05 0220847 BRESSAN, MARK 4/10/97 6.64 0220848 MICHAHEL MLEKO GEN CNT 4/10/97 11.87 0220849 ENSMINGER,NORMAN H 4/10/97 55.53 0220850 GIUSTI, FRANK T 4/10/97 52.56 0220851 LANE, ALFRED S 4/10/97 52.55 0220852 FARRELL, KENNETH G 4/10/97 52.56 0220853 KINGSLEY, DONNA & GREGORY 4/10/97 52.56 0220854 WALLACE, CHESTER A 4/10/97 84.04 0220855 CARPENTER, JOSEPH P 4/10/97 105.16 0220856 DAMES, KENNETH 4/10/97 52.53 0220857 SHAW, MARK C 4/10/97 55.57 0220858 GEOSITS, ADALBERT"& ELSIE 4/10/97 52.59 0220859 LOPEZ, COSMAS 4/10/97 58.06 0220860 LAFEVERS JR, CHARLES 4/10/97 50.00 0220861 BOESCH, EDWARD 4/10/97 52.52 0220862 MARTZ, CHARLES DAVID 4/10/97 53.32 0220863 MACKIE, MARYANNE 4/10/97 52.56 0220864 ASHTON, SHER L 4/10/97 53.36 0220865 NOVAK, EDWARD T 4/10/97 52.58 0220866 DEFOREST III, GEORGE A 4/10/97 4/10/97 52.54 52.59 0220867 PRATT, PATRICIA A 4/10/97 33.49 0220868 HEIM, WILLIAM W 4/10/97 6.26 0220869 BROWN, MARY 4/10/97 52.63 0220870 WANTLAND, PAUL F 4/10/97 52.59 0220871 0220872 SANCHEZ, MARK J REISMAN, LAURENCE & LINDA 4/10/97 52.59 2,174,377.52 9 BOOK 1:0.1 PAGE 187 April 22, 1997 BOOK 01 PACE 18 7.B. LAAC Appointment by City of Sebastian Ratified The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 11, 1997: To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice E. White, Executive Aide Date: April 11, 1997 Subject: Ratification of Sebastian's appointment to LAAC The City of Sebastian has notified us that they have appointed their City Planner, Tracy Hass to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. 7 Ratification of the appointment is requested. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Giem, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) ratified the City of Sebashan's appointment of their City Planner Tracy Hass to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, as requested. 7.C. Pomelo Subdivision - James & Lauri Simpson's Request for PD Special Exception Use Approval for Agricultural PD Moved to 9.A.2. for public hearing. 7.1). Award Bid #7045 - Re -coating Roof of SheritTs Administration Building and Jail Complex, Phase L Lucas Waterproofing The Board reviewed a Memorandum of Apri115, 1997: DATE: April 15, 1997 TO: FROM: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Ser Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing SUBJECT: Award Bid #7045/Re-Roofing of IRC Sheriff's Adnan Building & Jail Complex, Phase I Buildings & Grounds io April 22, 1997 r s r BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: Advertising Dates: Advertisement Mailed to: Replies: April 2, 1997 March 13, 26, 1997 Seventeen (17) Vendors Six (6) Vendors VE- BID TOTAL Lucas Waterproofing $ 23,050.00 Vero Beach, FL Coatings Applications $ 25,880.00 Palm City, FL Energy Coatings Corp $ 34,084.00 West Palm Beach, FL TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $ 23,050.00 VEND Roof Authority Ft Pierce, FL BID TOTAL $ 35,771.00 Therma Seal $ 49,800.00 West Palm Beach, FL Atlantic Roofing $ 51,480.00 Vero Beach, FL ESTIMATED BUDGET Building Operations -County Buildings Roofing - $ 19,000.00 , Reserve for Contingency Funds - $4,050.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Lucas Waterproofing as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Commissioner Ginn was concerned that this was not a very old building to be needing re- roofing, and General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that the building was about 10 years old and this was a re -coating not a re -roofing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) awarded Bid #7045 to Lucas Waterproofing, in the amount of $35,771, as recommended in the Memorandum. AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WFIEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED 11 April 22, 1997 BOOK 10.1 PAGE 3J BOOK 10.E PACE BO 7.E. Award Bid #7038 - CR -512 & Louisiana Avenue Water Main, Treasure Coast Contracting. Inc. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 14, 1997, and a letter of Apri117, 1997: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, CountyAdministrator DATE: April 14, 1997 H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services ectoz� * FROM: Fran Boyson Powell, Purchasing SUBJECT: Award Bid #7038/CR 512 & Louisiana Avenue Water Main Utilities Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: April 2, 1997 Advertising Dates: February 26, March 5, 12, 1997 Advertisement Mailed to: Thirty Six (36) Vendors Replies: Thirteen (13 ) Vendors VENDOR Tri -Sure Corp Auburndale, FL Treasure Coast Cont Vero Beach, FL TOTAL BID VENDOR TOTAL BID $ 405,220.00 $ 405,269.00 Sheltra & Sons Const $ 419,335.00 Indiantown, FL Irsidne Florida Prop $ 464,030.00 Ft Pierce, FL Hutchinson Utilities $ 466,780.00 Jensen Beach, FK Sullivan Brothers $ 495,830.00 Pompano Beach, FL Johnson Davis $ 427,058.00 Martin Paving $ 524,805.00 Lantana, FL Vero Beach, FL Maxwell Cont $ 437,000.00 JoBear, Inc $ 540,144.00 Com, FL Palm Bay, FL Tim Rose Cont $ 460,507.00 Driveways, Inc $ 559,431.05 Ft Pierce, FL Titusville, FL Derrico Const $ 461,225.00 Melbourne, FL TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $ 405,220.00 ESTIMATED BUDGET $ 605,634.00 Utilities Daparhno t Ammmat Funds 472-000-169-319.00 & 472-000-269-319.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Tri -Sure Corporation as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See Departmental Memo) In addition, staff also requests Board approval of the attached Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney. 12 April 22, 1997 - M M Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc. License No. R00059974 _7 E 6290 Old Dixie Highway - P.O. Box 650249 - Vero Beach, FL 32965 (561) 5624587 April 17, 1997 Ms. Carolyn Eggert Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 199 •� APR ' gOA���0U�1TY , C����,�i5,1GNERS r ; � f. Re: April 22, 1997 Agenda Item - Award"of-Contract CR 512 & Louisiana Avenue Water Main Project No. Ul-95-13-DS & UW -96 -17 -DS Dear Ms. Eggert: pEST Commissloners _L — Admi n istrator Attorney - Personnel — Puhilc Nork,; As a.local contractor, I would like to ask you to review the bids and the bidders on the above project before you make your final decision to award the contract. I respect your position and understand that your decisions are not made lightly, but after much forethought. As you are aware Tri -Sure Construction and Treasure Coast Contracting were the two low bidders with bids of $405,220 and $405,269 respectively - a difference of only one one-hundredth percent. I just wanted to bring to your attention a few items which are listed below. * Treasure Coast Contracting is a local company; licensed and located in Indian River County. * Treasure Coast Contracting works almost solely in Indian River County, and is always available and on call for call-backs or in case of an emergency. * Treasure Coast Contracting pays real estate, tangible personal property and sales taxes in Indian River County. * All of my employees reside in, pay taxes in, and buy goods and services, etc. in Indian River County. I feel that since the bid was so close, it would be advantageous to Indian River County and Treasure Coast Contracting to award this contract to a local company, thereby keeping the monies paid out on this contract in the local economy. I appreciate the time and consideration that you have taken before making your decision. Respectfully yours, 7:1��" Lawrence J. Myers President 13 April 22, 1997 BOOK 101 PACE tl 800r 101 PAGE Commissioner Adams recounted that it has been the Board's prerogative in the past to not take the low bid and to use the local vendor if there were circumstances of a close bid and a local bidder. Because there was only a $49 difference in the low bid and that of the local vendor, she wanted to see the local contractor supported. Commissioner Ginn agreed and pointed out that the local contractor has had a long history of local projects and a good record. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, to award the bid to Treasure Coast Contracting in the amount of $405,269. James Chambers, representing Tri -Sure Corporation of Auburndale, Florida, was very surprised that the Board was considering any bid other than Tri-Sure's low bid. He had no idea that the Board had a policy to make bid awards to local bidders. He recounted how his company had done extensive and very good work in Indian River County, and that the crew lived here during the weekdays of construction jobs and thus generated dollars into the economy of the county. Commissioner Adams assured Mr. Chambers that her motion was not a reflection on the past performance of Tri -Sure, merely that it was a very close bid and the local contractor would generate most if not all of the dollars into the economy of Indian River County. County Attorney Viitunac explained that some years ago the Board adopted an ordinance that said the Board is not required to take the low bidder. The only restriction on their choice is that the acceptance has to be in the overall best interest of the County. So, it is a policy matter of the Board to decide when the second low bidder or the third low bidder is a better choice for the County Mr. Chambers understood but felt that he could convince the individual Board members that it was not in the best interest of the county. He cautioned that a policy such as this could be detrimental to the county as there are not enough local contractors for the projects the county needs and out-of- town firms will refrain from submitting bids. He stated Tri Sure does work throughout the state and is able to do so because their bids are very competitive. He was shocked and thought Tri -Sure was being treated unfairly. Chairman Eggert explained her great concern for the economic development of the county. Commissioner Adams hoped that the decision today would not prevent Tri -Sure from bidding on other County jobs as they have done good work for the County in the past. Karl Hedin, local businessman and elected official, urged the Board to reconsider and award the bid to the low bidder. He reasoned that all bidders bid in good faith, and the low bid is always accepted because we live in a competitive society. 14 April 22, 1997 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent). (Bid awarded to Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc.) 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SOLICITATION ON COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero (Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the PressJoumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being C in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Iridian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian Rim County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication In said newspaper. ,s subscribed before me thislZ. day of �/.�.19� OTAgr��i:4'liiAks �� (President) E*.: _ OCT. 11, 1997 N No. pCLC�311063 ; Q , all. of Florida, K' y Commis",.. Esp. to/ 11/V commission amber.CC311063 h 'L OF 0r Notsar. S-A Ili hT1h=z The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 1997: NOTICE The Board of County Commission- ers of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a public hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, to be held aG the Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. This public hearing will be for the pur. pose of discussing the following proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PRO- HIBITING SOLICITING -ON: RIGHT-OF-WAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Any interested parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with rasped to the proposed ordinance. . Copies of the proposed ordinance are available for inspection by the public during regular business, hours at the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commission- h ers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beady Florida. r Anyone who may wish to appeal i any decision which may be model at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-, ceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which' the appeal is based. - Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting' may contact the County's Ameri- cans with Disabilities Ad (ADA) , Coordinator at 567-8000, Ext. 223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. April 12, 1997 1068506r TO: Board of County Commissioners o FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney ` f DATE: April 17, 1997 RE: PROHIBITION OF SOLICITING ON COUNTY ROW PUBLIC HEARING 4/22/97 The Board of County Commissioners at a recent meeting directed staff to prepare an ordinance concerning the referenced matter. A public hearing date of April 22, 1997 was approved. Proof of publication for said hearing is attached. 15 April 22F 1997 BOOK 10i FACE194 Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien advised that the ordinance before them was proposed by Commissioner Macht. It is very similar to the one adopted by the City of Vero Beach. He advised that Vero Beach Police Chief Gabbard had said the law had been very effective for moving the solicitors out of the city limits. Chairman Eggert recalled this had started when she was getting reports that a group of missionary -oriented teenagers were soliciting for money for a Tampa organization and were causing problems for traffic. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be- heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance No. 97-15 prohibiting soliciting on right-of-way in Indian River County. 4/21/97(ord\emend 312)0w ORDINANCE 97-15 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROHIBITING SOLICIT- ING ON RIGHT-OF-WAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. WHEREAS, the solicitation by pedestrians directed to persons in automobiles creates a hazardous situations for the pedestrians as well as persons in automobiles; and WHEREAS, it is in the public health, safety and welfare to limit areas where solicitations may take place in the right-of-way, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 1. Definition Amendment. Paragraph (8) of Section 312.04 is amended by the addition of the word street to read as follows: (8) Street: The area of the public right-of-way which is intended for normal vehicular traffic, including paved or unpaved roadways but not including services entrances or driveways leading from the roadways onto adjoining property. 16 April 22, 1997 2. Prohibited Activity Amendment. A new subparagraph (o) is added to Section 312.06(1) to read as follows: (1) Except as provided in section 312.05, it shall be unlawful and subject to penalties provided herein for any person, corporation or utility company, public or private to: x x x (o) Beg, peddle, solicit, or canvass on any right-of-way as defined in Section 312.04(6) other than a sidewalk as defined in Section 312.04(7). SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk with the Office of the Secretary of State of the state of Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary -of -State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 22 dayof April ,1997. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 12 day of Apr i 1 , 1997, for a public hearing to be held on the 22 2 day of �p r i 1 1997, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ai nn , seconded by Commissioner n ri am c , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Caroline Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 2 2 day of _April_, 1997. Attest: ;;e.Y Clerk i. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Carol K Eggert, Effective date: This ordinance became effective upon filing with the Departiient of State which took place on30 th day ofApril , 1997 17 April 22, 1997 IinMan Rnr % I Acrroved I . Date L e��an-t BCO!( 10 � m u� BOOK 101 PACE 106 9.A•2PUBLIC HEARING -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR AN AGRICULTURAL PD: POMELO SUBDIVISION REQUESTED BY JAMES & LAURI SIMPSON PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a YL��c� in the matter of_yCjCk_ Ck__) Ift C 1 l_ 1 , in the ffCourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of (� 0Z � 1 C [Q -) Affiant further says that the said Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in said newspaper. NOS.;. (s OR1OP,. IIr ��IINNIII•~I before me thi ) C day ew 0. t UA A 190 • SHEILA M. TUTTLE, NOTARY PUBLIC Commission Number: CC311063 t Notarr.8 M 1UMAIC Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the Memorandum of April 16, 1997: TO: James Chandler County Administrator SION HEAD 'Robert - M . Reatg, A P Community Deve opme Director THROUGH: Stan Boling `AICP Planning Director FROM: Eric BladZJ Staff Planner, Current Development 18 April 22, 1997 NOTICE OF. PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider' granting special exception use' approval for a 4 lot planned' development. The subject propertp is presently owned by James 8 Lauri Simpson, and located in Sec- tion 19, Township, 32 and Range. 39. See the above map for the location. A public hearing. at which par ties In interest and citizens 'shall have an opportunity to -be heard, will be held *'*a Bow4. of County Commissioners of Indian :RKW County, Florida, to `the' county C3mmi", Clmmbe w -W the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero' Beach, Florida on Tuesday, April - 22, 1 W pril22,1997 at 9:05 a.m. Please dhect planning -related questions to the current develop. ment planning section -of 567- 8000, W. 242. 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 mode, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPE- CIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THEt COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS , BY -s- Carolyn K. Eggert April 10,1997 1067404r DATE: SUBJECT: April 16, 1997 James & Lauri Simpson's Request for Planned (PD) Special Exception Use Approval for an PD to be Known as the Pomelo Subdivision M Development Agricultural It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 22, 1997. Carter Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for PD (planned development) special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval on behalf of James & Lauri Simpson to create four 5 acre tracts within an agriculturally designated area. The subject 20.34 acre development is located on the south side of 49th Street a half mile west of 66th Avenue. The subject property was previously used for groves, but in recent years has been taken over by other vegetation. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres), is located outside the Urban Service Area, and is designated AG -1 (Agricultural up to 1 unit/5 acres). The proposed four tract residential/agricultural subdivision is allowed in the AG -1 area, subject to the special agricultural provisions of sections 911.06(4) and 911.14(2) of the county's land development regulations (see attachment #4). •PDs in Agriculturally Designated Areas To address certain urban sprawl concerns raised by DCA during its review of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, the county adopted special policies and regulations regarding development of single family subdivisions in agriculturally designated areas. The resulting special regulations require use of the PD process and a layout of the lots or homesites that "clusters" homesites in a manner that provides large remaining areas of open space (used for agriculture or preservation of natural features). Therefore, the LDRs limit the maximum lot or homesite size to 1 acre, with remaining areas designated as open -space (see attachment #4). Lot or homesite clustering also preserves the ability for future development of -the overall property if, in the future, the comprehensive plan is changed and the property is re -designated for residential development. Clustering can be accomplished in different ways. One approvable concept clusters the lots in a more standard subdivision layout of 1 acre or smaller lots and creates 1 large tract which could be separately owned and limited to open space. (agriculture or preservation) uses until such time as the land may be re- designated. Another approvable clustering concept creates "5 acre" tracts, each with a designated buildable lot area (homesite). Such tracts can be laid out so as to cluster the buildable lot areas in close proximity to one another or in close proximity to a land feature or roadway. Under such a design, each 5 acre tract could be individually owned. This concept has been used in the design of the proposed Pomelo Subdivision, and was also used in the Lateral A and Trails End projects approved during the past year. 19 April 22, 1997 B0©P; IN' PAGE J9'7 GOOK 101 FACE 198 OPD Project Process As a PD project, the process involved in review and approval of this proposal is as follows: Approval Nepdpcl Reviewing Body 1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC 2. Preliminary PD PZC 3. Land Development Permits or Waiver Staff 4. Final PD (plat) BCC The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, -the applicant will need to obtain a land development permit or LDP waiver for required PD improvements. •Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of March 27, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (5-0) approved the preliminary PD plan subject to. Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception use request, and recommended that the Board approve the special exception use request with the conditions outlined at the end of this report. *Board of County Commissioners Consideration The Board is now to consider the application and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use request. If the request is approved by the Board, the conditional preliminary PD plan approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its March 27th meeting will automatically become effective. Please see the attached draft minutes. AN LY21a : 1. Size of PD Area: 20.34 acres (including access easement) 2. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) 3. Land Use Designation: AG -11 Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) 4. Density:- 206,500+ .196 units per acre (1 unit per 4.74 acres or sq. ft.) Note: The county's LDRs recognize that many tracts within the county have previously dedicated property for canal and road rights-of-way. Therefore, the minimum parcel size in the A-1 zoning district is 200,000 square feet or -4.59 acres, so that a tract originally consisting of 20 acres can be developed with 4 units. 5. Minimum Tract Size: Required: 200,000 sq. ft. Provided: 206,460 sq. ft. 20 April 22, 1997 6. Maximum Lot/Homesite Area: Allowed: 1 acre Proposed: 1 acre 7. Open Space: Required: 60% Provided: 80% 8. Traffic Circulation: Access to 49th Street for all four- tracts ou=tracts will be via the subdivision's roadway, proposed as a single cul-de-sac in the center of the subdivision. The road will be constructed as a stabilized unpaved road within a 60' private road right-of-way. The LDRs allow such a road to be unpaved, since the subdivision is private, generates less than 100 daily trips, and is located outside the Urban Service Area. The traffic engineering division has reviewed and approved the roadway layout. 9. Stormwater Management: The public works department has reviewed and approved a conceptual stormwater plan. A detailed engineering stormwater plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the land development permit or permit waiver process. 10. Utilities: The project will have on-site well and septic tanks for each tract. These utility provisions have been approved by the Utility Services and Environmental Health Departments. 11. Dedications & Improvements: Although the existing 49th Street right-of-way is only 301, less than the 80' ultimate road right-of-way, no additional 49th Street right-of-way is required from the subject site due to the location of the Indian River Farms Water Control District canal right-of-way between the subject site and 49th Street. Since the proposed development is a low traffic generator/attractor and is outside of the Urban Service Area, the applicant is not required to provide sidewalks or bikeways. 12. Concurrency: The applicant has obtained a conditional concurrency certificate which satisfies concurrency requirements related to the special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat requests. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval have been satisfied. 13. Environmental Issues: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native _upland set-aside requirements of section 929.05 potentially could apply. However, based upon an inspection of the site by the county's environmental planning staff, staff has determined that no native upland habitat exist on the site. Therefore, no native upland habitat preservation requirements apply. 14. Waivers: The applicant is not requesting any waivers through the PD process. 15. Buffers and Setbacks: Given that the surrounding area is presently used for agricultural purposes, no special buffering is required under the planned development LDRs. Since the A-1 district minimum 30' setback exceeds the 25' perimeter PD setback, the 30' A-1 district setback will control. The plan proposes a minimum distance of 50' from any building envelope to any adjacent property with an active agricultural operation. Such a separation distance exceeds the LDR 50' separation distance applicable to such circumstances. 21 April 22, 1997 BOOK 101 FAGE 199 e��4 BOCK �.0. fAG� The Board recently invoked the pending ordinance doctrine to establish a 120' setback between residential projects and active agricultural applications. Within the next 6 weeks, the Board will have the opportunity to consider an LDR amendment on the buffer issue. The pending ordinance doctrine invoked by the Board does not apply to this application, since it was received and reviewed prior to the Board's action. Therefore, this application has been reviewed under the current LDR buffer requirements. 16. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant: While the county does not address this issue in its LDRs, there has been a county policy of discouraging the planting of host plants in agricultural areas. The applicants have indicated that they would have no objection to creating a restriction that would prohibit host plants on the subject property. Staff will continue to recommend inclusion of such a restriction when the project covenants and restrictions are reviewed at the time of final plat application. In considering the subject PD special exception use request, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to add a condition that would require the creation of covenants and restrictions applicable to the subject property that would prohibit host plants that harbor infestations harmful to citrus. 17. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Groves, Single Groves/A-1 Groves/A-1 Groves/A-1 Family/A-1 Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant PD special exception use approval with the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a land development permit or permit waiver, the applicant shall obtain a Type "B" stormwater management permit from the Public Works Department. 2. That prior to or at the time of final plat recording, the applicant shall create covenants and restrictions that would prohibit the use -of host plants on the subject property that harbor infestations harmful to citrus. 22 April 22, 1997 M M The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Adams asked if it is anticipated that 49th Street would be paved in the future. Director Boling explained that, outside the urban service area, the standard for low traffic -generating project is 100 trips or less. As this project falls under that standard, there would be no paving requirement. He guessed that 40 Street would not be programmed for improvements until such time as the urban service area boundaries expanded to include it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) approved staffs recommendation as set forth in the Memorandum. 9.B.1. F.D.R. TOMEY - LANDFILL FEES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 6, 1997, and letter ofFebruary 14, 1997: DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1997' TO: RONALD R.. BROOKS,. MANAGER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FROM; • • .. JOYCE •A. W1 XEL S0136 WAS7E DW. AL DISTRICT - SUBJEM --SWDO.FEE LNFORMATION FROM JANUARY.26, 1997 The transactions. for 3anuary 26, F997; in M. vmg an uncovered load upping fee and .two construction,.tippinglee transaction •one for contaminated concrete $30:00 per ton and one for-clean.00ncreW.$3.W.w tom; _. . VA= :.'this gwd man _ entered .the; Landfill : on ,Ugday, -his trailer . containing the contaminated: concreted was . not. covered:: The -inbound zcale:operaW explained to him that all hm4coming ittto the"latidfilt hadao be coiered or pay a W.00 uncovered load tipping" fox: Tlie opetatoi. ako `informed: km, tht: material: would .be chased at $30.00 Per ton. The -gentleman did not agree to the charges. The scale operator had the gentleman putt-off.thescale.and called the:•supervisor to -inspect, the concrete to verify the tipping.fee.would•bG=S30.0fl:pet.ton" Mi: Stwe Brittingham.in3pected the concrete and •determiitoei. tbo :tipping fee: -would be-$30.00.:per ton... Mr. Brittirtigham also gave the gentleman $ han&.out on 16imcovar�bads and- Ithink he.also -gave the gentleman a copy of:the tipping fees `At. ttiis point ft genoeman. left. the ImuMl without dumping the material. Within wtbe hour :Yhe` :getkmau i rdnd : to: :ilii:: }andflll.:.Agaia his load was not covered. The'inbound . sc "opeiami =&=ted � the"• uncovered load; tipping fee of $25.00,. and reminded,. him; -of :the_430.00 per ton dpp*.. fee for his material. The gentleman paid:146.,8040r. his_ anaterial:: Tha gendentaa retanted a second time, his Load covered this time ,:with-cte2n-co =tn; cleats:conet+ete has.tipping fee of $3.00 per ton with a 53.00 n1ui =' tint, ., -Lars: sii and load tots W13.00. ' I'have• attached copies.9f.a 11.he transactions. 23 -c, lr 10 -1 - �, ". I FA, � E Z J 11 April 22, 1997 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Landfill / Administration / Recycling 1325 74th Avenue SW Vero Beach, FL 32968 Phone: 561-770-5112 561-770-5113 561-770-5114 Fax: 561 R&W 14, 1997 n9f,, 101. Assessment Fees 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: 561-567-8000 Ext. 300 Fax: 561-770-5143 Mr. Franklin Tomey 271 SW 6t° Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32962 RE: INDIAN. RIVER COUNTY LANDFILL RATES AND FEES Dear Mr. Tomey: Thank you for your interest and concern regarding our landfill rates and fees. I have reviewed your complaint regarding the landfill fees you were charged on January 26, 1997. According to the information provided to me, you were charged the appropriate fee, in accordance with County regulations. The attendants at the landfill are not authorized to vary from the approved fee structure. I have attached the report provided to me from our landfill staff for your review. The matter was also discussed with the Mr. James Chandler, our County Administrator. Based on the information provided, the Solid Waste Disposal District can not make any adjustments in the fees that were charged. Sincerely, Terrance G. Pinto Director of Utilities TGP/aa Enclosures cc: James E. Chandler, County Administrator Ron Brooks, Manager, Solid Waste Disposal District F.D.R Tomey, 271 6th Drive S.W., complained at length that the charges at the Landfill, combined with taxes paid by property owners for the Landfill, constitute double taxation and violate the Constitution. He is disabled, on a fixed income and is trying to improve his property so that he will not be cited for code violations. He did not understand the difference between "clean" concrete and "dirty" concrete and could not comprehend why there is an extra charge for an uncovered load. 24 April 22, 1997 Solid Waste Disposal District Manager Ron Brooks explained that the basic fee assessed on developed residential properties covers general household waste, but does not cover unusual waste such as construction and demolition (C & D) debris. Concrete is C & D debris and is charged at $3 per ton if it is free of steel or other trash, including paint, ("clean") as it can be used for road beds or to stabilize the bank of the borrow pit bank "Dirty" concrete is charged at $30 per ton because it has to go to the C & D site to be buried. He also explained the requirement for loads to be covered and that the scale operators are responsible for checking the loads. The purpose is to eliminate debris from falling off vehicles and becoming litter or a safety threat on highways.. Mr. Tomey was dissatisfied with the explanation and restated his argument in detail. All attempts by Commissioners, County Attorney Vitunac, Administrator Chandler, and Mr. Brooks to explain the County's and State's regulations were not accepted by Mr. Tomey. Commissioner Ginn stated she would look into the justification of the charges. Commissioner Adams commenter that she felt the charges are appropriate. No action taken. 9.B.2. CORRIDOR PLAN FOR SR -60 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED SR 60 CORRIDOR All interested parties are invited to attend a public discussion during a regular meeting of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. • Topic: Consideration to adopt the proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan. Plan area boundaries.- East - 43rd Avenue; West - 102nd Avenue; South - l6th Street; North - 26th Street. The proposed plan would require special enhancements and establish certain restrictions on landscaping, signage, and architectural aspects of development. • location: Commission Chambers, County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. 0 Date & rime: Tuesday, April 22, 1997; 9:05 a.m. Copies of the draft plan proposal will be available at the county planning office by Wednesday, April 16, 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s- Carolyn K. Eggert REGARDING PLANNING MATTERS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLAN- NING OFFICE AT 567- 8000 EXT. 242. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. 31970 25 April 22, 1997 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 — is ire,00 Journal COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Daryl K. Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that A'1 billed t was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of Ad_ is Sworn to and subscribed before me this ay of 'T ! 5'% 7 A. President 64y Comm Expires ' August 25.1697 sa:: ,.-r..c.:t... - ra.:o.: 7 A.Z— c 35 ,*r• W CC31uW t - Q . srgTE0Ff1.�Q`��; 9� h, S1y�' "'k, 80�9r, 10 1 FAE BOnr Gene Waddell, Chairman of the SR -60 Task Force, gave a brief synopsis of the committee's task and committee member's efforts. He thanked staff members from Planning and County Attorney's offices. He advised that the plan to be presented was unanimously approved by both the Task Force and the Planning & Zoning Committee and he hoped the Board would feel the same way. Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of April 16, 1997. TO: James Chandler County Administrator DWI S AON HEAD -R-obert M. Keatin , AICP Community Develo menu irector FROM: Stan Boling AICP Planning Director DATE: April 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Consideration of the Proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 22, 1997. • ;.• • • �4 • �riu • + • • M On May 7, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners appointed a Task Force to work with staff to develop a plan for the SR 60 corridor from 43rd Avenue to 102nd Avenue. On February 14, 1997, the Task Force completed its work and unanimously recommended adoption of .a proposed plan (see attachment #3). Subsequently, on March 13, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed plan and unanimously recommended approval, with some minor changes (see attachment #8). The Board is now to consider adopting the proposed plan. If the Board adopts the plan, then staff will initiate an LDR amendment to incorporate the plan's regulations into the county code (LDRs). In May 1995, as part of a request to appoint a task force to develop a corridor plan for the CR 510/US 1 area in Wabasso, staff obtained approval from the Board of County Commissioners to prepare a corridor plan for SR 60. The following May (1996), after the Wabasso Corridor Plan had been adopted, staff and the "SR 60 Coalition" (a group of residents' associations from developments located on SR 60) requested that the Board appoint a task force to develop a SR 60 corridor plan. In response, the Board appointed a 17 member task force consisting of residents, commercial property owners, real estate professionals, and design professionals (see attachment #2). At that time, the Board also agreed with staff's request to apply "interim SR 60 enhancement requirements" to development project applications within the corridor prior to approval of a formal 26 April 22, 1997 corridor plan. From June, 1996 to February, 1997, the SR 60 Task Force held 13 public meetings, including a field trip to other corridors. During that time, input was received from interested citizens, design professionals, FDOT staff, City of Vero Beach electric staff, FP&L staff, and county staff. Also, technical assistance was donated by Urban Resource Group, a Vero Beach consulting firm, and local AIA (American Institute of Architects) architects, including Peter Jones and Nick Roseland. The plan has been fully reviewed by the Task Force and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Both recommend that the Board approve the plan. •Corridor Plan Boundaries The proposed plan, if adopted, would be effective only within the defined corridor plan area boundaries. The east and west boundaries, 43rd Avenue and 102nd Avenue respectively, coincide with the Urban Service Area boundaries of the unincorporated area of the county along SR 60. The north and south boundaries, 26th Street and 16th Street respectively, cover all commercial/industrial properties along SR 60, and the higher density residential properties within } mile of SR 60. There is a mixture of uses within the corridor plan area, including: single -family and multi -family residential, institutional, office, commercial, and industrial. •Impact of the Plan If adopted, the plan will impact public improvements within the corridor as well as new private development and re -development. Through non -conformity provisions, the plan's standards will have some impact on existing development. However, the plan will impact various properties differently, depending upon use. While single family development is exempt from all proposed corridor plan requirements, multi -family development is exempted from some of the proposed landscaping and architectural requirements, and industrial development is exempted from some of the proposed architectural requirements. Most of the proposed requirements will apply to commercial, office and institutional uses. The corridor plan will further aesthetic -related comprehensive plan policies; however, no land use plan changes and no zoning district changes will be made by adopting the plan, and none are needed. If the plan is adopted, staff will depict the corridor area boundaries on the county zoning atlas, to alert staff and the public as to which properties are within the -corridor. •Plan Vision & Purpose The plan's vision statement (see p.2 of the plan) is as follows: "As a significant business and residential center, and a major entranceway 'into Indian River County, the corridor will have an attractive, orderly and uncluttered appearance. The corridor will be characterized by impressive native vegetation and landscaping; complementary buildings and signs with enhanced designs and aesthetic appearances; and a safe transportation -system that accommodates mass transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and other transportation alternatives, as well as automobiles." The plan's purpose is to promote positive aspects of public and private development while avoiding negative aspects of such development. The,proposed plan accomplishes this purpose by the following: 27 April 22, 1997 60! a. B09f, t of vxi Positive Aspects Prnmntad • To promote and stimulate an overall, attractive, and inviting corridor. • To provide for a sufficient number of attractive and well- maintained plantings of native trees and understory vegetation. • To encourage development of attractive buildings within the corridor. • To ensure orderly and unobtrusive signage. • To maintain corridor rights-of-way that are free from clutter (e.g. redundant signs and utility structures). • To ensure that roadway improvements within the corridor are designed to be aesthetically positive as well as safe. • To accommodate mass transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other transportation alternatives within the corridor. • Strip commercial development. • Inadequate sidewalks and bikepaths. • Inadequate traffic levels of service. • Large, garish, and redundant signage. • Lack of enhanced architectural features. • Insufficient landscaping on both 7public and private property. • Cluttered and/or poorly maintained rights-of-way. • Buildings with loud, garish colors. •Public Sector Responsibilities The proposed plan addresses public sector responsibilities for enhancing the appearance of the corridor. Based on research and review efforts, the task force recognized significant opportunities to enhance the corridor through the various state and county road improvement projects slated for the corridor area over the next several years. As a result, a significant amount of task force effort was spent on the aesthetic and unaesthetic appearance of the SR 60 road right-of-way. Based upon task force discussion with FDOT and county public works staff, 12 aesthetic guidelines were developed that are to be considered during the development of roadway improvement designs. The proposed guidelines address landscaping, irrigation, hardscape (e.g. brick pavers), and sidewalk improvements, as well as elimination of redundant signs and support poles. Based upon recent Board approval, these concepts are already being incorporated into the design of the 58th Avenue road expansion -project between 26th Street and 16th Street. That project's design will probably include curbed, irrigated, and well -landscaped medians and use of brick pavers on some of the traffic separator and median islands. 28 April 22, 1997 M M M *Private Sector Responsibilities The plan requires higher standards for various aspects of private development. Those aspects are summarized in -the attached chart (see attachment #4), which compares existing countywide code requirements, the "interim SR 60 enhancements" approved by the Board in May 1996, the adopted Wabasso Corridor Plan requirements, and the proposed SR 60 corridor plan requirements. The most significant requirements involve landscaping, signage, architectural features and materials, and color. *Non -conformities The plan requires that no change to exterior design or color be made without approval from the community development department verifying that such changes conform to the plan. Also, the plan states that existing, legal non -conforming development is grandfathered -in. However, the proposed plan requires certain non - conformities to be brought up to corridor plan standards, under the following conditions: 1. A development's SR 60/Thoroughfare Road Plan Buffer (landscaping), color, and signage must be brought up to corridor plan standards when: a. A site is abandoned for more than 12 consecutive months. (Note: this parallels the existing countywide non - conformities regulation in LDR section 904.08.) b. A building permit is obtained to alter or improve the project, other than minor repairs and roofing. 2. Non -conforming signs are required to be brought into conformity in regard to height and monument style installation within 5 years of the adoption of the SR 60 corridor plan LDRs. An exemption to this requirement is allowed where the cost of such sign modifications would be significant and where extra landscaping is provided around the sign base. Variances As with the Wabasso Corridor Plan, a variance procedure is proposed that would require action by the Board of County Commissioners (not the Board of Adjustment) after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such a provision allows an avenue for "relief" from a requirement(s) under certain circumstances. ANAT.V 4 T Q : The proposed plan requires public and private participation in upgrading and maintaining the appearance of the SR 60 corridor. As such, the public will pay for and receive benefits from a generally enhanced environment, and private property owners will pay for and benefit from the same inviting, quality environment and resulting increased property values. In regard to costs, public activities will involve installation and maintenance of landscape and hardscape improvements within road rights-of-way. Over time, the county's responsibilities to maintain such improvements will expand, whether or not maintenance is performed by county workers or is contracted -out by the county to the private sector. Most increased costs for private development will involve landscaping and some material upgrades. Increased landscaping costs are the easiest to estimate and should not be substantial in relation to total project costs (see attachment #5). Estimating 29 April 22, 1997 60.,'K10 11 DLEZJ any possible increases in costs for architectural, materials, or signage requirements would not be meaningful, since there are many variables and options for buildings and signs. However, staff and task force members have noted that almost all.existing buildings and some existing signs along SR 60 would meet the proposed requirements. It should also be noted that, as the proposed plan has been developed over the past 10 months, staff has recommended and applied the evolving proposed standards as part of the "interim SR 60 enhancement requirements". In most cases, staff and developers have worked together to develop project plans that comply with the proposed plan standards. Thus, staff and some developers have already had some real world experience with the requirements of the proposed plan. Throughout the plan preparation process, the task force and staff coordinated with the county attorneys office in regard to legal constraints and the obvious need to balance public interest and private property rights. Legal guidelines furnished to the task force from the county attorneys office are attached (see attachment #6). While the county attorneys office initially had concerns regarding some provisions of the proposed plan (see attachment #7), these have been addressed to the satisfaction of the county attorney's office. As proposed, the plan is structured to allow flexibility in regard to landscape buffer widths and building design. Through public sector requirements, standards for new development and re- development, and non -conformity regulations, the plan should result in an enhanced appearance for the corridor over time. Although staff has expressed some concerns about applying architectural and color requirements to multi -family projects, staff supports the proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, some concerns were expressed and discussed which resulted in minor changes in the proposed plan. Those changes are indicated by "editor's notes" on the proposed plan. Staff will highlight these changes during its presentation at the April 22nd Board meeting. Among its other responsibilities, county planning staff is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and enforcing corridor plan and LDR requirements. In addition to staff review, the proposed plan would establish a volunteer group of task force members and a design professional to provide additional review and ensure that the intent of the plan is carried out. Such commenting would take place during normal pre -application conference and TRC reviews, and would add no additional layer of review. Such an arrangement was approved in the adopted Wabasso Corridor Plan. In regard to SR 60 projects, staff has been informing task force Chairman Gene Waddell of project reviews, and Mr. Waddell has attended review meetings. Staff has coordinated with task force members and the local chapter of AIA (American Institute of Architects) and recommends that, at this time, the on-going project review volunteer group consist of the following: Gene Waddell (SR 60 Task Force Chairman) Tom Foster (SR 60•Task Force Vice -Chairman) Nick Roseland (AIA architect who participated in public meetings). Under the proposed plan, staff would notify those volunteers and invite them to attend pre -application conferences and TRC meetings to comment on projects within the corridor. 30 April 22, 1997 Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adopt the proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan. 2. Appoint Gene Waddell, Tom Foster, and Nick Roseland as volunteer "ongoing project review" task force members. 3. Direct staff to initiate an LDR amendment to codify the plan's development standards and requirements. 4. Invoke the pending ordinance doctrine until formal LDR amendments are adopted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan (4/15/97 Version) 2. Task Force Membership List 3. Minutes from Task Force Meetings 4. Summary and Comparison of Standards -5. Landscaping Cost Comparison Chart 6. "Legal Implications" Memo 7. "Legal Assessment" Memo 8. Minutes from 3/13/97 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 9. "Courtesy Advertisements" for Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Meetings 10. Letter from AIA President Paul Dritenbas With the aid of photographs, Director Boling reviewed many of the architectural and aesthetic items addressed in the plan by showing examples of what will be approved under the plan versus what will not be approved. He paid special attention to the non -conformities and color examples. Nick Roseland, a local architect who had worked with the Task Force, presented and explained the recommended color plan to be used by all architects and painters. The final format will be in written form and will list colors by company. It will be used only as a reference. He emphasized that there is an extensive range of colors and the system is very simple to use. A brief discussion on natural materials, non -conformities, and signs ensued. Chairman Eggert noted that there were no women on the project review committee, and Director Boling responded that the three men selected had expressed an interest in serving on the review committee. Commissioner Ginn suggested Liz Kulick for the committee, but it was determined that she had not served on the Task Force and the ones chosen had to have the background knowledge. Chairman Eggert mentioned a few of the women who had served on the Task Force as possible candidates. Commissioner Adams was not so concerned about having a woman on the review committee. 31 Bity� April 22, 1997 °�4U BOOK 101 FAGE0 She thought that the review committee should have a SR -60 business owner. She was also concerned about future maintenance of SR -60. She expected that if the County were to maintain SR -60, the County would also assume the maintenance of the Wabasso Causeway corridor. She felt that was only fair. Director Boling explained that DOT is going to be doing projects on SR -60 and will pay for the initial installation and material and irrigation They will do installation provided the County enters into an agreement to assume the maintenance responsibility in those areas. He was not sure that this would happen along US -1. Commissioner Adams felt it would not happen unless we spur it. She felt that both should be treated equally. Commissioner Adams also had some concerns about "native" species in the landscaping requirements. She did not want to prolubit nice vegetative material and did not want to see monotonous landscaping over the 5 -mile corridor. She pointed out where the word "native" appeared both in the memo and in the vision statement. Commissioner Tippin commented that just because a plant is "native" does not always mean that it is best for draught tolerant planting areas. He felt it was a nice idea to restrict to natives, but it was not true that they were always draught tolerant. Director Boling did not believe that "native" was in the actual requirements. Maybe a change would be warranted in the introductory section The idea was to have new vegetation blend in with what is there now. Mr. Waddell advised of an early idea to have a theme for the SR -60 entrance. Citrus was one of the proposals that was discarded. He felt that the committee's idea of "native" was rather random and representative of what Indian River County is and what goes on here, as opposed to a very manicured thoroughfare coming in. The members did not envision the county with manicured hedges like Boca Raton That was why the "native" was thrown in there, not to be limiting, but to keep away from a theme and a very manicured look. Commissioner Adams accepted that, and agreed that they did not want "cookie cutter" landscaping. Commissioner Ginn wanted to keep in mind the maintenance level also. She inquired about parking lots, and Director Boling explained the requirements of canopy tree heights at time of planting. She hoped that parking lot plantings could be increased. She was also very concerned that the buffer width in the plan was inadequate. She did not want to see a 10 foot buffer anywhere as it was much too narrow. She thought that could be raised to 30 feet. (pages 71-72) Director Boling stated this section was the same as the Wabasso corridor plan He explained that a 10 foot buffer would require a greater volume of landscaping in the 10 foot strip and the setback is not impacted. It becomes a concern especially on smaller lots in term of restricting uses and the 32 April 22, 1997 M M M buildable portion of a lot. density. Chairman Eggert noted the illustrations on page 106 showed the differences in planting A brief discussion was held about setbacks and buffers along SR -60. Commissioner Ginn reiterated her desire to have larger buffers now while it is still possible. If it becomes a problem for someone developing their particular site, then she thought a variance might be the solution. She thought the buffer should be increased to 30 feet, but nothing less than 15 feet, along the corridor. Commissioner Adams thought that setting something so far back might create a traffic hazard when people were slowing in traffic trying to find where to turn. Commissioner Ginn pointed out that there are regulations for signs and where the landscaping would be placed. She again asked that the buffer be 30 fit. She also wanted a requirement in the plan to disallow wood fencing because it deteriorates quickly. Mr. Waddell stated that wood fencing would implicitly be prohibited because the fence must match the texture of the building and frame -sided buildings are not allowed. Next Commissioner Ginn inquired about asphalt roofing, and Director Boling advised that it would be allowed on residential but not on commercial development. She saw nothing wrong with one asphalt roof at a particular site and thought it very attractive. Mr. Roseland commented that trying to address each and every pout in the guideline would result in 100+ pages. It was more effective to prohibit asphalt shingles. He felt this was something the review committee could possibly look at, but pointed out that even 40 -year shingles, fungus resistant, have a stained appearance. He felt it would be much better to eliminate them Commissioner Ginn was generally pleased with the plan, but wanted to see a larger buffer. Chairman Eggert opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. AVonso TrW i, 32 Plantation Drive, Apt. 202, representing Vista Plantation, generally approved the plan. He felt that better lighting at the entrances of the mall and other stores is necessary. He stated it was difficult at night in a rainstorm to pick out the entrances. He thought it was a serious matter that should be brought to the attention of the State's Public Works Department. Eric "Rip" Wheeler, 420 Coconut Palm Road, Vero Beach, president-elect of the Realtors Association of Indian River County, spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors and the membership. He read from a prepared statement which supported the creation and plan, but pointed out that private property rights should not be infiinged upon. 33 April 22, 1997 BOOK 10i PAGE 2-11 Pete Perlick, 5985 23'd Street, had attended some of the task force meetings. In speaking with his neighbors, there have been questions of what is being done to redesign and/or reroute the 58" Avenue traffic. There are three turns and/or exits towards the Target store, going south, but none going north. He predicted there will be accidents sooner or later because of the wrong design. Community Development Director Robert M Keating advised that the Ring's lEghway plans are under design right now and the portion referenced by Mr. Perlick will be 4 -laved and the access issues will then be addressed. Mr. Perlick also stated that the ditches were left exposed by DeBartolo developers at the end of 23rd Street. He thought they should have planted some shrubs there, but he had not been able to get anything accomplished on that. He advised that neighbors talked to Lowe's about -the loudness of their speakers. They were very cooperative. They had quieted them down a lot. He added that the one advantage of the development in the area is that neighbors no longer need lights for their pools. Glen Legwen, local landscape architect, felt that the Task Force had done quite a nice job. He wanted to bring a few points to the Board's attention that need to be addressed. 1) WalMart's hedge planting is planned as ixora, which will not withstand a freeze. He would like to see "cold -hardy plant material" in the plan. 2) He wanted to see use of the wax myrtle curtailed because while it is considered a native, it is really more of a "trash tree". 3) The corridor goes from 43rd Avenue to 102 Avenue. He stated that on a corridor of this nature, there always seems to be a sea of parking. He favored moving the buildings closer to the main corridor and providing parking in the rear of the property. This would also minimize the size of signs. 4) He pointed out that nature uses primary colors and he felt there should be some allowance for the use of primary colors particularly as an attention -getter. 5) He wanted local nurseries to have the opportunity to participate in the landscaping of the corridor. 6) Finally, he felt that a landscape architect could offer a very beneficial viewpoint to the committee. Susan P. Motley, an attorney with Ruden McClosky et al in Ft. Lauderdale, reviewed the following letter dated April 21, 1997, on behalf of the proposed Sam's Club. (WalMart Stores, Inc.) She introduced Gary Wallace of Kimley Horn in Vero Beach. She commended the Board on their efforts and stated she would be delighted to call the home office in Arkansas later to tell them that WaWart was included in staff s presentation. She gave a bit of history of expansion plans and concerns that had come about as a result of meetings with staff and compliance with the SR -60 plan. R U D E N BOULEVA F200 EAST ORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 3330 MCCLOSKY POST OFFICE BOX 1900 SMITH FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33302 S C H U STE R& (954) 764.6660 FAX: (954) 764-4996 RUSSELL, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (954) 52 7-241 2 E-MAIL: SPM@RUDEN.COM 34 April 22, 1997 � s � April 21, 1997 VIA HAND -DELIVERY Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Commissioner Fran Adams, Chair Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Commissioner John Tippin Commissioner Caroline Ginn Commissioner Kenneth Macht 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Re: Proposed Sam's Club ("Sam's")/State Road 60/Vero Beach Dear Commissioners: Our law firm represents Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") which is proposing to build a new Sam's Club adjacent to the Wal-Mart SuperCenter on State Road 60. Soon after the approval of the expansion of the Wal-Mart into a Supercenter last October 1, 1996, Wal-Mart representatives started meeting with County staff to develop plans for the Sam's. There had been substantial discussion at the October 1 County Commission meeting about the construction of a Sam's on the site. At several meetings to discuss the Sam's plans last fall, County staff informed Wal -Mart's representatives, Kimley-Horn, that all that would be necessary to obtain site plan approval for the Sam's was an administratively approved site plan amendment. The amendment was necessary because the Sam's proposed for construction is approximately 15,000 square feet (15,0001) less in size than what was proposed at the time the original Wal-Mart was also approved. Subsequently, it was determined by staff that the Planning and Zoning Board had to approve the amended site plan. The Sam's site plan will now be scheduled for review by the Planning and Zoning Board in approximately two weeks. Last fall, staff informed Wal-Mart that the site plan amendment had to comply with the following four specific State Road 60 Corridor Plan concerns: State Road 60 buffer; 2. Foundation landscaping (around perimeter of building); 3. Building architectural articulation; and 4. Restrictions on free-standing signage. Wal-Mart prepared plans which addressed these issues and even agreed to tear down the existing 58th Avenue pylon sign. Staff originally stated that Sam's could have as an alternative a sixty-four square foot (64') monument sign. Later staff corrected this "mistake" and informed Kimley-Horn that only a thirty square feet (30') sign would be permitted. In its plans, Wal-Mart also agreed to provide far more landscaping than is required by Code and to provide split faced block on the front of the Sam's. Staff expressed no major concerns with the proposed site plan until the Technical Review Committee ("TRC") meeting of April 9, 1997 at which staff raised two new issues. These issues create a severe detriment to Wal-Mart. At the TRC meeting, staff insisted that Wal-Mart must provide split -faced block on all four sides of the building rather than just the front. Additionally, staff is now insisting that the proposed twenty-four feet (24') high facade signage on the building must now be reduced to seven feet two inches (77") in height. The rationale for these changes to the site plan is that the State Road 60 Corridor Plan, although not formally approved as yet by you, requires these changes. On behalf of Wal-Mart we must strenuously object to these additional requirements at a point in the approval process which would cause significant delays in terms of commencement of construction as well as a huge financial cost to Wal-Mart. This is a location that has a far smaller trade area than other Sam's in Florida because of the existence of Sam's in both Fort Pierce and Melbourne. Additional costs, therefore, are a most critical issue in terms of building this store. 35 B00r, 110i FAG€ ZJJ April 22, 1997 BOOK 10i FADE X14 We request your earnest consideration of the difficult situation in which Wal-Mart has been placed with these additional requirements at the very end of the approval process. We request that you direct staff to delete the additional requirements of split -facing on all four sides of the building and permit a twenty-four feet (24') high facade sign on the building rather than the new seven feet two inches (72") high signage which staff is requiring. Your direction to staff on these issues would be most appreciated and will eliminate placing the construction of this Sam's in jeopardy. Sincerely, RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SC R & Susan P. Motle3 cc: Bob Stoker Don Moseley Gary Wallace Chairman Eggert recalled that the Wabasso corridor plan requires four sides of wall facing, and Director Boling -explained that it had been sort of a "moving target" for both WalMart and staff and explained the confusion. Commissioner Adams commented that the Board had "blistered" the WalMart representatives pretty badly back in October, and on other occasions. She wondered if there was any maneuverability, and discussion followed concerning timing of the plans. Director Boling explained that Wa1Mart was now presenting a major modification. The original site plan was approved years ago. Ms. Motley commented that the building is actually smaller in square footage. Gary Wafface explained that the impervious area associated with the rear service area of the building, the loading docks, created the increase in size. Commissioner Ginn favored the stricter standards and was thankful to have them in place. She was aware that WalMart has met strict requirements in other communities. Mr. Wallace explained that WaNtart has no problem meeting any adopted requirements, which becomes a business decision for them If they know provisions exist, they will do a business analysis based on those requirements. The problem has been that the rules keep changing. The architectural plan is being done right now, it takes sax weeks to start and finish a plan. Ms. Motley commented that these changes become very costly because the initial decision is made as to what it will cost, but then the "moving target" increases that cost. They are now at the point of what should be final approval, but they may have to go back to redo the plans, incur construction delay, and so forth. Mr. Wallace advised that they will be enhancing the planting adjacent to the building by adding 110 trees, about 1,877 plants or shrubs around the building. 36 April 22, 1997 Commissioner Ginn stated that it is impossible to change things once they are in place. She believed that WaiMart should take into consideration the desires of the citizens who really want to preserve the quality of life and the beauty in Indian River County. Chairman Eggert had a question about the pending ordinance doctrine and was concerned about anything that might be legally questionable. It was her understanding that the County did not have any teeth in this. Director Keating related staffs position on this matter which was that any approved requirements that go into place before the submission of the modified plans would be applicable to that project. Staff assumed the intent of the Board was to make modifications, as the task force came to a consensus on additional requirements. They have tried not to give anyone any surprises as the process has evolved. They have been working with Mr. Wallace, and others at Kimley Horn, to try to inform them of what the task force was doing. Nothing should have been a surprise to them The date to consider is the date they actually submitted their modification, which was just a few weeks ago. County Attorney Vitunac asked if the application was complete on April 0, and Director Boling replied that he believed it was sufficient, that there were discrepancies that they would have to address. Mr. Wallace reported for the record that the application was submitted on the 20 of February, the pre -application was on the 171. To his knowledge it was deemed complete on the 24!`. County Attorney Vtunac opined that whenever the applicant has submitted a completed application, it is subject to whatever regulations are in place in the law on that date, including any pending ordinance doctrine. He believed that WalMart could not be forced to comply with a plan adopted today if they had a completed application which was submitted prior to today. He suggested it might be more economical for WalMart to change their plans than to face a possible legal challenge, and they would have better community support. Ms. Motley emphasized that they were not trying to create legal issues here. They are saying that they have tried very hard to work with everybody. There are two issues that have not yet been settled. She explained that the costs involved are very critical on this particular usage, and they are just asking for the Board's help on what has been called a "moving target". She pointed out that Wa1Mart has been very cooperative in terms of trying to comply as much as possible. They are asking for some understanding on the couple of items that have come up just in the last couple of weeks so they can get the Sam's built. Mr. Roseland understood WalMart's two concerns to be 1) additional costs related to delay, and 2) the reduction of the sign from 24 feet to 7 feet. He reasoned the cost for a 24 -foot sign has to be substantial. WalMart could take the savings on the larger sign and let it pay for the split -face on the back of the building to satisfy the concerned residents who have to look at it for the life of the building. Mr. Wallace took exception to Mr. Roseland's over -simplification of the two concerns. He 37 April 22, 1997 BOOK 10.E PAGE UD BOOK Ni'AGE explained that a very detailed and labor-intensive process is involved to prepare the plans and that the sign was anon -illuminated fagade sign. The cost and delay is associated with the actual architectural plans and specifications for the building materials for the building itself In response to Commissioner Ginn, he advised that this was not a prototypical Sam's store. John Binkley, a local architect, advised of his role in the development in the proposed plan. He supported the task force on having done a great job. He stated that the planhadbeen drawn up subjectively so that staff could review submitted plans and reach a definitive `yes" or "no". He felt a 4 - person person review committee was unnecessary. He cautioned that if members change each year, *the members will have different perspectives. He preferred to see it handled by staff review only. He felt there was a great deal of flexibility in the plan and that most .developers will be willing to comply and spend a few extra dollars to make a more attractive building. It will stop the "cookie cutter" chain buildings and force the developer to provide the community with a well thought out aesthetically pleasing end result. With respect to the expansion of the buffer width, he felt that on small lots it would place undue hardship on a developer and the Board may want to look at increasing the setback requirement with caution on the smaller parcels in particular. He urged approval of the plan. George Blythe advised that he had attended about 50% of the committee's meetings. He agreed with Commissioner Ginn's desire to have a 30 -foot buffer and felt that made a lot of sense. The next properties to be developed will be on the south side of SR -60, west of 8e Avenue, which are extremely deep. He agreed with Mr. Bmkley regarding required set backs on small lots and suggested that perhaps an adjustment could be dependent upon the depth of the property. He did not mind looking like Boca Raton or Palm Beach. In closing, Mr. Blythe asked the Commission to consider setting up a task force to consider I- 95 where the travelling public in Florida looks at Indian River County and makes judgments as to whether it would be a nice place to do business and live. I& Waddell stated that most of the undeveloped properties out on SR -60 will be developed by out-of-town owners and large retailers, not local mom-and-pop stores. The County will be dealing with non -locals and their tendency is to build what they build everywhere and leave, and then the citizens are stuck looking at all that for the next 50 years. He disputed using primary colors by showing photographic examples of typical buildings. He also showed examples of a 24 -foot fagade sign. Of the numerous technical reviews he has sax through, the developers have willingly acquiesced to the County's requirements. He predicted that developers will come and play by our rules. The committee has tried very hard not to restrict the use of the property and to give a very broad acceptable spectrum of colors and freedom to architects to design. Chairman Eggert asked if a 3 -person review committee will be sufficient for the summer, and Mr. Waddell felt it would be. He also commented that staff is doing such a wonderful job, that most of what the review committee would do has already been done by staff. He added, however, that if we 38 April 22, 1997 M M - are not diligent in enforcing it for the first couple of years, it might get away from us. In response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Director Boling offered a suggestion to allow the developer of small lot to build. He thought the ordinance could make a distinction to require a wider buffer for larger sized projects. It should be addressed in the plan up front, rather than try to rely on variances, which is not a preferred way of doing anything. Commissioner Ginn wanted to include in the plan a larger buffer to be required when the development is huge. Mr. Waddell explained that a whole set of different requirements are required for a development that is over 40 acres, such as the mall. Buffer requirements could be also included. Commissioner Ginn wanted that included also. He then- pointed out that the density of landscape materials may obscure the building, which may or may not be desirable. Commissioner Ginn reiterated that going to 30 feet would be desirable. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Chairman Eggert asked the Board members their opinion on going to a 30 -foot buffer as requested by Commissioner Ginn. Commissioner Tippin thought it was covered in the 40 -acre threshold. He thought the landscape requirements were quite excellent and would do the job in a 20 -foot area. Commissioner Ginn commented that 20 feet is not very much land. Chairman Eggert understood, but they wanted it to be adequate, even more than adequate, if possible. There are a lot of things to think about in all this, requiring bigger trees, which is certainly a cost. Commissioner Adams was not ready to make a decision on that until she was absolutely certain how it would be applied. Chairman Eggert thought it could be looked at between now and when the IDR hearing is held. Both Commissioner Adams and Commissioner Ginn agreed -to waiting. With respect to the concerns of the WalMart representatives, Commissioner Adams thought Ms. Motley was not saying they will not comply on the sign and four-sided fagade, but thought they were alluding to the number of changes that have occurred since they started talking with staff She felt they were saying it had been a frustrating experience and they have been stuck in the middle of it. She suggested thata, decision would have to be made by them following the Board's decision today. If we are comfortable with the plan, we have to go with it. She thought particular problems could be addressed as they come up. She commended the committee on the good job and asked all members of the committee in the audience to stand to be recognized. Commissioner Adams thought that the concern about increased lighting should be addressed in 39 April 22, 1997 boor, 101 FACE 2V l 809 101 PAGE ��, � � the future. She wanted the wordtive na(plants) removed and also "Y . " ` wanted to make sure that continuing maintenance of landscaping plants is required. She emphasized that she has made an effort to not sell her plants in Indian River County. Commissioner Adams set out the points she wanted to include in a motion to adopt the SR -60 Corridor Plan, as follows: Consider the buffer setback relating to size of property; delete the word "native"; investigate increasing lights at entrances, consider the four-sided fagade, and invoke the pending ordinance doctrine. With respect to the task force (review committee) continuance, she warned at least one resident and one business owner included on the committee. A brief discussion was held concerning whether or not the members of the committee met the business owner criteria. Commissioner Adams was happy with members Tom Foster, Mr. Waddell, and Mr. Roseland. She did not agree with the proposal that Karl Hedin be included on the committee, because he is an elected official, and that would add another dimension. Tom Foster, Vice Chairman of the task force, was concerned that a business person serving on the committee might have to review an application of a competitor. Commissioner Adams and Chairman Eggert pointed out that the review committee would simply be advisory and would not vote. Commissioner Ginn thought that the three members and staff would be sufficient, but would like to see the addition of a landscape architect on the review committee. The three discussed it and decided to wait on adding a fourth member. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to approve staffis recommendations with the following amendments to the proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan: 1) consider buffer setback change relating to size of property; 2) investigate increasing lighting at entrances to shopping areas; 3) consider fagade of buildings; 4) delete the word "native" in relation to landscaping; and 5) invoke the pending ordinance doctrine. no] April 22, 1997 Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin commented that historically he favored less government, because the intent is good but then bureaucracy sets in. He will support the plan, but does not like to govern the colors people paint their buildings. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent). Chairman Eggert believed the CONSENSUS was to ask Wa1Mart to participate in the SR 60 Plan. Commissioner Ginn hoped that they would be good neighbors. The Chairman declared a short recess at 12:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:12 p.m. with same members present. 11—UPUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND ASSESSMENT - JAMES A. McCASLAND - 266613th PLACE Chief of Environmental Plamiing Roland DeBlois reviewed a Memorandum of April 14, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: A � Ro ert M. Keating, AICP Community Develop�ment Di ctor Sp FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,-'AICP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement DATE: April 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Public Nuisance Abatement and Assessment; Property at 2666 13th Place Owned by James A. McCasland It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 22, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On January 16, 1997 and February 18, 1997, code enforcement staff attempted to serve, by registered mail, a Notice of Public Nuisance to James A. McCasland, concerning an accumulation of trash, debris and overgrown weeds on his property at 2666 13th Place in Lone Palm 41 April 22, 1997 B00K 1 FAGE� BOOK 1-01 PAGE 22 Park Subdivision. Those service -of -notice attempts failed; however, in accordance with County Code Section 973.09, the subject property was posted (on January 15, 1997) to serve as legal notice. The Respondent was cited as maintaining his property in violation of County Code Sections 973.03(1) and 973.03(2), which prohibit the accumulation of overgrown weeds (over 18 inches in height), trash and debris on residential property. The respondent failed to mow the overgrown weeds and remove the trash and debris within a specified 30 day time period: Therefore, in accordance with Chapter 973.04(2) of the County Code, county personnel (ie: Road and Bridge Division staff) abated the nuisance violation, with the cost to be assessed against the property owner. Chapter 973.06(1) of the County Code requires that the cost of a county nuisance abatement shall be calculated and reported to the Board which, by resolution, shall assess such costs_ against the property. This matter is presented herein to the Board for consideration to adopt said resolution. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Section 973.06 of the County Public Nuisance Ordinance specifically reads as follows: "After abatement of nuisance by the county, the cost thereof to the county as to each lot, parcel or tract of land shall be calculated and reported to the board of county commissioners. Thereupon, the board of county commissioners, by resolution, shall assess such costs against such lot, parcel or tract of land. Such resolution shall describe the land and state the cost of abatement, which shall include an administrative cost of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot. Such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding -obligation upon the property against which made until paid. The assessment shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after the mailing of the notice of assessment after which interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve (12) per cent per annum on any unpaid portion thereof." Costs for equipment use, labor, and land fill charges, as indicated by the Road and Bridge Division (see attached), plus the $75.00 administrative fee calculates to be: Equipment: 148.16 Labor: 280.64 Landfill Charges: 60.30 Administrative fee: 75.00 TOTAL: $564.10 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution assessing $564.10 in abatement costs, in accordance with Chapter 973.06, Public Nuisance, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County. Commissioner Adams had concern about the hourly rate specified for the County's truck, and Public Works Director Tun Davis explained that the truck has a boom to pick up trash and the hourly rate was comparable to commercial rates. 42 April 22, 1997 M s M ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Resolution No. 97-033 assessing costs of County public nuisance abatement on Lot 7, Block 1, LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 9 7 - 3 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ASSESSING COSTS OF COUNTY PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, LONE PALM PARR SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 61, SUCH ASSESSMENT BEING A BINDING OBLIGATION UPON THE PROPERTY UNTIL PAID. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined that regulation of the accumulation of overgrown weeds, garbage, junk, trash, and debris on residential property is in the public interest and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Code of Indian River County, Section 973.03, declares as a public nuisance overgrown weeds (in excess of 18 inches in height) and the accumulation of garbage, trash, junk, and debris; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined that landowners are responsible for abating public nuisances existing on their property; and WHEREAS, an accumulation of overgrown weeds in excess of 18 inches in height and trash and debris existed on property owned by James A. McCasland, whose last known mailing address is 2266 13th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, such property having a legal description as follows: Lot 7, Block 1, Lone Palm Park Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 61, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Nuisance calling for the abatement of the described nuisance was sent certified mail to the Respondent's last known address and the property was posted on January 15, 1997, in accordance with Chapter 973.09 "Serving of Notice," of the County Public Nuisance Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the landowner of the subject property failed to abate the described nuisance within 30 days of the posted Notice; and WHEREAS, Chapter 973.04(2) of the County Public Nuisance Ordinance authorizes County staff to abate a public nuisance if the nuisance is not abated by the landowner -within 30 days notice; and WHEREAS, the County Road and Bridge Division, on March 19, 1997, abated the herein described overgrown weeds and accumulation of trash and debris; and WHEREAS, Chapter 973.06 of the County Public Nuisance Ordinance provides that, after abatement of a nuisance by the County, the cost thereof shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners; thereupon, the Board, by resolution, shall assess such costs against the subject property, such cost to include an administrative fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot; and WHEREAS, the total cost of equipment use, labor, landfill charges and administrative fee for County abatement of the herein described nuisance is determined to be Five Hundred Sixty Four Dollars and Ten Cents ($564.10); and WHEREAS, Chapter 973.06 of the County Public Nuisance Ordinance provides that the assessment shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after the mailing of a notice of assessment, whereby if the owner fails to pay assessed costs within the thirty ( 30 ) days, a certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in the official record books of the county, constituting a lien against the property, subject to twelve (12) percent per annum interest; 43 April 22, 1997 a) -� 00., r'AGE rn.,�-L " 1 FALL _ _ - RESOLUTION - NO. 97-33 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in their entirety. 2) The cost of county abatement of the herein described accumulation of overgrown weeds, trash and debris nuisance, totaling an amount of $564.10, is hereby assessed against Lot 7, Block 1, Lone Palm Park Subdivision, presently owned by James A. McCasland, whose last known mailing address is 2666 13th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. 3) The $564.10 assessment shall be due and payable to the Board of County Commissioners thirty (30) days after legal service of a notice of assessment to the landowner, after which, if unpaid, a certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in the official record books of the county, constituting a lien against the described property, subject to twelve (12) percent per annum°_interest•. THIS RESOLUTION was moverfor adoption by Commissioner Adams A � aefonded by Commissioner $ i n n and adopted on the 22 day of by the following vote: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ago Commissioner John W. Tippin _A e Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht -Absent Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave ��� Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn The Chaian t ereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22day of Tril 1997. t4ff TZ aAZi4 Deputy Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, �ID Carolyn IY7 Eggert Chairma APPROVED AS TO FORM AND L GA U F1NCY BY TERRENCE P. O'BRIEN ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY XhP for going instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1997, by CAROLYN K. EGGERT as Cha rman of the B ar of County C issioners of Indian River County, Florida, and by A 10 IA Ni ���CIA Deputy CLy lerk for JEFFERY K. BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are personally known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC PATRICIA L JONES Printed Name: -- - mome M'CMSSION1'M43881 MP&SCommission No. "'a'y25'1999Commission Expiration: ,�,0, eoNeo ne�u rnor FUN aauneNc�, wc. iP" April 22, 1997 M M 11.A.2. CAIRNS TRACT - FLORIDAFFINITY AUTHORIZED TO SUBCONTRACT WITH BELLOMO-HERBERT AND COMPANY, INC. TO DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board reviewed a Memorandum of Aprff 15, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE: 'Robert M. "KeatirfgWnt ICP Community Develop D /Ct or FROM: Roland M. DeBlois AICP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: April 15, 1997 SUBJECT: Request that the Board Authorize FloridAffinity, Inc. to Subcontract with Bellomo-Herbert and Company, Inc. to Develop a Manavement Plan for the Cairns Tract It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 22, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On January 14, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved a lease agreement with the State for the County to manage the environmentally significant +104 acre Cairns Tract. This ocean-to- riverfront property, located on south Jungle Trail, was purchased in October, 1996 under a 50/50 cost -share agreement with the State Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program, whereby the State obtained title to the property. In accordance with the approved lease, the County agreed to develop a management plan for the Cairns Tract within one year, subject to approval by the Division of State Lands. Attached is a proposal from Bellomo-Herbert and Company, Inc. to develop the Cairns Tract management plan. As proposed, Bellomo- Herbert would develop the plan as a subcontractor for Charles Hardee and FloridAffinity, Inc., the County's environmental land acquisition consultant. This matter is presented for the Board's consideration to authorize FloridAffinity to subcontract with Bellomo-Herbert to develop the Cairns Tract management plan. ANALYSIS In August, 1994, the Board approved a contract with FloridAffinity, Inc. for professional services relating to the County's environmental lands program. In that contract, Bellomo-Herbert is listed as a subcontractor available for management planning services on an as -need basis. Exhibit B of the 1994 County/FloridAffinity contract (see attached) outlines two alternatives under which the County may opt for professional management services subcontracted through 45 PAGE 9f. April 22, 1997 1 2 FloridAffinity. The first option ("Level One Tasks") sets flat fees for "conceptual" management plans, such as those needed to fulfill the requirements of Florida Communities Trust (FCT) cost -share grants. To date, the County has obtained 4 conceptual management plans under this alternative for environmental properties acquired with FCT cost -share funding. The second option ("Level Two.Tasks") sets forth hourly rates for professional management services, applicable when the County needs more than a "conceptual" plan. The attached Bellomo-Herbert proposal for the Cairns Tract management plan would be a Level Two Task under the 1994 FloridAffinity contract. The Bellomo-Herbert proposal goes beyond a conceptual management plan and includes a "Final Master Land Use Plan" and a "Final Management Plan." County staff thinks this additional planning and design is appropriate for the Cairns Tract, since the Tract has river and ocean frontage, and therefore is likely to attract considerable public use. Also, a number of 'groups have already expressed an interest in participating in the management plan development process (e.g., the Sea Oaks residents' association), and therefore the process will require more coordination than other management plans. Bellomo-Herbert proposes to complete the management plan in six months or less. The management plan, once drafted, will be subject to Board of County Commissioners and Division of State Lands approval. Alternatives The County has a number of alternatives regarding development of the Cairns Tract management plan. One alternative is to have county staff develop the plan in-house. It is staff's position, however, that this is not a viable alternative, due to staff's other work responsibilities and lack of expertise in certain areas of plan development relating to design. Another alternative is for the County to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a management planning consultant. Staff thinks that this time consuming alternative is unwarranted, since the County has the option to select Bellomo-Herbert for the job under the existing contract with FloridAffinity. Moreover, Bellomo-Herbert has drafted management plans for other environmental lands acquired by the County, and has demonstrated an ability to do a competent job in a time -efficient and cost- effective manner. Cost and Funding Herbert-Bellomo is proposing to develop the Cairns Tract management plan for a fee of $17,050, plus out-of-pocket reimbursable expenses (express mail, automobile mileage at $0.25/mile, long distance telephone calls, postage, printing, facsimile use and copying charges). The proposed management plan qualifies for County environmental land acquisition bond funding, account number 125-146-539-033.19. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the FloridAffinity, Inc. to Company, Inc. to develop a outlined in the attached reimbursable expenses, to funds. April 22, 1997 Board of County Commissioners authorize subcontract with Bellomo-Herbert and management plan for the Cairns Tract as proposal, for a fee of $17,050 plus be paid with environmental land bond Commissioner Adams had a question on Step 2, Conceptual Land Use Plan, (page 188 in back up), numbers 4, 7, and 8. She was not comfortable with spending public funds for the private sector. Step 2 - Conceptual Land Use Plan Based upon the interpretation of the data provided as well as a previous site visit and mce614gs with the OWNER'S CONSULTANT and representatives of Indian River County (Owner), the LA.tiDSCAPE ARChITLCT shall prepare a Cone** Land Use Plan for the Cairns Tract indicating public access and passive recreation facilities. Specifically, the Master Plan shall address, but not be limitod to, the following issues: 1. Public Beach Access and Parking. 2. Pedestrian Crossing at S.R. Al A. 3. Public Access and Parking from Jungle Trail. 4. Water Taxi Connection to the Envirotuncntal Learning Center in wabasso. 5. Tre"Amcnt of Jungle Trail. G. Elimination of Exotic Vegetative Species. 7. Pcdcstrian Connection to the Sea Oaks community located adjacent to the north property line. 8. Possible Pedestrian Connection to the Disney Resort located north of the Cairns Tract. 9. Disposition of wetlands. 10. Location of Trails, Boardwalks and Interpretive Signs. 11. Location of Observation Amsrfowcr. 12. Security Environmental Planning Chief Roland M DeBlois explained that it was not the intent to spend public funds to serve any particular business. Because the property is generally within walking distance from Disney and other businesses in the area, we might be able to get them into the process and perhaps have them contribute toward the expense of management as far as some of the improvements are concerned. Community Development Director Robert M Keating advised that we have an enhancement grant to do the sidewalk on that part of A 1-A from the north limits of Indian River Shores up to CR 510, and he thought it was scheduled for construction next year. Commissioner Adams then turned her attention to the consultants enumerated on page 189: 47 April 22, 1997 BOOK 101 FAGEZ-9i� 101 FA B02r, 96. LE Prior to, during, and following the completion of the Preliminary Master Plea Phase of the work, in a sequence to be determincd at a later date, the LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT and the OWNER'S CONSULTANT shall meet with the following individuals and organizations: I . Sea Oaks Homeowner's Association. 2. Ms. Holly Dill, Director, Environmental Learning Center. 3. Ms. Janice Broda, President, Florida Native Plant Society. 4. Mr. Jim Thomas, Biologist. 5. Ms. Ruth Stanbridge, Indian River County Historian. d. General Manager of the Disney Resort. 7, Mr. Roland DeBlois, Chief, Environmental Planning, Indian River County. Commissioner Adams thought that Grand Harbor and Jungle Trail homeowners ought to be included or perhaps a general public workshop would suffice to allow everybody the opportunity to have input. Commissioner Ginn, Commissioner Tippin, and Chairman Eggert agreed. Mr. DeBlois explained the plan was not meant to be all encompassing, but just some of the ideas that were discussed in the initial discussions with the consultant, as the above individuals and organizations had made proactive requests to the County that they wanted to be involved in the process. It does not mean that others who have not yet expressed an interest would be eliminated. Chairman Eggert still favored a public workshop. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that this would be coming back to the Board for discussion so the consultant can move ahead with the drafting and coordination process. It will also be coordinated with the State since they are the actual title holders. He assured the Board staff will try to get as much pre - input as possible. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) authorized FloridAffinity, Inc. to subcontract with Bellomo-Herbert and Company, Inc. to develop a management plan for the Cairns Tract as outlined in the proposal, for a fee of $17,050 plus reimbursable expenses, to be paid with environmental land bond funds, as recommended by staff in the Memorandum. 48 April 22, 1997 r 11.C.1. EXCESS REAL PROPERTY DECLARED SURPLUS AND AUCTION BY KARLIN DANIELS AUTHORIZED General Services Director Sonny Dean reviewed a Memorandum of April 15, 1997: Date: April 15, 1997 To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners . . i Thru: James E. Chandler County Administrator From: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Direct Department of General Services Subject: Excess Real Property BACKGROUND: Staff has currently identified ten (10) parcels of real property that are in excess of our needs. This property is listed below and are numbered for identification purposes only. PARCEL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1 .81 Acre - Old elevated water tank site on 13th Lane Vero Beach - Behind Velde Ford 2 50'x 100' lot - Block V, Lot 5, Dixie Heights Vero Beach 3 3.26 Acres - Old GDU water plant - Sub Unit 1, Track F Vero Beach Highlands 4 101' x 293' lot - Lot 17, West Lakes Estates Subdivision Vero Beach 5 .68 Acre - Old water treatment plant - Manley Avenue and Donna Street Sebastian Highlands 6 50'x 140' lot - Block 8, Lot 11, Vero Beach Estates Vero Beach 7 50'x 140' lot - Block 7, Lot 28, Vero Beach Estates Vero Beach 8 121.04'x 293.18' lot - Lot 16, Westlake Estates Subdivision Vero Beach ( Includes 35R/W), (Drainage Easement of 15') 9 3.86 Acres - Old Wastewater Treatment Plant, Roseland Road River Edge Subdivision, Tract E, Sebastian 10 80'x 80' Lot - Old Water Treatment Plant, River Edge Subdivision, Tract D, Sebastian All County Departments have indicated there is not a County need for any of these properties in the foreseeable future. 49 Boor U1 FACE'/ 1-0 April 22, 1997 BOOK 10i PAGE 228 Monies received in auction of the old courthouse and other buildings were several thousand dollars over the appraised value of those properties. Based on these successful results, staff discussed the same type sale with the same company Karlin Daniel and Associates, Inc. This company has proposed a plan that would include an advertising budget of $3,855.24 with no up front cost to the County. Their expenses and profit are derived from a "buyer's premium" which they collect above and beyond the selling price. RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. Parcels 1 through 5 be declared surplus. (Parcels 6 through 10 were declared surplus at a earlier date). 2. Authorize these properties to be sold at a public auction under a "reserve.format". Since the property is owned by a governmental agency, a gross reserve -figure of $124,000 is recommended A gross reserve figure would remove price reservations from potential bidders and allow them to establish the full market value at the auction. The County Attorney's Office feels this would meet all statutory requirements. 3. Authorize Karlin Daniels & Associates to auction off Parcels 1-10 to the highest bidder in accordance with Florida Statutes. 4. Authorize the Board Chairman to execute an auction and Purchase agreement in advance of the sale as was done at the last surplus real property sale. In response to Chairman Eggert's concern about using Karlin Daniels versus using a local auctioneer, Director Dean responded that the auctioneer who worked for Karlin Daniels is a local resident. He added that we are not required to go out to bid as this item falls under the Purchasing Ordinance. Staff had looked at it and had determined it best for the County to use the services of Karlin Daniels in this instance. Commissioner Adams was concerned about the fifth parcel (old water treatment plant site) and suggested that the City of Sebastian be contacted to see if they are interested in it for a neighborhood park Commissioner Ginn agreed that was a good point. County Administrator James E. Chandler advised that he would contact Sebastian's City Manager Tom Frame to see if the City is interested. Commissioner Adams then asked if Habitat for Humanity would be interested in any of the Parcels, and Director Dean advised that the list would be made available to them as part of the process. Commissioner Ginn asked about the advertising budget, and Director Dean advised that the $3,855.24 amount will be used as the advertising budget. There will be no cost to the County for advertising. The advertising cost is included in the buyer's 10% premium.. April 22, 1997 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) approved staffs recommendation as set out in the memorandum, staff will contact the City of Sebastian to determine if they are interested in Parcel 5. 11.C.2. TELECOMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAM General Services Director Sonny Dean reviewed a Memorandum of April 7, 1997: Date: April 7, 1997 To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners �Through: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directo�A Department of General Services From: Terry L. Smith, Telecommunications Manager Department of General Services Subject: Telecommunications Grant Program BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Commerce recently announced the 1997 Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) grant competition. This grant program is administered through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and is a highly competitive, merit -based grant program that provides assistance in the form of matching funds for creative approaches to applying information and telecommunications technologies. The County's Telecommunications Division, Department of General Services prepared the grant application and submitted it prior to Board approval in order to meet the application deadline. If the bid for this grant is successful, the Public, Education, and Government access channel can be improved Franchise agreements for the operation of TCI Cablevision and Falcon Cable in Indian River County require the provision of a PEG (Public, Education, and Government) access channel. The Indian River County School District videos the County Commission Meetings and programs the meeting playback along with School District programming and County agency programming on video tape. The entire programming content is sent to TCI Cablevision and is cablecast over Channel 13. The programming is also sent to Falcon Cable from TCI Cablevision over a microwave link which has been furnished by TCI Cablevision. At the Falcon headend, either the signal from TCI Cablevision or a signal from the City of Sebastian is cablecast over Channel 35. The quality of the signal getting to Falcon via the microwave link is sometimes questionable and the switch of the feeds from the City of Sebastian to the Indian River County & School District programming is difficult to manage. This has led to complaints from CATV customers when the desired PEG programming was not available in some areas. 51 April 22, 1997 nor 10 1 L PACE � , BOOK 1-01 PAGES® The programming after normal hours and over the weekend lacks variety because equipment is not in place to allow for sequenced tapes to play; any change in the programming requires someone to be there in person to change the tapes. Indian River Community College has recently requested the Board of County Commissioners to consider playing telecourses over the PEG channel in available time slots so that viewers can take college credit courses without having to travel to the campuses for all of the classes. These situations have come together at a time when the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners can take actions that, with the cooperation of other agencies, will improve the PEG access- channel (signal and programming). Indian River County can participate in the plan proposed in the grant application that, if chosen for funding by the NTIA, will improve communications capabilities for the libraries and other County agencies. As submitted, the grant indicates that Indian River County will provide a contribution worth $58,943, including $41,918 in salary and fringe benefits for the time the Telecommunications Manager spends in the administration of the project. Additional funds needed are for office supplies, postage, and a fiber optic extension from the Main Library to the Law Library; these total $17,025. A portion of these costs may be fundable through a separate grant awarded to the library and may not actually have to come from budgeted operating funds. If the grant is awarded, but with less than the funding requested, it will be necessary to secure additional funds for the project is to proceed as designed. A copy of the grant application has been attached for Board review. The commitments of other agencies to this project are detailed on page 424A-6 of the grant package and are summarized below. Indian River County $ 58,943 Indian River County School District 100,000 Indian River Community College 80,000 City of Vero Beach 6,000 Falcon Cable 12,150 TCI Cablevision 7.000 $ 264,093 Federal Grant Funds $ 273,285 Total Value of Project $ 537,378 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends participation in the TIIAP Grant Program and that the Board grant one-time retroactive signing authority for the grant application with associated forms to Terry L. Smith, Telecommunications Manager. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the expenditure of funds detailed in the grant application (subject to grant approval). MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to approve staffs recommendation 52 April 22, 1997 i ® � Chairman Eggert brought a scrivener's error to Director Dean's attention THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) GRANT WILL BE PLACID ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ILEA. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES. INC. - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND FINANCING NOT TO EXCEED $10.000,000 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 16, 1997: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Request by Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. for Industrial Development Bond Financing in an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $10,000,000, Issued in One or more Services FROM: Joseph A. Baird, Director Office of Management & Budget DESCRIPTION: Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. has requested permission to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, and expansion of their existing plant for the purpose of processing waste citrus products into animal feed as part of its current operation. When Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. expands the facility to process other citrus producer's waste into animal feed, they will have to apply to Indian River County for a franchise. In order for Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. to be eligible for Industrial Revenue Bonds, the Resolution and Memorandum of Agreement needs to be approved at the April 22, 1997 Board of County Commissioners meeting since there is a deadline date of April 28, 1997. Usually the TEFRA hearing is advertised and held prior to the Resolution authorizing the Industrial Revenue Bonds, but because of the time problem we will be holding the TEFRA hearing on May 6, 1997. Bob Reid of Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., Bond Counsel has advised staff that it is legal to advertise and hold the TEFRA hearing after the Industrial Revenue Bond Resolution is passed by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff has received Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. financial statements and application. 53 April 22, 1997 eOQ 1�.1� PAGE ae BOOK 101 PAGE 232 . RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the following: 1) The Board of County Commissioners approve the Resolution and Memorandum of Agreement allowing the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., not to exceed $10,000,000. 2) Authorize the Chairwoman or Vice Chairman to sign the Resolution and Memorandum of Agreement. 3) Approve the advertising of the TEFRA hearing to be held on May 6, 1997. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to approve staffs recommendation as set forth in the memorandum. Commissioner Adams thought this was wonderful, but was very concerned about them having to come to the Board for a franchise, which she deemed unfair. She felt that we should be helping them to keep the waste out of the Landfill. Chairman Eggert recalled that this had been pulled off the agenda once because it was thought to be in conflict with our solid waste ordinances. County Attorney Vitunac explained that the County's ordinance gives first claim on waste products to the County, which would have been needed if the County had gone into a recycling operation. He added that it takes a letter to get us out of our bond and ordinance restrictions. Administrator Chandler explained that it should not be looked at as an obstacle but a very simple sign -off situation. Brian Bogart agreed (from the audience). Attorney Vitunac advised that the TEFRA hearing would be held on May a as advertised. Administrator Chandler advised that the resolution under consideration was the revised one distributed to the Board the prior afternoon. There were some changes in the language to make it clear. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) (Res Mon 97-34 adopted) AGREEMENT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 54 April 22, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97-34 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCING OF THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF A CITRUS PULP PROCESSING FACILITY AND FACILITIES DIRECTLY RELATED OR ANCILLARY THERETO IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES (TO BE DETERMINED) (OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. PROJECT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING ALL OR ANY PART OF THE COST OF SAID PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 125 and 159, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes, as amended, and other applicable laws. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. It is hereby found, ascertained, determined and declared that: (A) Indian River County, Florida (the "County") by - and through its Board of County Commissioners is authorized and empowered by the provisions of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Industrial Development Act, being Parts II and III of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes (collectively, the "Act") to provide for the issuance of and to issue and sell its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for -the -purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any "project" as defined in the Act and related facilities; and (B) Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., a corporation duly organ- ized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and authorized to transact business in the State of Florida (hereinaf- ter referred to as the "Company"), informed the County of the Company's desire to acquire, rehabilitate and expand an existing waste citrus peels and pulp processing facility designed to convert 55 GOOK 10i PAGE 233 April 22, 1997 �s Boor, `. 0i PAGE 2c1.4 such citrus material into animal feed and facilities directly related or ancillary thereto to be located in the County (here- inafter referred to as the "Project"); and (C) The Company has requested the County to exercise its powers to issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Act, for the purpose of financing the Project; and (D) In order to promote the economic growth of the County and the industrial economy of the State of Florida, to maintain and increase purchasing power and opportunities for gainful employment and to advance and improve the economic prosperity and the general welfare of the State and its people, it is desirable that: (1) The County provide for the issuance and sale of its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1997 (Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. Project), in the aggregate amount of not to exceed $10,000,000 to be issued in one or more series at one or more times (the "Bonds"); (2) That the County use the proceeds thereof, to the extent of such proceeds, as follows: (i) to pay all or any part of the cost of issuance of the Bonds, to pay all or any part of the cost of the acquiring, rehabilitating and expanding the Project, (iii) to pay all or any part of the cost of the acquisition and construction of certain appurtenances and facilities incidental to the Project, and other improve- ments necessary and convenient therefor, and (iv) to pay any other "cost" (as defined in the Act) of the Project; and (3) That the County finance the Project for the Com- pany from proceeds of the sale of its Bonds, such loan to be payable by the Company in installments sufficient to pay the W, April 22, 1997 M M M principal of, premium (if any), and interest and other costs due on the Bonds when and as the same may become due; and (E) The Project shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the County, shall maintain gainful employment and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic pros- perity and the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people; and (F) The County is able to cope satisfactorily with the im- pact of the Project and is able to provide, or cause to be pro- vided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair and maintenance for the Project and on account of --any increase in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom; and (G) In view of rising construction costs, rising interest rates and other factors, it is believed essential that the acquisition and construction of the Project commence at the earliest practical date, and the Company is unwilling to make commitments therefor without satisfactory assurances from the County that, upon satisfaction of all requirements of law, and other conditions to be met by the Company, the Bonds will be issued and sold and the proceeds thereof will be made available to finance the cost of the Project, to the extent of such proceeds; and (H) It is necessary and desirable and in the best interest of the County that the County and the Company enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (the "Memorandum of Agreement"), providing among other things for the issuance and sale by the County of the Bonds; for the use and application of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bonds to pay all or any part of the "cost" (as defined in the Act) of the Project, to the extent of such proceeds; and for the loan of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds by the County to the Company pursuant to a financing agreement requiring the Company to 57 April 22, 1997 BOOK I ® FACE Uv boor 101 [AGE -- pay the Ioan in installments sufficient to pay all of the interest, principal, redemption premiums (if any) and other costs due under and pursuant to the Bonds when and as the same become due and payable, to operate, repair and maintain the Project at the Company's own expense, and to pay all other costs incurred by the County in connection with the financing of the acquisition, rehabilitation and administration of the Project which are not paid out of the Bond proceeds or otherwise; and (I) Based on a review of the financial statements of the Company supplied as a part of the Company's application to the County, the Company is financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill its obligations under the proposed financing agreement, including the obligation to make installment payments on the loan for the Project financed with the proceeds of sale of the Bonds in the amount and at the times to be required by the financing agreement; the obligation to operate, repair and maintain such Project at its own expense; and to serve the purposes of the Act and other responsibilities to be imposed under the financing agreement; due consideration having been given to the Company's ratio of current assets to current liabilities, net worth, earning history, coverage of all fixed charges, the nature of its business, its financial stability, and other factors determinative of the capabilities of the Company, financially and otherwise, to fulfill its obligations consistently with the purposes of the Act; and (J) The Bonds shall and will be payable solely from the revenues and proceeds derived by the Company from the operation, leasing or sale of the Project, and will not constitute a debt, liability or obligation of the County or the State of Florida or of any other political subdivision thereof; the County shall not be obligated to pay the same nor interest, premiums (if any) or costs thereon except from the revenues and proceeds pledged therefor, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the County, or 58 April 22, 1997 the State of Florida or of any other political subdivision thereof will be pledged to the payment of the principal, premiums (if any), interest, or costs due pursuant to or under such Bonds; and (K) Based on the determination of the County's bond counsel, the Project is reasonably designed and intended to provide solid waste disposal facilities for the processing of citrus waste byproducts into animal feed within the meaning of the rules and regulations of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Project or the Company's principal place of business will be within the boundaries of the County; and (L) The issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Pro- ject will otherwise comply with all of the provisions of the Act. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. In order to assure the location of and to induce the Company to locate the Project in the boundaries of the County, with the resulting public benefits which flow therefrom, and to more effectively serve the purposes of the Act, the proposed Memorandum of Agreement to be made between the County and the Company, in the form and with the contents presented at and filed with the Minutes of this meeting, be and the same is hereby approved. SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION OF EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF MEMO- RANDUM OF AGREEMENT. The Chairman or the Vice -Chairman of the County is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Agreement -in the name of and on behalf of the County, and the Clerk of the County is hereby authorized and directed to attest the same and to affix thereto the official seal of the County, and the Chairman or Vice -Chairman is hereby authorized to deliver the Memorandum of Agreement to the Company. Such officers and all other officers and employees of the County are hereby authorized to execute and deliver such further agreements, instruments and documents and to take such further action as may be necessary and desirable to effectuate and carry out the intent and purposes of 59 April 22, 1997 00 �-1 PACE Boor, 10i PuE232 the Memorandum of Agreement, when executed and delivered by the County. SECTION 5. STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL INTENT. The Company is hereby authorized to incur expenditures on the costs of the Project, which expenditures are to be reimbursed to the Company from the proceeds of the Bonds upon their issuance. This Resolution shall constitute a reimbursement allocation by the County and a declaration of "official intent" by the County toward the issuance of the Bonds, within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2. SECTION 6. SCOPE OF COUNTY APPROVAL. It is expressly stated and agreed that the adoption of this Resolution is not a guaranty, express or implied, nor that the County shall approve the closing and issue the Bonds for the Project. The Company shall hold the County and its past, present and future members, officers, staff, attorneys, financial advisors and employees harmless from any liability or claim based upon the failure of the County to close the transaction and issue the Bonds or any other cause of action arising from the adoption of this Resolution, the processing of the financing for the Project, or the issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAWS. It is found and determined that all formal actions of this County concerning and relating to the adoption of this Resolution were taken in an open meeting of the members of this County and that all deliberations of the members of this County and of its committees, if any, which resulted in such formal action were taken in meetings open to the public, in full compliance with all legal requirements. SECTION 8. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or orders and parts thereof in conflict herewith, to the extent of such con- flicts, are hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately. 60 April 22, 1997 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a duly called meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, at which a quorum was present on April 22, 1997. (SEAL) ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton Clerk-a-f� t Circuit may' '�� C urt APPROVED AS TO LE AL FORM AND CONTENT Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -ju-o-� Z. Of 44;t Carol . Egg e Chairman 11.E.2. FIREWORKS FUNDING - FIREFIGHTERS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 16, 1997: TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the Board of County Commissioners April 16, 1997 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIREFIGHTER'S REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF FIREWORKS FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Indian River County Firefighters are requesting $2,500 for the firework display for the "Fourth of July Family Picnic" to be held at Riverside Park In the past, the Board of County Commissioners approved funding for fireworks at Riverside only if they also funded Fourth of July fireworks in Sebastian for the same amount. If the Board of County Commissioners approves funding the fireworks, it will require $5,000 to fund both events ($2,500 each) which would be transferred from General Fund Contingencies. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request. 61 BOOK .Uri P, �.j9 April 22, 1997 KOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) approved Aff s recommendation, as set out in the Memorandum .��. PAGE 20 11.G.1. RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE FROM HUNTER - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - 43rd AVE. & 41st ST. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 11, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Fr Public Works Directo r AND Roger D. Cain, P.E. ,'-- County Engineer -1 FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA _► County Right -of -Way Agent SUBJECT: Intersection Improvements, 43rd Avenue and 41st Street DATE: April 11, 1997 Forty feet (401) of additional right-of-way is needed on the northeast corner of 41st Street for intersection widening and resignalization improvements. The property has RS -6 zoning. Two rows of citrus trees (49) are in the additional right-of-way. The owner has counter offered the staffs offer of $9,153.00, which is the appraised value of $15,912 per acre for the land. PROPERTY OWNERS COUNTER OFFER: LAND, 40' x 626.45' (.5753 acre)$22,500 /acre $12,944.00 Cost of 49 trees in Right -of -Way, 5 year income loss to maturity $ 2,573.00 Owner to relocate the landscape garden planter off the right-of-way $ 400.00 Owner to relocate main irrigation line off the right-of-way $ 859.00 FULL COMPENSATION: $16,776.00 Staff feels the contract counteroffer is an equitable negotiated settlement, with no additional attorney or appraisal fees, although the land is at the upper range of value. ;9 April 22, 1997 RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Board accept the contract and direct the Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf. FUNDING Funding is available from Traffic Impact Fee District 8 Fund. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (40, Commissioner Macht being, absent) accepted and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract, as recommended m the Memorandum. COPY OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.2. PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - 1st STREET S.W. (58th AVENUE TO 66th AVENUE) - AS -BUILT RESOLUTION AND ASSESSMENT ROLL The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 31, 1997: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.— Public .E.Public Works Director and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, Civil Engineer l SUBJECT: As -Built Resolution & Assessment Roll for Paving and Drainage Improvements to 1st Street SW between 66th Avenue & 58th Avenue DATE: March 31, 1997 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of the above mentioned road has been completed. The final assessment is as follows: 63 April 22, 1997 1 600K .:..0.i PAGE 241 Boor . 01 FACE 242 Preliminary Estimates* Final Cost County's Cost $158,659.22 County's Cost $199,671.76 Property Owner's Cost $158,659.22 Property Owner's Cost $157,631.96 2% Tax Collector's Fee 3173.18 2% Tax Collector's Fee 3,152.64 Total Property Owner's Cost $161,832.40 Total Property Owner's Cost $160,784.60 (261.02 Acres) (259.33 Acres) * * $620.00/per Acre $620.00/per Acre * At the October 24 1995 Public Hearing property owners stated that the costs of $873.43 per acre was too high of an assessment, therefore the Board of County Commissioners reduced the per acre assessment to $620.00 per acre. The original cost estimate and minutes are attached. The final cost estimate shows that the county would pay 56% of the final assessment and the property owners pay 44% in order to keep the -cost to the property owners at $620.00 per acre. ** The Tax Assessor's updated records for the total acreage of the benefited area vary somewhat from the preliminary assessment roll. The final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in 2 equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date at an interest rate of 81/4% established by the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners will not exceed the approved preliminary assessment roll, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment roll. RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING It is recommended that the final assessment roll and the "As -Built Resolution" for the paving of the above mentioned road be approved by the Board -of County Commissioners and that it be transferred to the Tax Collector for recording in the "Assessment Lien Book" and for collection. Funding for the property owners share will come from the Petition Paving Account No. 111-214-541-035.51 and the county's share will come from the Local Option Gas Tax. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to approve staffs recommendation as set forth in the memorandum Under discussion, Commissioner Gnn commented that the 8'/4% interest rate was somewhat high, and Administrator Chandler explained that the Board considers and sets the interest rate each year. THE C11AIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent). (Resolution No. 97-35 adopted) M April 22, 1997 M M M As -Built (Fourth Reso.) 2/19/96(ENG)RES4.MAG\gfk RESOLUTION NO. 97-35 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO IST STREET SW BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE AND 58TH AVENUE, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT NO. 8836, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements described herein specially benefited the property located within the boundaries as described in this title, designated as Project No. 8836, are in the public interest and promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 1995, the Board held a public hearing in the Commission Chambers at which time the owners of the property to be assessed were afforded an opportunity to appear before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 95-139, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in an attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is $620.00 per acre, which is the same as $620.00 per acre in the confirming Resolution No. 95-139, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Resolution No. 95-139 is modified as follows: The completion date for Project No. 8836 is declared to be March 3, 1997, and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 8%% per annum may be made in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the 1 N, April 22, 1997 Q00K U h FACE 4;%,gj Boor, 10i PAGE244 No. 97-35 due date and the subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date. The due date is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The assessment roll for said project listed- in Resolution No. 95-139 shall be as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" to this resolution. 4. The assessments as shown in attached Exhibit "All shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown in Exhibit "A", attached to Resolution No. 95-139 were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall constitute prima facie evidence of its validity. This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tiepin and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent. - Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22 day of April , 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COU Y, FLORIDA By CAROLY K. EGGE Attest: Chai n JEFFR K. BARTON, Cie Attachment: Exhibit "A" iswasblt.res 2 April 22, 1997 Iadion Ri"w CavatV Appwed Late Administration rC' 4 / Budget �j- L.ega► -iy-9 Risk Management i "-/Y. 7 Public Works Engineering C 1 L� 1 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 ALTERNATIVE B COST PER ACRE.... NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 1. Rountree Jr., Hurley R. & 17 33 39 00001 0130 00003.0 4.29 $620.0000 $2,659.80 COST Clarice N. IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS $2,421.86 PRE -PAID 6566 1st Street SW 2-25 E 207.37 Ft. of W 232.37 $ 237.94 TOTAL COST Vero Beach, FL 32968 Ft of S 30 A of TR 13 LESS 2. Guenthner,Frank L & Rhoda Ann 2949 Mourning Cove Titusville, FL 32780 1 STSWFIN.wk1 N 25 Ft. & ALSO LESS S 30 Ft FOR R/W AS IN OR BK 952, PG 1988 17 33 39 00001 0130 00002.2 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 THE E 398.86 FT. OF THE W 631.23 FT. LESS S 30 FT. R/W & THE N 25 FT. OF THE E 207.37 FT OF THE W 232.37 FT OF THE S 30 A of TR 13, LESS ADD R/W FOR IST ST SW AS IN OR BK 943, PG 2158 8.57 $620.0000 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $237.94 $5,313.40 27 -Mar -97 Ell 1 STSW FIN.wk1 j± Tj 27 -Mar -97 8 G 1 . N H .14 M w C-1.2 n< FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... 259.33 FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... $160,784.60 PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT TOTAL COST 3. Keller, Donna & I.Basil 17 33 39 00001 0130 00002.1 7.39 $620.0000 $4,581.80 6500 1st Street SW IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32968 2-25 W 347.54 Ft. of the E 695.08 Ft. of the S 30 A of TR 13 LESS S 30 Ft. R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W AS IN OR BK 942, PG 997 4. Sciaccotta, Anthony J. & 17 33 39 00001 0130 00002.0 7.39 $620.0000 $4,581.80 McMahon, Elaine IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2195 84th Terrace 2-25 E 347.54 FT. OF E 695 FT Vero Beach, FL 32960 OF S 30 FT FOR R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR CARTER RD AS IN OR BK 940, PG 97 5. Giordano, NoreneJ. 17 33 39 00001 0140 00001.0 4.77 $620.0000 $2,957.40 6380 1st Street SW IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32968 2-25 W 5 A of TR 14 LESS CANAL & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR IST ST SW AS IN OR BK 944, PG 653 1 STSW FIN.wk1 j± Tj 27 -Mar -97 8 G 1 . N H .14 M FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 6. Hiers, Shelly 17 33 39 00001 0140 00004.0 4.77 $620.0000 686 3rd Place IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32962 2-25 E 5 A of W 10 A of TR 14 LESS CANAL & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR 1ST ST SW AS IN OR BK 944, PG 651 7. Hiers, Bobby J. c/o Mr. Bill Mills EGI 80 Royal Palm Blvd -203 Vero Beach, FL 32960 8. Hendrix, C. Kennon & Pamela H. 6220 1st Street SW Vero Beach, FL 32968 1STSWFIN.wkl 17 33 39 00001 0140 00002.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2}25 W 20.29 A of E 30.29 A of TR 14, LESS POR FOR ADD'L RD R/W AS DESC IN OR BK 1070, PG 1260 17 33 39 00001 0140 00003.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 E 10 A OF TRACT 14, LESS FOLL DESC PARCEL: THAT PART OF THE E 10 AC OF TR 14,17-33-39, BEING MORE PART DESC AS FOLL: COMM AT SE COR OF SAID TR 14; COM AT SE COR OF SAID TR 14; 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $2,957.40 18.90 $620.0000 $11,718.00 COST $9,268.00 $ 2,450.00 PRE -PAID $ 9,268.00 TOTAL COST 4.77 $620.0000 $2,957.40 YYi ��a is 27 -Mar -97 C_Q w n 0 ca I- CA CA e-1 N N 1" I .ri N 9. Hudson, Elizabeth 17 33 39 00001 0140 00003.1 4.77 $620.0000 4726 Pebble Bay Circle IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32963 PBS 2-25 THAT PART OF THE E 10 AC OF TR 14, 17-33-39, BEING MORE PART DESC AS FOLL: COM AT SE COR OF SAID YTR 14, TH RUN 1 STSWFIN.wkl $2,957.40 1< U1 27 -Mar -97 N .14 M LU Q FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: �I 1 ST STREET SW (R. D. CARTER ROAD) FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE TOTAL ACREAGE..... 259.33 PROJECT NO. 8836 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... $160,784.60 ALTERNATIVE B COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 NAME & ADDRESS 8. Hendrix, C. Kennon & LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT TH RUN N 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC W, TOTAL COST Pamela H. 60 FT TO N R/W OF IST ST SW (continued) AS REC IN OR BK 993, PG 397 SAID PT BEING THE POB; TH CONT N 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC W ALONG THE E LINE OF SAID TR 14, 1262.95 TO NE COR OF SAID TR 14; TH RUN S 89 DEG 57 MIN 30 SEC W ALONG o THE N LINE OF SAID TR 14, 60.0 FT; t` TH RUN S 89 DEG 58 MIN 33 SEC W, 209.3 FT; TH RUN S 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC E, 631.38 FT TO SAID N R/W OF IST ST SW; TH RUN E ALONG SAID R/W TO THE POB. 9. Hudson, Elizabeth 17 33 39 00001 0140 00003.1 4.77 $620.0000 4726 Pebble Bay Circle IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32963 PBS 2-25 THAT PART OF THE E 10 AC OF TR 14, 17-33-39, BEING MORE PART DESC AS FOLL: COM AT SE COR OF SAID YTR 14, TH RUN 1 STSWFIN.wkl $2,957.40 1< U1 27 -Mar -97 N .14 M FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... 259.33 FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST, TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... $160,784.60 PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS 9. Hudson, Elizabeth (continued) fl 10. Dan Richey, President Gulfstream Harvesting Inc. P.O. Box 198 Winter Beach, FL 32971-0098 1 STSWFIN.wk1 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION N 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC W, 60.0 FT TO THE N R/W OF IST ST SW AS RECORDED IN OR BK 943, PG 397 SAID PT BEING POB; TH CONT N 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC W ALONG E LINE OF SAID TR 14, 1262.95 FT TO NE COR OF SAID TR 14, TH RUN S 89 DEG 57 MIN 30 SEC W ALONG N LINE OF SAID TR 14, 60.0 FT, TH RUN S 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC E 631.44 FT, TH S 89 DEG 58 MIN 33 SEC W 209.30 FT, TH S 00 DEG 24 MIN 45 SEC E, 631.38 FT TO SAID N R/W OF 1ST ST SW, TH E ALONG SAID R/W TO POB. 17 33 39 00001 0150 00001.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2}25 W 10 A of TR 15, LESS R/W AS IN OR BK 1043 PG 2066 ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT TOTAL COST 9.54 $620.0000 $5,914.80 I- Im 01 Cq 27 -Mar -97 N ®I 14 Llf -) C'®1 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R. D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 11. Hornbuckle, Lamarcus E. & 17 33 39 00001 0150 00002.1 4.75 $620.0000 Rebecca R. IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS P.O. Box 42 2-25 W 1/2 of W 10.11 A of Vero Beach, FL 32961 E 30.34 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL 12. Hornbuckle, Lamarcus E. P.O. Box 42 Vero Beach, FL 32961 1 STSWFIN.wkt & RD R/W, & LESS ADDITIONAL 50 Ft. for R.D. Carter RD R/W AS PER OR BK 722 PP 1006 17 33 39 00001 0150 00002.2 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 E 1/2 of W 10.11 A of E 30.34 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W AS IN OR BK 952 PG 2009 4.83 $620.0000 $2,994.60 COST $1,912.64 PRE -PAID $1,081.96 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $2,945.00 $1,081.96 pa '2. 1- ' !.� U U 27—Mar-97 n 1 N N �14 m L 7 11 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST STREET SW (R. D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 13. Montanez, Gloria M 17 33 39 00001 0150 00002.3 4.83 $620.0000 P.O. Box 12902 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Ft. Pierce, FL 34979-2902 2-25 W 165 Ft. of W 10.11 A of 14. Cole, Roy L. & Marie A. 6050 1st Street SW Vero Beach, FL 32968 15. Brooks Jr, Harold L & Barbara 1526 48th Ave. Vero Beach, FL 32966 1 STSW FIN.wkt E 20.23 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR 1ST ST SW AS IN OR BK 932 PG 2285 17 33 39 00001 0150 00002.4 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 W 5 A of E 15 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD R/W ALSO LESS ADD R/W AS RECORDED IN OR BK 845 PP 2451 17 33 39 00001 0150 00002.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 E 15 A of TR 15, LESS W 5 A & ALSO LESS CANAL & RD R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W AS IN OR BK 945 PG 940 4.83 $620.0000 9.54 $620.0000 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $2,994.60 $2,994.60 $5,914.80 it F ti 27 -Mar -87 r 0 n 01 01 e� N N r -I .$4 Vol�i FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: LST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 16. Keen Jr., Joel P. 17 33 39 00001 0160 00003.0 2.92 $620.0000 5980 lst Street, SW IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32968 2-25 W 225 Ft. of S 622.66 Ft. 17. Fanaro, Ronald S & Denyse P.O. Box 2110 Vero Beach, FL 32961-2110 1 STSWFIN.wk1 OF TR 16 LESS R/W & ALSO LESS S 30 FT FOR R/W AS DESC IN OR BK 955 PG 1534 17 33 39 00001 0160 00005.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 E 169.20 Ft. of W 394.20 Ft. of S 622.66 Ft. of TR 16 LESS R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W AS IN OR BK 1070 PG 2015 2.19 $620.0000 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $1,810.40 $1,357.80 27 -Mar -97 n 1 1 A- 4, 4] M 1 1 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 ALTERNATIVE B COST PER ACRE.... NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 18. Gilmore, Richard Grant & 17 33 39 00001 0160 00003.2 2.07 $620.0000 Marilyn A. IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 5920 1st Street SW 2-25 E 160 Ft. of W 554.20 Ft. Vero Beach. FL 32968 of S 622.66 Ft. of TR 16 LESS RD R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR 1ST ST SW AS IN OR BK 943 PG 2154 19. Hamilton, William 17 33 39 00001 0160 00003.1 2.07 $620.0000 5900 1st Street, SW IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32968 2-25 E 160 Ft. of W 714.20 Ft. of S 622.66 Ft. of TR 16 LESS RD R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR CARTER RD AS DESC 1N OR BK 940 PG 389 1 STSWFIN.wk1 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $1,283.40 $1,283.40 27 -Mar -97 Li t` 4M of rl N N H .ri 14 CD CO FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... 259.33 FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... $160,784.60 PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRF PRF.-PATTI ACSRCCMFM'r TnTAT nnom 20. Keen, Joel P. & Faye R. 5980 1st Street SW Vero Beach, FL 32968 21. Bagaley, Sandra 5820 1st Street SW Vero Beach, FL 32960 1 STSWFIN.wk1 17 33 39 00001 0160 00004.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 E 160 Ft. of W 874.20 Ft. of S 633.66 Ft. of TR 16 LESS R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR CARTER RD AS IN OR BK 942 PG 1001 17 33 39 00001 0160 00001.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 S 622.66 Ft of TR 16 LESS W 874.20 Ft. THEREOF LESS R/W & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR CARTER RD AS IN OR BK 942 PG 1005 & ALSO LESS ADD R/W FOR 58TH AVE AS IN OR BK 1021 PG 1546 2.07 $620.0000 $1,283.40 4.07 $620.0000 $2,523.40 y 61F i�� 27-M ar-97 1 fl N N r -I �14 m 1 1 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE PROJECT NO. 8836 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS 22. Decky, John R. & Lorraine 110 66th Avenue SW Vero Beach, FL 32968 1 STSW FIN.wk1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 20 33 39 00001 0040 00001.3 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 FROM NW COR OF SAID TR 4, RUN E ALONG N LINE OF TR 4, 675.25 FT; TH RUN S 00 DEG 15 MIN 40 SEC E, 30.0 FT TO A PT ON S BNDY LINE OF 30.0 FT R/W FOR SUB -LATERAL B-5 CANAL & POB; TH RUN S 13 DEG 18 MIN 49 SEC W, 388.88 FT; TH RUN S 14 DEG 43 MIN 09 SEC E, 419.50 FT; TH RUN N 80 DEG 32 MIN 55 SEC W, 243.59 FT; TH RUN N 90 DEG 00 MIN 00 SEC W, 408.61 FT TO E R/W OF 66TH AVE (MONROE RD); TH RUN N & PARA TO W LINE OF TR 4, 744.17 FT TO S R/W OF SAID SUBLATERAL B-5 CANAL; TH RUN E ALONG SAID R/W, 650.25 FT TO POB, LESS & EXCEPT E 15.0 FT OF W 40.0 FT OF SAID TR 4. TOTAL ACREAGE..... 259.33 n COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... $160,784.60 n COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT TOTAL COST 8.72 $620.0000 $5,406.40 p,.� L' �.� ' �33 r. -ori Y '} ti ? 27 -Mar -97 N C4 r"1 .H $4 n �7ZD °`J C%1 W FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: Q) 1ST STREET SW (R. D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... 259.33 FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... $160,784.60 PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT TOTAL COST 23. Woodlands of Vero Inc. 20 33 39 00001 0040 0000 1. 1 16.66 $620.0000 $10,329.20 P.O. Box 309 IND.RIV.FARMS CO.SUB.PBS 2-25 Vero Beach, FL 32961-0309 BEG AT A PT 676.66 FT E OF NW COR OF TR 4, TH RUN S 13 DEG 18 MIN 49 SEC W 418.88 FT TO N EDGE OF EXISTING LAKE, TH RUN S 14 DEG 37 MIN 00 SEC E °O h THROUGH LAKE 594.99 FT TO SLY EDGE OF LAKE, TH RUN N 71 DEG 16 MIN 26 SEC E ALONG SLY EDGE OF LAKE 119.61 FT, TH FUN S 19 DEG 03 MIN 54 SEC E 409.78 FT TO S LINE OF TR 4, TH RUN N 89 DEG 56 MIN 10 SEC E 350 FT TO SE COR OF TR 4, TH RUN N 00 DEG 16 MIN 00 SEC W ALONG E LINE OF TR 4, 1332.70 FT, TH RUN W 651.66 FT TO POB, LESS C1 DITCH & RD R/W'S C1 �-I C4 1STSWFIN.wk1 n v 'p <�; �,.1 27 -Mar -97 •rl a E'w M 1 1 STSWFIN.wk1 27 -Mar -97 C3 0 ca 01 C1 H N N H .N FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL, ACREAGE..... 259.33 $160,784.60 FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... $620.0000 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT TOTAL COST 24. Prange, Edwin & Peggy B 20 33 39 00001 0030 00002.0 9.92 $620.0000 $6,150.40 6355 1st Street SW IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32968 2-25 W 10 A of TR 3 (OR BK 630 PP 1957) 25. Wodtke Jr., William C. & 20 33 39 00001 0030 00001.1 19.78 $620.0000 $6,063.60 Ellen C. IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS P.O. Box 2-25W IOAofE3OAofTR3 Vero Beach, FL 32961-0008 LESS CANAL 26. Johnson, Cecil I & Anna S 20 33 39 00001 0030 00001.0 4.93 $620.0000 $3,056.60 P.O. Box 703 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32961-0703 2-25 E 5 A of W 10 A of the E 20 A of TR 3, LESS CANAL 27. Johnson, Cecil & Anna 20 33 39 00001 0030 00001.2 4.93 $620.0000 $3,056.60 (CO -TRS) IND. RIV. FARMS CO'. SUB. PBS 6161 SW Ist Street 2-25 the E 10 A of E 20 A of Vero Beach, FL 32960 TR 3 & ALSO W 5 A of W 10 A of E 20 A of TR 3, LESS CANAL 1 1 STSWFIN.wk1 27 -Mar -97 C3 0 ca 01 C1 H N N H .N GO ➢.fes 04 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE PROJECT NO. 8836 ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE TOTAL ACREAGE..... COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... COST PER ACRE.... COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST 28. Johnson, Cecil & Anna 20 33 39 00001 0030 00001.3 4.93 $620.0000 $3,056.60 6161 SW 1st Street IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32960 2-25 W 5 A OF E 20 A OF TR 3 29. Springer, Thomas Bradley & 20 33 39 00001 0030 00001.4 4.93 $620.0000 $3,056.60 Julie J. IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 6245 SW 1st Street 2-25 E 5 A OF W 15 A OF E 20.0 Vero Beach, FL 32968 A OF TR 3 LESS R/W 30. Johnson, Cecil L & Anna S 20 33 39 00001 0020 00002.0 19.82 $620.0000 $12,288.40 (CO -TR) IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 6161 SW First Street 2}25 W 1/2 of TR 2, LESS CANAL Vero Beach, FL 32960 31. Abbott, William E.& Rebecca A. 20 33 39 00001 0020 0000 1. 1 9.91 $620.0000 $6,144.20 6075 SW 1st Street IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32962 2-25 W 1/2 of E 1/2 of TR 2 (OR BK 616 PP 1937) 1STSWFIN.wk1 ! ' 6# ` .; 4' 27 -Mar -97 0 00 1 n N N H .$4 1 1 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) TOTAL ACREAGE..... FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 58TH AVENUE COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS........... PROJECT NO. 8836 COST PER ACRE.... ALTERNATIVE B NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACREAGE COST/ACRE PRE -PAID ASSESSMENT 32. Abbott, William E. & 20 33 39 00001 0020 00001.0 5.14 $620.0000 Rebecca A. IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 6075 SW Ist Street 2-25 E 1/2 of E 1/2 of TR 2 Vero Beach, FL 32962 LESS E 331.42 ft. of N 657.05 ft. 33. Asafaylo Jr., Michael & Brenda J. 20-33-39-00001-0020-00001.2 14.77 $620.0000 P.O. Drawer Z IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS Vero Beach, FL 32961-3025 2-25 E 1/2 of E 331 42 ft of 34. Baratta, Frank G. 3090 NE 42nd Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 1 STSWFIN.wkt N 657.05 ft. of TR 2, LESS Canal Right -of -Way 20 33 39 00001 0010 00001.0 IND. RIV. FARMS CO. SUB. PBS 2-25 TR 1 LESS R/WS AS IN OR BK 655 PG •1170 & OR BK 654 PG 1096 & ALSO LESS RD R/W DESC AS PARCELS 104 & 104A -AS IN OR BK 1039 PG 2902 35.56 $620.0000 259.33 $160,784.60 $620.0000 TOTAL COST $3,186.80 $2,957.40 $22,047.20 $160,784.60 Less Pre -Paid $6,784.50 259.33 $620.0000 $6,784.50 $154,000.10 TOTAL ACRES COST/ACRE TOTAL PRE -PAID TOTAL COST ASSESSMENT A r''•' �•�y "�� �;� 27—Mar-97 C3 ko �2 w d y 00 0 ca 1` 01 01 r -I N N H .rq 14 6001K 101 PAGE E0 11.G.3. LARRY & CHERYL GERSTNER - ALLEGED PERMIT VIOLATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SEAWALL - 60 -DAY EXTENSION GRANTED The Board reviewed correspondencb dated April 10, 1997: J. A. JURGENS, P.A. 1. - APR 14 1997 r Attorneys at Law ` '� 1964 Howell Branch Road, Suite 20( PLIBLZ WOWS DEPT. I J. A. Jurgens Winter Pari, Florida 32792 Vincent J. Profaci Telephone (407) 673-1144 Facsimile (407) 673-0999 A6"-,.a.N-y-k-j�-b., Voice Mail (407) 673-1199 - April 10, 1997 VIA FACSEMIILE (561)778-9391 AND REGULAR MAIL Jeffrey R Tabar, Coastal Engineer Indian River County 1840 2511 Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Larry and Cheryl Gerstrier/Alleged Permit Vlolation for Construction of a Seawall Dear Mr. Tabar. This letter shall serve as a formai response to your correspondence of April 1, 1997. The sixty day extension granted by the Board of County Commissioners as to alleged violation of county regulations expires April 12, 1997. The purpose of this letter is to respond to Indian River County directly as to the status of this matter and request an additional extension as warranted under the circumstances herein. On February 28, 1997 in response to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) letter of February 21, 1997, the property owner requested of the FDEP a modification to Permit IR -511. For the reasons expressed in that correspondence, the FDEP was requested to modify the existing permit which would result in the seawall as currently constructed determined in compliance with state and local regulation. On April 2, 1997, as -built drawings for the steel sheet pile bulkhead were forwarded to Sri Tammisatti of the FDEP. The property owners are compiling the remaining documentation lequested in the FDEP letter of March 7,1997 from which the permit modification will be reviewed by FDEP. A copy of the February 28,1997, March 7,1997 and April 2, 1997 letters are enclosed for your review. Based on all relevant circumstances and in consideration of the equities in this matter since the FDEP is reviewing the requested modification to Permit IR -511, it is respectfully requested that an additional sixty days be granted during which time we sincerely hope that the FDEP completes their review and that a resolution of this matter is final. Thank you for the courtesies extended to date. On behalf of Larry and Cheryl Gerstner, if you have any specific questions or comments, please feel free to can me directly. y yours, J. Jurgen JAJ:dw Enclosures c: Larry and Cheryl Gerstner Post Office Box 1178, Winter pari, Florida 32790-1178 631 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 306, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 82 April 22, 1997 M M M Public Works Director James W. Davis gave a brief history of the permit and approval by the State. He pointed out the stringent requirements of the State and Federal governments regarding turtle nesting. Commissioner Adams had no problem with extending the permit another 60 days. She hoped DEP would get it resolved before that time elapsed as they were the ones who needed to decide where the seawall is to go. Chairman Eggert was fiustrated, but willing to wait for DEP to follow through. As far as she was concerned, 60 days extension was the limit. Both Commissioner Adams and Commissioner Ginn felt that it was the State's responsibility to make a decision as to how this and the other seawalls should be placed. Commissioner Gum wondered if the seawall configuration would cause scouring, she felt that DEP needed to set policies. Director Davis advised that the policy DEP communicated to staff is they consider a location 15 feet off the primary structure or the top of the b14 whichever is the most landward. Commissioner Ginn enumerated problems that needed to be addressed at the State level to give us some additional guidelines. Director Davis added that the State did not consider a straight wall, with no deflection, to be advantageous over one with angles and deflections. Commissioner Ginn thought that if that was the State's policy, then the Board needed to adhere very strictly to it. Commissioner Adams stated it was an arbitrary decision because it hasn't been determined by research and there has been evidence of problems with uneven seawalls. Commissioner Gum suggested that perhaps Coastal Engineer Jeff Tabar might get one of his Florida Institute of Technology PbD candidates to do a little research on it to see if they can get us an answer on that. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) granted a 60 day extension on the seawall permit issued to Larry and Cheryl Gerstner. 83 [iOJI ? PACE 461 April 22, 1997 C 09K 10i PAGE 20? 11.H.1. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH VANCE MCCOWN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR THE REX STORE CORP. (REX TV) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 14, 1997: DATE: APRIL 14, 1997 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO FROM: TERRANCE G. PI DIRECTOR F I ITY SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc C , P.E. AND STAFFED CAPIT TS ENGINEER BY: DEP O UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH VANCE MCCOWN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., FOR THE REX STORE CORPORATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. CDS/CCS-622 BACKGROUND As development proceeds on the south side of State Road 60, east of Kings Highway, it has become necessary to extend utility services to this area. This expansion has progressed through the utilization of developers' agreements with the various businesses for the construction of both Master -planned lines as well as oversized lines to serve the adjacent properties. The Master Plan called for water main extensions both on State Road 60, as well as parallel to the main relief canal behind the properties fronting State Road 60. (See attached exhibit from the Master Plan.) To date the water has been extended through agreements with both WalMart and Applebees for construction across their properties. The proposed sewer service to this project is an extension of an existing system, the core of which was constructed through the developer's agreement with Applebees (see attached). ANALYSIS The total estimated construction cost of the Master -planned water main extension is $77,445.50. The County's contribution is $70,470.50, with the developer paying $6,975.00. The developer's portion is calculated at a rate of two times the line extension fee for both front and back property lines. The total estimated cost of the sewer main extension is $69,710 ,0. The County's contribution is $64,042.58, with the developer paying $5,667.42. The developer is also reimbursing the County a proportional share of the regional area lift station constructed through the developer's agreement with Applebees. This reimbursement is in the amount of $5,958.71. For complete details of the proposed developer's agreement, please reference the attached proposed agreement. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Developer's Agreement as presented and authorize the chairman to execute same. 84 April 22, 1997 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, to approve staffs recommendation Under discussion, Commissioner Adams wanted to be sure they are paying their fair share, and Capital Projects Engineer William F. McCain advised that this started back with the original development agreement with Applebee's. Under this agreement the County will be recovering a portion of the cost that the County contributed to the original system on a prorational share. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.14.2. 5TH STREET S.W. WATER MAIN AND DRAINAGE CONFLICT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 8, 1997: DATE: April 8,1997 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADIv1USTISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. P O DIRECTOR OF VICES PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRON UINTAL ENG 40V�) BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTII..TTY SERVICES MICHELLE GENTILE CIVIL ENGINEER h ; PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: 5m STREET S.W. WATER MAIN AND DRAINAGE CONFLICT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -23 -DS BACKGROUND On November 13, 1996, the Public Works Department notified the Department of Utility Services regarding a conflict with a 24" water main to the drainage culvert at the right-of- way at 5tb Street; S.W. A memorandum was submitted to the County Administrator for his direction and advise as to whom should be responsible for the costs to relocate the 24" 85 April 22, 1997 60,2,, 101 F,�Gt b3 water main On February 3, 1997, the Department of Utility Services was asked to proceed with the relocation so that the Public Works Department could proceed with a roadway construction project. ANALYSIS Staff has obtained labor costs in the amount of $14,633.75 and an estimate for materials cost in the amount of $35,665.54 (U.S. Filters/Davis, Inc.). Due to time constraints, the Utilities Department will use the current Labor Contract with Driveways, Inc. for the proposed work These costs will be paid from the Renewal and Replacement Fund until direction is provided to this department for alternative funding sources. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the attached contracts with Driveways, Inc., in the amount of $14,633.75 for labor and with U.S. Filters/Davis, Inc., in the amount of $35,665.54 for materials. Commissioner Ginn inquired whether a GIS location program was in effect, and Public Works Director Tim Davis advised the School District Board property on 5th Street SW had a water main project. The new school needed water and sewer and the road project was held up by the scrub jay issue. When the water main project was finished, County Public Works bought an additional 50 -foot right-of-way and it was a matter of both departments trying to meet a tight schedule in order for the school to open ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the contract with Driveways, Inc., in the amount of $14,633.75, for labor and the contract with U.S. Filters/Davis, Inc. in the amount of $35,665.54 for materials, as recommended in the memorandum. 86 April 22, 1997 11.H.3. HICKORY SANDS WATER SERVICE - 5TH PLACE, WEST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 11, 1997: DATE: APRIL 11, 1997 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY RVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSIt NT PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: HICKORY SANDS WATER SERVICE (5TH PLACE, WEST OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -09 -DS RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND On September 10, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution III, No. 96-107, for the preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project. Construction of the project has been completed. Customer connections have begun, and we request the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll. (See attached minutes and Resolution III.) ANALYSIS The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated cost to be assessed of $38,709.00, which equated to $0.1344221 per square foot of property owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $27,035.72, which equates to a cost of $0.093885 per square foot of property. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution IV, which is attached, and authorize the chairman to execute same. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (40, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 97-36 certifying "as -built" costs for installation of water service to Hickory Sands and such other construction necessitated by such project, as recommended in the Memorandum. 87 April 22, 1997 1001V 1 �j':�n" r 1 Fr��C R. &J nor, 10, PAGE 01 --RESOLUTION NO. 97- 3 6 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICE TO HICKORY SANDS AND SUCH OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL ---COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that water improvements for properties located within the area of Hickory Sands are necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 10, 1996, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-107, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 96-107, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: Resolution No. 96-107 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of this resolution. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 8.25% per annum may be made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 96-107 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit 'A" shall stand confirmed, and will remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. The assessments shown on Exhibit 'A" attached to Resolution No. 96-107, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its validity. _ The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m s . and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p in , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn 88 April 22, 1997 Aye Aye Aye Absent Aye RESOLUTION NO. 97-36 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this _2 day of April J1997. Attachment: ASSESSM NT ROLL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By--- Carolyfi K. Eggert Cha' an Indan Rvu Admin. Legal_ Budget Utili Rick Mgr, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AOProved I Date HICKORY SANDS SUBDIVISION (5 TH PLACE) WATER SERVICE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. U W - 96 - 09 D S TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION $27,035.72 TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED 287,966 ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT $0.09388511143 ROUNDED $0.093885 APRIL 14, 1997 J. D. C. HICSNDSI.WK4 89 April 22, 1997 60111.1, HICKORY SANDS ( 5 TH PLACE ) WATER SERVICE 101 FADE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. U W - 96 - 09 D S FINAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY PARCEL NO. OWNER SQ. FT ASSESSMENT 13 33 39 00000 3000 00007.0 CHUCKRO 10,643 $999.22 13 33 39 00000 3000 00009.1 SUTHERLAND 23,589 $2,214.66 13 33 39 00005 0000 00000.1 IND RIVER CO 4,586 $430.56 13 33 39 00005 0000 00001.0 DICKINSON 15,819 $1,485.17 13 33 39 00005 0000 00002.0 MACDONALD 14,445 $1,356.17 13 33 39 00005 0000 00003.0 MERICLE 15,287 $1,435.22 13 33 39 00005 0000 00003.1 GRAHAM 15,287 $1,435.22 13 33 39 00005 0000 00005.0 KOFKE 15,287 $1,435.22 13 33 39 00005 0000 00006.0 SOWERS 15,287 $1,435.22 13 33 39 00005 0000 00007.0 FIRST NATIONWIDE 15,287 $1,435.22 13 33 39 00005 0000 00008.0 ZEDEK 20,637 $1,937.51 13 33 39 00005 0000 00010.0 HINKLE 15,265 $1,433.16 13 33 39 00005 0000 00011.0 WAFFORD 15,250 $1,431.75 13 33 39 00005 0000 00012.0 MAAS 15,235 $1,430.34 13 33 39 00005 0000 00013.0 AMES 15,220 $1,428.93 13 33 39 00005 0000 00014.0 KINDEL 15,205 $1,427.52 13 33 39 00005 0000 00015.0 JOHNSTON 15,190 $1,426.11 13 33 39 00005 0000 00016.0 JONES 30,447 $2,858.52 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 287,966 $27,035.72 TOTAL ASSESSMENT $27,035.72 ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT$0.09388511143 ROUNDED $0.093885 APRIL 14 , 1997 J. D. C. HICSNDS2.WK4 E April 22, 1997 FINAL ASSESSMENT HICKORY SANDS ( 5 TH PLACE ) WEST OF OLD DIXIE HWA` APRIL 14, 97 WATER SERVICE PROJECT I. R. C. NO UW- 96 - 09 DS J. D. C. PARCEL # 13 33 39 00000 3000 00007.0 SQ FT. 10,643 ASSESSMENT $999.22 OWNER CHUCKRO, FELIX & VESLAVA 850 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL PART OF N1/2 OF S E 1/ 4 OF N W 1/ 4 AS IN R BK 137 PP 529 ( OR BK 442 PP 888 } PARCEL # 13 33 39 00000 3000 00009.1 SQ FT. 23,589 ASSESSMENT $2,214.66 OWNER SUTHERLAND, JOHN HOLT III & LISA JAYNE P O BOX 651128 VERO BEACH, FL. 32965-1128 LEGAL A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PART OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 O SEC 13-33-39, BEING MORE FULLY DESC AS FOLL: COM AT COR OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 13-33-39, RUN S 00 DEG MIN 56 SEC E ALONG THE E LINE OF SAID SE 1/4 OF NW ,478.40 FT, TH S 90 DEG 00 MIN 00 SEC W 29.89 FT. TH N DEG 15 MIN 30 SEC W 25.0 FT, TH S 90 DEG 00 MIN 00 SI W 315.03 FT TO AN IRON PIPE BEING THE TRUE POB, TH i 22 DEG 18 MIN 56 SEC E 224.82 FT TO N LINE OF PINECRI SUB # 3, TH N 89 DEG 47 MIN 35 SEC W ALONG N LINE O SAID PINECREST UNIT #3, 105.10 FT. TH N 22 DEG 18 MIN SEC W, 224.41 FT, TH N 90 DEG 00 MIN 00 SEC E 104.94 F TO POB PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00000.1 SQ FT. 4,586 ASSESSMENT $430.56 OWNER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ( LOC 4100 # 5169 ) 1840 25 TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB PBI 5/64 A PARCEL 30 FT E & W BY 152.87 FT N & S, LYING IMMEDIATELY EAST OF LOT 5 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00001.0 OWNER DICKINSON, CHARLOTTE M 856 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 SQ FT. 15,819 ASSESSMENT $1,485.17 CECCONI (1/2) & LOT 1 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00002.0 SQ FT. 14,445 ASSESSMENT $1,356.17 OWNER MACDONALD, ROBERT K & DENISE F. 860 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 2 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00003.0 SQ FT. 15,287 ASSESSMENT $1,435.22 OWNER MERICLE, JOHN A & KAREN LYNN 892 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5/64 LOT 3, LESS W 10 FT OR BK 479 PP 662} 91 April 22, 1997 C10')d I - NAGE��j PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00003.1 SQ FT. 15,287 ASSESSMENT $1,435.22 OWNER GRAHAM, THOMAS E 920 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5164 W 10 FT OF LOT 3 & LOT 4 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00005.0 SQ FT. 15,287 ASSESSMENT $1,435.22 OWNER KOFKE, DANIEL C SR & BARBARA L & KOFKE EDWARD R. 940 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 5 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00006.0 SQ FT. 15,287 ASSESSMENT $1,435.22 OWNER SOWERS, LARRY G & LINDA H. 950 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 6 ( OR BK 428 PP 116) PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00007.0 SQ FT. 15,287 ASSESSMENT $1,435.22 OWNER FIRST NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE CORP. P. O. BOX 9481 FREDERICK, MD. 21701 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5164 LOT 7 OR BK 428 PP 116) PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00008.0 SQ FT. 20,637 ASSESSMENT $1,937.51 OWNER ZEDEK, PAUL & CAROL 970 5 TH PL VERO BEACH FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 8 ( OR BK & INC THAT PORT OF ABND RM/ PER IRC RES # 86-94 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00010.0 OWNER HINKLE, BEVERLY W F 965 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL. 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 SQ FT. 15,265 ASSESSMENT LOT 10 ( OR BK 428 PP 116 $1,433.16 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00011.0 SQ FT. 15,250 ASSESSMENT $1,431.75 OWNER WAFFORD, LINDA M & RICHARD W REZMER 955. 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 11 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00012.0 SQ FT. 15,235 ASSESSMENT $1,430.34 OWNER MAAS, KAY K 945 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 12 ( OR BK 428 PP 116) rya April 22, 1997 101 PAGE PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00013.0 15,220 ASSESSMENT $1,428.93 OWNER AMES, DOUGLAS RAY 1255 LITTLE HARBOUR LANE VERO BEACH, FL 32963 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 13 ( OR BK 428 PP 116 ) PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00014.0 15,205 ASSESSMENT $1,427.52 OWNER KINDEL, PAUL E & JOYCE E. 905 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 14 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00015.0 15,190 ASSESSMENT $1,426.11 OWNER JOHNSTON, ORVILLE C & PHYLLIS A. 891 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 15 PARCEL # 13 33 39 00005 0000 00016.0 30,447 ASSESSMENT $2,858.52 OWNER JONES, JAMES M & THERESA S. 855 5 TH PL VERO BEACH, FL 32962 LEGAL HICKORY SANDS SUB 5 / 64 LOT 16 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 287,966 TOTAL FINAL ASSESSMENT 93 April 22, 1997 $27,035.72 bOJr, L PPE 471 tx7.03' II3.9{' IIO.a6' l 108.2d' I10�� u I � W I �" I `lr o' 11TH aa' AVENUE 101.26' lit o 7•I ua.asP N - �d uo.aa rlo �, 1 �4,ym . /'.4�w lea' it `' . 1 uo II6Aa' 411. 6za W' J m W p w N = ��)Li:1 a.0,1.11113.4i' I2Z4G 11 110 -ad' Ito ea' P• 6 ea' 94.5o' Ito' Ito' 6a \/ Gala r\G M` �./ pN 87.88'• 84.47'• 'Y6T3 ia__ i° 1 �•"I+ P\�7 r. 8a' 6460' 110' 1t0' - 0TH COURT S Inas'I,a a 94.47'$ I 6z6d _ea' • v aa' 1ol.25' 101.26' lit • wl1"r� Ib"• NI\'� � ".\:) - �d ? �s Iwoi �, 1 �4,ym . /'.4�w lea' it `' l�`�w 1 12T.fa' II6Aa' ai08' 6za Ba' J \io1.2a' 10 1.2e' n. ��)Li:1 a.0,1.11113.4i' Irk 6 64' bt160 6a \/ Gala W180� 1221'ala'y� r Ito' r W' P Ila' v 41C 4Y� a n P ~4 ' Or a IOTH AVENUE �6+6a .110: •�rtt\\��11 �1_A' •,W • 70�' '.. a 6-tl(' r�! •,10LOS„4'' ; �'.• aa' r` • : ax' 39:09 •7Ta' '' w NINA. N "7W4bt0 a 04 as: as' 04 TO 6 x Zl� i) Bc 9 }�R0 i� 4•-�•6 13124.09' qy �i . o p `• r 1 63 - a6' 14 .I 9TH DR ! 106.93 9 ' 9TH CT � 109 ea' i 9TH AV. loam [{OJT -L PAGE V e jar! �Oat1��d��3L ik x09:24' 10 TH r P j• v r 104 (9-126 u aN: N,al: op 1 0•, /�I. < wee �:' W i P 6'$ W �2a2.37' g 14gjj' • • ./ IL •+,�t 1�p� \'� ♦ \ \ \ \ \� •\.• �'P O ,- '. t2zaT ria r -�'� 1 � �.'�• P � l �P q•a ,1 �al6at /` �rel, i/ , rkQ p L J1LOIIV PHTS 1a� a P �41 ''' L= ''} `YR� �►�fL foe r, Il. 10 T it �• P 9.1. 5-64 kk P IH O T .. r•...',t+.l:.urlriw:....'r..•�tr411 •nrn drwlrA4..a•.I �.... ......•a:•i3u.:3 :••a:. •Iw . 94 April 22, 1997 I a (( v P j• v r 104 (9-126 u aN: N,al: op 1 0•, /�I. < wee �:' W i P 6'$ W �2a2.37' g 14gjj' • • ./ IL •+,�t 1�p� \'� ♦ \ \ \ \ \� •\.• �'P O ,- '. t2zaT ria r -�'� 1 � �.'�• P � l �P q•a ,1 �al6at /` �rel, i/ , rkQ p L J1LOIIV PHTS 1a� a P �41 ''' L= ''} `YR� �►�fL foe r, Il. 10 T it �• P 9.1. 5-64 kk P IH O T .. r•...',t+.l:.urlriw:....'r..•�tr411 •nrn drwlrA4..a•.I �.... ......•a:•i3u.:3 :••a:. •Iw . 94 April 22, 1997 13AL FLORIDA TOURISM ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP Commissioner Tippin requested that the Tourism Development Council join the Florida Tourism Association, which represents Florida attractions, etc. They have a great deal of input into the Florida Commission on Tourism as to how funds are to be spent. Dues are $500 and can bep aid from tourist tax funds. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, to approve $500 membership fee for the Tourist Development Council to join the Florida Tourism Association. Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the membership would obligate the County in any way, and Commissioner Tippin responded that it would not. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent). 13.B.2. ATTEND TOURISM SEMINAR Commissioner Tippin requested approval to attend the Governor's Council 1997 Annual Symposium, which will be in Orlando, May 15-17,1997. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) approved Commissioner Tippin's attendance at the Annual Symposium in Orlando, as requested. B.C. SEAWALL CONTRACTOR/CANGIANELLI - WABASSO BEACH PARK The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 21, 1997: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Commissioner Fran B. Adams DATE: April 21, 1997 SUBJECT: Charles Cangianelli, Seawall Contractor 95 +J FAGE 8O April 22, 1997 � �"` Aar 4 600K 101 PAGE Charles Cangianelli, the contractor putting in seawalls at Summerplace, has failed to provide a bond, has stored materials at Wabasso Park longer than 24 hours, and failed to remove equipment from the park for Easter weekend parking. This was in direct violation of his verbal agreement with the County. I am bringing this matter before the Board for your consideration and action. Commissioner Adams expressed her dismay regarding Cangianelli Construction. Mr. Cangianelli has not put up a bond, has stored materials at the park since last Wednesday, did not clean up the park for Easter weekend and Memorial Day is coming up. This is a matter of one-sided cooperation and she was very concerned. She would like him to move all equipment off the beach within 7 days so restoration can begin. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved ordering Cangianelli Construction to remove all construction and other equipment from the Wabasso Beach Park within seven days in order that restorative work might begin. 13A UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED Chairman Eggert felt that this committee's membership is not consistent in that no commissioner is a member. Commissioner Ginn felt there was a problem in the past and the independence of the group would be ensured if written this way. Commissioner Adams suggested that instead of all members having a background in utilities, some regular people who would give innocent opinions be on the committee. Commissioner Ginn replied that the language regarding members should include "when possible". large. Chairman Eggert questioned whether we want 5 members with utility experience and 2 at Commissioner Ginn stated they were looking more to the retirement community. VR April 22, 1997 Chairman Eggert inquired why no former employees are allowed, and Commissioner Ginn felt that would impact the independence of the committee. Chairman Eggert wondered whether the term of office should be 4 years, and Commissioner Adams thought 2 would be good. Chairman Eggert had a problem with 4-B. She wanted it to be clear that the members would "assist and suggest" but not interfere with day-to-day operations unless asked by the Board or the Administrator. Commissioner Ginn questioned whether to take out "on its own initiative". County Attorney Vitunac suggested changing "their" to "the Board's". Chairman Eggert wanted "upon its own initiative" removed. Commissioner Ginn suggested taking out 'B" and using "C". Commissioner Adams wondered if the members would have to come to the Board for everything, and County Attorney Vitunac stated that the committee will meet routinely and will be a sounding board for the Commission. Commissioner Ginn suggested taking out "D" also. Chairman Eggert wanted to know whether we need to open the membership to lay people at large, and Commissioner Adams suggested leaving it like it is and trying it. She then questioned whether a commissioner should be on the Board. After discussion, Chairman Eggert felt she would like to see Commissioner Ginn do it for a year or 2. Commissioner Adams emphasized that early leadership is very important. Chairman Eggert reviewed the modifications to the proposed resolution: no employees or former employees - each Commissioner shall appoint one member with utility or finance experience, elect one member at large, and one Commissioner who shall serve as chairman - the vice chairman shall be elected at January meeting — remove 4. B. and D., keep 4.A and C. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Resolution No. 97-37, as amended, establishing the Indian River County Utility Advisory Committee. 97 April 22, 1997 ' B01911" 1 PAGE 2^d' 4 / 23 / 97 (re so \ utiladvis) ow RESOLUTION NO. 3L A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, County utility operations are a major part of County government; and WHEREAS, an important step in the utility growth in Indian River County is the creation of an advisory committee to assist the Board of County Commissioners concerning utility matters in Indian River County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. ESTABLISHMENT. The Indian River County Utility Advisory Committee is hereby established. 2. MEMBERSHIP. The Committee shall have seven voting members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Each Commissioner shall have the authority to make one appointment to the Committee, the remaining seat shall be filled by a majority vote of the Board. No employee or former employee shall serve on the Committee. Members should include one County Commissioner, five persons with utility or finance experience, and one at large member. The Chairman shall be a County Commissioner and the Vice -Chairman shall be selected from among Utility Advisory Committee Members and shall serve for one year. Election of the Vice -Chairman shall occur at the January meeting. 3. TERM OF OFFICE. The term of office shall be two years with three of the initial appointments being for one year. 4. POWERS AND DUTIES. The Indian River County Utility Advisory Committee shall have the power and duty to: 98 April 22, 1997 a) Consider and study the entire field of utility matters regulated by Chapters 201, 202 and 204 of the Indian River County Code; and b) Consider all matters submitted to it by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. ADVISORY STATUS. The Utility Advisory Committee shall be advisory only and its members shall serve without compensation. 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS. The provisions of Title 1, Chapter 103, relating to advisory boards and commissions shall apply to this committee. The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner A d i mg and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 2 day of A p r i l , 1997. Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By eBarton, erk Carol K. Eggert an M April 22, 1997 indian kvtf �a A«raved DRl Adm,n Se —s --c Legal 6�age1 Deipt Risk Mgr. k9K WAGE 6 There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:05 P.M. ATTEST: Minutes approved ono`Z 7 q -7 TO; April All®r 22, 1997 100