Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/15/2011 (4)
PROCLAMATION !( Commemorating the 100'" Anniversary of the National Exchange Club WHEREAS, family, community and nation are important core values in the lives of Americans; and WHEREAS, Exchange Clubs have been serving communities throughout the United States for 100 years, the first Exchange Club having been formed in Detroit, Michigan in 1911, and WHEREAS, the National Exchange Club is celebrating its 100th anniversary serving our communities, and WHEREAS, the National Exchange Club, a strictly American organization, is a group of volunteers unselfishly working together to make our community a better place to live through programs of service in Americanism, community service, youth activities, and its national project, the prevention of child abuse, and WHEREAS, five Exchange Clubs in Indian River County (Fellsmere, Indian River, Sebastian, Treasure- Coast, and Vero Beach Exchange Clubs) are all affiliated with the National- Exchange Club and provide significant and invaluable contributions to the citizens of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, experience teaches us that government by itself cannot solve. all of our nation's social problems, and that volunteers are vital to our future as a caring and productive city, state and nation, `IOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, .JDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board commemorates the 100th Anniversary of the National Exchange Club, and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that March 27, 2011 be recognized as National Exchange Club Day and urges the citizens of Indian River County.to recognize the past and ongoing contributions of the National Exchange Club and to support their local Exchange Clubs. Adopted this 15th day of March, 2011. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Bob Solari, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis Joseph E. Flescher Peter D. O'Bryan r 0 EXCHANGE fir.. t THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE CLUB The first Exchange Club was formed in Detroit, Michigan in 1911. The second was the Exchange Club of Toledo, Ohio formed in 1913. Subse- quently, two others were organized in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cleve- land, Ohio. These four clubs were the first to be chartered by the National Exchange Club after it was organized as a nonprofit, educational organiza- tion in 1917 and its headquarters es- tablished in Toledo, Ohio. Founder Charles Berkey was elected as the first national president and Her- old Harter was named national sec- retary. Harter held this position until 1961. Exchange is the oldest exclu- sively American service club organi- zation. Famous Exchangites • Former President George H.W. Bush • Former President Calvin Coolidge • Former President Warren G. Harding • Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt • Former President Harry Truman • Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd • Chief Justice Earl Warren • Aviator Orville Wright • Aviator James "Jimmy' Doolittle • Aviator Amelia Earhart • Dr. Norman Vincent Peale The first half of Exchange's history concentrated on promoting the new technology of aviation and supporting America through patri- otic programs during the Great Depression and World War II. • In 1929, The National Exchange Club sponsored the National Women's Air Derby, the first transcontinental race ever held for women. • Exchange sponsored Lt. Walter Hinton for a year-long national air tour in 1930 to promote aviation. • In 1933, Exchange is called upon by President Franklin D. Roos- evelt to help fight the Great Depression. Harter traveled 40,650 miles on the National Recovery Crusade. • Starting in 1941, Exchange strongly backed the war effort and the U.S. Savings Bond program. • Exchange adopted the Freedom Shrine project in 1949. The first Freedom Shrine is dedicated on May 26, 1950 at Santa Monica High School in California. To date more than 12,000 Freedom Shrines have been presented to schools and other public loca- tions around the country. In the latter- half of the century, Exchange became more heavily involved with women, children and family, and promoting strong families for a stronger America. • In 1979, The National Exchange Club adopted Child Abuse Prevention as a national project at the urging of Dr. Edward R. North, national president. Subsequently, The National Exchange Club Foundation is established. • The first Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse opens in Fort Pierce, Fla., on March 22, 1981. • On July 4, 1985, delegates voted to allow women membership in Exchange. Exchange was one of the first service club organiza- tions to do so. • Assisted by Exchange Clubs, the National Exchange Club Foun- dation reached its goal of distributing 1,000,000 Shaken Baby Syndrome brochures in 2000. • Exchange launched Believe in the Blue in April 2007 during Child Abuse Prevention Month. This popular project promotes strong, healthy families through positive parenting. 3050 Central Avenue • Toledo, OH 43606 • 800-924-2643 • www nationalexchangeclub.org • info@nationalexchangeclub.org I.Q. PROCLAMATION ;_ DESIGNATING MARCH 25 & 26, 2011 AS RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WHEREAS, on March 25 & 26, 2011 in the Citrus Bowl at Vero Beach High School, the American Cancer Society's Indian River Unit will hold the 16th annual Relay for Life, which is an overnight, family-oriented event involved in a team effort to raise money to fight cancer and raise awareness about the progress against cancer; and WHEREAS, cancer survivors, young and old, are invited to begin the Relay by walking the Survivors Victory Lap around the track with a Luminaria Ceremony where candles are lit in remembrance of those who have lost their battles with cancer and in honor of survivors, and the heartfelt love and caring shared by friends and family during this ceremony is moving and healing; and WHEREAS, Relay For Life provides an opportunity for expanding cancer control, advocacy, volunteerism and fundraising; for reaching diverse populations with live -saving information and to increase the awareness of all the programs and services offered by the American Cancer Society in communities throughout our nation; and WHEREAS, supporters make it possible, scientists make it happen, and survivors make it personal; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that March 25 & 26, 2011 be designated RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS in Indian River County. Adopted this 15th day of March, 2011. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Bob Solari, Chairman Gary C. , eeler, Vice Chairman Wesley S. Dav's I — . -I - —J— b. CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: March 3, 2011 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ,vVARRANTS AND WIRES February 25, 2011 to March 3, 2011 FROM: DIANE BERNARD& 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 February 25, 2011 to March 3, 2011. Attachment: DB: MS CHECKS WRITTEN CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 263713 3/1/2011 1 THE GUARDIAN 20,176.11 263714 3/1/2011 1 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS CO 117.94 263715 3/1/2011 1 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE CO 13,826.42 263716 3/1/2011 1 ALLSTATE 833.34 263717 3/1/2011 1 RELIANCE STANDARD LTD 6,623.81 263718 3/1/2011 1 RELIANCE STANDARD LTD 570.44 263719 3/1/2011 1 ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND 642.14 263720 3/1/2011 1 SANDY PINES 1,022.00 263721 3/1/2011 1 ALL FLORIDA REALTY SERVICES INC 6,373.00 263722 3/1/2011 1 GERALD T CAPAK 299.00 263723 3/1/2011 1 PAUL CARONE 525.00 263724 3/1/2011 1 CHERYL DOYLE 350.00 263725 3/1/2011 1 VERO BEACH EDGEWOOD PLACE (305_-113) 987.00 263726 3/l/2011 1 GIFFORD GROVES LTD 2,005.00 263727 3/1/2011 1 GRACES LANDING LTD 7,207.00 263728 3/l/2011 1 MICHAEL JACKOWSKI 813.00 263729 3/1%2011 1 PHILLIP G LANGLEY 401.00 263730 3/1/2011 1 TERRY A LAWRENCE 77.00 263731 3/1/2011 1 LINDSEY GARDENS APARTMENTS 12,433.00 263732 3/1/2011 1 BRYAN D BLAIS 975.00 263733 3/1/2011 1 RIVER PARK ASSOCIATES 8,941.00 263734 3/1/2011 1 RICHARD C THERIEN 819.00 263735 3/l/2011 1 CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XVI LTD 9,427.00 263736 3/1/2011 1 DAVID YORK 558.00 263737 3/1/2011 1 LILLY B YORK 359.00 263738 3/1/2011 1 ST FRANCIS MANOR OF VERO BEACH 1,113:00 263739 3/1/2011 1 CITY OF VERO BEACH 978.00 263740 3/1/2011 1 SALLIE (WYNN) BLAKE 472.00 263741 3/1/2011 1 CCA HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4,867.00 263742 3/1/2011 1 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 566.00 263743 3/1/2011 1 LLONALD E MIXELL 181.00 263744 3/1/2011 1 FULCHINI ENTERPRISES INC 304.00 263745 3/1/2011 1 VENETIAN APARTMENTS OF VERO BEACH 917.00 263746 3/1/2011 1 STASKI ENTERPRISES INC 619.00 263747 3/1/2011 1 HERMOSA PROPERTIES LLC 417.00 263748 3/1/2011 1 PINNACLE GROVE LTD 5,968.00 263749 3/1/2011 1 VERO CLUB PARTNERS LTD 12,398.00 263750 3/1/2011 1 FORT PIERCE HOUSING AUTHORITY 1,953.56 263751 3/1/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1,021.00 263752 3/1/2011 1 CRAIG MERRILL 1,196.00 263753 3/1/2011 1 CHRISTINE SALTER 761.00 263754 3/1/2011 1 HAGGERTY FAMILY LTD 327.00 263755 3/1/2011 1 WILLIAM J KEISER 364.00 263756 3/l/2011 1 THE PALMS AT VERO BEACH 19,526.00 263757 3/1/2011 1 HILARY MCIVOR 728.00 263758 3/1/2011 1 BURLEY E MONDY JR 610.00 263759 3/1/2011 1 PAULA LANE 422.00 263760 3/1/2011 1 VERO PINES LLC 305.00 263761 3/1/2011 1 WARREN ROBERT BEANS 560.00 263762 3/1/201.1 1 TCG SONRISE II LLC 621.00 263763 3/1/2011 1 KARL LACHNITT 442.00 263764 3/1/2011 1 PELICAN ISLE 5,809.00 263765 3/1/2011 1 MID FLORIDA RENTALS INC 700.00 263766 3/1/2011 1 DHUMAVATI NAGA JAYA 426.00 263767 3/1/2011 1 JOHN F BAER 4,727.00 263768 3/1/2011 1 CAMERON HORD 190.00 263769 3/1/2011 1 SUNCOAST REALTY & RENTAL MANAGEMENT LLC 2,310.00. 263770 3/1/2011 1 OAK RIVER PROPERTIES 2,263.00 3 CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 263771 3/1/2011 1 JOSE R POMPA 626.00 263772 3/1/2011 1 KENNEN COHEN 404.00 263773 3/1/2011 1 INVESTORS REALTY OF IRC 572.00 263774 3/1/2011 1 BOGDAN HYTROS 226.00 263775 3/1/2011 1 COLETTA DORADO 540.00 263776 3/l/2011 1 MARILYN LEWIS 743.00 263777 3/1/2011 1 STEPHEN J SHORT SR 583.00 263778 3/1/2011 1 MICHAEL KANNER 1,133.00 263779 3/1/2011 1 ADINA GOLDMAN 458.00 263780 3/1/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER RDA LP 1,052.00 263781 3/1/2011 1 SAMUEL P N COOK 360.00 263782 3/1/2011 1 DANIEL GOWER 950.00 263783 3/1/2011 1 STEVEN ROBERT HARTMAN 565.00 263784 3/1/2011 1 LAZY J LLC 425.00 263785 3/1/2011 1 ANTHONY STEWART 390.00 263786 3/1/2011 1 STEPHANIE FOUNTAIN 291.00 263787 3/1/2011 1 WINFRIED AND LESLIE ARENDT 607.00 263788 3/1/2011 1 ROBERT BAILEY 650.00 263789 3/1/2011 1 SYLVIA MCNEILL 497.00 263790 3/1/2011 1 LILIAN N BEUTTELL 440.00 263791 3/1/2011 1 LARSEN, TIM & JENNIFER 0.00 263792 3/1/2011 1 ROGER WINSLOW 495.00 263793 3/l/2011-1 RUTHIE SWAN 459.00 263794 3/1/2011 1 VINCENT PILEGGI 522.00 263795 3/1/2011 1 BENOIT TREMBLAY 768.00 263796 3/1/2011 1 WALTER BRYAN BRITTON 794.00 263797 3/1/2011 1 OSLO VALLEY PROPERTIES INC 1,607.00 263798 3/1/2011 1 VICKY L STANLEY 850.00 263799 3/1/2011 1 CORY J HOWELL 621.00 2638.00 3/1/2011 1 CHOICE RENTALS INC 555.00 263801 3/1/2011 1 WILLIAM JAMES STANGANELLI 426.00 263802 3/1/2011 1 TRADITIONAL PROPERTIES GROUP INC 750.00 263803 3/1/2011 1 THE CHARLES F FOWLER 1956 CHARITABLE UNI 780.00 263804 3/1/2011 1 OSCEOLA COUNTY SECTION 8 600.14 263805 3/1/2011 1 CAMACLEMADIERICH LLC 702.00 263806 3/1/2011 1 SKOKIE HOLDINGS INC 444.00 263807 3/2/2011 1 ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 1.42.32 263808 3/2/2011 1 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 393.80 263809 3/2/2011 1 V B FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC 6,090.00 263810 3/2/2011 1 I R FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 50,417.23 263811 3/2/2011 1 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 120.92 263812 3/2/2011 1 MISDU MICHIGAN STATE 478.85 263813 3/2/2011 1 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 192.03 263814 3/2/2011 1 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 194.65 263815 3/2/2011 1 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 108.62 263816 3/2/2011 1 OHIO CHILD SUPPORT 235.39 263817 3/3/2011 1 EVERGLADES FARM EQUIPMENT CO INC 131.73 263818 3/3/2011 1 PORT CONSOLIDATED INC 1,167.96 263819 3/3/2011 1 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 51.76 263820 3/3/2011 1 JORDAN MOWER INC 311.71 263821 3/3/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER AUTO PARTS LLC 801.26 263822 3/3/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER AUTO PARTS LLC 688.87 263823 3/3/2011 1 COLKITT SHEET METAL & A/C INC 2,322.00 263824 3/3/2011 1 FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LLC 499.99 263825 3/3/2011 1 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC 700.50 263826 3/3/2011 1 CHISHOLM CORP OF VERO 5,250.95 263827 3/3/2011 1 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC 202.70 263828 3/3/2011 1 VELDE FORD INC 1,139.25 263829 3/3/2011 1 SAFETY PRODUCTS INC 244.45 263830 3/3/2011 1 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS INC 1,618.15 q CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 263831 3/3/2011 1 LIGHTSOURCE IMAGING SOLUTIONS LLC 46.10 263832 3/3/2011 1 PARALEE COMPANY INC 400.00 263833 3/3/2011 1 COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS WAREHOUSE 1,222.62 263834 3/3/2011 1 SUB AQUATICS INC 665.10 263835 3/3/2011 1 DELTA SUPPLY CO 53.45 263836 ' 3/3/2011 1 E -Z BREW COFFEE & BOTTLE WATER SVC 64.38 263837 3/3/2011 1 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC 175.77 263838 3/3/2011 1 DEMCO INC 116.55 263839 3/3/2011 1 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY CO 436.19 263840 3/3/2011 1 MY RECEPTIONIST INC 240.29 263841 3/3/2011 1 THE GALE GROUP 46.79 263842 3/3/2011 1 AMERIGAS EAGLE PROPANE LP 910.09 263843 3/3/2011 1 AMERIGAS EAGLE PROPANE LP 3,978.17 263844 3/3/2011 1 GAYLORD BROTHERS INC 620.35 263845 3/3/2011 1 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 76.43 263846 3/3/2011 1 HACH CO 1,184.89 263847 3/3/2011 1 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD 9,457.92 263848 3/3/2011 1 SCHULKE BITTLE & STODDARD LLC 675.00 263849 3/3/2011 1 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS INC 2,915.50 263850 3/3/2011 1 EGP INC 475.49 263851 3/3/2011 1 VERO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 380.52 263852 3/3/2011 1 PROFORMA IMAGING 29.92 263853 3/3/2011 1 CENTER POINT INC 340.30 263854 3/3/2011 1 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO INC 95.00 263855 3/3/2011 1 NEWMANS POWER SYSTEMS 4,364.39 263856 3/3/2011 1 DELL MARKETING LP 9,486.15 263857 3/3/2011 1 CAMPANA REALTY INC 189.00 263858 3/3/2011 1 THE EXPEDITER 36.61 263859 3/3/2011 1 R & G SOD FARMS 66.50 263860 3/3/2011 1 PETERSEN INDUSTRIES INC 810.50 263861 3/3/2011 1 GENERAL PART INC 1,970.03 263862 3/3/2011 1 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 156.20 263863 3/3/2011 1 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 3,825.19 263864 3/3/2011 1 MIDWEST TAPE LLC . 415.06 263865 3/3/2011 1 RECORDED BOOKS LLC 461.40 263866 3/3/2011 1 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 612.47 263867 3/3/2011 1 LOWES CO INC 1,281.91 263868 3/3/2011 1 ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO 7,474.00 263869 3/3/2011 1 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE 80.48 263870 3/3/2011 1 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY 423.93 263871 3/3/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 6,116.32 263872 3/3/2011 1 CENGAGE LEARNING CORPORATION 119.92 263873 3/3/2011 1 PALM TRUCK CENTERS INC 197.54 263.874 3/3/2011 1 DEERE & COMPANY 693.22 263875 3/3/2011 1 THE PENWORTHY COMPANY 1,052.87 263876 3/3/2011 1 HBEL INC 2,538.00 263877 3/3/2011 1 CITY OF VERO BEACH 47,271.53 263878 3/3/2011 1 CITY OF VERO BEACH 200.00 263879 3/3/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER ALL FAB INC 2,086.60 263880 3/3/2011 1 COMMERCIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS 991.12 263881 3/3/2011 1 AT&T 5,557.06 263882 3/3/2011 1 AT&T 1,838.05 263883 3/3/2011 1 AT&T 1,116.34 263884 3/3/2011 1 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 2,874.20 263885 3/3/2011 1 EBSCO INDUSTRIES INC 754.53 263886 3/3/2011 1 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND 1,870.00 263887 3/3/2011 1 PETTY CASH 89.10 263888 3/3/2011 1 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY 15,086.51 263889 3/3/2011 1 WILBERT SHEPHARD 100.00 263890 3/3/2011 1 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA INC 1,822.40 5 CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 263891 3/3/2011 1 PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS 49.85 263892 3/3/2011 1 GEM -DANDY, INC 96.77 263893 3/3/2011 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES 298.37 263894 3/3/2011 1 ACUSHNET COMPANY 1,042.28 263895 3/3/2011 1 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF IRC 6,928.50 263896 3/3/2011 1 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC 916.60 263897 3/3/2011 1 OFFICE DEPOT BSD CUSTOMER SVC 460.04 263898 3/3/2011 1 IRC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 22,606.57 263899 3/3/2011 1 FEDERAL EXPRESS 74.77 263900 3/3/2011 1 COMO OIL COMPANY OF FLORIDA 45.31 263901 3/3/2011 1 SPRINT SPECTRUM LP 308.38 263902 3/3/2011 1 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP 60.50 263903 3/3/2011 1 CALLAWAY GOLF SALES COMPANY 1,488.33 263904 3/3/2011 1 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 145.65 263905 3/3/2011 1 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 10,140.02 263906 3/3/2011 1 SHELL CREDIT CARD CENTER 325.05 263907 3/3/2011 1 ACUSHNET COMPANY 2,494.72 263908 3/3/2011 1 PHILLIP J MATSON 29.37 263909 3/3/2011 1 DYNAMIC BRANDS LLC 461.35 263910 3/3/2011 1 HARRIS COTHERMAN,JONES 9,865.00 263911 3/3/2011 1 GLOBAL GOLF SALES INC 217.35 263912 3/3/2011 1 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC 405.11 263913 3/3/2011 _ 1 FLORIDA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 225.00 263914 3/3/2011 1 NATIONAL ASSOC OF COUNTY PARK 90.00 263915 3/3/2011 1 BARKER ELECTRIC, AIR CONDITIONING 81.00 263916 3/3/2011 1 COX GIFFORD SEAWINDS 900.00 263917 3/3/2011 1 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CTY ATTORNEYS 300.00 263918 3/3/2011 1 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 363.48 263919 3/3/2011 1 GERALD A YOUNG SR 150.00 263920 3/3/2011 1 HENRY SMITH 145.00 263921 3/3/2011 1 ALAN C KAUFFMANN 120.00 263922 3/3/2011 1 SANDERS COMPANY INC 2,364.47 263923 3/3/2011 1 WESTSIDE REPROGRAPHICS OF VERO BEACH INC 7.80 263924 3/3/2011 1 GOVERNORS HURRICANE CONFERENCE 150.00 263925 3/3/2011 1 ADVANCED XEROGRAPHICS IMAGING 1,168.13 263926 3/3/2011 1 LINDSEY GEIB 140.00 263927 3/3/2011 1 CHRISTOPHER KAFER 130:00 263928 3/3/2011 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF I R COUNTY 1;222.53 263929 3/3/2011 1 FLGOLF INC 632.84 263930 3/3/2011 1 MIDWEST MOTOR SUPPLY CO 180.17 263931 3/3/2011 1 BALT LEATHERS INC 485.51 263932 3/3/2011 1 CHAD KELLY 43.06 263933 3/3/2011 1 J C WELTON CONST INC 39,228.00 263934 3/3/2011. 1 ANDREW D WILLIAMS 1,052.00 263935 3/3/2011 1 ST LUCIE COUNTY BOCC 88,097.25 263936 3/3/2011 1 ST LUCIE COUNTY BOCC 139,298.02 263937 3/3/2011 1 HULETT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 75.00 263938 3/3/2011 1 SAVE THE MOMENT 63.00 263939 3/3/2011 1 CELICO PARTNERSHIP 129.03 263940 3/3/2011 1 JEFFREY SICK 100.00 263941 3/3/2011 1 MT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF VB 3,314.90 263942 3/3/2011 1 JEAN PETERS 30.00 263943 3/3/2011 1 EDUARDO RIVERA 146.81 263944 3/3/2011 1 FLORIDA DEPT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE 7,312.66 263945 3/3/2011 1 SYNAGRO SOUTH LLC 62,618.70 263946 3/3/2011 1 POLYDYNE INC 2,507.00 263947 3/3/2011 1 THE CLEARING COMPANY LLC 500.00 263948 3/3/2011 1 DASIE BRIDGEWATER HOPE CENTER INC 8,460.09 263949 3/3/2011 1 RANDOM HOUSE INC 38.25 263950 3/3/2011 1 ALAN HILL 206.01 4 V CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT a 263951 3/3/2011 1 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC 112.60 263952 3/3/2011 1 SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY INC 22.97- 2.97-263953 263953 3/3/2011 1 CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC 334.40 263954 3/3/2011 1 CAPITAL OFFICE PRODUCTS 675.23 263955 3/3/2011 1 HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. 12,503.44 263956 3/3/2011 1 GLOVER OIL COMPANY INC 24,443.37 263957 3/3/2011 1 RICHARD M HERREN 170.00 263958 3/3/2011 1 SHAWANGUNK NATURE PRESERVE 100.00 263959 3/3/2011 1 EGGERT, WILLIAM & RUTH 50.51 263960 3/3/2011 1 JOE RIVERA 200.00 263961 3/3/2011 1 CAROLE J MADIGAN 1,488.00 263962 3/3/2011 1 DANE PFARR 280.00 263963 3/3/2011 1 PETER B AND CECILIA SAMPLE 50.00 263964 3/3/2011 1 J W CHEATHAM LLC 184,453.82 263965 3/3/2011 1 SPS CONTRACTING 15,502.55 263966 3/3/2011 1 METRO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES INC 52.45 263967 3/3/2011 1 HINKLE & SONS SERVICES INC 6,800.00 263968 3/3/2011 1 JAMES BRADLEY JR 500.00 263969 3/3/2011 1 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC 2,075.32 263970 3/3/2011 1 KENNY CAMPBELL JR 140.00 263971 3/3/2011 1 AE21INCORPORATED 349.00 263972 3/3/2011 1 VELMA BAYS 27.57 263973 3/3/2011 1 WHALEY, M SUSAN OR EARL 62.16 263974 3/3/2011 1 ROBERT & MARGARET EVANS 53.86 263975 3/3/2011 1 BAHIA MAR BEACH RESORT 234.00 263976 3/3/2011 1 MARY COLLIS 30.00 263977 3/3/2011 1 JOHNNY B SMITH 165.00 263978 3/3/2011 1 CHASE HOME FINANCE 500.00 263979 3/3/2011 1 CHARLES A WALKER 180.00 263980 3/3/2011 1 POLICASTRO & LEROUX PA 12,096.22 263981 3/3/2011 1 NATIONAL CITY BANK 4.94 263982 3/3/2011 1 GABRIEL ROEDER SMITH & CO 740.00 263983 3/3/2011 1 CINDY & BRIAN BORING 29.38 263984 3/3/2011 1 TURNSTILE ENTERPRISE INC 20.00 263985 3/3/2011 1 CHERIE S HUDSON 100.00 263986 3/3/2011 1 RENAE CHANDLER 30.00 263987 3/3/2011 1 HERITAGE VILLAS OF VERO 15.13 263988 3/3/2011 1 CYNTHIA A WILSON 40.00 263989 3/3/2011 1 AUTO PARTNERS LLC 395.07 263990 3/3/2011 1 DANA SAFETY SUPPLY INC 872.40 263991 3/3/2011 1 FIRST CLASS COACH SALES CORP 98.78 263992 3/3/2011 1 L&L DISTRIBUTORS 328.80 263993 3/3/2011 1 ADS LLC 291.02 263994 3/3/2011 1 GOSTOMSKI, MICHAEL 14.98 263995 3/3/2011 1 THE SPIVEY GROUP INC 30,620.00 263996 3/3/2011 1 CENTEX HOMES 201.36 263997 3/3/2011 1 SANDY ARACENA 200.00 263998 3/3/2011 1 LARIAT ENTERPRISES INC 340.00 263999 3/3/2011 1 VERA SMITH 120.00 264000 3/3/2011 1 GARRETT SMITH 90.00 264001 3/3/2011 1 HFB LLC 13.61 264002 3/3/2011 1 KNAPHEIDE TRUCK EQUIPMENT SOUTHEAST 172.50 264003 3/3/2011 1 ALAN S POLACKWICH SR 93.72 264004 3/3/2011 1 S & S AUTO PARTS 1,451.99 264005 3/3/2011 1 NIC MANAGEMENT LLC 73.58 264006 3/3/2011 1 STAT MEDICAL DISPOSAL INC 55.00 264007 3/3/2011 1 BULLEX INC 814.00 264008 3/3/2011 1 JACK JOLLY 130.00 264009 3/3/2011 1 HYDRA SERVICE INC 8,549.64 264010 3/3/2011 1 BEMENDERFER, SHIRLEY 71.64 h CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 264011 3/3/2011 1 RT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 4,802.48 264012 3/3/2011 1 SUSTAINABLE ENGINEER & DESIGN LLC 8,662.50 264013 3/3/2011 1 ATLANTIC COASTAL LAND TITLE LLC 250.00 264014 3/3/2011 1 ACCUTECH INSTRUMENTS INC 481.83 264015 3/3/2011 1 MIGUEL RIOS 60.00 264016 3/3/2011 1 KMP PROPERTIES 93.21 264017 3/3/2011 1 DANIEL E SCHACHT 120.00 264018 3/3/2011 1 ERNEST AMDITIS 50.00 264019 3/3/2011 1 LILLIAN DOUGLAS 89.75 264020 3/3/2011 1 JOHN DUFFEY 41.65 264021 3/3/2011 1 BIG DADDY'S SIGNS 146.70 264022 3/3/2011 1 SMALL, LEROY 7.97 264023 3/3/2011 1 SOWERS, ANTHONY 28.67 264024 3/3/2011 1 JENNINGS, JACQUELINE 27.99 264025 3/3/2011 1 DARE, VONNIE 28.28 264026 3/3/2011 1 DAHL, BRIAN 30.91 264027 3/3/2011 1 ANDERSON, CAMILLA 62.45 264028 3/3/2011 1 BARKETT KENNEY INC. 917.40 264029 3/3/2011 1 BURKE, MELISSA 24.15 264030 3/3/2011 1 FUENTES, URBANO 33.96 264031 3/3/2011 1 VIRTS, MARCELLA 40.68 264032 3/3/2011 1 SANTIAGO, RANDI LYNN 9.68 264033 3/3/2011 1 ZIRXLE, PATRICIA 26.42 264034 3/3/2011 1 SAYLOR, WILLIAM & MARY 32.35 264035 3/3/2011 1 CARTER, RASHAUD 5.58 264036 3/3/2011 1 PHILLIPS, AMEE 17.77 264037 3/3/2011 1 HENRY, MARY A 76.44 264038 3/3/2011 1 RUFFIN, VERA 47.88 264039 3/3/2011 1 RYAN, DAN 45.07 264040 3/3/2011 1 GRUTMAN, JAY 29.57 264041 3/3/2011 1 DONNELLY, SARAH 44.60 264042 3/3/2011 1 STANSBURY, TASHAUNA 57.49 264043 3/3/2011 1 WILLIAMS, TAWANDA L 51.43 264044 3/3/2011 1 GMAC MORTGAGE LLC 5.53 264045 3/3/2011 1 EAGLES NEST 4 TWO LLC 39.95 264046 3/3/2011 1 DRISCOLL, ADRIANA 14.22' 264047 3/3/2011 1 SCHERER, MARCO 16.40 264048 3/3/2011 1 JUDITH FROST 55.96 264049 3/3/2011 1 SUSAN SPONAUGLE 52.17 264050 3/3/2011 1 DIEGO RIOS 60.00 264051 3/3/2011 1 RONDA HAUSER 472.43 264052 3/3/2011 1 CHRISTOPHER MORGAN 5,695.93 264053 3/3/2011 1 JUDI HEILNER 42.51 264054 3/3/2011 1 DEBORAH ROBINSON 24.51 Grand Total: 1,167,539.02 6 8 WIRES SENT CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 1370 2/28/2011 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF 3,209,253.32 1371 2/28/2011 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTI 84,156.07 1372 2/28/2011 US BANK 59,931.88 1373 2/28/2011 BANK OF NEW YORK 42,762.50 1374 2/28/2011 BANK OF NEW YORK 485,400.00 1375 2/28/2011 BANK OF NEW YORK 63400.00 1376 2/28/2011 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT 81,068.16 1377 3/1/2011 1 FL RETIREMENT SYSTEM 426,021.57 1378 3/1/2011 1 BENEFITS WORKSHOP 8,407.95 1379 3/2/2011 1 ICMA RET CORP 1,895.00 1380 3/2/2011 1 NACO/SOUTHEAST 18,795.04 1381 3/2/2011 1 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION 16,231.29 1382 3/2/2011 1 FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC 3,983.42 1384 3/2/2011 1 ATLANTIC COASTAL LAND TITLE LLC 731,227.91 1385 3/3/2011 1 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC 35,752.00 1386 3/3/2011 1 IRS -PAYROLL TAXES 20,982.81 Grand Total: 5,859,969.82 �J Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Melissa P. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney WE Consent Agenda - B.C.C. 03.15. 11 Office of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alari S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney DATE: March 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Fellsmere 2011 Fire Protection Charge BACKGROUND. In 2009, Fellsmere sent an invoice to the County for its anrival fire protection charge. The County paid a portion of the invoice and declined to pay the balance. Fellsmere initiated proceedings before its code enforcement special master, who ordered the County to pay the balance, plus interest, attorney's fees and continuing penalties. The County appealed the special master's decision to the circuit court, and the parties are waiting for the circuit court to decide the appeal. The circuit court's decision will be subject to a further appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, if either party elects to take a further appeal. Meanwhile, in 2010, Fellsmere sent an invoice for its 2010 annual fire protection charge. Instead of litigating the same issues a second time, with the attendant expense, the parties entered into an agreement stating that payment of the 2010 charge will depend upon the outcome of the appeal(s) on the 2009 charge. APPROVED FOR MARCH 15, 2011 B. C. C. MEETING — CONS NDA COUN ATTORNEY F.Wtmrne)k inrW\GENERAW CGAgenda MemoARY—re .2011 Fire Proiecdon Charget.doc Indian River Co. Ap ed Date Admin. 3 0 % Co. Atty. Budget 3 % /1 Dept. Risk Mgmt. --- --- 10 Board of County Commissioners ( March 4, 2011 Page Two Now, Fellsmere has sent an invoice for its 2011 charge. The County Attorney has proposed, and Fellsmere's attorney and staff have agreed (subject to City Council approval), that the parties enter into another agreement similar to the agreement on the 2010 charges — that is, payment will depend upon the outcome of the appeal(s) on the 2009 charge. If the County Commission approves the agreement, it will be submitted to the City Council for final approval. A copy of the proposed agreement is attached. RECOMMENDATION. The County Attorney recommends that the Board approve the attached agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign it on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS. Proposed Agreement ASP:LAC Attachment FAAttome)kLinda\GENERADE CGWgenda M—oiTeUsmere -2011 Fire Protection Charges.doc AGREEMENT RELATING TO 2011 FIRE PROTECTION CHARGE. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2011, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County"), and THE CITY OF FELLSMERE, a municipality incorporated in the State of Florida ("Fellsmere"). RECITALS: A. In January 2009, Fellsmere sent an invoice to County for its 2009 annual fire protection charge ("2009 Charge"). County paid approximately one- half of the charge, and refused to pay the balance. Fellsmere initiated code enforcement proceedings which resulted in. a Special Master order requiring County to pay the balance of the 2009 Charge, plus* additional amounts. County has appealed the Special Master order, and the appeal is pending before the appellate panel of the Circuit Court, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit ("2009 Appeal"); B. In December 2010, Fellsmere sent an invoice to County for its 2011 annual fire protection charge in the amount of $25,425 ("2011 Charge"); and C. The parties desire to limit the cost and expense of determining County's liability for the 2011 Charge. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree, as follows: 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated herein. . 2. Payment. Within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, County will deliver to Fellsmere payment in full of the 2011 Charge. The payment shall be deemed to be "under protest," and subject to possible refund pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. There shall be no restriction upon the use of such funds by Fellsmere following receipt of the payment. 3. 2009 Appeal Resolved in Favor of County. If it is finally determined in the 2009 Appeal that County is not liable for the 2009 Charge, Fellsmere shall refund to County its payment of the 2011 Charge. The phrase "finally determined" shall mean a final, non -appealable order of any appellate court last exercising jurisdiction in the 2009 Appeal ("Final Order"). Refund shall be made within thirty (30) days of such Final Order. 4. 2009 Appeal Resolved in Favor of Fellsmere. If it is determined in the Final Order that County is liable for the. 2009 Charge, then Fellsmere shall have no obligation to refund payment of the 2011 Charge. GNM,AA4.. Cn sm aAMImmre 2011 fire dwge ngrecn¢•nLrlrx _ Page T of 2 12 IN WITNESS ' WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By its Board of County Commissioners M Bob Solari, Chairman Date approved by BCC: ATTEST: J. K. Barton, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved: Baird, County Administrator Approved as to. form and legal sufficiency. Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Atto ey G:Ufaa�4flrc CanraclAFellsmere 2011 fire charge agreenenLdoc THE CITY OF FELLSMERE By its City Council By: Susan Adams, Mayor Date approved by Council: Page 2 of 2 HKI Consent Agenda Indian River County Interoffice Memorandum Office of Management & Budget To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown Director, Office of Manageme t & dget Date: March 4, 2011 Subject: Fourth of July Fireworks Funding Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 010 Background Information For several years, Indian River County has provided assistance in funding Fourth of July fireworks displays in Vero Beach and Sebastian. The Lions Club of Sebastian has again requested assistance in funding their celebration this year. For many years, the County has contributed $2,500 each to Sebastian and the City of Vero Beach. Alternatives At this time, we are requesting direction from the Board of Commissioners on providing funding for the Fourth of July fireworks displays in Vero Beach and Sebastian. Alternative No. 1: Decline funding the fireworks displays for the Cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach in light of current economic and taxing environments. Alternative No. 2: Approve funding the fireworks displays for the Cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach in the amount of $2,500 each. Staff recommends that any contribution serve as a match for the amount funded by the respective city up to $2,500. Additionally, approve the attached Budget Amendment 010 and Resolution amending the fiscal year 2010/2011 budget. M.S.T.U. Fund contingencies will provide funding of $5,000. 14 Board of Commissioners March 4, 2011 Page 2of2 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve Alternative No. 2 for funding the fireworks displays for the Cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach in the amount of $2,500 each. Staff also recommends that each of the cities (Vero Beach and Sebastian) appropriate and pay an equal amount up to $2,500 and the County will match that amount, up to $2,500 each, after the City of Vero Beach and Sebastian pay their share. Additionally, Staff recommends the Board of Commissioners approve the attached Budget Amendment 010 and resolution amending the fiscal year 2010/2011 budget. M.S.T.U. Fund contingencies will provide funding of $5,000. Attachments Letter from Lions Club of Sebastian Budget Resolution APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: BY:.j ?Jo-sl�ep A. Bard unty Administrator FOR: March 15, 2011 Indian River Count Date Administrator -APDf5tvd 3 I0 Legal �g 3 �• Budget Department Risk Management Lions Club of Sebastian, Inc. 000 do Norman I. Meyer, MD 13244 US Highway 1 O Sebastian, FL. 32958 Phone 772-228-9900 O Fax 772-228-9111 March 01, 2011 Office of Management & Budget Indian River County 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL. 32960-3388 Attn: Jason Brown, Indian River County Budget Director Dear County Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of the 4th of July Celebration Committee of the Lions Club of Sebastian. As in the- past Indian River County has made a twenty five hundred dollar ($2500.00) donation towards the fireworks display, I am hopeful we will be able to continue to receive this support from you. The City and County in the past has boasted of the quality family celebration, and we hope to continue with your support. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me. Thank you in advance for your support. Sincerely, Norman Meyer, MD Chairperson, 4th of July Celebration Lions Club of Sebastian, Inc. v'Ei1WF T1 MAR ® 1 2011 ou-nat office 16 RESOLUTION NO. 2011= A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 BUDGET. WHEREAS, certain appropriation and expenditure amendments to the adopted Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget are to be made by resolution pursuant to section 129.06(2), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County desires to amend the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget, as more specifically set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Fiscal Year 2010201-1= Budget be and hereby is amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" upon adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner and the motion was seconded by Commissioner , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Bob Solari Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan The Chairman thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of , 2011. Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk Deputy Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Board of County Commissioners Bob Solari, Chairman APPROVED AS TO.FORM AND LEGAL SU . FICIE CY BY ��-� • l�__)�. COUNTY ATTORNEY 17 E hi it "A" Resolution No. 2011- Budget Office Approval: Budget Amendment: 010 Jason . B own, Budget Director Entry Number Fund/ Department/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. Expenses Municipal Service Taxing Unit/ Recreation / Fireworks 00410872-041110 $5,000 $0 Municipal Service Taxing Unit/ Reserve for Contingencies 00419981-099910 $0 $5,000 so INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator CONSENT AGENDA THROUGH: Christopher R. Mora, P.E. C"� Public Works Director FROM: Maya J. Miller Staff Assistant III r J SUBJECT: Traffic Oountersi Hoard Approval. For Trade4n and Purchase Of Twelve (1-2) Traffic Counters DATE: March 2, 2011 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In accordance with County Capital Asset Policies and Procedures, the Traffic Engineering Division seeks Board approval and authorization to trade-in twelve (12) old, non-functioning traffic counters and purchase twelve (12) new traffic counters. The old traffic counters are obsolete, cannot be repaired and have no salvage value. The new traffic counters are needed to maintain the County's Traffic Count Program which is utilized for scheduling road repairs and roadway improvement projects, as well as determining transportation level -of -service and concurrency. The cost of the replacement counters is $17,940 (12 x $1,495 each) and the trade-in value of the old counters is $2,400 (12 x $200 each), resulting in a net purchase price of $15,540. RECOMMENDATIONS & FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board approve the transaction and authorize staff to trade-in twelve (12) old traffic counters and purchase twelve (12) new traffic counters. Funding for the purchase will come from Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Other Machinery & Equipment account # 111-245-41-066-490. ATTACHMENTS Office of Management & Budget Approved Disposal of Excess Property Memorandum F:\TRAFFIC\MAYA\BCC AGENDA ITEMS - RESOLUTIONMAGENDA ITEMS\12 TRAFFIC COUNTERS TRADE-IN.MARCH 2O11.DOC 19 Page 2 Consent Agenda Item For March IS, 2011 BCC Meeting Traffic Counter Trade -In and Replacement March 2, 2011 APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR: March -LS; 2011 Indian River County A d Date Administration Budget 3 �I Legal RiskManagement Public Works C,�- -31 r z/ « Traffic Engineering 3 alt F:\TRAFFIC\MAYA\BCC AGENDA ITEMS - RESOLUTIONS\AGENDA ITEMS\I2 TRAFFIC COUNTERS TRADE-IMMARCH 20I LDOC 20 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM t0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management s �18'1p11 DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus , Transfer Trade-in X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22048 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 6123959-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X . No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: 1 i 2`12 Date Replacement Received Approval Supervisor/ t Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval Oth OMB Manag r Approved for: S Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Transfer Fixed Assets Department Trade -In Replacement Date Date ti 0 Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being dispose f1 z r 1 t Pi All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 IB60gat Off c -e 21 Date r1i ' cj c, Date -a _2 Z s Date - n; d L7 Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being dispose f1 z r 1 t Pi All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 IB60gat Off c -e 21 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management ev ;� DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: bisposal of Excess PropertyFB182011 FROM: Traffic Engineering Division� Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number:. 22046 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 013980-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A — - - Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: 0_ 1Date Replacement Received Approval Approval Approval Approval OMB Approved Supe t Personnel Director / Assistant Director Controller Oth Manag[)Urplus for: Transfer Trade-InReplacement Disposition Recorded: Fixed Assets Department Additional Comments: Date , Date •: ry Date i Date _7 3 � � Date s` C l-0 Date It is the. disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATI( i{ISP©SAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being dispos¢d of. 1 7 2011 All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. t ttS Revised: January 2010 Bud qt J Off wcf; 22 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22045 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 7013077-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: NJA Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: Date Replacement Received Approval Supervisor t Personnel Approval Director/ Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval OMB Approved Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Fixed Assets Department Trade -In Replacement Date ;. r� 07 --ice � Date n - r ri :Z Date P, ' � a Date s, •: Date Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset numbers igned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being dispose:o0 All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 B I.idri INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM r0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management ��>> DATE: January 31, 2011 MANCE SUBJECT. Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 24050 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 7013981-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226- 7 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal fro�R4_epartm�6ts) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: C' c� Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement:w-2.. Date Replacement}.R�e� ceive Approval SupervisorjDept Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval OMB Approved Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Fixed Assets Department Trade -In Replacement Date s p;7 -t7 r Date i..0 Date Date Date Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assi . Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being dis ld,U All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM rO: Reeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Asset Number: Asset Description: Serial Number: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen 24045 Fleet Number: N/A TRAFFIC COUNTERS 4048309-418 If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes Do you have possession of the asset? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: _ Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN No Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: 00 Date Replacement Received Approval Approval Approval Approval OMB Approved Supervisor/ t Personnel Director/ Assistant Director Controller Disposition Recorded: Fixed Assets Department Additional Comments: Trade -In Replacement Date Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assignees E r Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed of. All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. FEB 1 7 2011 Revised: January 2010 Bitdgel, i f cri 25 oz �7_ b Date rTi ao Date >� o M. Date M z s c� rr) Date t o Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assignees E r Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed of. All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. FEB 1 7 2011 Revised: January 2010 Bitdgel, i f cri 25 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM r0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management By�� DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property Nc> FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 24044 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 7013963-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition -or Purchase Order Number for replacement: 6W ADM- Date Replacement Received Approval ( S o ept Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval OMB Approved Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: 'w Date a Date 03 C t -j c7 o Date -a --+ :z: _ n Date 0 t_0 Date Trade -In Replacement Fixed Assets Department Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR.LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposep afb All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 I}i'dr"^• Off; .26 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ( r0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management�G January 31, 2011 % b" DATE. &PaI� SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property INCE FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22914 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 5031328-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: ' 2 Date Replacement Received Approval Superviso ept Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval N- Approved Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Fixed Assets Department Trade -In Replacement Date Oma, r7-1 ( Date cud Date Date " M �+ Date A s c Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item unfil Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed of. All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 B ,1get Off ;",r 27 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM f0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 B?p Jj SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property'4iV FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22912 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 5061816,418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) -Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: 21}2 Date Replacement Received Approval pt Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval OMB Approved Disposition Recorded: Fixed Assets Department Additional Comments: Trade -In Replacement Date OZ -1 Date y� Date o Date m Date r.; 0 Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being dispole,c 91f.EZ; 5 All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22910 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 5061709-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: _ Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No. (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: 2 Date Replacement Received Approval Su t Personnel Approval Director /Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval Other \ OMB Manag Approved for: Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Fixed Assets Department Trade -In' Replacement Date 07--I "7 - 1l Date o ` u Date cn ?P Date n Date o ; 0 Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISK )SAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned E tea" Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed of. All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. FEB 17 2011 Revised: January 2010 29 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM i0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22908 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS Serial Number: 5061719-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: _ Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer?_ Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced,. please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: Date Replacement Received Approval Approval Approval Approval OMB Approved Su. t Personnel Director / Assistant Director Controller Disposition Recorded: Fixed Assets Department Additional Comments: Trade-Iy,Replacement Date QZ-/7—Q Date Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed d «? All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 i 2011 H;udgeit. 0.ft �-r� 30 ru Date .� T� f'T'1 ca Date rn -v �n Date 3 D S n rn CD Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed d «? All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 i 2011 H;udgeit. 0.ft �-r� 30 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER -OFFICE MEMORANC O: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Disposal of Excess Property FROM: Traffic Engineering Division Check One: Asset Number: Asset Description: Serial Number: Surplus 22903 Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Fleet Number: N/A TRAFFIC COUNTERS 5061730-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No If Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: Is the item functional? Yes No X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE-IN Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will aid Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: '2 Date Replacement Received Approval Supervisor . pt Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval Other \ OMB Manage Approved for: Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Transfer Fixed Assets Department Trade -In Replacement Date Date � Date a c� o M Date -� � n s r� Date r n i-0 Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed oV VAt All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 1 7 2011 TNIDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1— R-eFFiCE MEMORANDUM f0: Raeanne Cone, Fixed Assets Management DATE: January 31, 2011 9`'�% SUBJECT: Disposal- of Excess Prom- ; aN FROM: Traffic Enginecrina. i�ivis �-.: Check One: Surplus Transfer Trade -In X Non -Capital Missing/Stolen Asset Number: 22553 Fleet Number: N/A Asset Description: TRAFFIC COUNTERS S^rial Number: 5021046-418 Do you have possession of the asset? Yes X No it Lost/Missing has a police report been filed? Yes No If Yes, Please attach a copy of the police report. If No, state reason: _ Is the item functional? Yes. No- X Description of problems with item: TRAFFIC COUNT DATA INCORRECT Reason why item is excess: TRADE -4-f-4 Does OMB need to review the transfer? Yes X No (maintenance impact) Department transferred to: N/A Contact Person: MS. MAYA MILLER Telephone Number: 772-226-1637 (The above contact information will old Purchasing and Facilities Management in the process of equipment removal from departments) If asset will be replaced, please answer the following: nn Requisition or Purchase Order Number for replacement: (�ZDate Replacement Received Approval Sup Personnel Approval Director / Assistant Director Approval Controller Approval OMB Approved Disposition Recorded: Additional Comments: Fixed Assets Department Trade -In Replacement Date Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. ", Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed of. gr 1:; �i T, r'',= E.. 7-- All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 7 2013 Date -_ rn rb 7J Date M -n v _ Date n s C -D, 0 Date Q Date It is the disposing department's responsibility to keep the item until Facilities Management can pick it up. DO NOT REMOVE PROPERTY FROM YOUR LOCATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL This form to be used for all property with or without an asset number assigned. ", Please attach a copy of this form securely to the item being disposed of. gr 1:; �i T, r'',= E.. 7-- All other forms for transfer/disposal of property now obsolete. Revised: January 2010 FEB 7 2013 Consent Agenda INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA ITEM Department of General Services Date: March 8, 2011 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator From: Michael Zito, Assistant County Administrator Subject: HUD Grant Renewal on Shelter Plus Care a t — FL0360C4H091001 BACKGROUND: Attached, please find a cover letter from Louise Hubbard, Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Homeless Services Council, Inc. dated March 8, 2011. This is a request for the attached new HUD contract to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for signature approval by the Chair of the Board at the next meeting. This contract is a renewal of an existing Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance Grant in the amount of $99,000. It will provide for up to 11 units of tenant based rental assistance: The County will receive 8% of the grant award for administration. The grant period is for one year. There is no required County contribution or match for this grant. There is no cash match required for Shelter Plus Care. Shelter Plus Care provides direct rental assistance to landlords in this community to house disabled individuals and families. Supportive services are being provided by New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. Once approved, three (3) originals of this renewal contract must be signed by the Chair of the County Commission. All three copies should be returned to the Council for mailing. Once HUD signs the three copies, one original will be returned to the County for their records. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the renewal agreement with HUD, authorize the Board Chairman to execute the renewal agreement and allow the Treasure Coast Homeless Services Council to submit the grant agreement on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS: Letter dated 03-08-11 from Louise Hubbard Renewal Agreement Shelter Plus Care Grant — FL03 60C4HO91 001 Exhibit 1— Part 5 82 — Shelter Plus Care Exhibit 2 — Tenant -Based Rental Assistance (TRA) Grant form Approved Agenda Item By: a', (In ian-A Josep A. Baird County Administrator FOR: March 15, 2011 Indian River Co. Approved Date Administration -Si !o I County Attorney -( Budget 1 i Department Risk Management 33 TREASURE COAST HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL, INC. 2525 St. Lucie Avenue 772-567-7790 Vero Beach, FL 32960 irhsclh@aol.com Mr. Michael Zito Assistant County Administrator 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 171-0360C41-1091001- New Shelter Plus Care contract Dear Mr. Zito, March 8, 2011 This is a request for the attached new HUD contract to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for signature approval by the Chair of the Board at the next meeting. This contract is- a renewal of an existing Shelter- Plus Care Rental Assistance- Grant in the amount of $99,000. It will provide for up to 11 units of tenant based rental assistance. The County will receive 8% of the grant award for administration. The grant period is for one year. There is no required County contribution or match for this grant. There is no cash match required for Shelter Plus Care. Shelter Plus Care provides direct rental assistance to landlords in this community to house disabled individuals and families. Supportive services are being provided by New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. Once approved, three (3) originals of this renewal contract must be signed by the Chair of the County Commission. All three copies should be returned to the Council for mailing. Once HUD signs the three copies, one original will be returned to the County for their records. I have included only one copy of the contract in this transmittal to minimize the paperwork required for Board packets. Please advise as to whom and where the three originals should be placed to allow Commissioner Solari to sign them, after Board approval. I would appreciate your placing this request on the consent agenda for the next Board of County Commissioners meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Louise Hubbard Executive Director 34 GRANT NAME: Shelter Plus Care Grant - 2010 Chronics Renewal GRANT # FL0360C411091001 AMOUNT OF GRANT: $ 99,000 DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GRANT: Treasure Coast Homeless Services Council, Inc. CONTACT PERSON: Louise Hubbard TELEPHONE: 567-7790 1. How long is the grant for? One year Starting Date: April 1, 2011 2. Does the grant require you to fund this function after the grant is over? Yes X No 3. Does the grant require a match? Yes __X___No If yes, does the grant allow the match to be In -Kind services? Yes No 4. Percentage of match to grant % 5. Grant match amount required 6. Where are the matching funds coming from (i.e. In -Kind Services; Reserve for Contingency)? 7. Does the grant cover capital costs or start-up costs? _ _ Yes X No If no, how much do you think will be needed in capital costs or start-up costs: $ (Attach a detail listing of costs) 8. Are you adding any additional positions utilizing the grant funds? Yes X No If yes, please list. (If additional space is needed, please attach a schedule.) Acct. Description Position Position Position Position Position 011.12 Regular Salaries 011.13 Other Salaries & Wages (PT) 012.11 Social Security 012.12 Retirement — Contributions 012.13 Insurance — Life & Health 012.14 Worker's Compensation 012.17 S/Sec. Medicare Matching $ TOTAL 9. What is the total cost of each position including benefits, capital, start-up, auto expense, travel and operating? Salary and Benefits Operating Costs Capital Total Costs 10. What is the estimated cost of the grant to the county over five years? Signature of Preparer: Date: March 8, 2011 35 Grant Amount Other Match Costs Not Covered Match Total First Year $ 99,000 $ $ $ Second Year. $ $ $ $ Third Year $ $ $ $ Fourth Year $ $ $ $ Fifth Year $ $ $ $ Signature of Preparer: Date: March 8, 2011 35 P. OENTOF e $�O'I N D E\1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Development 400 West Bay Street Suite 1015 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Grant Number: FL0360C411091001 Project Name: FL -509 - REN : 2010IRChronicsRenewal Total Award Amount: $99,000 Number of Units: 11 Component: TRA Recipient: Indian River County Board of Commissioners Official Contact Person and Title: Bradley Bernauer, Director, County Human Services Telephone Number: (772) 567-8000 Fax Number: (772) 567-5991 E-mail Address: tchscinc_office@bellsouth.net EIN/Tax ID Number: 59-6000674 DUNS Number: 079208989 Effective Date: June 15, 2011 Project Location(s): 2010 SHELTER PLUS CARE RENEWAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is made by and between the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Recipient, which is described in section 1 of Exhibit 2. This Agreement will be governed by Subtitle F of Title 1V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq. (the Act); the HUD Shelter Plus Care Program final rule codified at 24 CFR 582 ("the Rule"), which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1, and the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that was published in two parts. The first part was the General Section of the NOFA, which was published June 11, 2010 at 75 FR 33323. The second part was the Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs section of the NOFA, which is located at hiip://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/nofalO/grpcoc.efin. The terms "Grant" or "Grant Funds" mean the funds for rental assistance that are provided under this Agreement. The term "Application" means the application submission on the basis of which a Grant was approved by HUD, including the certifications and assurances and any information or documentation required to meet any grant award conditions (including the application submissions for grants being consolidated in this agreement). The Application is incorporated herein as part of this Agreement; however, in the event of any conflict between the Application and any provision contained herein, this Shelter Plus Care Agreement shall control. www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 1 36 The following are attached hereto and made a part hereof: ® Exhibit 1 - The Shelter Plus Care Program Rule ® Exhibit 2 - for Tenant -based Rental Assistance ❑ Exhibit 3 - for Project -based Rental Assistance ❑ Exhibit 4 - for Sponsor -based Rental Assistance ❑ Exhibit 5 - for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy ❑ Exhibit 5A - Subgrant for the Administration of Rental Assistance (for SRO) HUD notifications to the Recipient shall be to the address of the Recipient as stated in the Application, unless HUD is otherwise advised in writing. Recipient notifications to HUD shall be to the HUD Field Office executing the Agreement. Recipient agrees to conduct an ongoing assessment of the rental assistance and supportive services required by the participants in the program; to assure the adequate provisions of supportive services to the participants in the program; to be responsible for overall administration of this grant, including overseeing any sub -recipients, contractors and subcontractors; and to comply with such other terms and conditions, including record keeping and reports (which must include racial and ethnic data on participants for program monitoring and evaluation purposes), as the Secretary may establish for purposes of carrying out the program in an effective and efficient manner. The recipient and project sponsor, if any, will not knowingly allow illegal activities in any unit assisted with S+C funds. Recipient agrees to draw Grant Funds for and to make rental assistance payments on behalf of eligible program participants at least quarterly. A default shall consist of any use of Grant Funds for a purpose other than as authorized by this Agreement, noncompliance with the Act, Rule, any material breach of the Agreement, failure to expend Grant Funds in a timely manner, or misrepresentations in the Application submissions that, if known by HUD, would have resulted in a grant not being provided. Upon due notice to the Recipient of the occurrence of any such default and the provision of a reasonable opportunity to respond, HUD may take one or more of the following actions: (a) direct the Recipient to submit progress schedules for completing approved activities; (b) issue a letter of warning advising the Recipient of the default, establishing a date by which corrective actions must be completed and putting the Recipient on notice that more serious actions will be taken if the default is not corrected or is repeated; (c) direct Recipient to establish and maintain a management plan that assigns responsibility for carrying out remedial actions; www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 2 37 (d) direct the Recipient to suspend, discontinue or not incur costs for the affected activity; (e) reduce or recapture the grant; (f) direct the Recipient to reimburse the program accounts for costs inappropriately charged to the program; (g) continue the Grant with a substitute Recipient selected by HUD; (h) other appropriate action including, but not limited to, any remedial action legally available, such as affirmative litigation seeking declaratory judgment, specific performance, damages, temporary or permanent injunctions and any other available remedies. No delay or omissions by HUD in exercising any right or remedy available to it under the Agreement shall impair any such right or remedy or constitute a waiver or acquiescence in any Recipient default. The Grantee shall comply with requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, including Appendix A to Part 25 of the Financial Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration, 75 Fed. Reg. 55671 (Sept. 14, 2010)(to be at 2 CFR part 25) and Appendix A to Part 170 of Requirements for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Implementation, 75 Fed. Reg. 55663 (Sept. 14, 2010)(to be codified at 2 CFR part 170). This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and may be amended only in writing executed by HUD and the Recipient. More specifically, Recipient shall not change sponsor or population to be served without the prior approval of HUD. No right, benefit, or advantage of the Recipient or Sponsor hereunder may be assigned without prior written approval of HUD. The effective date of the Agreement shall be the expiration of the prior grant that is being renewed (applicable only to renewals of grants whose terms have not been extended). Execution of this Agreement terminates any S+C Amendment and Extension Agreement executed by the parties, as of the effective date of this Agreement. (Where more than one grant is being consolidated, execution of this Agreement terminates the Grant Agreements for the grants identified in the attached exhibits, as of the effective date of this agreement.) By signing below, Recipients that are states and units of local government certify that they are following a current HUD approved CHAS (Consolidated Plan). www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 3 This agreement is hereby executed on behalf of the parties as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development BY: (Signature) (Title) (Date) RECIPIENT (Name of Organization) (Signature of Authorized Official) (Title) (Date) PROVED: ounty A ministrator APPROVED AS TO FOR AND LEGAL. SUFFIC CY BY J ALAN & POLA COUNTY ATTORNEY www.bud.gov espanol.bud.gov Page 4 EXHIBIT 1 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1-09 Edition) PART 582 -SHELTER PLUS CARE Subpart D -Program Requirements Subpart A -General 582,300 General operation. 582.305 Housing quality standards; rent reasonableness. 582,310 Resident rent. 582.315 Occupancy agreements. 582.320 Termination of assistance to participants. 582.325 Outreach activities, 582.330 Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements. 582,335 Displacement, relocation, and real property acquisition. 582.340 Other Federal requirements, Subpart E -Administration PART 582 -SHELTER PLUS CARE Subpart A -General Sec. 582.1 Purpose and scope 582.5 Definitions.. Subpart B -Assistance Provided 582.100 Program component descriptions. 582.105 Rental assistance amounts and payments. 582.110 Matching requirements. 582.115 Limitations on assistance. 582.120 Consolidated plan. Subpart C -Application and Grant Award 582.200 Application and grant award. 582.230 Environmental review www.hud.gov 582,4QQ Grartkagreementt, 582,405 Program changes. 582.410 Obligation and deobligation of funds. AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11403- 11407b. SOURCE: 58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A -General § 582.1 Purpose and scope. (a) General. The Shelter Plus Care program (S+C) is authorized by title IV, subtitle F, of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (the McKinney Act) (42 U.S,C.'11403- 11401b). S+C is designed to link rental assistance to supportive services for hard -to -serve homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those who are seriously mentally ill; have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs, or both; or have acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and related diseases) and their families. The program provides grants to be used for rental assistance for permanent housing for homeless persons with disabilities. Rental assistance grants must be matched in the aggregate by supportive services that are equal in value to the amount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of the population to be served. Recipients are chosen on a competitive basis nationwide. (b) Components. Rental assistance is provided through four components described in § 582.100. Applicants may apply for assistance under any one of the four components, or a combination. [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 51169, Sept. 30, 1996] espanol.hud.gov Page 5 Ofc. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD § 582.5 Definitions. The terms Fair Market Rent (FMR), HUD, Public Housing Agency (PHA), Indian Housing Authority (IHA), and Secretary are defined in 24 CFR part 5. As used in this part: Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and related diseases has the meaning given in section 853 of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12902). Applicant has the meaning given in section 462 of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11403g). Eligible person means a homeless person with disabilities (primarily persons who are seriously mentally ill; have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs, or both; or have AIDS and related diseases)_ and, if also homeless, the family of such a person. To be eligible for assistance, persons must be very low income, except that low-income individuals may be assisted under the SRO component in accordance with 24 CFR 813.105(b). Homeless or homeless individual has the meaning given in section 103 of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11302). Indian tribe has the meaning given in section 102 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302). Low-income means an annual income not in excess of 80 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD. HUD may establish income limits higher or lower than 80 percent of the median income for the area on the basis of its finding that such variations are necessary because of the prevailing levels of construction costs or unusually high or low family incomes. Nonprofit organization has the meaning given in section 104 of the Cranston -Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12704). The term nonprofit organization also includes a community mental health center established as a public nonprofit organization. Participant means an eligible person who has been selected to participate in S+C. Person with disabilities means a household composed of one or more persons at least one of whom is an adult who has a disability. www.hbd.gov § 582.5 (1) A person shall be considered to have a disability if such person has a physical, mental, or emotional impairment which is expected to be of long -continued and indefinite duration; substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently; and is of such a nature that such ability could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. (2) A person will also be considered to have a disability if he or she has a developmental disability, which is a severe, chronic disability that- (!) Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; (ii) Is manifested before the person attains age 22; (iii) Is likely to continue indefinitely; (iv) Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: (A) Self-care; (B) Receptive and expressive language; (C) Learning; (D) Mobility; (E) Self-direction; (F) Capacity for independent living; and (G) Economic self-sufficiency; and (v) Reflects the person's need for a combination and sequence of special, Interdisciplinary, or generic care, treatment, or other services which are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. (3) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this definition, the term person with disabilities includes, except in the case of the SRO component, two or more persons with disabilities living together, one or more such persons living with another person who is determined to be Important to their care or well-being, and the surviving member or .members of any household described in the first sentence of this definition who were living, in a unit assisted under this part, with the deceased member of the household at the time of his or her death. (In any event, with respect to the surviving member or members of a household, the right to rental assistance under this part will terminate at the end of the grant period espanol.hud.gov Page 6 41 § 582.100 under which the deceased member was a participant.) Recipient means an applicant approved to receive a S+C grant. Seriously mentally ill has the meaning given in section 462 of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11403g). Single room occupancy (SRO) housing means a unit for occupancy by one person, which need not but may contain food preparation or sanitary facilities, or both. Sponsor means a nonprofit organization which owns or leases dwelling units and has contracts with a recipient to make such units available to eligible homeless persons and receives rental assistance payments under the SRA component. State has the meaning given in section 462 of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11403g). Supportive service provider, or service provider, means a person or organization licensed or otherwise qualified to provide supportive services, either for profit or not for profit. Supportive services means assistance that - (1) Addresses the special needs of eligible persons; and (2) Provides appropriate services or assists such persons in obtaining appropriate services, including health care, mental health treatment, alcohol and other substance abuse services, child care services, case management services, counseling, supervision, education, job training, and other services essential for achieving and maintaining independent living. (Inpatient acute hospital care does not qualify as a supportive service.). Unit of general local government has the meaning given in section 102 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302). Very low-income means an annual income not in excess of 50 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. HUD may establish income limits higher or lower than 50 percent of the median income for the area on the basis of its finding that such variations are www.hud.gov 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1=09 Edition) necessary because of unusually high or low family incomes. [61 FR 51169, Sept. 30, 1996; 62 FR 13539, Mar. 21, 1997] Subpart B -Assistance Provided § 582.100 Program component descriptions. (a) Tenant -based rental assistance (TRA). Tenant -based rental assistance provides grants for rental assistance which permit participants to choose housing of an appropriate size in which to reside. Participants retain the rental assistance if they move. Where necessary to facilitate the coordination of supportive services, grant recipients may require participants to live in a specific area for their entire period of participation or in a specific structure for the first year and in a specific area for the remainder of their period of participation. Recipients may not define the area in a way that violates the Fair Housing Act or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The term of the grant between HUD and the grant recipient for TRA is five years. (b) Project -based rental assistance (PRA). Project -based rental assistance provides grants for rental assistance to the owner of an existing structure, where the owner agrees to lease the subsidized units to participants. Participants do not retain rental assistance if they move. Rental subsidies are provided to the owner for a period of either five or ten years. To qualify for ten years of rental subsidies, the owner must complete at least $3,000 of eligible rehabilitation for each unit (including the unit's prorated share of work to be accomplished on common areas or systems), to make the structure decent, safe and sanitary. This rehabilitation must be completed with in 12 months of the grant award. (c) Sponsor -based rental assistance (SRA). Sponsor -based rental assistance provides grants for rental assistance through contracts between the grant recipient and sponsor organizations. A sponsor may be a private, nonprofit organization or a community mental health agency established as a public nonprofit organization. Participants reside in housing owned or leased by espanol.hud.gov Page 7 Ofc. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD § 582.105 the sponsor. The term of the grant between program that includes a range of housing types HUD and the grant recipient for SRA is five with differing levels of supportive services. years. Rental assistance may include security deposits (d) Moderate rehabilitation for single room on units in an amount up to one month's rent. occupancy dwellings (SRO). (1) The SRO (b) Amount of the grant. The amount of component provides grants for rental assistance the grant is based on the number and size of in connection with the moderate rehabilitation units proposed by the applicant to be assisted of single room occupancy housing units. over the grant period. The grant amount is Resources to initially fund the cost of calculated by multiplying the number of units rehabilitating the dwellings must be obtained proposed times the applicable Fair Market Rent from other sources. However, the rental (FMR) of each unit times the term of the grant. assistance covers operating expenses of the (c) Payment of grant. (1) The grant rehabilitated SRO units occupied by homeless amount will be reserved for rental assistance persons, including debt service to retire the cost over the grant period. An applicant's grant of the moderate rehabilitation over a ten-year request is an estimate of the amount needed for period. rental assistance. Recipients will make draws (2) SRO housing must be in need of from the reserved amount to pay.the actual moderate rehabilitation and must meet the costs of rental assistance for program requirements of 24 CFR 882.803(a). Costs participants. For TRA, on demonstration of associated with rehabilitation of common areas need, up to 25 percent of the total rental may be included in the calculation of the cost assistance awarded may be spent in any one of for assisted units based on the proportion of the the five years, or a higher percentage if number of units to be assisted under this part to approved by HUD, where the applicant provides the total number of units. evidence satisfactory to HUD that it is financially (3) SRO assistance may also be used for committed to providing the housing assistance efficiency units selected for rehabilitation under described in the application for the full five-year this program, but the gross rent (contract rent period, plus any utility allowance) for those units will be (2) A recipient must serve at least as many no higher than for SRO units (i -.e., 75 percent of participants as shown in its application. Where the 0 -bedroom Moderate Rehabilitation Fair the grant amount reserved for rental assistance Market Rent). over the grant period exceeds the amount that (4) The requirements regarding will be needed to pay the actual costs of rental maintenance, operation, and inspections assistance, due to such factor as contract rents described in 24 CFR 882.806(b)(4) and being lower than FMRs and participants are 882.808(n) must be met. being able to pay a portion of the rent, (5) Governing regulations. Except where recipients may use the remaining funds for the there is a conflict with any requirement under costs of administering the housing assistance, this part or where specifically provided, the SRO as described in paragraph (e) of this section, for component will be governed by the regulations damage to property, as described in paragraph set forth in 24 CFR part 882, subpart H. (f) of this section, for covering the costs of rent increases, or for serving a great number of § 582.105 Rental assistance amounts and participants. payments. (d) Vacancies. (1) If a unit assisted under (a) Eligible activity. S+C grants may be this part is vacated before the expiration of the used for providing rental assistance for housing occupancy agreement described in § 582.315 of occupied by participants in the program and this part, the assistance for the unit may administrative costs as provided for in continue for a maximum of 30 days from the paragraph (e) of this section, except that the end of the month in which the unit was vacated, housing may not be currently receiving Federal unless occupied by another eligible person. No funding for rental assistance or operating costs additional assistance under other HUD programs. Recipients may design a housing www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 8 .T § 582.110 will be paid until the unit is occupied by another eligible person: (2) As used in this paragraph (d), the term "vacate" does not include brief periods of inpatient care, not to exceed 90 days for each occurrence. (e) Administrative costs. (1) Up to eight percent of the grant amount may be used to pay the costs of administering the housing assistance. Recipients may contract with another entity approved by HUD to administer the housing assistance. (2) Eligible administrative activities include processing rental payments to landlords, examining participant income and family composition, providing housing information and assistance, inspecting units for compliance with housing quality standards, and receiving into the program new participants. This administrative allowance does not include the cost of administering the supportive services or the grant (e.g., costs of preparing the application, reports or audits required by HUD), which are not eligible activities under a S+C grant. (f) Property damage. Recipients may use grant funds in an amount up to one month's rent to pay for any damage to housing due to the action of a participant. [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 51170, Sept. 30, 1996] § 582.110 Matching requirements. (a) Matching rental assistance with supportive services. (1) To qualify for rental assistance grants, an applicant must certify that it will provide or ensure the provision of supportive services, including funding the services itself if the planned resources do not become available for any reason, appropriate to the needs of the population being served, and at least equal in value to the aggregate amount of rental assistance funded by HUD. The supportive services may be newly created for the program or already in operation, and may be provided or funded by other Federal, State, local, or private programs in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 11403b. This statute provides that a recipient may use funds from any source, including any other Federal source (but excluding the specific statutory subtitle from which S+C www.hud.gov 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1-09 Edition) funds are provided), as well as State, local, and private sources, provided that funds from the other source are not statutorily prohibited to be used as a match. (2) Only services that are provided after the execution of the grant agreement may count toward the match. (3) It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that any funds or services used to satisfy the matching requirements of this section are eligible under the laws governing the funds or services to be used as matching funds or services for a grant awarded under this program. (b) Availability to participants. Recipients must give reasonable assurances that supportive services will be available to participants for the entire term of the rental assistance. The value of the services provided to a participant, however, does not have to equal the amount of rental assistance provided that participant, nor does the value have to be equal to the amount of rental assistance on a year-to-year basis. (c) Calculating the value of supportive services. In calculating the amount of the matching supportive services, applicants may count: (1) Salaries paid to staff of the recipient to provide supportive services to S+C participants; (2) The value of supportive services provided by other persons or organizations to S+C participants; (3) The value of time and services contributed by volunteers at the rate of $10.00 an hour, except for donated professional services which may be counted at the customary charge for the service provided (professional services are services ordinarily performed by donors for payment, such as the services of health professionals, that are equivalent to the services they provide in their occupations); (4) The value of any lease on a building used for the provision of supportive services, provided the value included in the match is no more than the prorated share used for the program; and (5) The cost of outreach activities, as described in § 582.325(a) of this part. [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 73 FR 75325, Dec. 11, 2008] espanol.hud.gov Page 9 MA Ofc. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD § 582.115 Limitations on assistance. (a) Current occupants. Current occupants of the real property are not eligible for assistance under this part. However, as described in § 582.335, persons displaced as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a project under the S+C program are eligible for and must be provided relocation assistance at Uniform Relocation Act levels. (b) Amount of assistance provided within a jurisdiction. HUD will limit the amount of assistance provided within the jurisdiction of any one unit of local government to no more than 10 percent of the amount available. (c) Faith -based activities. (1) Organizations that are religious or faith -based are eligible, on the sable basis as any other organization, to participate in the S+C program. Neither the Federal government nor a State or local government receiving funds under S+C programs shall discriminate against an organization on the basis of the organization's religious character or affiliation. (2) Organizations that are directly funded under the S+C program may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, . religious instruction, or proselytization as part of the programs or services funded under this part. If an organization conducts such activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded under this part, and participation must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the HUD -funded programs or services. (3) A religious organization that participates in the S+C program will retain its independence from Federal, State, and local governments, and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, practice and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use direct S+C funds to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. Among other things, faith -based organizations may use space in their facilities to provide S+C-funded services, without removing religious art, icons, scriptures, or other religious symbols. In addition, an S+C-funded religious organization retains its authority over § 582.120 its internal governance, and it may retain religious terms in its organization's name, select Its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other governing documents. (4) An organization that participates in the S+C program shall not, in providing program assistance, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief. (5) If a State or local government voluntarily contributes its own funds to supplement federally funded activities, the State or local government has the option to segregate the Federal funds or commingle them. However, if the funds are commingled, this section applies to all of the commingled funds. (d) Maintenance of effort. No assistance received under this part (or any State or local government funds used to supplement this assistance) may be used to replace funds provided under any State or local government assistance programs previously used, or designated for use, to assist persons with disabilities, homeless persons, or homeless persons with disabilities. [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 56407, Sept. 30, 2003] § 582.120 Consolidated plan. (a) Applicants that are States or units of general local government. The applicant must have a HUD -approved complete or abbreviated consolidated plan, in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, and must submit a certification that the application for funding is consistent with the HUD -approved consolidated plan. Funded applicants must certify in a grant agreement that they are following the HUD -approved consolidated plan. If the applicant is a State, and the project will be located in a unit of general local government that is required to have, or has, a complete consolidated plan, or that is applying for Shelter Plus Care assistance under the same Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) and will have an abbreviated consolidated plan with respect to that application, the State also must submit a certification by the unit of general local government that the State's application is consistent with the unit www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 10 ER § 582.200 of general local government's HUD -approved consolidated plan. (b) Applicants that are not States or units of general local government. The applicant must submit a certification by the jurisdiction in which the proposed project will be located that the jurisdiction is following its HUD -approved consolidated plan and the applicant's application for funding is consistent with the jurisdiction's HUD -approved consolidated plan. The certification must be made by the unit of general local government or the State, in accordance with the consistency certification provisions of the consolidated plan regulations, 24 CFR part 91, subpart F. (c) Indian tribes and the Insular Areas of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. These entities are not required to have a consolidated plan or to make consolidated plan certifications. An application by an Indian tribe or other applicant for a project that will be located on a reservation of an Indian tribe will not require a certification by the tribe or the State. However, where an Indian tribe is the applicant for a project that will not be located on a reservation, the requirement for a certification under paragraph (b) of this section will apply. (d) Timing of consolidated plan certification submissions. Unless otherwise set forth in the NOFA, the required certification that the application for funding is consistent with the HUD -approved consolidated plan must be submitted by the funding application submission deadline announced in the NOFA. (60 FR 16379, Mar. 30, 1995] Subpart C -Application and Grant Award § 582.200 Application and grant award. (a) Review. When funds are made available for assistance, HUD will publish a notice of fund availability in the FEDERAL REGISTER in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR part 4. Applications will be reviewed and screened in accordance with the guidelines, rating criteria and procedures published in the notice. 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1-09 Edition) (b) Rating criteria. HUD will award funds based on the criteria specified in section 455(a)(1) through (8) of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11403d(1)- 11403d(8)) and on the following criteria authorized by section 455(a)(9) of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11403d(9)): (1) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated coordination with other Federal, State, local, private and other entities serving homeless persons in the planning and operation of the project, to the extent practicable; (2) Extent to which the project targets homeless persons living in emergency shelters, supportive housing for homeless persons, or in places not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping_ accommodation for human beings; (3) Quality of the project; and (4) Extent to which the program will serve homeless persons who are seriously mentally ill, have chronic alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, or have AIDS and related diseases. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0118) (61 FR 51170, Sept. 30, 1996] § 582.230 Environmental review. (a) Activities under this part are subject to HUD environmental regulations in part 58 of this title, except that HUD will perform an environmental review in accordance with part 50 of this title prior to its approval of any conditionally selected applications from PHAs for Fiscal Year 2000 and prior years for other than the SRO component. For activities under a grant to a PHA that generally would be subject to review under part 58, HUD may make a. finding in accordance with § 58.11(d) and may itself perform the environmental review under the provisions of part 50 of this title if the recipient PHA objects in writing to the responsible entity's performing the review under part 58. Irrespective of whether the responsible entity in accord with part 58 (or HUD in accord with part 50) performs the environmental review, the recipient shall supply all available, relevant information necessary for the responsible entity (or HUD, if applicable) to perform for each property any environmental review required by this part. www.bud.gov . espanollud.gov Page 11 Oft. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD The recipient also shall carry out mitigating measures required by the responsible entity (or HUD, if applicable) or select alternate eligible property. HUD may eliminate from consideration any application that would require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (b) The recipient, its project partners and their contractors may not acquire, rehabilitate, convert, lease, repair, dispose of, demolish, or construct property for a project under this part, or commit or expend HUD or local funds for such eligible activities under this part, until the responsible entity (as defined in § 58.2 of this title) has completed the environmental review procedures required by part 58 and the environmental certification and RROF have been approved or HUD has performed an environmental review underpart 50 and the recipient has received HUD approval of the property. HUD will not release grant funds if the recipient or any other party commits grant funds (i.e., incurs any costs or expenditures to be paid or reimbursed with such funds) before the recipient submits and HUD approves its RROF (where such submission is required). [68 FR 56130, Sept. 29, 2003] Subpart D -Program Requirements § 582.300 General operation. (a) Participation of homeless individuals. (1) Each recipient must provide for the consultation and participation of not less than one homeless individual or formerly homeless individual on the board of directors or other equivalent policy-making entity of the recipient, to the extent that the entity considers and makes policies and decisions regarding any housing assisted under this part or services for the participants. This requirement is waived if the applicant is unable to meet the requirement and presents a plan, which HUD approves, to otherwise consult with homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering and making such policies and decisions. Participation by such an individual who also is a participant under the program does not constitute a conflict of interest under § 582.340(b) of this part. § 582.305 (2) To the maximum extent practicable, each recipient must involve homeless individuals and families, through employment, volunteer services, or otherwise, in constructing or rehabilitating housing assisted under this part and in providing supportive services required under § 582.215 of this part. (b) Ongoing assessment of housing and supportive services. Each recipient of assistance must conduct an ongoing assessment of the housing assistance and supportive services required by the participants, and make adjustments as appropriate. (c) Adequate supportive services. Each recipient must assure that adequate supportive services are available to participants in the program. (d) Records and reports. (1) Each recipient must keep any records and, within the timeframe required, make any reports (including those pertaining to race, ethnicity, gender, and disability status data) that HUD may require. (2) Each recipient must keep on file, and make available to the public on request, a description of the procedures used to select sponsors under the SRA component and buildings under the SRO, SRA, and PRA components. (3) Each recipient must develop, and make available to the public upon request, its procedures for managing the rental housing assistance funds provided by HUD. At a minimum, such procedures must describe how units will be identified and selected; how the responsibility for inspections will be handled; the process for deciding which unit a participant will occupy; how participants will be placed in, or assisted in finding appropriate housing; how rent calculations will be made and the amount of rental assistance payments determined; and what safeguards will be used to prevent the misuse of funds. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0118) [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 51171, Sept. 30, 1996] § 582.305 Housing quality standards; rent reasonableness. (a) Housing quality standards. Housing assisted under this part must meet the www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 12 47 § 582.310 applicable housing quality standards (HQS) under § 982.401 of this title -except that § 982.4010) of this title does not apply and instead part 35, subparts A, B, K and R of this title apply -and, for SRO under § 882.803(b) of this title. Before any assistance will be provided on behalf of a participant, the recipient, or another entity acting on behalf of the recipient (other than the owner of the housing), must physically inspect each unit to assure that the unit meets the HQS. Assistance will not be provided for units that fail to meet the HQS, unless the owner corrects any deficiencies within 30 days from the date of the lease agreement and the recipient verifies that all deficiencies have been corrected. Recipients must also inspect all units at least annually during the grant period to ensure that the units continue to meet the HQS. (b) Rent reasonableness. HUD will only provide assistance for a unit for which the rent is reasonable. For TRA, PRA, and SRA, it is the responsibility of the recipient to determine whether the rent charged for the unit receiving rental assistance is reasonable in relation to rents being charged for comparable unassisted units, taking into account the location, size, type, quality, amenities, facilities, and management and maintenance of each unit, as well as not in excess of rents currently being charged by the same owner for comparable unassisted units. For SRO, rents are calculated in accordance with 24 CFR 882.805(g). [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 51171, Sept. 30, 1996; 64 FR 50226, Sept. 15, 1999] § 582.310 Resident rent. (a) Amount of rent. Each participant must pay rent in accordance with section 3(a)(1) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(a)(1)), except that in determining the rent of a person occupying an intermediate care facility assisted under title XIX of the Social Security Act, the gross income of this person is the same as if the person were being assisted under title XVI of the Social Security Act. (b) Calculating income. (1) Income of participants must be calculated in accordance with 24 CFR 5.609 and 24 CFR 5.611(a). 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1-09 Edition) (2) Recipients must examine a participant's income initially, and at least annually thereafter, to determine the amount of rent payable by the participant. Adjustments to a participant's rental payment must be made as necessary. (3) As a condition of participation in the program, each participant must agree to supply the information or documentation necessary to verify the participant's income. Participants must provide the recipient information at any time regarding changes in income or other circumstances that may result in changes to a participant's rental payment. [66 FR 6225, Jan. 19, 20011 § 582.315 Occupancy agreements. (a) Initial occupancy agreement: Participants must enter into an occupancy agreement for a term of at least one month. The occupancy agreement must be automatically renewable upon expiration, except. on prior notice by either party. (b) Terms of agreement. In addition to standard lease provisions, the occupancy agreement may also include a provision requiring the participant to take part in the supportive services provided through the program as a condition of continued occupancy. § 582.320 Termination of assistance to participants. (a) Termination of assistance. The recipient may terminate assistance to a participant who violates program requirements or conditions of occupancy. Recipients must exercise judgment and examine all extenuating circumstances in determining when violations are serious enough to warrant termination, so that a participant's assistance is terminated only in the most severe cases. Recipients are not prohibited from resuming assistance to a participant whose assistance has been terminated. (b) Due process. In terminating assistance to a participant, the recipient must provide a formal process that recognizes the rights of individuals receiving assistance to due process of law. This process, at a minimum, must consist of: www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 13 Ofc. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD (1) Written notice to the participant containing a clear statement of the reasons for termination; (2) A review of the decision, in which the participant is given the opportunity to present Written or oral objections before a person other than the person (or a subordinate of that person) who made or approved the termination decision; and (3) Prompt written notice of the final decision to the participant. § 582.325 Outreach activities. Recipients must use their best efforts to ensure that eligible hard -to -reach persons are served by S+C. Recipients are expected to make sustained efforts tfi engage eligible persons so that they may be brought into the program. Outreach should be primarily directed toward eligible persons who have a nighttime residence that is an emergency shelter or a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (e.g., persons living in cars, streets, and parks). Outreach activities are considered to be a supportive service, and the value of such activities that occur after the execution of the grant agreement may be included in meeting the matching requirement. § 582.330 Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements. (a) General. Recipients may establish a preference as part of their admissions procedures for one or more of the statutorily targeted populations (i.e., seriously mentally ill, alcohol or substance abusers, or persons with AIDS and related diseases). However, other eligible disabled homeless persons must be considered for housing designed for the target population unless the recipient can demonstrate that there is sufficient demand by the target population for the units, and other eligible disabled homeless persons would not benefit from the primary supportive services provided. (b) Compliance with requirements. (1) In addition to the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5, recipients serving a designated population of § 582.330 homeless persons must, within the designated population, comply with the prohibitions against discrimination against handicapped individuals under section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and implementing regulations at 41 CFR chapter 60-741. (2) The nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements set forth at part 5 of this title are modified as follows: (i) The Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) applies to tribes when they exercise their powers of self-government, and to IHAs when established by the exercise of such powers. When an IHA is established under State law, the applicability of the Indian Civil Rights Act will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Projects subject to the Indian Civil Rights Act must be developed and operated in compliance with its provisions and all implementing HUD requirements, instead of title VI and the Fair Housing Act and their implementing regulations. (ii) [Reserved] (c) Affirmative outreach. (1) If the procedures that the recipient intends to use to make known the availability of the program are unlikely to reach persons of any particular race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status, or handicap who may qualify for assistance, the recipient must establish additional procedures that will ensure that interested persons can obtain information concerning the assistance. (2) The recipient must adopt procedures to make available information on the existence and locations of facilities and services that are accessible to persons with a handicap and maintain evidence of implementation of the procedures. (d) The accessibility requirements, reasonable modification, and accommodation requirements of the Fair Housing Act and of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 5210, Feb. 9, 19961 www.liud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 14 d us § 582.335 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1-09 Edition) § 582.335 Displacement, relocation, and (f) Definition of displaced person. (1) For real property acquisition. purposes of this section, the term "displaced (a) Minimizing displacement. Consistent person" means a person (family, individual, with the other goals and objectives of this part, business, nonprofit organization, or farm) that recipients must assure that they have taken all moves from real property, or moves personal reasonable steps to minimize the displacement property from real property permanently as a of persons (families, individuals, businesses, direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or nonprofit organizations, and farms) as a result demolition for supportive housing project of supportive housing assisted under this part. assisted under this part. The term "displaced (b) Relocation assistance for displaced person" includes, but may not be limited to: persons. A displaced person (defined in (1) A person that moves permanently from paragraph (f) of this section) must be provided the real property after the property owner (or relocation assistance at the levels described in, person in control of the site) issues a vacate and in accordance with, the requirements of the notice or refuses to renew an expiring lease, if Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property the move occurs on or after: Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) (42 U.S.C. (A) The date that the recipient submits to 46011-4.6- 55) and implementing regulations at 4-9 HUD an application for assistance that is later CFR part 24. approved and funded, if the recipient has (c) Real property acquisition requirements. control of the project site; or The acquisition of real property for supportive (B) The date that the recipient obtains housing is subject to the URA and the control of the project site, if such control is requirements described in 49 CFR part 24, obtained after the submission of the application subpart B. to HUD. (d) Responsibility of recipient. (1) The (ii) Any person, including a person who recipient must certify (i.e., provide assurance of moves before the date described in paragraph compliance) that it will comply with the URA, (17(1)(1) of this section, if the recipient or HUD the regulations at 49 CFR part 24, and the determines that the displacement resulted requirements of this section, and must ensure directly from acquisition, rehabilitation, or such compliance notwithstanding any third demolition for the assisted project, party's contractual obligation to the recipient to (iii) A tenant -occupant of a dwelling unit comply with these provisions. who moves permanently from the (2) The cost of required relocation building/complex on or after the date of the assistance is an eligible project cost in the same "initiation of negotiations" (see paragraph (g) of manner and to the same extent as other project this section) if the move occurs before the costs. Such costs also may be paid for with local tenant has been provided written notice offering public funds or funds available from other him or her the opportunity to lease and occupy sources. a suitable, decent, safe and sanitary dwelling in (3) The recipient must maintain records in the same building/ complex, under reasonable sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with terms and conditions, upon completion of the provisions of this section. project. Such reasonable terms and conditions (e) Appeals. A person who disagrees with must include a monthly rent and estimated the recipient's determination concerning average monthly utility costs that do not exceed whether the person qualifies as a "displaced the greater of: person, or the amount of relocation assistance (A) The tenant's monthly rent before the for which the person is eligible, may file a initiation of negotiations and estimated average written appeal of that determination with the utility costs, or recipient. A low-income person who is (B) 30 percent of gross household income. dissatisfied with the recipient's determination on If the initial rent is at or near the maximum, his or her appeal may submit a written request there must be a reasonable for review of that determination to the HUD basis for concluding at the time field office. www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 15 50 Ofc. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD the project is initiated that future rent increases will be modest. (iv) A tenant of a dwelling who is required to relocate temporarily, but does not return to the building/complex, if either: (A) A tenant is not offered payment for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the temporary relocation, or (B) Other conditions of the temporary relocation are not reasonable. (v) A tenant of a dwelling who moves from the building/complex permanently afterhe or she has been required to move to another unit in the same building/complex, if either: (A) The tenant'is not offered reimbursement for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the move; or (B) Other conditions of the move are not reasonable. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a person does not qualify as a "displaced person" (and is not eligible for relocation assistance under the URA or this section), if: (i) The person has been evicted for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of the lease or occupancy agreement, violation of applicable Federal, State, or*local or tribal law, or other good cause, and HUD determines that the eviction was not undertaken for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide relocation assistance; (ii) The person moved into the property after the submission of the application and, before signing a lease and commencing occupancy, was provided written notice of the project, its possible impact on the person (e.g., the person may be displaced, temporarily relocated, or suffer a rent increase) and the fact that the person would not qualify as a "displaced person" (or for any assistance provided under this section), if the project Is approved; (Iii) The person is ineligible under 49 CFR 24.2(g)(2); or (iv) HUD determines that the person was not displaced as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for the project. (3) The recipient may request, at any time, HUD's determination of whether www.hud.gov § 582.340 a displacement is or would be covered under this section. (g) Definition of initiation of negotiations. For purposes of determining the formula for computing the replacement housing assistance to be provided to a residential tenant displaced as a direct result of privately undertaken rehabilitation, demolition, or acquisition of the real property, the term "initiation of negotiations" means the execution of the agreement between the recipient and HUD, or selection of the project site, if later. § 582.340 Other Federal requirements. In addition to the Federal requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5, the following requirements apply to this program: (a) OMB Circulars.1 (1) The policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87 (Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with State and Local Governments) and 24 CFR part 85 apply to the acceptance and use of assistance under the program by .governmental entities, and OMB Circular Nos. A-110 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and, Other Nonprofit Organizations) and 24 CFR part 84 and A-122 (Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with Nonprofit Institutions) apply to the acceptance and use of assistance by private nonprofit organizations, except where inconsistent with provisions of the McKinney Act, other Federal statutes, or this part. (2) The financial management systems used by recipients under this program must provide for audits in accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR part 44. Private nonprofit organizations who are subrecipients are subject to the audit requirements of 24 CFR part 45. HUD may perform or require additional audits as it finds necessary or appropriate. (b) Conflict of interest. (1) In addition to the conflict of interest requirements 1 Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained from E.O.P. Publications, room 2200, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, telephone (202) 395-7332. (This is not a toll-free number.) There is a limit of two free copies. espanol.hud.gov Page 16 51 § 582.400 in 24 CFR part 85, no person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the recipient and who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to assisted activities, or who is in a position to participate in a decisionmaking process or gain inside Information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for himself or herself or for those with whom he or she has family or business ties, during his or her tenure or for one year thereafter. Participation by homeless individuals who also are participants under the program in policy or decisionmaking under § 582.300 of this part does not constitute a conflict of interest. (2) Upon the written request of the recipient, HUD may grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section on a case-by-case basis when it determine that the exception will serve to further the purposes of the program and the effective and efficient administration of the recipient's project. An exception may be considered only after the recipient has provided the following: (i) For States, units of general local governments, PHAs and IHAs, a disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by an assurance that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description of how the public disclosure was made; and (ii) For all recipients, an opinion of the recipient's attorney that the interest for which the exception is sought would not violate State or local law. (3) In determining whether to grant a requested exception after the recipient has satisfactorily met the requirement of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, HUD will consider the cumulative effect of the following factors, where applicable: (i) Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or an essential degree of expertise to the project which would otherwise not be available; (ii) Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of eligible persons and the exception will permit www.hud.gov 24 CFR Ch. V (4-1-09 Edition) such person to receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made available or provided to the group or class; (iii) Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her functions or responsibilities, or the decisionmaking process with respect to the specific assisted activity in question; (iv) Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected person was in a position as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; (v) Whether undue hardship will result either to the recipient or the person affected when weighed against the public interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict; and (vi) Any other relevant considerations. [58 FR 13892, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 5210, Feb. 9, 1996; 61 FR 51171, Sept. 30, 1996; 62 FR 13539, Mar. 21, 1997] Subpart E -Administration § 582.400 Grant agreement. (a) General. The grant agreement will be between HUD and the recipient. HUD will hold the recipient responsible for the overall administration of the program, including overseeing any subrecipients or contractors. Under the grant agreement, the recipient must agree to operate the program in accordance with the provisions of this part and other applicable HUD regulations. (b) Enforcement. HUD will enforce the obligations in the grant agreement through such action as may be necessary, including recapturing assistance awarded under the program. § 582.405 Program changes. (a) Changes. HUD must approve, in writing, any significant changes to an approved program. Significant changes that require approval include, but are not limited to, a change in sponsor , a change in the project site for SRO or PRA with rehabilitation projects, and a change In the type of persons with disabilities to be served. Depending on the nature of the change, HUD may require a new certification of consistency with the CHAS (see § 582.120). espanol.hud.gov Page 17 52 Ofc. of Asst. Secy., Comm. Planning, Develop., HUD (b) Approval. Approval for such changes is contingent upon the application ranking remaining high enough to have been competitively selected for funding in the year the application was selected. § 582.410 Obligation and deobligation of funds. (a) Obligation of funds. When HUD and the applicant execute a grant agreement, HUD will obligate funds to cover the amount of the approved grant. The recipient will be expected to carry out the activities as proposed in the application. After the initial obligation of funds, HUD is under no obligation to make any upward revisions to the grant amount for any approved assistance. (b) Deobligation. (1) HUD may deobligate all or a portion of the approved grant amount if such amount is not expended in a timely manner, or the proposed housing for which funding was approved or the supportive services proposed in the application are not provided in accordance with the approved application, the requirements of this part, and other applicable HUD regulations. The grant agreement may set forth other circumstances under which funds may be deobligated, and other sanctions may be imposed. (2) HUD may readvertise, in a notice of fund availability, the availability of funds that have been deobligated, or may reconsider applications that were submitted in response to the most recently published notice of fund availability and select applications for funding with the deobligated funds. Such selections would be made in accordance with the selection process described in § 582.220 of this part. Any selections made rasing deobligated funds will be subject to applicable appropriation act requirements governing the use of deobligated funding authority. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0118) § 583.1 www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 18 53 EXHIBIT 2 TENANT -BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE (TRA) 1. The Recipient is Indian River County Board of Commissioners. 2. HUD agrees, subject to the terms of the Agreement, to provide the Grant Funds in the amount specified below for the approved project(s) described in the Application. HUD's total funding obligation is $99,000 for 11 units of tenant -based rental assistance. 3. The term of this Grant Agreement shall be one (1) year. One-year renewal grants cannot be extended and unobligated balances will be recaptured by HUD at the end of the grant period. 4. Recipient shall receive aggregate amounts of Grant Funds not to exceed the appropriate existing housing fair market rental value under See. 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 in effect at the time the Application was approved. This fair market rent may be higher or lower than the fair market rent in effect at the time of application submission. 5. The effective date of the Agreement shall be the expiration of the prior grant that is being renewed (applicable only to renewals of grants whose terms have. not been extended). www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Page 19 M CONSENT Indian River County Interoffice Memorandum Office of Management & Budget To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown rk Director, Office of Management & ud et Date: March 4, 2011 Subject: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 009 Description and Conditions The attached budget amendment appropriates funding necessary for the following: At the time the FY 2010/11 budget was approved, the Teamsters Union had not reached a vote on foregoing their merit raise and top -out bonuses. Since then, the Teamsters Union has agreed to forego their merit raise and top -out bonuses in return for having ten union employees added back to the budget. This results in some departments experiencing cost increases while others realize a savings. The attached entry reallocates these funds between departments to cover the salary- expenses incurred due to the agreement that was reached. Funding in the amount of $36,761 will be provided from General Fund Cash Forward, and 266,648 from M.S.T.U. Fund Cash Forward to cover salaries which exceeded the original budgeted amounts. 2. Sick incentive costs have been higher than anticipated in some departments. The attached entry appropriates funding from General Fund/Cash Forward -Oct 1St for $9,242, MSTU Fund/Cash Forward -Oct 1st for $2,800, Transportation Fund/Cash Forward -Oct 1St for $563 and Self Insurance Fund/Cash Forward -Oct 1St for $2,477. 3. On March 8, 2011 the Board of County Commissioners approved the Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of six structures at Gifford Garden Apartments. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $79,920 from M.S.T.U. Fund Cash Forward. 4. Per the agreement with Indian River State College (IRSC),. funds remaining after construction of the Brackett Library are to be used for operating expenditures. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $40,000 from the Prior Year Expense account in the General Fund. 5. The Brackett Library has received revenue proceeds from use of their public copy machine. The attached entry appropriates funding for supplies for the machine in the amount of $1,500. 55 Board of County Commissioners March 4, 2011 Page 2 of 2 6. On February 1, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners approved the design and construction of lighting for fields 1 and 2 at Vero Beach Sports Village in the amount of $671,480. Additionally, during a joint meeting of the Indian River County BCC and City of Vero Beach on January 11, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners approved improvements totaling $3,120,500 from Optional Sales Tax/Cash Forward -Oct 1St 7. The cost of the new development portion of the Landfill Slopes for Segment 1 through September 2009 is estimated at $643,144. The attached entry appropriates funding from County Impact. Fees/Cash Forward -Oct Vt. The remainder of costs have been funded through SWDD reserves for closure costs. 8. Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc. paid a developers fee of $270,230.80 toward extending and paving 53rd street from Kings Highway to US 1. The attached entry appropriates funding into Secondary Roads/CIP-/53`d Street/Kings Highway to US I. 9. Unexpended grant funds received in the Fire District/Emergency Services/EMS County Awards in the amount of $29,682 need to be "rolled over" to the current year. The attached entry appropriates the funding. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of' Commissioners approve the attached' budget resolution amending the fiscal year 2010/2011 budget. Attachments Budget Resolution APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: BY:A �Joseh &2�, uR:Me Indian River County Approved Date Administrator 3 O 1 County Attorney Budget -31 () Department Risk Management 56 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 BUDGET. WHEREAS, certain appropriation and expenditure amendments to the adopted Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget are to be made by resolution pursuant to section 129.06(2), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County desires to amend the fiscal year 2010-2.011 budget, as more specifically set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget be and hereby is amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" upon adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Bob Solari Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan The Chairman thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of 12011. Attest J. K. Barton, Clerk go Deputy Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Board of County Commissioners Bob Solari, Chairman APPROVED AST M AND LEGAL S FI EN Y BY COU14TY ATTORNEY 57 Exhibit "A Resolution No.2011- Budget Office Approval: Jason E I Brown Budget Director Budget Amendment: 009 Entry Number Fund/ Depa e Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. Revenue General Fund/Cash Forward Oct 1st 001039-389040 $36,761 $0 Transportation Fund/Cash Forward Oct 1st 111039-389040 $266,648 $0 Expense General Fund/Parks/Regular Salaries 00121072-011120 $38,135 $0 General Fund/Parks/Special Pay 00121072-011150 $0 $6,509 General Fund/Parks/Social Security 00121072-012110 $1,961 $0 Gier-Leral Fund/ParkslRetirement 00121072-012120 $3,406 $0 General Fund/Parks/Health & Life Insurance 00121072-012130 $14,904 $0 General Fund/Parks/Worker's Compensation 00121072-012140 $2,008 $0 General Fund/Parks/OPEB 00121072-012160 $3,002 $0 General Fund/Parks/Medicare 00121072-012170 $459 $0 General Fund/Facilities Management/Regular Salaries 00122072-011120 $0 $7,514 General Fund/Facilities Management/Special Pay 00122072-011150 $0 $9,000 General Fund/Facilities Management/Social Security 00122072-012110 $0 $1,024 General Fund/Facilities Management/Retirement 00122072-012120 $0 $1,779 General Fund/Facilities Management/Worker's Compensation 00122072-012140 $0 $1,049 General Fund/Facilities Management/Medicare 00122072-012170 $0 $239 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Regular Salaries 11121441-011120 $126,061 $0 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Special Pay 11121444-011150 $0 $28,612 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Social Security 11121441-012110 $6,042 $0 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Retirement 11121441-012120 $10,495 $0 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Health & Life Insurance 11121441-012130 $38,777 $0 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Worker's Compensation 11121441-012140 $6,186 $0 Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/OPEB 11121441=012160 $7,505 $0 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2011 - Budget Office Approval: Budget Amendment: 009 Jason E. T own, udget Direct Entry Number Fund/ Depart m Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease Transportation Fund/Road & Bridge/Medicare 11121441-012170 $1,413 $0 Transportation Fund/County Engineering/Regular Salaries 11124441-011120 $0 $494 Transportation Fund/County Engineering/Special Pay 11124444-011150 $0 $2,000 Transportation Fund/County Engineering/Social Security 11124441-012110 $0 $155 Transportation Fund/County Engineering/Retirement 11124441-012120 $0 $269 Transportation Fund/County Engineering/Worker's Compensation 11124441-012140 $0 $52 Transportation Fund/County Engineering/Medicare 11124441-012170 $0 $36 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Regular Salaries 11124541-011120 $74,669 $0 Transportation FundfTraffic Engineering/Special Pay 11124544-011150 $0 $7,499 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Social Security 11124541-012110 $4,165 $0 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Retirement 11124541-012120 $7,234 $0 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Health & Life Insurance 11124541-012130 $14,974 $0 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Worker's Compensation 11124541-012140 $4,265 $0 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/OPEB 11124541-012160 $3,002 $0 Transportation Fund/Traffic Engineering/Medicare 11124541-012170 $974 $0 Utilities FundNVastewater Treatment/Regular Salaries 47121836-011120 $0 $1,391 Utilities Fund/Wastewater Treatment/Special Pay 47121836-011150 $0 $11,000 Utilities Fund/Water Production/Regular Salaries 47121936-011120 $0 $7,088 Utilities FundNVater Production/Special Pay 47121936-011150 $0 $7,101 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Regular Salaries 47126936-011120 $22,405 $0 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Special Pay 47126936-011150 $0 $9,115 59 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2011 - Budget Office Approval: Budget Amendment: 009 Jason. Bro n, Budget Directo Entry Number Fund/ Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Social Security 47126936-012110 $824 $0 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Retirement 47126936-012120 $1,431 $0 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Health & Life Insurance 47126936=012130 $8,913 $0 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Worker's Compensation 47126936-012140 $428 $0 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/OPEB 47126936-012160 $1,501 $0 Utilities Fund/Water Distribution/Medicare 47126936-012170 $193 $0 2. Revenue General Fund/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward- Oct 1st 001039-389040 $9,242 $0 MSTU/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward -Oct 1st 004039-389040 $2,800 $0 Transportation Fund/Cash Forward -Oct 1st 111039-389040 $563 $0 Self Insurance/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward- Oct 1st 502039-389040 $2,477 $0 Expense General Fund/Soil& Water Cons/Special Pay 00111837-011150 $403 $0 General Fund/Soil& Water Cons/Social Security 00111837-012110 $25 $0 General Fund/Soil& Water Cons/Medicare 00111837-012170 $6 $0 General Fund/Law Library/Special Pay 00111914-011150 $162 $0 General Fund/Law Library/Social Security 00111914-012110 $11 $0 General Fund/Law Library/Medicare 00111914-012170 $3 $0 General Fund/County Administrator/Special Pay 00120112-011150 $5,000 $0 General Fund/County Administrator/Social Security 00120112-012110 $310 $0 General Fund/County Administrator/Medicare 00120112-012170 $73 $0 General Fund/General,Services/Special Pay 00120213-011150 $1,600 $0 General Fund/General Services/Social Security 00120213-012110 $100 $0 General Fund/General Services/Medicare 0012-0213-012170 $24 $0 General Fund/Youth Guidance/Special Pay 00121323-011150 $153 $0 General FundNouth Guidance/Social Security 00121323-012110 $10 $0 General FundNouth Guidance/Medicare 00121323-012170 $3 $0 xhibit "A" Resolution No. 2011 - Budget Office Approval: Budget Amendment: 009 JasonBrow , Budget Director Entry Number Fund/ Depa6dnVAccount Name Account Number Increase Decrease General Fund/Purchasing/Special Pay 00121613-011150 $160 $0 General Fund/Purchasing/Social Security 00121613-012110 $10 $0 General Fund/Purchasing/Medicare 00121613-012170 $3 $0 General Fund/Office of Budget&Management/Special Pay 00122913-011150 $700 $0 General Fund/Office of Budget&Management/Social Security 00122913-012110 $44 $0 General Fund/Office of Budget&Management/Special Pay 00122913-012170 $11 $0 General Fund/Animal Control/Special Pay 00125062-011150 $400 $0 General Fund/Animal Control/Social Security 00125062-012110 $25 $0 General Fund/Animal Control/Medicare 00125062-012170 $6 $0 MSTU Fund/GAC/Special Pay 00410572-011150 $600 $0 MSTU Fund/GAC/Social Security 00410572-012110 $38 $0 MSTU Fund/GAC/Medicare 00410572-012170 $9 $0 MSTU/Recreation/Special Pay 00410872=011150 $2,000 $0 MSTU/Recreation/Social Security 00410872-012110 $124 $0 MSTU/Recreation/Medicare 00410872-012170 $29 $0 Transportation Fund/Public Works/Special Pay 11124319-011150 $522 $0 Transportation Fund/Public Works/Social Security 11124319-012110 $33 $0 Transportation Fund/Public Works/Medicare 11124319-012170 $8 $0 Self Insurance/Risk Management/Special Pay 50224613-011150 $2,300 $0 Self Insurance/Risk Management/Social Security 50224613-012110 $143 $0 Self Insurance/Risk Management/Medicare 50224613-012170 $34 $0 3. Revenue M.S.T.U. Fund/Cash Forward Oct 1st 004039-389040 $79,920 $0 Expense M.S.T.U. Fund/Road & Bridge/Other Contractual Services 00421441-033490 $79,920 $0 4. Revenue General Fund/Refund Prior Year Expense 001038-369930 $40,000 $0 A Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2011- K Budget Office Approval: Budget Amendment: 009 Jason E. rown, Budget Director . Entry Number Fund/ Depart nt/Account Name Account Number - Increase Decrease Expense General Fund/Brackett Library/Books-Brackett Proceeds 00111371-039999 $40,000 $0 5, Revenue General Fund/Brackett Library -Public Copy Fees 001038:369934 $1,500 $0 Expense General Fund/Brackett Library/Office Supplies 00111371-035110 $1,500 $0 6. Revenue Optional Sales Tax/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward - Oct 1st 315039 -389040 `$67A 480, = , $0 Expense Optional Sales Tax/ParksNB Sports Village Field Lighting 31521072-066510-11002 ,$67z1,48Qr F _- $0 7. Revenue Cty Impact Fees/Non-Revenue/Cash. Forward- Oct 1 st 103039-389040 $643,144 $0 Expense Cty Impact Fees/Landfill/C&D LF Slopes Seg.1 10321734-066510-05070 $643,144 $0 8. Revenue Secondary Roads/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward- Oct 1st 109039-389040 $270,231 $0 Expense Secondary Roads/CIP/53rd Street/Kings Highway to US 1 .10921441-066510-02025 $270,231 $0 9. Revenue Emergency District/EMS County Awards Grant 114033-334290 $29,682 $0 Expense Emergency District/Fire Rescue/EMS County Awards Capital 11412022-066910 $29,682 $0 62 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator D AR ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE THRU: Robert M. Keating, A CP Community Development director FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: March 3, 2011 SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordinance to Temporarily Suspend Imposition of Several Impact Fees It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 15, 2011. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On March 3, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners considered several alternatives to reduce impact fees for the purpose of stimulating economic development in the county. After discussion, the Board decided to suspend collection of five of the county's nine impact fees for six months. That suspension was subsequently extended several times, with the current suspension due to expire on March 31, 2011. The five currently suspended impact fees are: the Fire/Emergency Services Facilities Impact Fee, the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee, the Public Buildings Impact Fee, the Law Enforcement Impact Fee, and the Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee. Consistent with the Board's direction, the impact fee suspension ordinance applies only to impact fees associated with a building permit, and it requires that a certificate of occupancy be obtained within eighteen months of building permit issuance. Otherwise, the fee amount attributable to the suspended fee categories becomes payable. As it stands now, the current suspension will expire on March 31, 2011, unless the suspension is extended prior to that time. For that reason, the Board considered the suspension issue at its February 1, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted to authorize staff to advertise for a public hearing on March 15, 2011 to extend the impact fee suspension of three of the five currently suspended impact 63 fees for one year until March 31, 2012. The three fees currently proposed for suspension are public buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste facilities. Pursuant to the county's ordinance adoption procedures, staff advertised for an impact fee suspension public hearing to be held on March 15, 2011. Besides advertising for the public hearing, staff also prepared draft impact fee suspension ordinances. Copies of those ordinances are attached to this staff report. , To provide maximum flexibility for the Board when considering extending the impact fee suspension, staff included all five of the currently suspended impact fees in the suspension extension public hearing advertisement. That will allow the Board to extend the suspension of any or all of the five currently suspended impact fees. ANALYSIS As of this time, the county's impact fee suspension hm, been in- effact for almst two years, During that. time, building permit activity declined and then flattened out. For example, the number of single- family building permit applications in the unincorporated county and the City of Vero Beach declined from 301 in the:pre-suspension April 1, 2008 — January 31; 2009 period to 194 in the April 1, 2009 — January 31, 2010 suspension period and then slightly increased to 197 in the April 1, 2010 — January 31, 2011 suspension period. Given those figures, one can conclude that either the suspension had little or no effect or that building permit activity would have been even lower without the suspension. While the extension of the impact fee suspension will result in additional unrealized revenues, the anticipated revenue loss will not be substantial due to the slow pace of development that the county is currently experiencing. Further, this loss of revenue will not have a substantial adverse effect on the ability to fund capital needs in these areas. Comparison of Selected Impact Fee Rates Before and After Suspension Over the past two years, the suspended impact fees have resulted in lower impact fee payments for both residential and commercial projects. During that time, however, commercial projects fared better, with an average impact fee reduction of 30% to 50%, compared to an average of 12% to 15% reduction for residential projects. The reason for the difference between commercial and residential is that only 6 of the 9 impact fees imposed by the county apply to commercial projects, while all nine apply to residential projects. Since the five suspended fees all apply to both residential and commercial projects, the suspension resulted in commercial projects paying only one impact fee (transportation), while residential projects paid four impact fees. 2 64 Land Use Impact Impact Fee Impact Fee Difference Percentage Impact fee Difference Percentage Unit Rate Prior Rate after Decreased rate if 3** Decreased to Suspending Impact Suspension 5* Impact Fees Fees Suspended Single family DU $7,519 $6,624 $895 12% $7,023 $496 7% less than 1500 sq. ft. Multi -family DU $4,817 $4,199 $618 13% $4,374 $443 9% Office 1000 sq. $5,696 $3,893 $1,803 32% $4,302 $1,394 24% ft. Retail Center 1000 sq. $6,340 $3,242 $3,098 49% $4,078 $2,262 36% ft. General 1000 sq. $3,539 $2,464 $1,075 30% $2;664 $815 25% Industrial I ft. * Public BuRdings, Law Enforcement, Solid Waste, Fire/Emergency Services, and Correctional Facilities * * Public Buildings, Law Enforcement, and Solid Waste The table above shows impact fee rates for selected land uses with no fees suspended, with five fees suspended, and with three fees suspended. As indicated, extending the suspension of the five currently suspended impact fees will result in lower overall impact fee rates than extending the suspension of three impact fees. With either alternative, however, the percentage reduction in impact fee rates is higher for commercial uses than for residential uses. Attached to this staff report are two proposed ordinances. One ordinance (Attachment 3) would extend the suspension of the five currently suspended impact fees, while the other ordinance (Attachment 2) would, as directed by the Board at its February 1., 2011 meeting, extend the suspension of three of the five currently suspended impact fees. Both ordinances would extend the impact fee suspension for one year until March 31, 2012. According to the County's Impact Fee Interlcoal Agreements with each of the county's five municipalities, the county must give the municipalities at least thirty days notice prior to making any amendment to the impact fee ordinance. Said notice was provided to the municipalities by email on January 20, 2011. 1 ALTERNATIVES With respect to the suspended impact fees, the Board has the following options: 1. To extend the suspension of the five currently suspended impact fees 2. To extend the suspension of fewer categories of impact fees 3. To not extend the suspension of impact fees Staff supports either option 1 or 2. 65 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Option 2 and adopt the Attachment 2 ordinance to extend the Temporary Suspension of three Impact Fees (public buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste facilities) for one year until March 31, 2012. Attachments: 1. Copy of the unincorporated county Impact Fee Schedule prior to suspension 2. Ordinance extending the suspension of three of the five currently suspended impact fees for one year. 3. Ordinance extending the suspension of the five currently suspended impact fees for one year. Approved Agenda Item: For: By.. CGI�� Indian River Co. Approved Date Admin. �11C� 11 Legal Budget Dept, Risk Mgr. _. FXommunity DevelopmentUrnpact Fee\2011\temporarysuspensionofimpactfees March 15, 2011.doe 4 66 __a ;I; ;77 } \ �~ ® \ § - f \ • �� �] k � / » __a ;I; ;77 k \)fes d fi 051 11. /]ITM a 0 ; mGa§R©2 V ! \{Ot 4'R 6 � 67 I a ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE X, IMPACT FEES, OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO AMEND CODE SECTION 1000.06 "IMPOSITION" TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING FOR ONE YEAR THE IMPOSITION OF IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, finds that the dramatic downturn of the local economy warrants measures to stimilate the local economy; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners temporarily suspended 5 impact fees from April 1, 2009 until September 30, 2009, then from October 1, 2009 until March 31, 2010, and then from April 1, 2010 until March 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, at its meeting of February 1, 2011, decided to consider extending the temporary impact fee suspension for three impact fees for an additional one year until March 31, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 1000. Section 1000.06 of Chapter 1000 of Title X of the Indian River County Code is hereby amended to -read as follows: Section 1000.06. Imposition. (1) Any person, who after the effective date of this ordinance seeks to develop land by applying for a building permit or an initial concurrency certificate, shall be assessed impact fees and shall be required to pay all applicable impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this title. Exception: the imposition of impact fees for public buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste facilities is temporarily suspended for the one year period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012. NOTE: This exception applies only to applications for buildine permits and initial/final concurrency certificates needed prior to release of a site plan. The excention does not extend to anulications for initial -1, initital-3, or I ATTAP.HMFNT 2, 1 69 ORDINANCE NO.2011- initital-7 concurrency certificates not associated with the release of site plans. Applicable impact fees must be paid at the time of building permit application or initial/final concurrency application. If a certificate of occupancy is not obtained within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the buildine permit, then no certificate of occupancy may be issued until impact fees for public buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste facilities are paid, at the then current rate. (2) No building permit or initial concurrency certificate for any activity requiring payment of impact fees pursuant to this title shall be issued unless and until all impact fees required by this title have been paid. t (3) Any person, who after the effective date of this ordinance applies for an initial concurrency certificate or for a permit to set up a new mobile home, shall be assessed impact fees and shall be required to pay all applicable impact fees in the, manner and amount set forth in this title. (4) No permit or initial concurrency certificate for the set up of a new mobile home requiring payment of impact fees pursuant to this title shall be issued unless and until all impact fees required by this title have been paid. SECTION TWO: APPENDIX A, IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES Appendix A, Impact Fee Schedules, of Title X, Impact Fees, of the county code is hereby revised to exclude suspended impact fees. Revised Appendix A is attached. SECTION THREE: CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provision of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Indian River County Code, and that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered and the word ordinance may be changed to section, article or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intention. SECTION FOUR: SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION FIVE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on April 1, 2011. 2 70 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 27th day of February 2011, for a public hearing to be held on the 15th day of March 2011, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by the following vote: Bob Solari, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice -Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner Wesley S. Davis, Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 15th day of March 2011. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida By: Bob Solari, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Deputy Clerk ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the Department of the State of Florida, this day of , 2011. Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Alan S. Polackwich County Attorney R\Community Development\Impact Fee\2011\suspensionof 3 impactfees April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 (3).doc 3 71 72 N m D\ t M 00 M 00 M 0 Oi O� N N N d h .-t N t t b O o0 00 h t l� t 0 o b o b 00 h O m O, H h t 0` h N h t` O vl o h 0 0 0? m O '7 M O% 10 0", t` o N 00 to M to n o0 0, 7 t V Ki 'd' m N to "i% O n 00 'A n 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 .M. 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6N9 bm9 .N+ 69 FA 6N9 Ol of N V1 b b O b N t U O O W h 10 10 t` M 69 N 69 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 M N M 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 '�.. 69 N 69 10 69 Ot 69 N 69 N 69 M 69 t0 69 69 Q O b 00 MM m lO oo to t (� M t (� M M t0 O^ M �O O h t� r- •--' r T O1 00 '0 C` t h 0, 01 00 t` a\ O 00 ,4, - O 00 M O, .N-• h b m w Ol t M 00 h l� W cl W O t h H. M O W l � h O h .N+ 01 M t0 t b Vc •� 'o 00 O, '1 t M M " 69 M •-� M_ t M N t/1 m t0 O t r- .-' 00 ti b 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 69 69 69 6N9 6m9 69 69 F (D 10 w w co - - s ;e ♦ t'3yry '} ' +• w ru .. .ice t �=�A- � ug 10 t�}'4'� '.`,w�-"f'..-XS.#'ti'°R S 1 pi 69 69 69 69 69 69 � Qg-� .N� �-'��-�� ��i�� � „� i•• 1 3 • $Td it +`' }� yrs t >�.s-i CD m m oo t N h oa to oo o, � 3-s ' � �'_ ��"� cs a• a =�, <t� b Ol N t m O W N 'o t N 000 .M-. o O M O, 00 N U 00 M h H M t O m m t 1, Vl 69 N N m 00 69 00 t0 69 •m -t 69 O .Ni to t0 N t M 69 M O vl m O m ' �• 4 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 V3 69 69 69 Y O t O O M O\ Ol t- N to t M to .-t h to N o0 to h �O W tD O m N O t0 m t h ,'� •�~-t h DD 0 0 T 69 D\ 69 o OWN-. N 00 69 69 t 69 69 t- 69 .-� N 69 M 00 DJ 0 00 00 N N l� 69 o N 'lot M 69 y VV�€ 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 a t1) 0 0 m O ai O t d' n O co r to c0 v (D O N tr1 N N O co O t w M O co M a0 U1 O .- .- W h N M W co ui M v h M (V to N N r fV - fM O tt'1 M 69 69 Ff3 Vi V-} N EA tl7 fR W 69 toN 59 6 'V� to 69 Vi 0.vi vi ori 61} 69 Ni Vi 69 69 N N N h N h N O N N N N h N O O 0 O 0 O C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V OO O O O O O O O td O O O O O O O O O Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A O O .. w C7 h V] G O CD ro oEi ° N o aai w V) w o xr 3 c7 U x a3a Z Q U U E" p m to w w 72 s 73 M W N N N V) O, b m O, V) w t, O 10 T w V' N W t� 00 t, b O O W 10 N V) V) 10 M O1 00 n O O 00 00 t` w w ON t` 6•i ctl Vj 00 0 O� Vj (f Vi 69 69 69 e 69 69 69 69 b9 69 69 6', 69 Nt/i 69 rn 0o rn w 0 0 00rn oo rn O, N 00 N 69 N m N 69 10 \O M V V) N 69 N N 0, 69 (A �O FA Vi 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 61) 69 CCD) N ti V1 CO N 'Q V) 10 O 00 10 N N N h n o`to o r v o v'Vi n rn n h o 69 � 7 DD O H Vn� 69 69 (A ��?j 69 69 69 69 69 � 6�9 6�9 6M9 tV 69 10 • � 'TZ.�'� ' tom-, � a� d O' _ 7. � t [�. 3 7 _ _ �i .,tl. d rrT• } � N 00 M h Vl h t C) t- N W N o m Vt h oo rn O� yi t -, h D\ h m b V ) V) O� o0 00 00 g N N 69 N 69 69 69 H, 69 69 69 4� 69 69 69 69 O, 69 69 69 69 69 00 '7 00 O M m 117 N a) ;` O) .- 00 Cl) O) 00 Cl) m V' N r 00 ti 0) N co coM V' O c0 �' �} Cl) N 00 _ N 00 (� �- m N a-- m r (O 64 tU .M If) tf) tNN� 69 to W) (0 64 � 69 r 69 69 00� c) C N bf h NCD Fyy'. C ii Gi H 0 0 t) O O O Cl O O O W 0 O 0 O 0 O 00., O •b y b 'd O O O b h V e a U 0 cs H o o o o y o x 9 c7 rx L) pu a" c7 Q x> � v, &0 co i4 a s 73 �, I` i w t, t� �o t� l� o N oo .-• t� 00 00 (� M o Yl 4-� .� W h (T M� 00 M 0 h 0 m a b�� O N O, T 69 .-r 14 N9 - 5`- 6N9 6N9 669 669 669 669 � .6-. !a 69 6t 09 N m .Ni 6.9 n N vi 69 69 69 69 69 Vi V3 69 b N W 6/1 1/'1 O D\ b w n O b N O 0o O b h O" I 69 (� 69 [` M 69 69 m 69 m 69 M f,9 69 69 69 M 69 V 69 M 69 69 69 69 N 69 h 69 69 69 69 69 6N9 ,_�'` Q '.t\ �-+ .-� 69 M f9 'V O 69 69 o t- f9 o b 69 69 �O 69 .�-. 69 oa 69 w N 69 i• N 69 o. b N 69 a 00 69 O 'Cos 69 tT N 69 t` oo N 69 69 N 4'1 (9 69 .�-. E9 o N h .-+ vl o m m rn 00 .N-, 00 } M 6O O m N 69 N 7 i� N m h 69 69 EA 69 69 6A 69 69 69 \. WAN, �y? •1?. h (T W oo N b l� O� U W l� T o .O m m 00 M Oi O. .N-. h d' W DD m 00 h d• l� h 0, O. •ch m Yl o m M b F 69 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 7 b9 f9 69 69 69 69 o v Vi 69 N M 69 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 7 Yl p N O O 96 69 69 �9 THEIR �Tl G�m O b O b N l� N h - t •. (/� t- d' N W l� N �O O b N O. O. N O t} 00 NN .O 'd' O w w V3 00 b 69 m 69 O Vn V' \O M N 69 m O O. O� l� (\ N b1O O O O w w Vl O M` V' Yl 3 _I 6H 69 M 69 69 69 69 69 (9 69 69 M yq 69 69 69 69 69 h M m M M M h Vi 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 d0?• -•, OO O O M N T(71 T h O h O 10 0069 'n 00 10 o W69 W 69 69 69 69 69 f9 69 69 69 69 69 Q9 V) 6�9 6s 69 M 69 69 69 69 69 6N9 4�9 t 'd' M 00 00 h d• N O _ O 00 00 O 00 O% .D w b 00 'd• M 'O Y� 6e 669 6�9 6N9 69 6960 ,,6. O M 69 lV 6A 69 69 N h 69 69 �d� c61 h o fy .•+ t\ h 69 69 fig cc`V641 69 69 69 6N9 Cfl N t/1 '14 N N N FA Vl N 7h N N N N N N N p O p O p p tyum O00 0 0 tw/J y O 0 0 0. 0 O OOO 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O00 CD 0 0 h ley t,l b •~ � L N 4 � C7 N 61 _ p O � Y N y o o 'C.' � x � � Kt `�' •P� C NV _W. '� m �O "f7 � .d p., •� � o c q � � �" '� q h -- 'tl 3 h � vONi � � G �O 3 1K � (S i� 'p 'O {d o 6� U � � � 1`vaS 3a�5`�0 f o mwor��r 3 c7ci nau Ztxwv�¢0c) [= I` i ►j 75 N Fn O at h o0 b cy oo <t O 69 b n 'D 00 'n Fn 00 0o O N v; C%65 V)(� O: o 0o .mi 00 O, 00 N O r` 't 00 o^ Is a, In rn 69 -�' 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 (V 69 O O` V) ao 0o O h t O In 69 6�9 6�9 6N9 N 69 69 69 3 rnovi hov N Q\ b o 00 00 Vl 0 69 N 'r'. N N 69 N 69 N M N 69 .-� 69 69 Vl 69 69 69 11-0 r ca 69 69 v3 69 69 69 65 Tr Y O Yt N h o0 O h h 00 N ? Yl 00 10 N N N dJ 31 It=%d , Xtnr ���� 'Ti E "R +'� L �r-S'L : 1• `tag N l- m o t- N r,h h N 0o N� rn a,N 69 69 69 .N-� N O 00 M M to 1 6�9 6�9 6�9 6m9 6m9 69 69 6N9 --=t l- (y7�1 N N 1, 69 m N � 64.�-� V' 00 00 t o 00 N .-t 00 6�9 Y) O O� 69 69 .--� O� 69 K 6y '. 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 [ oo q• 7 N oo .-+ o oo m C` ON %n Nm NON 00 l� a, tt O .-� 4'� oo 0o m rn oo 'd• d' m m m h 00 07 W t` O� 69 -I O: :O ol m 69 o0 cn o Vl � lN�, .-+ 69 69 h b T W3 69 69 69 .N -t 69 69 .N-� 6's 6m9 N Vi N Ll N N N H N 0 0 0 o Cl O O o o 0 'd 'O 'd o W h o b oa U❑ y ea U U o 0 - J7 o U W U 9 U O rr .H q V Oo u O tVd O c7rU[Uq as c7 :' A>Uv�cnv, w 75 rut t� rn N N b In T O h FT h 10 �p O rn vl h l� r Ki M Ol N m Ol N d� .• m O 7 Ol N --+ 00 h hI l h In 'n I+i O, vl b o lc c•i �o .-: oo N, Vi �O 'o K ^� O- 69 M In 69 ol b 69 Vl 69 M 69 69 M M 69 0 N 69 69 Ol N- 69 69 b 69 In 69 N 0 69 b .M-+ 69 00 O 69 N 69 O Vi Vi T 69 69 M-� 69 69 69 Y'1 69 69 Y1 h 69 69 In EA 00 69 M 6N9 O 6M9 b 69 .may Ol 69 0o 6N9 O� '•' _ - o: Q 69 69 69 69 69 ff3 69 69 69 V3 N 69 M b9 69 FA 69 N 69 69 s��ia'urY� �D 00 O �O b l� 00 N .•• � N .�. V T W t` h N O .--. •� O b b rn .M-� 00 00 b 00 W 0 69 fA 69 69 69 N N N FA 69 69 69 69 69 .. 69 69 .-. N 6965 n 69 N 69 f,9 N fH h 69 69 4L' • �-+ N Irl M -I M O M vl p1 h b d' a, M O O tT L` •--� Vl to 7 N 'V O Yl M 00 y M oo , tV, h 69 b 69 r, 6909 M M 69 N Fla N 69 69 69 O 69 fig M N 69 69 69 05 N 69 69 69 F5Vq 69 6f V9 bM9 69 4'f N99 Vi n�wGq h `. '.� •' fi s - l� FOrI oMo N oleo o'no � s'a � ;' � � �� 2 = 6s NEW I 00 O o ti W .�+ •d• ti M h W h N Vl i 00 In (A h h b N ti W tb b O 00 O M b N N O L` b� O M In, b M js. .Ini 69 69 69 .-I 49 64 69 vi .NO -I vi 69 .NOi FA 69 N bq 69 � 69 Fli c9 69 c9 69 M 69 6") o0 69 69 0o 69 N 69 Ffl N 69 v 69 69 V l� M 00 I-+ M ao N 0o N vl 'd' er O � N M O N ~ A O N ao 60 Ol 00 00 N N d• �p O N O o0 Ol M b h Op o0 N O H 00 of o M pl 00 o M M h N 69 y A Irl Vi N Vi N 69 69 00 N' 69 nd� 6fi �p 69 7 mM 2 69 N 69 69 69 69 65 69 M 69 W 69 O N et 69 69 69 6N9 6M9 69 69 69 6�9 y H y y y I I I H y O Iti ltn H Ian` "I Iii H a a d a a a o o b m 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0a 0 0 0 0 �I �I o 0 0 0 0 0 009 0 0 0 al �I GQ PC 00000 0000�d o �00000(Aoo 0. ttl O O N o(� d ebyi yy F N y� .--I •d V A �pp � � 4) � N N � % 0 f�1y� �y 12 a"i o o 'L' id ISI 'x �e O p p a •q w q ° b •�V `� rn _ C 0 oo I .� c .� y ¢ z¢o "o co w o�:> ;p, Nx wcor (13A zr A U rut y; O VI 1, b O O V) 'D M b 'V' O Y1 00 00 -t T 00 V„ h O N o0 O 69 N W Vl b t` O O 'V' N V' O N b 00 N I n CL b ao 00 " 'O O 65 C4 2 45 69 69 69 V3 69 63 CA � � 609 . _ ,..,• V' O 00 'c9 O V) l� b lCCr�r�� N b 6619 09 ol 6M9 609 69 69 69 O; �N r? O N D\ O oo N b 00 D, a . o 609 609 � 609 � � � 69 69 69 � � 5�q 69 Cf3 69 T W W t- b N V) h M 000 oo0 Dl b Vl H W D, 00 h m N m 69 69 65 69 ^ 47- .0+^ 69 69 69 69 69 NN09 69 s' ,00ao hrn10 In rm� v o000 0 o�.-.rn 69 14 609 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 V3 a0 d' 00 O T VA N O, 00 M d\ 00 M M V' N '•+ W l� N Oy mW b M �! 00 O fn ur o0 'd' V� h .�-, Vl m V1 b OD O0 W) 49 C', 69 69 69 63 .-+ 69 V) .0-, 69 .0r 6i 69 6�9 6�9 6M9 69 U .4: O ,�G•,. O O O O O O b O O O O o O P� O O O U O 'O Q3 e x v q ,N y tG ri'i y V U •q D H � ��qq U " id w O • C u o 0 0 V cr U> O O t0 a.ac7 N Axl O U U�v,v,v,w. 77 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE X, IMPACT FEES, OF THE CODE OF. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO AMEND CODE SECTION 1000.06 "IMPOSITION" TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING FOR ONE YEAR THE IMPOSITION OF IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, SOLID WASTE FACILITIES, FIRE/EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES, AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, finds that the dramatic downturn of the local economy warrants measures to stimulate the local economy; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners temporarily suspended 5 impact fees from April 1, 2009 until September 30, 2009, then from October 1, 2009 until March 31, 2010, and then from April 1, 2010 until March 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, at its meeting of February 1, 2011, decided to consider extending the temporary impact fee suspension for certain impact fees for an additional one year until March 31, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 1000. Section 1000.06 of Chapter 1000 of Title X of the Indian River County Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1000.06. Imposition. (1) Any person, who after the effective date of this ordinance seeks to develop land by applying for a building permit or an initial concurrency certificate, shall be assessed impact fees and shall be required to pay all applicable impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this title. Exception: the imposition of impact fees for public buildings, law enforcement, solid waste facilities, fire/emergency services facilities, and correctional facilities is temporarily suspended for the one year period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012. NOTE: This exception applies only to applicationsrifor building permits and initial/final concurrencv ORDINANCE NO, 2011 - certificates needed prior to release of a site plan. The exception does not extend to applications for initial -1, initital-3, or initital-7 concurrency certificates not associated with the release of site plans. Applicable impact fees must be paid at the time of building permit application or initial/final concurrency application. If a certificate of occupancy is not obtained within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the building permit,. then no certificate of occupancy may be issued until impact fees for public buildings, law enforcement, solid waste facilities, fire/emergency services facilities, and correctional facilities are paid, at the then current rate. (2) No building permit or initial concurrency certificate for any activity requiring payment of impact fees pursuant to this title shall be issued unless and until all impact fees required by this title have been paid. (3) Any person, who after the effective date of this ordinance applies for an initial concurrency certificate or for a permit to set up a new mobile home, shall be assessed impact fees and shall be required to pay all applicable impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this title. (4) No permit or initial concurrency certificate for the set up of a new mobile home requiring payment of impact fees pursuant to this title shall be issued unless and until all impact fees required by this title have been paid. SECTION TWO: APPENDIX A, IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES Appendix A, Impact Fee Schedules, of Title X, Impact Fees, of the county code is hereby revised to exclude suspended impact fees. Revised Appendix A is attached. SECTION THREE: CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provision of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Indian River County Code, and that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered and the word ordinance may be changed to section, article or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intention. SECTION FOUR: SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION FIVE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on April 1, 2011. 2 79 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 27th day of February 2011, for a public hearing to be held on the 15th day of March 2011, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by the following vote: Bob Solari, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice -Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner Wesley S. Davis, Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 15th day of March 2011. ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk IM Deputy Clerk Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida C Bob Solari, Chairman ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by the Department of the State of Florida, this day of , 2011. Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency Alan S. Polackwich U County Attorney FXommunity Development\Impact Fee\201 Rsuspensionofimpactfees April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 (2).doc 3 80 �sm r -y G rox U N LL V lC CL 2 V) 0 4 0 �i-I b b Y U 0 0 b V U c-3 L� y ,ytm�.T �.s.' �YyM3f3C �� Aau - lm yrs S gg,{, %iY.ity -I �C T'3' y{-YA�if-'.�� 00- _ r t rµiii"' - E -�r r '3 r� tNVU .� t 0 4 0 �i-I b b Y U 0 0 b V U rl- N Cf) m N rn � rn O rn O y 00 co 00 d kn cctt �t 00 m O .0 1 m - o0 m n T r -i d O i N LL e t, d IV6 t jE �o" 69 t` 69 u W t N 69 •--� 69 Z Z 1 m 1 ^H C �-+ •-+ 69 64 N 69 t rl- Cf) m N rn o M rn O rn O o0 O\ 00 co 00 — �o In kn cctt �t 00 m O m - o0 m n T O •--i <t N •--� an N 00 00 t- v2 V1 �0 m N w 00 00 e t, d vi 69 �o" 69 t` 69 m 69 M 69 N 69 N 69 •--� 69 m o m m 696's N 69 �-+ •-+ 69 64 N 69 os 09 t- Nos 00 In It 69 \o 69 <t m �o O O o0 m 00 N m C14 69 N p 0 �4 69 69 Vj 69 69 69 69 69 69 .m. 69 6A fA 69 69 6'3 M <t 'o d ct In 10 " o m rn 69 N — 00 �o mo �o �o t- IDh " N N t` o0 d b9 69 69 69 69 69 N N69 69 69 69 69 69 69 wd _ ` o N N •--� .m. .m-� f`� r-- �t C00:1 1<t N M O N �O .-+ C} <t M �p o N O ao Q\ t-, 00 ON (- 00 00 .-� N m N N 10 00 d - O V' 69 69 69 69 m 69 N 69 N o') 69 �m-� O .m-� m 69 N 69 69 69 N 69 .4 _ CCL 05 G O 05 �£ c O OIMM- - 69 GS G5 Iq FA 69 69 69 69 M rn <t o N d N <t d o 0o �D v N m <t O N �o .-, •-. d � O m N o o W rn t 00 rn t� 00 00 c*� cNv N 00 V o <t t+: Vi 69 69 69 69 69 69 N 69 Ell)69 6H m o m N 69 69 69 69 N 69 r O 69 69 64 N Q r yj Q a a) (1 N N N N N . t W O '? 'O O ci O O O O N H L cq: � b •o ❑ CL U o °h CC O H V _ O N c5 o a d a a 3 0 o y °J e c O a �; o ti a U 41 rl- lArOur Q .. w Vt In kn .-. .-r t- .-i h N " .-[ tn fo N M rn Vn 00 00 It On M O N N vi o 00 N 00 fri Vn ,-: O oo O r•-[ b :� un �-+ Vn N O r -i •7 00 on - - 69 69 69 .r 69 N 69 M 69 69 69 69 N 69 . •� 69 '•+ 69 .r 69 69 — 69 — 65 69 - d` t` N 65 In In 6) •--[ O 65 ty H � oo cn 099 N '•+ 00 t� �o 69 d` vn 'ct .-� N 0 Gn 6s c�V 69 69 69 e� o ar _ ;p 00 o M b 65 N O N M O\ �D 'ct° N N t� Vn �•+ N O\ N T ON V) t� 65 V) ty N tp 'r N d• .. FF1 '�t rt• N ON .-+ 69 It 0o N (7\ vn M m rn 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 °- (iY' �f:s�dF b N oo Cl C)"�o M t- 00 Vn W 00 o .--[ 6 N vn r-[ '--[ oo i� M O�O t` .-� .--[ m 00 16-S M w Vl O m V�� m M 00 N .--[ N 00 v) oo t` rn N m ` 6N9 6m9 65 N 69 69 69 69 N 69 69 69 64 69 69 69 wmg 251, 3 t f ' - .. N 0o c*n o rn 10 m �o .-( t` 00 N oo Cl .� N .-[ 00 t- a\ o m 00 rn 00 Vn o m q m t,- M 00 't q 't N o0 o oo tv O\ rn N Qw m 'j I 69 69 c*i 69 vi 65 o" N dr 69 ^+ 65 t-- 69 <t .--[ 65 vn N 65 .: 69 .-: '-[ 69 o" 69 N 64 •� 69 t- 69 0 65 Y w N v O w y w N w N w N w h w N w N w h+ N w N w N w N v Q v O Cl o O 0 0 O 0 Cl O 0 0 O o 0 O O 0 N td O o o O 0 o 0 O 0 o w O p U O Cl 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O v U V) U U' o U 3 " a •� o C p ap+ �" -`� •fd 5 C o y C7 U r !� > d 0 - - O •i; t� N N to p c� O U w O tV O O p :O O U to R, C7 Z W w Q U U w a U a' U H a C7 M w oN. Q% O y� ,c, L H ` � 0 4- 0 3 � C 6M9 f6 N s9 69 fig C 65 - O In 69 C N E9 O 69 LLQi F- C h L V N m 0 7 4, � O N L V) O 1 U U 4I N U. � ' ld 69 CL 65 d' EA E vi W o w oN. v y� ,c, L H ` � 0 4- 0 3 � sin- 6M9 N s9 69 fig d 65 - W 69 In 69 N N E9 d 69 LLQi 4 O w oN. �o N vMi h � CD - o - � sin- 6M9 N s9 69 fig 69 65 - W 69 In 69 M 6A N E9 N�N N 69 6�9 69 C h V) O 6-9, - co " .-� 69 69 Fi 65 d' EA Gi 69 EIi } 2_ ii r V . s co t� w O\ .r o0 oo M T ti m h M M T to Q}4 69 W 69 N �n 69 Vl m 69 In N 69 N 69 69 64 69 fl+;: tp% 69 WIN MR NMI •. C7, 00 cn cn r W oo` C, � C cV l �y 69 cn Yl 69 vn SO 69 00 O� 69 69 6s 69 69 ffl 69 N N N H fw/) W O O »� a: b U o U 0 N o a _ O F w SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERSnow- M Indian River Press Journal 1801 U.S. 1, Vero Beach, FL 32960 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION SCRIPPS HOWARD STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, S. Darlene Broeg, who on oath says that she Is Classified Inside Sales Manager of the Indian River Press Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement was publshed in the Indian River Press Journal in the following issues below. Affiant further says that the said Indian River Press Journal is a newspaper published in Vero Beach in said Indian River County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, daily and distributed in 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 she has neither paid or promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. The Indian River Press Journal has been entered as Periodical Matter at the Post Offices in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida and has been for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. Customer INDIAN RIVER CO PLANNING Ad Pub Number Date Copyline 2245000 2/27/2011 NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING 3/15/11 BCC Subscribed and sworn to me before this date: February 27, 2011 o � Notary Public NEWSPAPER E-SheetO LEGAL. NOTICE ATTACHED ORIGINAL 0.. - J CO CD CD CD LO le N N Z 0 U) Q S H b rl) r4 F� r0 0 w 113 6B» Sunday, February 27, 2011 )) SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS a IR LOCAL MONDAY orchid Town Council: White paper workshop. Beach Club Dining Room, i Beachside Dr., Orchid, 9 am. IRC Code Enforcement Board: Administration Complex, Building A, Commission Chambers, 1:30 pm. IRC District School Advisory Council: Sebastian River Middle school, Media Center, 9400 CR 512, Sebastian, 3:45 pm. 772-564-5178. IRC District School Advisory Council: Vero Beach High School, Administrative Conference Ron. #8.128, 1707 16th St., Vero Beach, 4 pro. 772- 532-2110. IRC District School Advisory Council: Oslo Middle School, Library/Media Center, 480 SW 20th Ave., Vero Beach, 5:30 pm. 772-564-4017. Sebastian Parks And Recreation Committee: City Hall, Council Chambers, 6 pm. TUESDAY ir,IRC SHIP Loan Review Committee: Administration Complex, Building A, AI -439 Community Development, 8:30 am. IRC County Commission: Administration Complex, Building A, Commission Chambers, 9 am. Vero Beach City Council: City Hall, Council Chambers, 9:30 am. IRC District School Board Discussion: Legal Fees. District Central Offices, Teacher Education Center, l Pon. Vero Beach Joint City council/Finance/Utilities Commission: City Hall, Council Chambers, 1:30 pm. Sebastian Natural Resources Board: City Hall, Council Chambers, 6 pm. WEDNESDAY Orchid Local Planning Agency: Hearing to consider Golf Maintenance Facility change. OIBGC Dining Room, 1 Beachside Dr., Orchid, 9 am. Orchid Town Council: OIBGC Dining Room, 1 Beachside Dr., Orchid, after 9 am LPA hearing. Vero Beach Veterans Memorial Island Sanctuary Advisory Committee: City Hall, Council Chambers, 10 am. IRC Technical Review Committee: Administration Complex, Building A, Al -411 Community Development, 1:30 pm. Sebastian City Council, IRC School Board: Joint workshop. U aJ V o CITY OF VERO BEACH 3717 10th Court, Vero Beach, FL Medical REGULAR MEETING OFTHE Supply T PLANNING & ZONING BOARD o E THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 AT 1,30 PM Q } COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL e of the Florida Capri. '— ment of State, Talla- 'D AGENDAS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PICKUP U d ATTHE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR a v MAYBE VIEWED AT www.covb.orci OR D v ON LOCALTV CHANNEL 13. 2011, c — O ir Discover The Difference... Pub: February 27, 2011 Bit CIL AaronsHearingCare.Com w c f6 The Only Audiologist EFORE THE BOARD (D Owned Hearing Aid Office a In 1. R. Qountyt O ar r y 25+ years of experience fitting hearing aids. �( 0 56 2-5100 —`e JM C AawnHAI,,bmnn,A,D. Doan, efAmei.v 684 21 st St. - Near Radio Shack I FICTICIOUS NAME NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING y NOTICE UNDER MPOSITION' WFICTITIOUS TO BOARD OF NAME PROVIDE d LAW PURSUANT TO TION AN EXCEP- TEMPORARILY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS O. sECTION86109, SUSPENDING FOR YEAR THE IM- BY -s -Bob Solari, Chairman N FLORIDA STATUTES ONE Q POSITION NOTICE IS HEREBY PACT OF IM - FEES FOR Pub: February 27, r— Z GIVEN that the un- PUBLIC dorsigned, desirinn LAW BUILDINGS, ENFORCE- 2011 2245000 TOWN OF ORCHID NOTICE Of PUBLIC L 0 N to engage in bus!- ness under the fiat!- M E N T , SOLID WASTE FACILITIES, 0 Hous name of Bella FIRE/EMERGENCY U Giardina located at SERVICES FACILI- MEETINGS U d 7395 49th Sl., in the County of INDIAN 3717 10th Court, Vero Beach, FL Medical RIVER, In the City of Supply rn Vera beach, Florida 34967, Intends to a) register the said Heidi Pederson, CMF, an Amoena representative, will be available for name with the Divl- s o of Corporations e of the Florida Capri. '— ment of State, Talla- 'D hassae, Florida, N Dated at Vera 022nd y Florida, this 22nd t� CL day of February, G 2011, ry Robert Bates O Cath! Bates N n) Pub: February 27, 2011 a) 2247046 w OTICE OF MEETING EFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER O COUNTY, FLORIDA N NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TIES AND CORREC- A PUBLIC HEARING TIONAL FACILITIES; of the Local Planning AND PROVIDING Agency of the Tawn FOR CODIFICATION; of Orchid will con - SEVERABILITY; AND vane on Wednesday, EFFECTIVE DATE, March 2, 2011, to re- view a Proposed Site Said ordinance, if Plan for the Orchid adopted, will tempo- Island Golf and -Hy su snood im- Beach Club's Golf pact fees for soledMaintenance Facility, wasto, public build- located al 9956 AIA, ings, law enforce- Orchid, Florida, to be men t5 circa/emerge- prosen ted to the nay vl ccs, nd Town , Orchid correctional facilities Town Council. This far one year, fram meet ng will ba held April 1, 2011 until at the Orchid Island order31 2012, in Beach Club, One to stimulate Beachside Drive, Or- ihe county economy. chid, Florida 32963, A co py or I,. pro- beginning at 9:00 aosad finance .m ATown Council vadabla at the Plan- Meeting veil Immedi- ring Division office sstelyame follow in this located at the County same location, t Administration Build Pursuant to To n g- ing, 1801 271h Street, ter of the Town me,. Vero Beach, Florida Orchid, one or After March 11, 2011, Coyncilm vi hers a staff report and the may attend vie tele - draft ordinance may conteremm�g or 0th be found on the "e_.... City Hall, Council Chambers, 5:30 pm. THURSDAY Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway Coalition: Lagoon House, 3275 NE Dixie Hwy., Palm Bay, 10 am. IRC Pre -Construction Meeting — Indian River Blvd. Sidewalk Project: Administration Complex, Building A, Al -303 Public Works, 10 am. Vero Beach Planning And Zoning Board: City Hall, Council Chambers, 1:30 pm. IRC School Advisory Council: Gifford Middle School, Guidance Conference Ron., 4530 28th Ct., Vero Beach, 3:15 pm. 772-564-3550. IRC school District Community Reception: Honor Superintendent of Schools Dr. Harry J. La Cava. Court House Executive Center,14th Ave., Vero Beach, 4-5:30 pm. IRC District School Board: Joint discussion session with Sebastian City Council and District School Board. Sebastian City Hall at 1225 Main St., 5:30 But. Sebastian Planning And Zoning Commission: City Hall, council Chambers, 7 pm. FRIDAY IRC School Advisory Council: Treasure Coast Elementary, Conference Rm., 8955 85th St., Sebastian, 8:05 am. 772-978- 8500. TUESDAY Live IRC County Commission: 9 am, COmcast Channel 27. Live Vero Beach City council: 9:30 am, Comcast Channel 13. Live IRC District School Board Discussion: 1 pm, Comcast Channel 28. Live Vero Beach Joint City council/Finance/Utilities Commission: 1:30 pm, Comcast Channel 13. WEDNESDAY Live Vero Beach Veterans Memorial Island Sanctuary Advisory Committee: 10 am. Comcast Channel 13. Live Sebastian City Council, IRC School Board: 5:30 pm. Comcast Channel 25. THURSDAY Replay Vero Beach City Council: noon. Comcast Channel 13. Live Vero Beach Planning And Zoning Board: 1:30 pm. Comcast Channel 13. Live IRC District School Board: 5:30 pm, Comcast Channel 28. Live Sebastian Planning And Zoning Commissiom 7 pm, Comcast Channel 25. Challenger disaster remains in mind My sister and I were at our vacation place in St. Augustine and we traveled to Titusville to watch the launch of Challenger but it was called off because of the cold. We returned to St. Augustine. The next day at 10 a.m. the radio announced the tragedy and said we could see the spiral if we looked toward the Bridge of Lions. We ran out to the beach and the spiral in the sky was forever etched in my memory. Doris G. Bauserman Stuart LOOSE ' a No more sticky denture creafos and Pastes! Dr. Coigns has a comfortable, secure alternative to those messy denture odhesives, The Mini Dental Implant System is placed in less than two hours and you can enjoy secure eating again, This minimally invasive surgery is performed in one office visit and requires no sutures with minimal recovery time, John S. Cairns, DDS -, 111 .1343 S.E. Port St. Lucie Blvd. Redefined c Amoena° brings Comfort+ technology to intimate apparel with the Rachel bra - helping to reduce perspiration where a woman tends to perspire most. Come feel for yourself the newest innovation in bras. rrl l`t I i. 1 woe is Thomas A. Baudo, MD, is dedicated to the medical and surgical ,treatment of Diabeticeye disease, the number one cause of preventable blindness in people under 60 years of age."Early detection is the key to preventing serious vision loss. If you're diabetic, a yearly eye exam is critical even if your vision appears to be normal", Monday, February 28, 2011 •9am - 4pm r 3717 10th Court, Vero Beach, FL Medical (772) 569-3798 Supply Tuesday, March 1, 2011 •9am - 4pm 4005 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL (772)569-3797 For the Care You Deserve Wednesday, March 2, 2011 •9am - 4pm Heidi Pederson, CMF, an Amoena representative, will be available for 13000 U.S. Hwy. 1, Sebastian, FL fittings and information. (772) 388-5251 _ Thomas A. Baudo, MD, is dedicated to the medical and surgical ,treatment of Diabeticeye disease, the number one cause of preventable blindness in people under 60 years of age."Early detection is the key to preventing serious vision loss. If you're diabetic, a yearly eye exam is critical even if your vision appears to be normal", Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Melissa P. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM: 3/15/2011 1XI Office Of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Board of. County Commissioners FROM: Alan S. Polackwich, Sr. - County Attorney DATE: March 9, 2011. ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearing for March 22, 2011 to Consider Adoption of an. Ordinance Amending Chapter 205 of the Code of Indian River County to Permit the Carrying or Possession of Concealed Weapons or Firearms in Parks and Recreational Areas in Accordance with Florida Statutes (Legislative) The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, to consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 205, "Parks and Recreation," of The Code of Indian River County to Permit the Carrying or Possession of Concealed Weapons or Firearms in Parks and Recreational Areas, in accordance with Florida Statutes, Sections 790.33 and 790.06; providing for severability, a general repealer and an effective date. (Legislative) nhm APPROVED FORS-- - =U- B.C. ETING of tC Kj 761 `�e L+�m ,yam ". COUN E� ATTORNEY, i!I�1f1 ftiY t Ct, Legal leudVt Dept. Risk Mgr Gaie M• Office of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird County Administrator DATE: . March 9, 2011 SUBJECT: Renewal of Employment Agreement 1 As County Administrator, I operate under an employment agreement with the Board of County Commissioners. The current employment agreement expires March 22, 2011. Attached is a proposed agreement to be effective March 23, 2011. In summary, the significant changes are: • Section 3, Ethics: Additional Ethics language included • Section 8, Termination: County notice period reduced from 90 days to 30 days after July. 1, 2011 • Section 8, Severance: the severance pay if the County terminates this contract has been reduced from ten months to five months and language related to resignation under pressure has been removed APPROVED AGENDA ITEM BY: C F March 15, 2011 Indian River Co Approved Date Administrator Legal .$ 1p 1-4. 0 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN . INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND JOSEPH A. BAIRD COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on March 4, 2008 , 2011 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called County, and Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator, hereinafter called Administrator, for employment effective March 23, 200911. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Indian River County desires to employ the services of Joseph A. Baird as County Administrator; and WHEREAS, jeseph ^ Baird Administrator desires to accept employment as the County Administrator for Indian River County; and WHEREAS, two employees, the County Administrator and the County Attorney, as County. officers, work directly for the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, it is compulsory for the County Administrator to be a member of the Senior Management Class of the Florida Retirement System, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATOR'S DUTIES The Administrator shall be responsible for the administration of all departments responsible to the Board of County Commissioners, except the County Attorney and staff and the Do,.utive nide and s+.,fff, The Administrator shall also be responsible for the proper administration of all affairs under the jurisdiction of the -Board. The Administrator's authority and duty shall include, but not be limited to, the powers and duties as found in the County Code Section 101.05.1 (a. through u.) and 125.74, Florida Statutes. SECTION 2. GENERAL POWERS OF COUNTY It is the intent of the Legislatue Board to grant to the County Administrator only those powers and duties which are administrative or ministerial in nature and not to delegate any governmental power imbued in the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the County pursuant to s. 1(f), Art. VIII of the State Florida Constitution. SECTION 3. ETHICS Page 1 of 4 89 Administrator shall abide by and perform all assigned duties in accordance with the ethical standards applicable to public officers, and all other applicable federal, state, and county laws, regulations and ordinances. Administrator shall immediately notify the County Commission within three days of contact when best interests of the Count a) Retain Administrator in his regular position pending court disposition; and/or b) Place Administrator on leave with or without pay until such time as any charges are disposed of by trial, acquittal, dismissal, conviction, or other judicial action; and/or c) Initiate disciplinary action up. to and including termination. In the event that Administrator pleads nolo contendere or guilty, or is found guifty of any job related offense or any offense that would adverselypact the County or the employment status of Administrator, or which would tend to affect the Administrator's relationship to the job or fellow workers, or ne atg iyely reflect on the reputation of the. County, Administrator may be terminated from employment, without severance or compensation per Section 9 Severance of this agreement. SECTION 4. ANNUAL COMPENSATION For all services rendered by Administrator, Administrator shall be paid a salary of one hundred eighty four thousand, eight hundred and twenty-six dollars and twenty cents annually, payable in 26 biweekly installments of $7,108.70, .as adjusted for necessary deductions. In addition to salary, Administrator's compensation includes a car allowance of $350 monthly. Administrator's salary shall be increased by any cost=of-living increase granted other county employees a„r;rn the seeA-D.a Ara Uh ra years of tagreem his „+ SECTION 5. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS County provides employees with a number of benefits that are set forth in the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual. These rights and benefits are available to Administrator on the same terms and conditions that they are available to a full-time, regular non -contract employee; provided, however, specific terms of this employment agreement shall control and govern if there is any conflict with benefits and rights afforded under the County Administrative Policy Manual. County shall pay all professional dues, continuing education, subscriptions, and certification fees for Administrator, in accordance with the usual and customarypractice of local governments in Florida aoo.,,oa o.>,.,+ appropriate by the Administrator. The term continuing education includes travel, lodging, and per diem expenses. Under State law it is compulsory for Administrator to be included in the "Senior Management Service Class" of the Florida Retirement System. County agrees to make contribution Page 2 of 4 90 into a county approved deferred compensation program equal to the maximum contribution allowable by law. County shall also provide Long Term Disability inince for Administrator- and health insurance dependent care coverage. County Administrator may elect, once per calendar year, to submit to a complete physical examination, including a cardio -vascular examination, by a qualified physician selected by the county administrator, the cost of which shall be paid by the County. County agrees to provide and pay for a cell phone' for the County Administrator. The County Administrator shall select a cell phone plan (including enterprise exchange and data) most appropriate to conduct the affairs of the County SECTION 6. CONTRACT The Administrator acquires no property rights in employment but has only the contractual rights set forth or incorporated by reference in this employment agreement. . SECTION 7. TERMS The employment contract is for three years from the commencement date written above. Year erre is Ma-reh- 23, 2008 to Mareh 2-2, 2009; year twe is -Mareh 2�, 2009 to Mareh 22, 2010, and year thr- i Ma r- 23, gni n to rT r h 22 201 1. The contract is not continuing in nature and must be renewed on a iasis for each subsequent term. Renewals shall be under the same terms as this agreement or as otherwise agreed to by the parties, except that Section 4 Annual Compensation may be 'increased. County shall provide Administrator at least 90 30 days written notice in the event of non -renewal. SECTION 8. TERMINATION This contract may be terminated by Administrator at any time and for any reason by resignation with 3 0 days written notice, in which case Administrator will be paid through the last day worked, or by the County, at any time or for any reason, by giving Administrator 90 days notice of termination; provided, however, that commencing July 1 2011 the County's notice period shall reduce to 30 days. Any accrued amival lo„ v n'^a sick leave will be paid in full, and accrued vacation leave will be paid up to a maximum of 15 weeks (562.5 hours), when a this contract is terminated or not renewed. SECTION 9. SEVERANCE If County terminates this contract of any time`, or in the ' event of County's failure to renew an, employment contract with Administrator,�County shall pay Administrator one month's ♦ n • . . _ _ _ 1 i.___1__ / /1''1� ______L�..i _�..__ �._ LL.. �....4_.�`... _SAL.. �..._...�.__�._4...i�_....� I� i� agreement;months' pay in the s6eend year of the and ten (10) months' pay in the third year- of the agr€emen� five months severance. County shall maintain Administrator's health insurance premiums for the same period of time. In the event Administrator must resign because of serious life threatening illness, certified by a medical doctor, which makes continued employment an impossibility, or i the ev�r+ Administrator- resigns a e fromone or uvre County Commissioners, or under circumstances suggeg constituting constructive discharge, Administrator shall be entitled to the same severance package as listed above. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be fully executed at Vero Beach on the date set forth above. Page 3 of 4 91 Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Date INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Sandra L. Bowden Bob Solari, Chairman BCC Approved: March 4 _, 200911 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Joseph A. Baird Noted Approved as to legal. form and sufficiency Alar! S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney Page 4 of 4 Elm MALT County Administrator Estimated Contract Savings Current Contract vs. Proposed Contract Proposed Increase Annual Cost Current Contract Contract (Decrease) Regular Salaries $184,826 $184,826 $0 Auto Allowance $4,200 $4,200 $0 Total Salaries $189,026 $189,026 $0 Social Security Match $6;622 $6,622 $0 Retirement $48,929 $48,929 $0 Insurance . a ..._ $13,210..... _. - - $12,323...._.. ---- - ---- ($887) Worker's Compensation $378 $378 $0 OPEB $1,501 $1,501 $0. Medicare Matching _ ------ - --- $2,680 $2,680 $0 Total Benefits $73,320 $72,433 ($887) Total. Salary & Benefits $262,346 $261,459 ($887) Proposed Increase Severance Payment �lJ Current Contract Contract (Decrease) Total Salaries .__ ..---------------------....._-- _ $157,508 $78,754 ($78,754) Total Benefits $46,030 $23,015 ($23,015) Total - Salaries & Benefits $203,538 $101,769 ($101,769) (1) This estimate is based upon a reduction in severance payout from 10 months to 5 months, a 5 month decrease. Draft 3/10/2011 93 iaAI INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP-W11 Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: March 7, 2011 RE:, Request for Authorization to Abate Recurrence of a Public Nuisance on an Unmaintained Golf Course within Vista Gardens Multifamily Development (Landowner: Vista Golf LLC; Code Enforcement Case No. 2009060086) It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following information at the Board's regular meeting of March 15, 2011. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Vista Golf, LLC owns an unmaintained golf course within Vista Gardens, a multifamily development east of Indian River Boulevard near 4th Street. In August 2009, the County Code Enforcement Board, after finding Vista Golf, LLC in violation of County Code Section 973.03(1) for weeds in excess of 12 inches in height on the golf course property, entered an "Order Imposing Fine and Determining Public Nuisance Warranting County Abatement" resulting from Vista Golf's failure to comply (see Attachment 2 to this report). On September 22, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners considered the matter and authorized staff to hire a contractor to abate the weed nuisance. Subsequently, county staff proceeded to hire a contractor and, on October 7, 2009, the property was mowed. The cost of that mowing totaled $850.00, with the money coming from MSTU Code Enforcement Budget funds ("Other Professional Services"). In November 2009, the Code Enforcement Board entered orders acknowledging Vista Golf's compliance and assessing costs. Since October 2009, the Board of County Commissioners has, on five occasions, authorized staff to hire a contractor to mow overgrowth that recurred on the Vista Golf property. The following table summarizes overall mowing costs authorized by the Board (including the initial mowing) to date. Date of BCC Authorization Mowing Contractor Cost Administrative Fee (per County Code Section 973.06) September 22, 2009 $850.00 $250.00 February 2, 2010 $960.00 $250.00 April 20, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 MIA Date of BCC Authorization Mowing Contractor Cost Administrative Fee (per County Code Section 973.06 July 6, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 September 7, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 November 2, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 Total(s): $5,210.00 $1,500.00 On January 4, 2011, county staff sent Vista Golf LLC an invoice requesting payment for the mowing costs summarized above (see Attachment 6). To date, Vista Golf has not paid the invoice. Recently, staff determined that the Vista Golf property within Vista Gardens has become overgrown again. This matter is now being presented to the Board for the Board to consider whether or not to authorize staff to again hire a contractor to mow the property and assess costs against the owner. ANALYSIS In August 2009, the Code. Enforcement Board's finding was that the overgrown weeds on the Vista Golf property within Vista Gardens constituted a public nuisance posing a serious threat to public health and safety. That determination was based on the Code Board's finding that the weeds would constitute a potential fire safety hazard in the event of a drought. Consequently, the Code Board entered its order ("...Determining Public Nuisance Warranting County Abatement") directing staff to request that the County Commission authorize the county administrator to take action to abate the public nuisance, which the County Commission did (initially) at its September 22, 2009 meeting. According to County Code Section 973.04(3), if a public nuisance violation is resolved but recurs, which is the case here, "...no further code enforcement board determination is needed for the county to take future abatement action relating to the reoccurrence of the nuisance violation. " Consequently, the Board may at this time direct staff to abate the nuisance by again having the golf course mowed. Alternatives While the County's periodic mowing of the Vista Gardens golf course has abated the nuisance each time that the nuisance has recurred, that abatement has cost the County thousands of dollars. Despite billing the property owner for those costs, no payment has been received. On May 18, 2010, the County Attorney presented a memorandum to the Board summarizing the County's code enforcement alternatives to address the recurring overgrowth of weeds on the Vista Golf property (see Attachment 3 to this report). At that time, the Board voted to continue with the enforcement alternative of periodic county abatement with costs recorded as a lien (see Attachment 4). At the Board's meeting on November 2, 2010, a discussion ensued as to whether or not the County should take other actions beyond just periodic mowing, such as initiating foreclosure and / or directing staff to bring the matter back to the Code Enforcement Board to assess additional fines (see BCC 11/2/10 meeting minutes, Attachment 5). Staff's position is that, notwithstanding additional actions that the Board may consider, it is appropriate for the County to continue to periodically mow the Vista Golf property within Vista Gardens at this time. 2 95 Funding Staff expects the cost of mowing the Vista Gardens golf course to be comparable to the amount paid to the contractor for the previous mowings. That cost will be paid from MSTU Fund contingencies. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the county's employees, servants, agents or contractors to again enter upon the Vista Golf, LLC property, within. Vista Gardens at all reasonable times and take whatever action is necessary to abate the nuisance described in this report, with costs of the abatement to be recorded as a lien against the subject property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial of the subject property. 2. Code Board "Order Imposing Fine & Determining Public Nuisance Warranting County Abatement." 3. County Attorney memorandum (considered by the BCC on 5/18/10). 4. Excerpt from minutes of the 5/18/10 County Commission meeting. 5. Excerpt from minute -s of the 11/2/10 County Commission meeting.. 6. Copy of 1/4/11 County invoice to Vista Golf LLC for mowing costs. 7. County Code Chapter 973. APPROVED: I.R.Count A ro d Date Admin. 3 / Legal it FOR: March 15, 2010 Budget 1 Dept. 6L • a Risk M r. BY: p FACommunity Development\Users\ROLAND\Code Enforcement\Vista Golf LLC\Vista Golf LLC abate of recur pub nus BCC item for 3-15- 1 Ldoc Ms -- r , . SSS a - - 1 •` , 7p s a _ \ J .. w •� 'g- •... t :w� %fie ,sf `'^ �0 ' "s ,J Hca " y ., r 43 ��'3 Z� J'; 'C e:�`��+✓;� 5.,� �F�E -..� A i r�+T.� f.,_j �F31 nwz mqr qr Fl - yw qjmjw t i `•. �4 � a ,,X'' 'W". '.41 .. �t Lc3 i-..,1 r� -,i �,cJ �� i- .� 5 _ 1 ; .3 F � f3 s \� "� $ � i I , . •, � tk L ' i .-•t � .r r 1 .� a a� y t 3 r ... 1 r>�X T } i $ .f � � � �� , U J�. croft ♦ � _ _ � , � — f:a n `^� _ � a . '. = D ' .�,. a �� " •sq :47— r t •�_, f �. 1, � 1 � r '_. � .' � E - rr - r Hann • ,\\ •'-:' � ia_ - �� i . • 4+44+++ 4 - 5 ,r• f 1 � �. 1 t _ A itl. � a.._:� F �: y "' � � �- �jS --� � •2 ��i,+� + � t.♦i :4•'�(i 2017607 RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF JEFFREY K BARTON, CLERK CIRCUIT COURT INDIAN RIVER CO FL, BK: 2367 PG: 2313, 09/11/2009 04:41 PM CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE MATTER OF: CUB Case No. 20090068'6 STOP- OF FLORIDA: n: • VISTA GOLF LLC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY' 680 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY VERO BEACH, FL 32960 Thi15 t5 To CEIRT(FY `IIAT TR.(B''IS Respondents) ORIGINAL TRUE AND 0081 Ct Obpy!QF THE ORIGINAL ON F(LE IN THIS OFFICE. ORDEII IMPOSING FINE CODE ENroncEMEtIT BOARD & DETERW6NG PUBLIC NUISANCE EA ING B RD WARRANTING COUNTY ABATEMEP THIS MATTER ORIGINALLY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD for RAM [o earing on my 27, 2009, after . due notice to. the Respondent(s), atwhich time the Board-he-arrd testimony under oath and received evidence. Tha Boal d issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an oral order which was reduced to writing and furnished to the Respondent(s) to take corrective action by a certain time, as more specifically set forth in that order. On August 24, 2009, this Board conducted a'compliance hearing to determine whether the Board'a order of July 27, 2009, had been complied with. Respondent was provided proper notice of the compliance hearing, but did not attend the hearing. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, this Board finds that the required corrective action has not been taken as ordered and that there does in fact exist weeds in excess of 12 inches in height on the subject property in the RM -10 Zoning District, constituting a potential fire hazard and a public nuisance posing a serious threat' to public health, safety and welfare, in violation of Section 973.03(1), of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County. The Board's previous order, as amended, set forth a compliance date of August 10, 2009 for Respondent to commence mowing of the overgrown weeds, and a fine of $100 for each day the violation continues beyond the referenced compliance date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED FINE IS HEREBY IMPOSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT(S) for each and every day the violation exists upon or adjacent to the following described property, situated in Indian River County, Fibrida, to wit: Location: 48 VISTA GARDENS TRAIL GOLF COURSE VERO BEACH Tax Parcel ID No, 33.40-18.00002-0000.00000.5 Legal Description: GOLF COURSE, COM @ W QTR COR OF BBC 18.3340, RUN S 89 DEO 53 MN 24 SEC E ALONG THE QTR= LINE 41755 FT; TH RUN S 00 DEG it MIN 56 SSC W 80.00 FT; TH RUNS 89 DEG 53 MIN 24'SEC E FOR 70.37 FT TO POB; FROM POB RUN 802 DEG 00 MIN 00 BBC WALONGTHE 8 LINE OF VISTA VILLAS-UNMON8 (PLAT BIL 12 FG32) FOR 229.31 FTITH CONT S 01 DEGOOMINOOSECW ALONQTHS ELWBOFVISTAVILLAS- UNIT TWO VISTA ROYALE GARDENS GOLF COURSE (PLAT BK 12 PO 79) FOR 46.61 FT TH RUNS 14 DEO 15 MIN 00 SEC W ALONG SAID H LINE OF VISTA VE.LAa. UNrr TWO FOR 13540 FT; TH RUNS 03 DEG 15 MN 00 SEC W ALONG SAID B LINE OF VISTA VILLAS -UNIT TWO FOR 219.64 Fr; TH RUNS 63 DEG 15 MIN 00 SEC H ALONG SAID E LINE OF VISTA VILLAS -UNIT TWO FOR 13 7.07 Fib TH RUN S IS DEO 45 MN 24 SEC H ALONO SAM B LINE OF VISTA VILLAS -UNIT TWO FOR 82.76 Fr TO THE N WW LINE OF THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL; TH 1174 DEG 14 MIN 36 SEC 8 ALONG SAID ?JW 1442,17 FT; TH N 00 DEG 13 MIN 14 $EC W 415,78 FT TO AFOREMENTIONED QTR SEC L1NB; TH RUN 819 DEG SO MN 04 SEC H ALONG SAID QTR SEC IJN6 45.00 IT; TH N 41 DEG 58 MN 27 SEC 6 261,66 Fr; TH N 101,00 Fr; TH N 79 DEO 30 MIN 00 SEC W 65.00 Fr; TH N 13 DEG SS MIN 00 SEC W 656.31 Ft; TH N 18 DEO 10 MN 00 SEC E 201.63 Fr; TH N 12 DEG 00 MN W 132.00 FT; THN 01 DEG 15 MN 00 SEC a 369.00 FT; TH S 82 DEG 00 MN 00 SEC W 129.65 FT, TH S 22 DEO 40 MN 00 SEC W 402.00 Fr; TH S 01 DEO $6 MN 00 SEC B 179.00 FT; TH S 14 DEG 00 MIN 54 SEC W 460.42 FT; tH S 35 DEG 45 )AN 00 SEC W 663.14 FT; TH 8 74 DEG 14 MN 36 SBC W 78 9,47 FT; TH N 19 DEG 35 MIN 00 SEC E 24,74 Fr; TH N 03 DEG 00 MIN 00 SEC W 318 01 FT; TH N 89 DEO 53 MN 24 SEC W 169.0 FT To POB. AKA GOLF AMA #11 ALSO & NCLUDNG THE FOLL DESC! COM AT THE W QT COR OF SEC 18.33.40, RUN S 89 DEG 53 M N 24 SEC E ALONG THS QTR SEC LINE 720,5 FT TO POB. FROM POB RUN N 00 DEG I I Mi S6 SEC 8 406.62 FP, TH N 53 DEG 00 MN W 93.34 FT; TH N 89 DEG 52 MN 09 SEC W 7$40 FII TH RUNN 4$ DEG 45 MIN 00 SEC W 343.21 FT; TH N 00D30 09 MIN 11 SEC 753.78 FT;THN 45 DEG 00 MN 8299.85 Fr;TH N 89 DEG 39 418MIN SEC B 322.27 T; TH 8 77 DEG 46 MIN 48 SBC E 306.96 F; TH N 54 DEG 45 MIN I I SEC B 112.65 FM N 89 DEG 59 MN 41 SEC 6 210,00 FT;TH S 41 DEG 42 MN 55 SEC 8154.72 FT; TH 3 08 DEO 08 MN 42 56C W207.56 F; TH 8 64 U90 30 MN 00 SEC W 484.00 M. TH 811 DEO IS MN W 184,60 FT; TH S 16 DEG 00 MN 00 SEC E 280.06 FT; TH 8 02 DEG 00 MIN 00 SEC W 194.76 Fr; TH 8.48 DEG 09 MN E 113.10 FT-,TH S 16 DEG 00 MN 00 SBC E 76.80 FT. TH S 03 DEG $4 MIN 00 S EC W 96.83 F7; TH S 36 DEG 03 MIN W 82.28 Fr; TH S 01 DEG 22 MIN 00 SEC W 105.57 FT; TH S 26 DEG 41 MN 04 SEC W 192.82 FT; TH S SO DEG 15 MN 00 SEC W 274.00 FT; TH N 00 DEG 06 MN 36 SEC B 27.68 Fr TO A PT OF CURVATURE ON A CURVH CONCAVE SWLY AND HAVING RAD OF 88,00 FT; TH RUN NWLY 131.23 Fr ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 DEG 00 MN; TH RUN N 89 DEO 33 MN 24 SBC W 92,81 Fr; TH N 00 DEO I I MN 56 SEC B IS.O 0 FT TO POE. AKA GOLF AREA R2 (OR BK 1486 PG 2664) ATTACHMENT 2 .• •" Bk: 2367 PG: 2314 beginning August 11, 2009, THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECORDED in the Official Record Books of Indian River County forthwith AND SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE VIOLATOR, pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes and Indian River County Ordinance 90.20, as may be amended, Further information of this matter may be obtained by contacting the Code Enforcement Section of the Community Development Department of Indian River County, 180127th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, (772) 226-1249. with County Code Section 973.04, Abatement of Nuisance, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEREBY DIRECTS county staff to notify the Indian River Uounty oar ot counq Commissioners and to advise the Commission to consider abatement of the public nuisance(s) on the subject property by authorizing the county's employees, servants, agents or contractors to enter upon the property at all reasonable times and take whatever action is necessary to abate the public nuisance(s), no sooner than 30 days after the date of the August 24, 2009, compliance hearing: DONE AND ORDERED AUGUST 24, 2009; at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, in accordance with a ruling made by this Boal¢ in open session on said date, nuno pro tune. y,F,Gb the Vice Chairman of the In ian River Cc fity Code Enforcement Board, and attested and countersigned, .t by, the 9`10' {l I&yai`f ry of such Board this day of 2009. s�'�� raQ1 f 'C• ' y,� • : F.Y���Y%'t r,•ir,✓'o�r' .a¢`;'(� CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 0}?.; ry . ' , • �,• r•' A•. �1.•� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLO}tIl7 ` t q;a''''' . . i, �, '/w/FJ �� �r//��`` ..•' , �. 7.' �.y{f�',�' . s i...�,: t /� ^il,. �� .,T Vii 1 By: �l ,; > ' .kid N ,. .a;Sinitlp ;t., Clifford J. Suthard, Vice Chairman: f1>sr":'+' ;r Bodrd 5."retary Indian River County Code Enforcerrieni •• S'I'AT9.OFAORIDA COUNmV OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the above State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Clifford J. Suthard, well known to me to be Vice Chairman of the CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD of Indian River County, and acknowledged executing the same under the authority vested in him by said Board, WITNESSED my hand and seal this 9d --day of 2009. MAKSMIIH * AS MERPISE �at xpiration Nota Public ��FFOFit���� ap�8d'(I,p gldQ3iH61i1�atM1�iEB6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing instrument was executed before me by Clifford L Suthard, Vice Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board of Indian River County, Florida, and I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this order has been furnished by U.S. mail to Respondent(s) at the mailing address(os),�erein efore described, or by personal service to the Respondent(s), or to their representative, this day of 2009, REYIEWEDAS 1P LEGAL FORM: Suzy . Vitunac n Board Advising Attomey CEB Case No. 2009060086 Code Officer: VANESSA t .,pStl KTAKSMIIIH *�,• � * MYCOl,�d1S510tI1DD813�D5 '•� EXPIRE$: Seg#dgr got 2012 Iry hC^ "'r.:v •a Asn ,, .v Alan S. Polackwicb, 5r., County Attorney William. X DeBraai, Deputy County Attorney George A Glenn, Assistant County Attorney Attorney's Matters - A.C.C. 05/18/2010 Office of INDIAN ?DIVER. COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Cot»missioners FROM: Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney DATE: May 12'.2010 SIMACT: Vista Gardens Golf Course — Code Enforcement Alternatives BACKGROUND. At the April 20, 2010 meeting, the Board authorized staff to abate a recurring nuisance on the Vista Gardens golf course property by mowing the grass and weeds, and recording a lien for the costs. The Board also. directed the County Attorney to analyze and advise the Board of other code enforcement alternatives that may be available. V The current owner of the property is Vista Golf LLC ("Vista Golf'). Vista Golf acquired title on January 4, 2007 through a certificate of title issued in a foreclosure action brought by Marine Bank against the prior owner. Since 2007, overgrowth of grass and weeds has been a recurring problem. To date, the Code Enforcement Board has entered one order imposing a fine of $5,700 and a second order for abatement costs of $1,000, both of which are liens on the golf course property. Presumably, a third lien will result from the Board's action at the April 20, 2010 meeting. The IRC Code and Chapter 162, Florida Statutos create several remedies for code violations which constitute a nuisance: (1) a fine up to $500 per day may be levied and recorded as a lien, (2) the nuisance may be abated and the abatement costs recorded as a lien, (3) the lien(s) may be foreclosed and the property sold on the courthouse steps. The proceeds of the sale are used to pay the liert(s), (4) the court may be asked to 00enter an injunction requiring the owner to comply with the code, and (5) the fine/abatement costs may be converted to a court judgment and enforced against other assets of the owner, if any. In addition, the IRC Code generally provides that a violation may be punished by up to 6 months imprisonment. IudianklvirCs. ved Date - APPROVED FOR 05.18, 10 Admin. ✓ B.C.C. MEETING — REGULAR AGENDA CQ. Atty. 23ddget �----• -- ..�`- couNTYATromEy RtskMgr. ATTACHMENT 3 100 Board of County Commissioners May 12, 2010 Page no of Three Although the County Attorney's office has not obtained a title search of the golf course property (for cost reasons), it appears preliminarily that there are no mortgages or significant liens on the property having priority over the County's two existing liens. Also of significance, Vista Golf filed a lawsuit in 2008 against the various Vista property owners associations, seeking termination of covenants which require the. property to be operated as a golf course and to be kept together as.a single piece of property. That lawsuit was scheduled for trial on the April 13, 2010 docket, although it appears that the trial may have been delayed because of ongoing mediation discussions between Vista Golf azid the associations. It was noted in court papers that Vista Golf is a sole asset company— that is, it has no assets other than the golf course property. ANS The County's alternatives are influenced by the fact that there do not appear to be any other significant liens on the property. As :ra result, code enforcement board liens will attach to the property and can be foreclosed through a sale at which thfrd parties (e.g., the Vista associations) would likely bid. ,Thus, the strongest alternatives for the County are item 1 (fine up to $500 per day to became a lien) and item 3 (foreclosure). Implementation of items 1 and 3 would involve more proceedings before the Code Enforcement Board and the filing of a foreclosure lawsuit, which could cost several thousand dollars in costs, even if handled internally by the County Attorney's office. Assuming the property is currently in compliance because of the mowing efforts resulting from the Board's April 20, 2010 decision, further Code Enforcement Board proceedings to levy a new fine up to $500 per day could not commence until the grass and weeds grow and the property is once again out of compliance. Another possibility may be item 4 (injunction requiring compliance with the code), although the injunction would be enforceable through contempt proceedings, and it is unclear how effective such proceedings would be in actually accomplishing compliance. Item 2 (continued abatement and recording abatement costs as a lien) is more of the same process that has been ineffective to date. And item 5 (converting prior orders to a money judgment) is not useful, because Vista Golf has no'other assets against which the judgment can be enforced. Lastly, while the IRC Code creates imprisonment up to 6 months as a sanction, legal questions surrounding the viability of imprisonment for violation of the nuisance code would likely bog down any enforcement proceedings indefinitely, Another alternative is for the County to wait and see what happens in the mediation presently taking place in the Vista Golf lawsuit against the Vista associations. It is possible that mediation will result in a settlement agreement which may eliminate the code violations. If the County implements items 1 and 3 above and files a foreclosure lawsuit, and then Vista Golf and the associations reach a settlement which eliminates the problem, the foreclosure lawsuit would probably become moot. LL's v• Board of County, Commissioners May 12, 2010 ; Page Three of Three RECOM], _ +NDATZON, The County Attorney recommends that the Board consider the alternatives and select either (1) the more ,aggressive and more expensive approach of pursuing further Code Enforcement Board proceedings (when the property falls out of coinpliance) to impose a fine up to $500 per day, recording the fine as a lien against the property and initiating a foreclosure of all liens, or (2) the less aggressive but also less expensive approach of awaiting the outcome of the mediation in the Vista Golf lawsuit against the Vista associations to see if a settlement results which eliminates the problem. ASP:LAC i BCC minutes excerpt May 18, 2010 The Chairman CALLED THE QUES=.1horized the Motion carried unanimously. The BoarTask Order No. 1 with Carollo Engin , for a Water Quality Review and Evaluation, ' e amount of $39,545.00, as recommended in memorandum of April 30, 2010. TASK ORnER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS B.A. VIST4 GARDENS GOLF COURSE— CODEENFORCEMENTALTERNATIVES - County Attorney Alan Polackwich, Sr. recapped his Memorandum dated May 12, 2010, providing background from the April 20, 2010 Board of County Commission Meeting where the Board authorized staff to abate a recurring nuisance on the Vista Gardens golf course property by mowing the grass and weeds, and recording a lien for costs. He gave his analysis and advised the Board on the code enforcement alternatives. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to approve Alternative 2 - the less aggressive but also less expensive approach of awaiting the outcome of the mediation in the Vista Golf lawsuit against the Vista Associations to see if a settlement results which eliminates the problem. The Commissioners debated whether to add a 60 -day time limit to the mediation process to allow for possible settlement, or to request an informational update in 60 days. 1E May 18, 2010 ATTACHMENT 4 103 Attorney Polackwich explained the details of how the current owner obtained the property through a foreclosure sale; divulged the lien amounts due from violations, mowing, and abatement; and agreed to order the title search and provide an informational update in 60 days. Ray Batt, 36 Vista Gardens Trail, requested that when the contractor mows the property, they do a "double pass". The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion carried unanimously. The Board approved Alternative 2 - the less aggressive but also less expensive approach of awaiting the outcome of the mediation in the Vista Golf lawsuit against the Vista Associations to see if a settlement results, which would eliminate the problem, as recommended in the memorandum of May 12, 2010. CLASSACTION Attorney Polackwich provided a detailed background of Mo e County's 2009 lawsuit against Priceline.com and other internet companies that allege failed to pay the full amount of tourist development taxes for booking hotel rooms. M oe County has stated that the companies have been paying the tourist develop nt taxes based on the wholesale rate that hotels are charging the companies for the om, not the full rate which the customers are paying. He conveyed that the lawsuit has b certified as a Class Action on behalf of all Counties within Florida (unless they o out), and is scheduled for trial on July 19, 2010. He recommended the Co remain in the Class Action and not opt out, since the County could benefit withou ost or risk. 17 May 18, 2010 104 BCC minutes excerpt November 2, 2010 12.A. COMMUNITYDEYELOPMENT 12.A.I. REQUEST FOR A UTHORIZATION TO ABATE RECURRENCE OFA PUBLIC NUISANCE ONAN UNMAINTAINED GOLF COURSE WITHIN VISTA GARDENS MULTIFAMILYDEYELOPMENT (LANDOWNER: VISTA GOLF LLC; CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.2009060086) Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement, used a PowerPoint presentation (on file), to present background description, history, and analysis pertaining to a recurring situation involving overgrown weeds on an unmaintaned golf course located within Vista Gardens, and owned by Vista Golf, LLC. He recalled that on May 18, 2010, the Board voted to continue with periodic mowing, pending a potential sale from the owner to the neighboring condominium, Vista Royale, with the costs recorded as a lien. Chief DeBlois conveyed staffs recommendation for the Board to once again authorize the hiring of a contractor to mow the golf course at the subject site. Commissioner Flescher supported the mowing, in order to maintain the quality of life for the Vista Gardens residents. However, he could not understand why Vista Golf, LLC was having the golf course at Vista Royale mowed, while continuing to accrue fees and penalties for the overgrown weeds at the Gardens. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED by Commissioner Davis, to approve staffs recommendation. Attorney Polackwich responded to Commissioner Davis's inquiry on who has clear title to the Vista Gardens Golf Course. He advised that his research has indicated that the only lien that has priority over the County's is a tax lien of the Florida Department of Revenue. 22 ATTACHMENT 5 November 2, 2010 105 Raymond Batt, Vista Gardens, told Commissioners that Vista Golf, LLC and Vista Royale were currently in negotiations regarding the purchase of the Vista Gardens Golf Course by Vista Royale; however, there seems to be opposition among the residents. He opined that the ideal situation would be for Vista Gardens to own its own 9 -hole golf course, and Vista Royale to own its own 18 -hole golf course; and hoped that in the future, the two communities could have their restrictive covenants modified. He thanked the Board for taking care of the Vista Gardens property for the time being. Although Vice Chairman Solari supported taking care of the property for the residents, he suspected that the County's efforts might be a disincentive for the owner to do the right thing. He wanted to work towards a better solution. Chairman O'Bryan observed that his patience with the owner has run out. He wished to send the owner an invoice for the administrative and mowing costs, and begin foreclosure proceedings if the owner does not pay. Vice Chairman Solari suggested the County Attorney look into the foreclosure process before a Motion is made. Commissioner Wheeler suggested raising the owner's fine to the possible maximum amount, and wanted the County Attorney to return to the Board with some options for resolving this situation. Chairman O'Bryan directed Attorney Polackwich to explore the County's options on getting payment or bringing Vista Golf, LLC to foreclosure, and Commissioner Davis asked for a title search to be added to staff's research. Attorney Polackwich substantiated Chairman O'Bryan's assessment that the County would not be able to assess the code enforcement lien when the golf course has been mowed. He 23 November 2, 2010 106 reiterated that only the DOR's lien is ahead of the County's, but agreed to review the title search staff has already conducted. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION, and the Motion carried unanimously. The Board authorized the County's employees, servants, agents, or contractors to again enter upon the Vista Golf, LLC property within Vista Gardens at all reasonable times and take whatever action is necessary to abate the nuisance described in this report, with costs of the abatement to be recorded as a lien against. the subject. property, as recommended in the memorandum of October 15, 2010. 12.B. EMERGENCYSERVICE.S--NONE 12.0 GENERAL SERVICES -NONE 12A HUMANRESOURCES-NONE LEISURE SER new NONE MANAGEMENT AND B N 12.L PUBLIC WORKS' -NONE 24 November 2, 2010 107 January 4, 2011 Vista Golf, LLC Atttn.: Charles A. Sullivan, Jr. 680 Old Di$ie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Section 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 772-226-1249 / 772-978-1806 fax www.ircgov.com Re: Vista Golf, LLC Code Enforcement Case 2009060086; Invoice for County Abatement of Overgrown Weeds Dear kAr. Sullivan - As you know, Indian River County has hired a contractor to abate the recurring overgrown weeds public nuisance on the Vista Golf, LLC property internal to Vista Gardens. To date, the contractor, Coastal Lawn and Landscape, Inc., has mowed the property on six occasions per the County's direction. Attached is an invoice billing Vista Golf, LLC for the contracted mowing work completed to date. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (772) 226-1258. Sincerely, Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Section Attachment: Invoice 2009060086-1 Cc: Robert Keating Alan Polackwich ATTACHMENT F\Community Development\Users\ROLAND\Code Enforcement\Vista Golf LLC\Vista Golf mowing invoice cover ltr 1-4-1 Ldoc 0 �tvERC, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY q ��y Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Section 180127th Street, Vero Beach FL 32960 772-226-1249 / 772-978-1806 fax 'tLowww.ircgov.com Bill To: Vista Golf, LLC 680 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 INVOICE Date Invoice Reference # 1/04/2011 2009060086-1 DATE (BCC Authorization) ACTION (By County Contractor Coastal Lawn and Landscape Inc.) AMOUNT ADMIN. FEE (PER CODE SEC. 973.06 September 22, 2009 Bush Hog Mowing —Vista Gardens GC $850.00 $250.00 February 2, 2010 Bush Hog Mowing — Vista Gardens GC $960.00 $250.00 April 20, 2010 Bush Hog Mowing —Vista Gardens GC $850.00 $250.00 July 6, 2010 Bush Hog Mowing —Vista Gardens GC $850.00 $250.00 Se tember 7, 2010 Bush Hog Mowing — Vista Gardens GC $850.00 $250.00 November 2, 2010 Bush Hog Mowing —Vista Gardens GC $850.00 $250,00 Mowing subtotal(s): $5,210.00 $1,500.00 Total Balance Due: $6,710.00 Invoice payment due on receipt. Remit check, payable to Indian River County, to: Indian River County Code Enforcement 1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, FL 32960 FACommunity DevelopmenAUserAROLAND\Code Enforcement\Vista Golf LLC\County Mowing Invoice to Vista Golf LLC 1-4- I Ldoc 109 PUBUO NUISANOE § 973.03 CHAPTER 973. PUBLTC NUISANCE* shall be removed from all lots, parcels and tracts Sao. 973.01. Short title andof land, public or private, unless otherwise per. Sec. 973.02. Definitions referee ede matted by the terms of this article;. Seo. 973.08. Restrictions, Sec. 975.04, Abatement of nuisance, (1) Weed clearance. The foo li wing provisions Sec. 973.05. Reserved, shall apply to weeds as defilted in. Chap. SBO, 973,06, Assessment for abatement of nuisance. , ter 901; Section 973.01. Shoat title and purpose, (a) Prohibition, 1. The accumulation of weeds in This chapter shall be known and may be cited excess of twelve (12) inches in as the "Indian River County Public Nuisance height is hereby prohibited on Ordinance." any lot, parcel, tract of land, For the .purime, of promoting the health, safety common area, open apace area, recreational tract, or landscape and general welfare of the community, the Board buffer within either a platted, Of County Commissioners of Indian River County recorded subdivision where the finds it necessary that lands in the unincorpo- platted lots' are at a minimum rated areas of Indian River County be cleared of of fifty (50) percent developed any noxious substance or material which might with residential units, or within tend to be a fire hazard or other health hazard, or or internal to a multifamily de. which is considered to be obnoxious and a nui- velopment where a minimum sante to the general public. Such substances or of fifty (50) percent has been material shall include, but not be limited to, the developed with project units. following; garbage, trash, weeds, junk, debris, unserviceable vehicles, dead trees posing a health (b) Exemptions from prohibitions. or safety hazard, or any other offensive materials 1. Agriculturally zoned land, which constitute a nuisance as provided for in 2• Land with a conservation des. this chapter. ignation or within conservation (Ord. No. 90-161 § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 92-11, § 9, and/or preservation easements. 4-22-92; Ord, No. 2008-008, § 1, 1-8-08) 3. Areas designated on approved development plans as conserva- Section 973.02. Definitions referenced. tion or preservation areas. The definitions of certain terms used in this 4• Areas authorized or, required by jurisdictional agency chapter are set forth in Chapter 901, Definitions, of the Indian River County Land Development per- wits to remain natural, Code. 6. Uncleared lots within platted, (Ord, No. 90.16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 2008-003, recorded subdivisions, § 11 1-8-08) (c) Maintenance of weeds to satisfy the twelve-inch maximum height limita. Section 973.03. Restrictions. tion which entails the grubbing (up- Accumulations of debris, garbage, junk, trash, rooting) of vegetation shall be sub- ject to the provisions of Chapter 927, weeds, unserviceable vehicles, dead trees posing a Tree Protection and Land Clearing, health or safety hazard, or other noxious materi. of the Indian River -County Land als, are hereby declared a public nuisance and Development Code. *Editor's note—Ord. No, 2008.003, § 1, adopted January (d) The existence of untended weeds, as 8, 2008, amended Oh. 973, in its entirety, to read as herein set out. Prior to inclusion of said ordinance, Ch. 973 pertained to defined in Chapter 901, in excess of twelve (12) inches in height on any similar subject matter, See also the Table of Amendmenta, lot, parcel or tract of land as de. Supp. No. 86 978/1 'ATTACHMENT 7 110 § 973.D3 INDMN iZMH COUNTY CODE scribed in subsection 973.03(1)(a) shall be prima facie evidence of in- tent to violate and of a violation of this section by the owner, owners And occupant of said land. (2) Restrictionofgarbage, trash, junk, debris or unserviceable vehicles in or on public or private property: (a) No person shall discard, place, aban- don, accumulate, or permit or cause to be discarded, placed, abandoned or accum_u18toil any junk, wrecked or unserviceable vehicle or the parts thereof on property in the unincor. porated areas of the county unless such vehicles or parts are stored in an enclosed structure or at an autho. rized junk or auto wrecking yard. No person shall throw, discard, place, abandon, accumulate, or permit or cause to be thrown, discarded, placed, abandoned or accumulated any junked or unserviceable refrigerator, stove, washing machine, water heater, or other household appliance or equip- ment, or any garbage, trash, junk, debris or unserviceable vehicles on property in the unincorporated ar- eas of the county except at an autho- rized junk yard, or at a landfill or other solid waste disposal site that holds a permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Reg- Wation pursuant to Part 4 of Chap- ter 403, Florida Statutes, and is op. erated by, or under franchise from, the county. (b) The existence of any garbage, trash, junk, debris or unserviceable vehicle in or on any unauthorized property In the unincorporated area of the county, whereby said material con- tains evidence of ownership, shall be prima facie 'evidence of intent to vi- olate and violation of this section by the person whose name appears on such material. (Ord. No. 80-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 92-11, § 10, 4-22.92; Ord. No. 2008-003, § 1, 1-8-08) Section 973.04. Abatement of nuisance. (1) Whenever a county code inspector deter- mines that a public nuisance as described in section 973.03 of this chapter exists, the inspector shall have the authority to serve the violator with notice to appear before the Indian River County Code Enforcement Hoard and shall hold hearings in the manner provided in F.S. Ch. 162. (2) If the code enforcement board determines through a compliance hearing that the violator is still not in compliance with section 973.03 and that -the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the viola- tion is irreparable or irreversible in nature, then the code enforcement board shall direct staff to notify the Indian River County Commission, who no sooner than thirty (30) days after the compli- ance hearing, may issue an order to direct the county administrator or a designee for the county administrator, to abate the nuisance; authorizing the county's employees, servants, agents or con- tractors to enter upon the property at all reason- able times and take whatever action is necessary to abate the nuisance. (3) Once the county has abated a specific nui- sance under this section, no further code enforce. ment board determination is needed for the county to take future abatement action relating to the reoccurrence of the nuisance violation. (4) The primary method for bringing code vio- lators into compliance shall continue to be the fines imposed by the code enforcement board and nothing in this section shall prbelude the code enforcement board from issuing a fine relating to any nuisance violation. Anuleanee violation need not rise to the level of a serious threat to the public health, safety, welfare or be in the nature of a violation that .is irreparable or irreversible for the code enforcement board to issue an order of non-compliance with section 97303. (Ord. No. 90-1.6, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 2008-003, § 1, 1-8-08) ,Section 973.05. lteserved. Editor's note- Ord. No. 2008.008, § 1, adopted January 8, 2008, repealed § 973.05, which pertained to public hearing on nuisance, See also the Table of Amendments. Supp, No. 86 973/2 PUBLIC NUISANCE Section 973,06, Assessment for abatement of nuisance. (1) If the county abates a nuisance as defined in section 973.08, the cost thereof to the county as to each lot, parcel or tract of land shall be calcu- lated and reported to the code enforcement board. Thereupon, the code enforcement board, shall issue an order to assess such costs against such lot, parcel tract of land, common space, open space, recreation tract, or landscape buffer. Such order shall describe the land and state the cost of abatement, which shall include an administrative cost of two hundred fifty dollars ($250,00) per abatement. Such assessment shall 6 a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid. The assessment shall be due and payable forty-five (45) days after the mailing of notice of assessment after which interest shall accrue at the rate prescribed on any unpaid portion thereof. (2) The clerk shall mail a notice to the record owner or owners of each of said parcels of land described in the resolution, at the last available address for such owner or owners, which notice may be in substantially the following form: NOTICE Date: To: Address: Property: As the record owner of the property above described you are hereby advised that Indian River County, Florida did on the day of 20 ___' order the abate. went of a certain nuisance existing on the above property, sending you notice thereof, such nuisance being: [Describe Nuisance Briefly] A copy of such notice has been heretofore sent you. You failed to abate such nuisance; where- upon, it was abated by Indian River County at a cost of $ , such cost, by order of the Code Enforcement Board of Indian River County, Florida has been assessed against the above property on . 20 and shall become a lien on, the property forty-five Supp. No. 66 $ 973,08 (45) days after such assessment, You may re- quest a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board to show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County under this ordinance are excessive or unwarranted or why such expenses should not be charged against the property. Said request for hearing shall be made to the Clerk of the Code Enforcement Board in, writing within thirty (30) days from the date of the assessment. (3) If the owner fails to pay assessed costs within forty-five (45) days, a certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in the official record books of the county. The assessment_ shall consti- tute a lien .against the property No assessment lien will be recorded if a hearing on whether the assessment is fair, reasonable and warranted is timely requested. (4) If the code enforcement board determines after hearing that the assessment is fair, reason- able, and warranted, a certified copy of the assess- ment order shall be recorded. If the board deter- mines that the charges are excessive or unwarranted, it shall direct the county adminis- trator to recompute the charges and the board shall hold a further hearing after notice to the owner upon the recomputed charges. (5) In an action to foreclose liens, it shall be lawful to join one (1) or more lots, parcels, or tracts of land; by whomever owned, if assessed under the provisions of this chapter, The property subject to lien may be redeemed at any time prior to sale by the owner by paying a total amount due including interest, court costs and other costs incident to the action. (6) Upon payment of lien, the county attorney or his designee shall, by appropriate means, evi- dence satisfaction and cancellation of such lien. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9.11-90; Ord. No. 2008-003, § 1,1.8-08) 973/3 ism Recurrence of Overgrown Weeds Public Nuisance: Vista Golf, LLC Property in Vista Gardens Board of County Commissioners March 15, 2011 03/1/2011 IQ. A i 2,2011 IIa•. 1 . August 24, 2009: Code Board finds noncompliance, imposes fine, determines public nuisance (overgrown weeds) warranting county abatement. . September 22, 2009: BCC authorizes staff to hire a contractor to abate the nuisance. . October 7, 2009: County contractor mows the property. 03/16/2011 County Code Section 973.04(3) "Once the county has abated a specific nuisance ... no further code enforcement board determination is needed for the county to take future abatement action relating to the recurrence of the nuisance violation." I I;t-A -2 Summary of County Mowing (to Date) Date of BCC Authorization Contractor Cost Admin. Fee (Sec. 973.06) Sept. 22, 2009 $850.00 $250.00 Feb. 2, 2010 $960.00 $250.00 April 20, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 July 6, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 Sept. 7, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 Nov. 2, 2010 $850.00 $250.00 Totals $5,210.00 $1,500.00 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize County staff (or contractors) to (again) enter upon the Vista Golf LLC property within Vista Gardens and abate the nuisance, with costs to be recorded as a lien against the property. 03/16/2011 . May 18, 2010: BCC considers enforcement alternatives (per County Attorney memorandum), votes to continue with periodic county abatement with costs recorded as a lien. . November 2, 2010: BCC discusses whether or not to pursue other actions (i.e., foreclosure, additional fines), votes to abate nuisance/authorize mowing. . January 4, 2011: County staff sends an invoice to Vista Golf LLC for mowing and admin. costs ($6,710.00); invoice has not been paid to date. ) IA.A. 3 ISA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird; County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: FROM: ZQ,4.,P /, &, e� ?,-/, & , Robert M. Keating, AICP Communi - Development Director DATE: March 7, 2011 SUBJECT: Impact Fee Study Consideration It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 15, 2011. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS At its meeting of February 1, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners considered the issue of whether or not to direct staff to initiate the process of extending the current suspension of five of the County's nine impact fees. During discussion on that matter, the BCC also addressed the issue of commercial versus residential traffic impact fee rates. In discussing impact fee rates, BCC members seemed to agree that commercial traffic impact fee rates are too high. To address that issue, the BCC voted unanimously to direct staff to initiate a new impact fee study. In so doing, the BCC indicated that a new study may confirm that commercial traffic impact fee rates are too high and may result in lower commercial traffic impact fee rates. ANALYSIS In the past eight years, the County has contracted for three separate impact fee studies. The first, completed in 2004 by Tindale -Oliver & Associates, was an update of the County's traffic impact fee, the only impact fee in effect at that time. The second, completed in 2005 also by Tindale -Oliver, established eight new impact fees. The final report, completed in 2008 by Duncan & Associates, was an update of the earlier Tindale -Oliver studies. The Duncan study was not accepted by the BCC. Generally, impact fee update studies cost more than $100,000 but less than $200,000. While the 2005 Tindale -Oliver study cost $183,346, the 2008 Duncan study cost $132,750. KAAGENDA\201 Alrnpact Fee Study Consideration 03151 Ldoc 1 113 In terms of traffic impact fee study updates, the focus is on updating the value of the independent variables in the traffic impact fee formula. These variables are trip rate, trip length, percent new trips, average cost per lane mile, and credits. Usually, trip rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips do not change significantly with a traffic impact fee update. It is mostly the cost per lane mile and the credits that vary. As a result, traffic impact fee updates usually result in across the board increases or decreases in rates, rather than rate changes between land use categories. With most traffic impact fee update studies, trip rate, trip length, and percent new trips data are derived from national or state level sources. In fact, most traffic impact fee studies use information from the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Trip Generation Manual. The most recent version of that manual is the 8th edition. Besides the ITE manual, another source of information consists of trip rate studies done for specific land use categories for localities within the state. Overall, though, impact fee updates do not involve collection of the field data necessary to calculate new trip rates and trip lengths for all of the various impact fee land use categories. For the reasons stated above, a standard impact fee update will not include the detailed analysis necessary to show that commercial impact fees should be lower. With a cost of about $150,000, a traffic impact fee. update study would focus on estimating current cost per lane mile and credit component values, while relying on available state and national (ITE) data on trip rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips. There is, however, a mechanism to evaluate whether impact fee rates for various land use categories are too high. That mechanism involves conducting origin/destination studies and trip generation studies at a number of sites for each land use category to determine trip rate, trip length, and percent new trips for that land use category. Because such studies must focus on specific land uses, such as banks, medical offices, warehouses, and others, there is not the opportunity to sample a catch-all category such as commercial. Back in 2008, the County obtained a price quote from a traffic engineering consultant to conduct studies to determine trip rates, trip lengths, and percent new trips for specific land use categories. That cost was $27,000 per land use category. Currently, the County has 43 non-residential land use categories in its impact fee schedule. At $27,000 per category, it would be expensive to undertake special studies for all categories. Alternatively, the BCC could opt to have studies undertaken for those uses where impact fee rates seem too high. Such uses could include medical offices, fast food restaurants, retail, or others. As part of its impact fee program, the County collects an administrative charge as a component of each impact fee payment. The purpose of that charge is to pay for impact fee administration activities by County and Municipal staff as well as to pay for periodic impact fee study updates. In fact, the County's impact fee ordinance indicates that such updates should be conducted every three years. KAAGENDA\201 Nrnpact Fee Study Consideration 031511.doc 2 114 At present, the County impact fee administration fund balance is sufficient to cover the cost of anew impact fee study as well as special studies for various land use categories. To undertake a new impact fee study, staff would need to prepare a scope of services, develop a request for proposals, select a consultant, and manage the project. That process will take a year to a year and a half from start to finish. If several land use special studies are undertaken along with the overall update, the cost will probably be slightly more than $200,000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to initiate the impact fee update study process. APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: FOR: MPWJ !,-- fl aoll BY: K:WGENDA\2011NImpact Fee Study Consideration 03151 Ldoc Indian River Co, Appruqd Date Admin. 'q 1,9 Legal 5 Budget Dept. Wk EUL Risk Mgr. 3 115 N_rl INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator THROUGH: Christopher R. Mora, P. E. Public Works Director FROM: Qom. James D. Gray, Jr. Cn\rr`' V Coastal Engineer SUBJECT: Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project Change Order No. 4 - Fuel Cost- Increase Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. DATE: March 8, 2011 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 2, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners awarded a contract to Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. (Ranger) to construct the Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project. The project was to utilize sand from upland sand sources. The sand was to be mined, processed and then hauled in trucks to the beach. Based on Ranger's bid dated August 3, 2009, the Board awarded a contract to Ranger in the amount of $7,270,807. On March 23, 2010, the Board approved Change Orders #1 and #2 which boosted the total construction contract price from $7,270,807 to $10,319,234. Change Orders #1 and #2 were requested by the contractor due to additional costs associated with dredging, sand processing / testing and increased sand volumes required to fill the beach template. At the 03-23-2010 meeting, Ranger stated that the remaining sand to be provided for the project would be "locked -in" at the price of $15.66 per cubic yard, with no further price increases for the life of the project. On October 19, 2010, the Board approved Change Order #3 which allowed Ranger to charge the County a partial payment for stockpiled sand at the mine. Change Order #3 did not increase the overall contract price, which remained at $10,319,234. In a recent letter (dated March 4, 2011), Ranger now contends that since the time of bid (August, 2009), there have been unforeseeable and substantial increases in the cost of fuel. They have requested the attached Change Order #4 in the amount of $303,480. FAPublic Works\CRM\My Documents\Coastal\Beach Sector 3 Change Order #4 BCC 03-15-201 l.docx 116 Page 2 ( Agenda Item For 03-15-2011 BCC Meeting Sector 3 Beach Restoration — Change Order #4 March 8, 2011 The proposed Change Order #4 increases the unit cost of all sand required to complete Phase 2 of the project from $15.66 to $16.74 per cubic yard, and consequently increases the total contract price from $10,319,234 to $10,622,714. This is based on a total volume of 281,000 cubic yards remaining to complete Phase 2. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES Staff evaluated Change order #4 and determined that Ranger is correct in their assertion that fuel prices have increased since the project began. If a fuel -related change order were to be granted however, staff does not agree that the baseline for calculating a fuel increase is the contact bid date of August 3, 2009. Staff feels that the baseline date should be March 23, 2010. Since Ranger agreed at the 03-23-2010 Board meeting to freeze the unit cost of sand at $15.66 per cubic yard, any fuel -related price increases (if granted by the County) should be calculated from 03-23-2010 forward. Another important issue to consider is that during the discussion leading up to the approval of Change Orders #1 and #2 on 03-23-2010, staff calculated that the County was owed a credit because Ranger was going to save over $500,000 in transportation costs. The savings were due to 90% of the material coming from the Ranch Road Lake mine instead of equal shares coming from the Ranch Road. Lake, Fischer 86th and Nick Stewart mines. The Ranch Road Lake mine is only nine (9) miles from the beach compared to the more -distant Fischer 86th and Nick Stewart mines, which are 17 miles and 23 miles, respectively, from the beach. Ranger balked at the $500,000 figure, saying that the credit due to the County was closer to $111,000. Later on 03-23-2010, when Change Orders #1 and #2 were approved by the Board, zero credit was given to the County. This was despite the fact that Ranger acknowledged a substantial reduction in transportation expenses incurred throughout the project. Staff offers the following three alternatives ... Alternative 1• Approve 100% of Ranger's proposed Change Order.#4, corresponding to the increase in fuel cost from August, 2009 to the present. This would increase the total contract price by $303,480, from $10,319,234 to $10,622,714. Approving 100% of Change Order #4 increases the unit cost of all sand required to complete Phase 2 of the project by $1.08 per cubic yard, from $15.66 to $16.74 per cubic yard. F:\Public Works\CRM\My Documents\Coastal\Beach Sector 3 Change Order #4 BCC 03-15-2011.docx 117 Page 3 Agenda Item For 03-15-2011 BCC Meeting Sector 3 Beach Restoration — Change Order #4 March 8, 2011 Alternative 2: Approve 58% of Ranger's proposed Change Order #4, corresponding to the increase in fuel cost from March 23, 2010 to the present. This would. increase the total contract price by $177,030, from $10,319,234 to $10,496,264. Approving 58% of Change Order #4 increases the unit cost of all sand required to complete Phase 2 of the project by $0.63 per cubic yard, from $15.66 to $16.29 per cubic yard. Alternative 3: Deny Change Order #4. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board approve Alternative 3 --- denial of Change Order #4, ( 'for the following reasons ... 1. There are no provisions in the contract for fuel cost adjustments 2. Change Orders #1,.#2 and #3 have already been granted to Ranger for additional costs /earlier payment on the project. 3. No credit was given to the County for reduced transportation costs associated with the near -exclusive use of Ranch Road Lake Mine for supplying sand. FUNDING The Sebastian Inlet District has agreed through an Interlocal Agreement to contribute $4,680,000 towards the local share of construction costs for the Sector 3 project. Local funding of Beach Restoration includes a portion of Local Option Tourist Tax Revenue as well as allocation of the One Cent Sales Tax. Funding for the project is available and budgeted in the Beach Restoration Fund, Sector 3 Beach Restoration Account No.12814472-066510-05054. For Design, Construction & Monitoring, $13,152,750 is budgeted from all sources. Based upon the contract price of $10,319,234, the total estimated cost of the project including Design, Construction, Monitoring, & Mitigation equals $14,862,331, which exceeds the budgeted amount by $1,709,581. Please note that the $14,862,331 total includes $1.6 Million in Mitigation cost that may not be needed. Additionally, these funds would not be expended until December, 2012 which would allow one additional year of tourist tax revenues and other sources as budgeted, to accumulate for this purpose. F:\Public Works\CRM\My Documents\Coastal\Beach Sector 3 Change Order 44 BCC 03-15-2011.docx Page 4 Agenda Item For 03-15-2011 BCC Meeting Sector 3 Beach Restoration — Change Order #4 March 8, 2011 There is currently no state cost sharing approved for this project. FDEP has agreed that the project will qualify for 50% state cost sharing, however the FY 2011-2012 state budget cycle does not include funding for Sector 3 construction. Under the rules of the cost sharing grant program, the County can construct the project with its own funds and then has up to 3 years to seek reimbursement under the cost sharing program. ATTACHMENTS 1) Ranger Construction Industries' Fuel Increase Request, Letter Dated March 4, 2011- Alternative 1 2) Ranger Construction Industries' Fuel Increase Request, Letter Dated March 4, 2011 - Staff review - Alternative 2 3) Change Order #4 — Alternative 1 4) Change Order #4 — Alternative 2 APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR March 15, 2011 I-. V., A t% 1, A . B , d Indian River County Approved Date Administration fil Budget 2lQ 3 9 ,t Legal A Public Works Coastal Engr, Division �-, F:\Public Works\CRM\My Documents\Coastal\Beach Sector 3 Change Order #4 BCC 03-15-2011.docx 119 ATTACHMENT 1 Ranger Construction Industries Fuel Increase Request, Letter Dated March 4, 2011 - Alternative 1 120 Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. James D Gray, Jr. Coastal Engineer Indian River County Public Works 180127x' Street Vero Beach, FI 32960 RE: Project Name RCI No County Subjects Mr. Gray, hLTEKNUIVE 1 Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration 320-0105 Indian River County Reaau-est fi;r Roel Increase Revised March 4, 2011 Pursuant to recent conversations pertaining to the substantial increase in both diesel and off road fuel cost since time of bid, please allow this letter to serve as a request for compensation for additional and continuing cost associated with this unforeseeable increase in fuel cost. At time of bid diesel fuel has increased $1.00 and off road fuel $.97. This could not have been anticipated and has significantly increased cost to process, deliver and place specified material on above referenced project. Attached is a breakdown of cost associated with fuel increase cost for Phase II Construction. Please note all parties involved have absorbed said additional cost in Phase I in an effort to continue construction at current unit prices. Unfortunately this financial burden has become too great to continue to absorb and County assistance is required. Ranger respectfully request an increase of $1.08 per Cubic Yard for remaining construction to help absorb this significant and unforeseeable increase in fuel cost that could not have possibly been anticipated at time of bid. If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, 112a 4,1 Patrick Flynn Project Manager CC: Project File Fred Waugh Bob Schafer 4510 Glades Cut -Off Road, FT. Pierce, Florida 34981 - Phone: (772) 464-6460 - Fax: (772) 466-9559 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 14589, FT. Pierce, Florida 34979-4589 • www.rangerconstruction.com 121 Off Road Fuel Dredge and Processing Unit Cost @ Bid Current Unit Cost Increase Phase Dredging 0.286 Gals per Cubic Yard Screeming/Loading 0.29 Galss per Cubic Yard Total .576 Gals per Cubic Yard 260,000 Cubic Yards Phase II .576 Gals per Cubic Yard 149,760 Gallons - 149,760 Gallons x $.97 increase = $145,267 $145,267 +ncrease/ 260,000:CY $s56 per°Cub+cYard. $2.10 $3.07 $0.97 Subtotal.Increase Trudc+ng Dredging andProcess+ng $.$3 per Cubic Yard $2.10 $3.07 $0.97 Cost Based on Average 11 Hour Day, 4,380 Cubic Yards per Day Gallons Per Hour Articulated Off Road Truck (12x4) 48 Excavator 9 D-5 Dozer (4.5 x 2) 9 DA Dozer 4.5 Loader 5 ATV 0.5 Total Gallons Per Hour 76 76 Gals per Hour x 11 Hrs per day = 836 Gals per Day 836 Gals per Day x $.97 = $810.92 per Day $81(Y-92,-- pe Day / 4;380 GY per day; $' 18 per Cuialc Yard. Total Increase in Fuel Cost Requested Trucking $0.27 Dredge and Processing $0.56 Construction $0.18 Sub Total Increase per Cubic Yard $1.01 rA Tax $0.07 Total ncr'e per Cubic Yard 123 February 15, 2011 Patrick Flynn Ranger Construction P.Q. Box 14589 Ft. Pierce, FL 34979 Re: Unanticipated fuel cost increase for material processing Dear Mr. Patrick Flynn: As per our discussion of last week we are forwarding to you our calculation of the additional fuel costs associated with both phase I and phase II of the sector 3 project. In order to accurately depict the material volume/fuel cost relationship, it is necessary to present the fuel consumption per c.y. for both the dredging and screening portions of the work These figures are as follows: 1. Dredging —1 c.y. = 0.286 gallons of fuel 2. Screening/loading —1 c.y. = 0.29 gallons of fuel. The combined total for dredging/processing is 0.567 gallons per c.y. During phase I, a total of+% 325,000 c.y.'s of material was produced at a total fuel volume of 184,275 gallons. The anticipated fuel volume for phase 11 with an estimated 310,000 c.y.'s will be 175,770 gallons. The cost over run associated with the rising fuel prices is demonstrated as follows: Phase 1325.000 +/- c.v.'s At the time of bid acceptance, the national average for off road diesel was $2.10 per gallon. During the period from December 2009 thru May 2010 325,000 +/- c.y. was produced consuming 170,100 gallons of off road diesel fuel. During the same period, fuel cost rose to $2.30 a gallon, an increase of $0.20 per gallon amounting to a $34,020.00 increase in fuel cost. The per cubic yard cost was $0.13. Phase H To depict the gain in fuel cost since bid award, the national average for off road diesel was $2.10 per gallon. As of February 1, 2011 the cost for off road diesel has risen to $3.07 per gallon $0.97 over the cost at bid award. Based on a 310,000 c.y. production schedule, the cost over run would amount to $170,469.90 the cubic yard cost is $0.55. Page 1 of 2 124 The total cost increase due to escalating fuel prices: Phase I - $34.020.00 Phase H - $170.469.90 As we are all aware, no additional funds were requested during phase I to offset these escalating fuel prices. It has become necessary during_ the phase U operation to request that the county participate in compensating for the ever spiraling fuel costs associated with producing the beach fill product. This being the case, we look toward Ranger to assist us in this endeavor which will most likely include some additional costs Ranger has incurred for the placement of the beach material. As they say "We are all in the same boat". Please review this letter and advise. Sincerely, Henry A. Fischer President Fischer & Sons, Inc. Page 2 of 2 125 SECTOR 3 BEACH NOURISHMENT FUEL COST.tXt From: Paul Meunier [paulircl@comc,ast.net] Sent: Wednesday February 16, 2011 7:21 AM TO: Patrick Flynn Subject: SECTOR 3 BEACH NOURISHMENT / FUEL COST INDIAN RIVER CONTRACTING P.O. BOX 650460 VERO BEACH 32965 ATTN PATRICK AUGUST 1ST 2009 DIESEL @ 2.60 PER GALLON FEBRUARY 2011 DIESEL @ 3.52 TO 3.65 PER GALLON DUMP TRUCK 5.0MILE5 PER GALLON AVERAGE DUMP SITE ROUND TRIP FROM RANCH LAKE 24 MILES AVERAGE NUMBER OF LOADS 12 24 X 12 = 288 MILES 288 DIVIDED BY 5.0 = 57.6 GALLONS EXTRA COST $57.60 PER DAY PER TRUCK 57.60 DIVIDED BY 12 LDS. PER DAY = 4.80 PER TRUCK PAUL MEUNIER paulircl@comcast.net Page 1 126 ATTACHMENT 2 Ranger Construction Industries Fuel Increase Request, Letter Dated March 4, 2011 - Staff Review - Alternative 2 127 Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. James D Gray, Jr. Coastal Engineer Indian River County Public Works 180127" Street Vero Beach, FI 32960 RE: Project Name RCI No County Subject: Mr. Gray, AL-EKNAT IVE Z Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration 320-0105 Indian River County Request for Fuel Increase Revised March 4, 2011 Pursuant to recent conversations pertaining to the substantial increase in both diesel and off road fuel cost since time of bid, please allow this letter to serve as a request for compensation for additional and continuing cost associated with this unforeseeable increase in fuel cost. At time of bid diesel fuel has increased $1.00 and off road fuel $.97. This could not have been anticipated and has significantly increased cost to process, deliver and place specified material on above referenced project. Attached is a breakdown of cost associated with fuel increase cost for Phase H Construction. Please note all parties involved have absorbed said additional cost in Phase I in an effort to continue construction at current unit prices. Unfortunately this financial burden has become too great to continue to absorb and County assistance is required. Ranger respectfully request an increase of $1.08 per Cubic Yard for remaining construction to help absorb this significant and unforeseeable increase in fuel cost that could not have possibly been anticipated at time of bid. If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, �,rlsw�- l✓ 1� / Patrick Flynn Project Manager CC: Project File Fred Waugh Bob Schafer 4510 Glades Cut -Off Road, FT. Pierce, Florida 34981 - Phone: (772) 464-6460 - Fax: (772) 466-9559 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 14589, FT. Pierce, Florida 34979-4589 • www.rangerconstruction.com south : us. ENEF;G'( IN�OIffll"ION RDMINIS�OTIn PETKOLEU M i oTItEK. LIQUIDS Fuel Increase Request Sector Beach Renourlshment FUEL COST MA%7(14 1 APIEIL 2010 — -� 3.0016ft 11 ON Fuel Price 1N C REDS E, _-V3-b0—f'3.00 t Trucking Unit Cost iO Bid $2.60 Current Unit Cos$3.60 = 0.601600M increase $1.00 Average 12 Loads per Truck per Day Aver Ago. IS CYper Load Average 216 Cubic Yards per Day. per Truck Average 24 Miles per Load Round Trip Average 51 iles per.Gall on. Average 4.g Gallons per Round Trip Average $ 4.80 perRound Trip @ $1:00 Increase 0.60 �GR I $ 2 • $$ 1goopo TRIP I2 tR1PS pl $4.80 per RoundTrip x 12 Round Trips per Day $57 6 per DayperTruck0.60�G�) = 2•g$' kDVND Tf!� TRUCKIN'6 0.016Rtl 34.56 Iml.InwK1216 cv61C ofXIDAq Off Road Fuel Dredge and Processing Unit Cost @ Bid Current. Unit Cost Increase Phase 1 Dredging 0.286 Gals per Cubic Yard Sc reeming/Loading 0.29 Galss per Cubic Yard Total .576 Gals per Cubic Yard 'F S4.56 johl IT&ucK = fo.16lcda1cKNRO $ 2.10 3:o� -W fUa: L cbsr Rw_C!,!AIflPFiL 20 I0 $0.97 L'eSS MEML 4 STS *ES Tmes = -10,54 f 6n11oo = $ 3,00 —10.54 = $ i .46 I&P1110i :. INCOME 3.0-4 46 260,000 Cubic Yards Phase II NOTE: 291,000 coot gW-05 ��21tilAIN►� � 0,61 �6�IIQN .576 Gals per Cubic Yard S (lirNS 149,760 Gallons LIP221000 Cy 16 $ 149,760 Gallons x$97 increase $145,267` I61I856 GRI tgSl132•16 $145;267=�n�ease / 260,OOQ CY $ 56,per Cubic Yard, ,` �101 = � 0.35 I CUBIC 00 DREW I PR�1Ng0,61 =$9S,'_32.16(2g1,000C-1 Sub tat increase Trudartg Dredging and _Processing $.83 per, Cubic Yard 129 Off Road Fuel Construction Cost Unit Cost@ Bid $2.10 FUEL COSI' HAKcH jf W)1- 2010 Current Unit Cost $3.07 Increase $0.97 WMSE _ *3.0:- —12.46 Cost Based on Average 11 Hour Day, 4,380 Cubic Yards per Day Gallons Per Hour Articulated Off Road Truck (12x4) 48 Excavator 9 D-5 Dozer (4.5 x 2) 9 D-4 Dozer 4.5 Loader 5 ATV 0.5 Total Gallons Per Hour 76 76 Gals per Hour x 11 Hrs per day = 836 Gals per Day O b I' 61�� = $36 Gtr) S /4V• 6 j'6A y S09'qb �D>�y $36 Gals per Day x $ 97 $810 92 per Day � l $810 92 per Da C ©NST��GTI4N CdsT y / 4,380 CY per day $18 per Cubic Yard ( 10.61 6fll y sSva .gbjWj'4, _V0 CglDhq - 0. 1 Z CUBIC H Total Increase in Fuel Cost Requested Trucking Dredge and Processing Construction $0.27 $0.56 S0.18 0 • l ; Sub Total Increase per Cubic Yard $1.01 rA Tax $0.07 Total increase_pkr P0Ie,.Yard' $108 TOT L W C OOSE _ $0.63 / 051C OF -D 130 Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update ;: Oaaal(n_s .,' Dleael'r U.S. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Prices, 03/07/11 U.S.RegularGQWlaeP*o* Govamoer aft FIA U.S.Gn-HighwayDieWFuel Prices 4.50 R& "On ELAI 4A0 .00bm 3.60 3.60 2.50 �_'-'r"• '� �rar� 2.60 �.-•�� 1.50 1.60 {at Jul Oct Jm For -r-2041.10 •••r-2610.11 For Jul 06t Jan AW -e•-2009.10 -a--2010.11 Gasoline (Dollars par Gallon) Diesel Fuel (Dollars per Gallon) 03/07/11 Changefrom 03/07/11 change from Price Week Ago YearAgo Price Week Ago YearAgo U.S. 3.520 +0.137 +0.769 U.S. 3.871 +0.155 * 0.967 East Coast _3.502 '`0.144 'r 0.762 East Coast 3.908 +0.144 *0.976 New England 3.547 +0.161 0.794 New England 4.046 +0.143 +1.031 Central Atlantic 3.519 +0.149 +0365 Central Atlantic 4.014 +0.139 +0.977 Lower Atlantic 3.475 + 0.134 ♦ 0.748 Lower Atlantic 3.850 f 0.147 +0.970 Midwest 1140 OA20 10.792 Midwest 3.1323 *6,162 * 0.952 Gulf Coast 3.402 * 0.154 ♦ 0.755 Gulf Coast 3.812 1+0.156 ♦ 0.939 Rocky Mountain 3.297 +0.116 ♦ 0.612 Rocky Mountain 3.845 1+0.147 i 0.955 West Coast 3.767 +0.144 * 0.783 WestCoast 4.046 1 +0.154 +1.043 California 3.874 +0.155 ♦0.828 California 47122T+0.158 ♦1.065 Regional Regular Gasoll"Ptiaes 446 Dollars per OaCon EA Regional Diesd Fuel Plfces 4," 060ars per 0396n aA 3S0 _'' 2.50-Al:'�. 1.50 3.50 2b0-,.. 1.60 --:!BstCoast m6-00 Apr-toib Apr. it -.-, Oulf 0439 tRo Wourtah --- West Coast :-!L E*= ( ' ADI%10 Pnr•11 - -- Culf cost -+-RockyMwutah - west Coast Retail Gasoline Prices 24-hour hotline: 202.586-6966 On -Highway Diesel Prices 24-hour hotline: 202.586-6966 Energy Explained Primer on Gasoline Sources and Markets This Week In Petroleum Short -Term Energy Outlook Page 1 of 1 Release Schedule Sion Up for Ematt Uudates ®RSS Feed What We Pay Forin AGallon Of RegularGasoline (January 2011) Retail Pk. :53.101galion Taxos 13% Distrbution $ Marketing 0% Refining 1191+ Crude OA 8 % ixptenation of Terms 'gasoline Pump Data History What U Pay For In A Gabon Of Diosai (January 2011 Rew P&W. 53.3 MA Texas 14% Distribution & Marketing Q% Refining 1b% Crude 01 81 % Explanation of Terms Diesel Fuel Pump Data History Real Petroleum Prices Frequently Asked Questions Petroleum Analysis Release Schedule: The prices are published by 5:00 P.M. Monday (Eastern time), except on government holidays, when the data are released on Tuesday (but still represent Monday's price). Sign UD for Email Updates http://www.eia,doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel,asp 3/8/20111 31 Weekly U.S. No 2 Diesel Ultra Low Sulfur (0-15 ppm) Retail Sales by All Sellers (Dollar... Page 1 of 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS GLOSSARY) FAQS> ViewHietory: Q Weekly 0 Monthly oAnnual I Download Data (XLS File) Weekly U.S, No -2 Diesel Ultra Low Sulfur (0.15 ppm) Retail Sales by All S_llers (pollars per Gallon) BID oPENINbi MME 8)30 AVG. FVEL (OST $ 2.63168L 2010 -Jan 9n4n-R<1, Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Year -Month End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2007 -Feb 02/05 2.463 02112 2.502 02/19 2.515 02/26 2.571 04105 2007 -Mar 03105 2.640 03/12 2.695 03119 2.694 03/26 2.690 3�23I1.0 2007 -Apr 04/02 2.803 04/09 2.853 04116 2.887 04/23 2.863 04/30 1831 2007 -May 05107 2.816 05/14 2.797 05/21 2.822 05/28 2.836 06/28 07/26 2007 -Jun 06104 2.819 06111 2.814 06/18 2.822 06/25 2.847 08116 2007 -Jul 07/02 2.842 07/09 2,859 07/16 2.902 07/23 2.903 07/30 2.899 2007 -Aug 08106 2.910 08/13 2,861 08/20 2,878 08/27 2.873 10/04 2007 -Sep 09103 2.901 09110 2.932 09/17 2,971 09/24 3.038 �fn x- 2007 -Oct 10/01 3.055 10108 3.046 10115 3.053 10/22 3.110 10/29 3.171 2007 -Nov 11/05 3.314 11/12 3.438 11/19 3.426 11/26 3.456 12/27 2007 -Deo 12/03 3.433 12110 3.345 12/17 3.325 12124 3.321 12/31 3.356 2008 -Jan 01/07 3.387 01/14 3.341 01/21 3.286 01/28 3.272 02/14 2008 -Feb 02104 3.291 02/11 3.291 02/18 3.405 02/25 3.558 03/07 2008 -Mar 03/03 3,666 03110 3.825 03/17 3.982 03/24 3.998 03/31 3.976 2008 -Apr 04/07 3.966 04/14 4.069 04/21 4.153 04/28 4.187 2008 -May 05/05 4.162 05/12 4.339 05119 4.504 05/26 4.731 2008 -Jun 06/02 4.716 06/09 4.702 06116 4.702 06/23 4.659 06130 4.657 2008 -Jul 07/07 4.733 07/14 4.771 07/21 4.729 07/28 4.614 2008 -Aug 08/04 4.515 08/11 4.368 08/18 4.219 08/25 4.158 2008 -Sep 09/01 4.135 09/08 4.075 09115 4.035 09/22 3,967 09/29 3.969 2008-0Ct 10106 3.887 10/13 3.672 10/20 3.497 10/27 3.300 2008 -Nov 11/03 3.100 11110 2.958 11/17 2.822 11/24 2.676 2008 -Dec 12/01 2.624 12/08 2.523 12/15 2.430 12/22 2.373 12/29 2.335 2009 -Jan 01/05 2.299 01/12 2.324 01/19 2.307 01/26 2.278 2009 -Feb 02/02 2.256 02/09 2.230 02/16 2.197 02/23 2.138 2009 -Mar 03/02 2.095 03/09 2.051 03/16 2.023 03/23 2.093 03/30 2.225 2009 -Apr 04106 2.233 04/13 2.234 04/20 2.226 04/27 2.207 2009 -May 05/04 2.192 05111 2.223 05118 2.237 05/25 2.278 2009 -Jun 06101 2.354 06/08 2.501 06115 2,575 06122 2.619 06(29 2.612 2009 -Jul 07/06 2.598 07/13 2.546 07120 2.501 07/27 2.532 2009-Aua • 0 0308/10 2,628 08/17 2.656 08/24 2.672 M31 2,679 2009 -Sep 09/07 2.650 09/14 2.638 09/21 2.626 09/28 2.606 2009 -Oct 10/05 2.588 10/12 2.604 10119 2.708 10/26 2.805 2009 -Nov 11/02 2.811 11109 2.805 11116 2.795 11/23 2.792 11/30 2.780 2009 -Dec 12107 2.777 12114 2.753 12121 2,731 12/28 2.736 BID oPENINbi MME 8)30 AVG. FVEL (OST $ 2.63168L 2010 -Jan 9n4n-R<1, 01/04 2.801 01/11 m/nx 2.882 9 aos 01/18 2.874 2 761 01/25 2.838 c oe ow I Z 2010 -Mar m/nt 03101 9'tsi7 2.865 03/08 2.906 m/ls 03/15 2.926 Mm9 03/22 9 Rad 2.949 03/29 2.942 HAN 4113110 2010 -Apr 04105 3.017 04/12 3.073 04119 3.078 04/26 3.082 3�23I1.0 2010 -May 05/03 3.126 05110. 3.131 05/17 3.098 05124 3.025 05/31 2.983 EMU) uN IT COST F-0(r- 2010Jun 22010 -Jul 06/07 07/05 2.949 2.925 06114 07/12 2.930 2904 06/21 07/19 2.962 2.899 06/28 07/26 2.957 2.919 v S D 15,6 b , C y S 2010 -Aug 08102 2.928 08/09 2.991 08116 2.979 08/23 2.957 08/30 2938 7 •� 1 2010 -Sep 09/06 2.931 09113 2.943 09/20 2.960 09127 2.951 Av� HEL C CST 2010-00t 10/04 3.000 10/11 3.066 10/18 3.073 10/25 3.067 �fn x- 2010 -Nov 11101 3.067 11/08 3.116 11115 3.184 11122 3.171 11/29 3.162 3 • "v I V A 2010 -Dec 12106 3.197 12/13 3.231 12120 3.248 12/27 3.294 2011 -Jan 01/03 3,331 01/10 3.333 01/17 3.407 01/24 3.430 01/31 3,438-MTTFRRNDEf'IN P- e 02/07 3.513 02/14 3.534 02121 3.573 02/28 3.716 1 -Mar 03/07 3.871 j ./1 314111 R �j VtCST 7 f 11 I t:�� AVG. � �� I I r L -- No Data Reported; - = Not Applicable; NA - Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of Individual company data. ! s ne <1i w1 http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnavlpetlhistILeaf-Iandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMD EPD2DXL0 PT... 3/8/2011 32 Table ENI. Federal and State Motor Fuels Taxes' (Cents per Gallon) Motor Diesel Gasohol Motor Diesel Gasohol Gasoline Fuel Gasoline Fuel Federal. ..... 18.40 24.40 13.30 Mississippi' .......... 18.00 18.00 18.00 Average State Tax .. , .. 22,44 22.95 21.95 Missouri' .... , ..... 17,00 17.00 17.00 Montana' .......... 27.00 27.75 22.95 Alabama' .......... 18.00 21,00 18.00 Nebraska .......... 27.10 27.10 27.10 Alaskan ................. 8.00 8,00 8.00 Nevada' .......... 23.00 27.00 23.00 Arizona .... , ..... . 18.00 18.00 18,00 New Hampshire.. , ... 19.63 19.63 19.63 Arkansas .......... 21.50 22,50 21.50 New Jersey' .. , ..... 10,50 13.50 10.50 California .......... 35.30 18.00 18.00 New Mexico ..... , . , 18,90 22.90 18.90 Colorado.... , , ..... 22,00 20,50 22.00 New York 9.......... 24.35 22.55 24.35 Connecticut', , ....... 25.00 39,60 25.00 North Carolina ...... 31.90 31.90 31.90 Delaware .... , ..... 23.00 22.00 23.00 North Dakota . , ..... 23.00 23.00 23.00 District of Columbia .... 23.50 23.50 23.50 Ohio ............ 28.00 28.00 28.00 Florida .... , ... ... 16.00 29,60 16.00 Oklahoma ......... 17.00 14.00 17.00 Georgia 34......... I . 7.50 7.50 7.50 Oregon'........... 24.00 24.00 24.00 Hawaii••..... , .. . , , 17.00 17.00 17.00 Pennsylvania ....... 31.20 38.10 31.20 Idaho .... . ....... . 25.00 25.00 25.00 Rhode Island........ 32,00 32,00 32.00 Illinois •• .......... , 19.00 21.50 19.00 South Carolina' ...... 16.00 16,00 16.00 Indiana• . , ......... 18.00 16.00 18.00 South Dakota ....... 24.00 24.00 22.60 Iowa• ............. 21.00 22.50 19.00 Tennessee ...... , .. 21.40 18.40 21.40 Kansas .. ....... , .. 24.00 26.00 24.00 Texas ........ .. , . 20.00 20.00 20.00 Kentucky ... , ...... 24,50 21,50 24,50 Utah ............. 24.50 24.50 24.50 Louisiana .......... 20.00 20.00 20.00 Vermont•...... .... 24.90 29.00 24.90 Maine , ..... ...... 29.50 30.70 29.50 Virginia• .......... 17.50 17.50 17.50 Maryland .... , ..... 23.50 24.25 23.50 Washington', .. , ..... 37.50 37.50 37.50 Massachusetts... , .... 21.00 21.00 21.00 West Virginia . . . . . 32.20 32.20 32.20 Michigan• ........ .. 19.00 15.00 19.00 Wisconsin ......... 32.90 32.90 32.90 Minnesota . , , .. , .. , . 27.50 27.50 27.50 Wyoming... , ..... , 14.00 14.00 14.00 `This figure lists rates of general application (including, but not limited to, excise taxes, environmental taxes, special taxes, and Inspec- tion fees) , exclusive of county and local taxes, Rates are also exclusive of any State taxes based on gross or net receipts. The State rates are ef- fective July 1, 2010. 'The Federal tax on motor gasoline and diesel fuel increased to 18.4 and 24.4 cents, respectively, on October 1, 1997. The Federal tax on gasohol increased to 133 cents on January 1, 2005, 3 Additional State taxes are levied as follows: California: 2,25 percent sales tax on gasoline, 8.25 percent sales tax on diesel fuel; Connect- icut: 7.0 percent gross earnings tax; Georgla:4 percent Prepaid State Tax; Hawaii: 4 percent gross income tax, $1.05 per barrel Environmental Response, Energy, and Food Security Tax; Illinois: 6,25 percent sales tax (suspended for the period beginning July 1, 2000, and ending De- cember 31, 2000); Indiana: 7 percent sales tax (suspended for the period between July 1, 2000 and September 15, 2000); Iowa: 1.0 cent per gal- lonEnvironmental Protection Charge; Michigan: 6 percent sales tax; New Jersey: gross receipts tax of 4 cents per gallon for on -highway use fuels; New York: 8.0 cents per gallon State sales tax in addition to local sales taxes; Virginia: 2 percent sales tax in areas where mass transit systems exist; Vermont: Motor Fuels Transportation Infrastructure Assessment Fee (subject to change on a quarterly basis for gasoline and 3.0 cents per gallon on diesel fuel). 'Local option taxes (LOTS) are allowed. InFlorida, the State assesses a State ComprehensiveEnhanced TransportationSystem (SCETS) tax on gasoline which is two-thirds of each county's rate. In addition, the State collects a "ninth cent tax" and asecond local tax. These taxes add an unweighted average of 15,0 cents to the gasoline State tax. In Hawaii, LOTS are as follows: Honolulu: 16.5 cents per gallon; Maui: 16.0 cents per gallon; Hawaii: 8.8 cents per gallon; Kauai: 13.0 cents per gallon. In Nevada, additional county taxes on gasoline range from 5 to 10 cents per gallon. . The State of Alaska suspended its motor fuels taxes on all fuel types and uses for a period of one year beginning September 1, 2008 and ending August 31, 2009. 153 U.S. Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Marketing Monthly March 2011 133 ATTACHMENT 3 Change Order No. 4 - Alternative 1 134 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Chante Order No. 4 - Alternative 1 PROJECT: SECTOR 3 BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION CONTRACTOR: RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. 4510 GLADES CUT-OFF ROAD FT. PIERCE, FL 34981 DATE OF ISSUANCE: March 2011 CURRENT CONTRACT PRICE NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE DUE TO THIS CHANGE ORDER CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE NEW CONTRACT PRICE INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER Change Order 4 - Alternative 1 $10,319,233.90 $303,480.00 4/30/2011 $10,6221,713.90 OR ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE QUANT. UNIT PRsvtous uNrr NHW uM NO. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE INCREASE DECREASE 2 SAND FILL Fuel Adjustment - All additional Quantities - Phase 1 & 2 281,000 Cy NA $1.08 $303,480.00 Cy $15.66 $16.74 TOTAL INCREASEIDECREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE $303,480.00 NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT $303,480.00 CURRENT CONTRACT PRICE NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE DUE TO THIS CHANGE ORDER CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE NEW CONTRACT PRICE INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER Change Order 4 - Alternative 1 $10,319,233.90 $303,480.00 4/30/2011 $10,6221,713.90 OR ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION I have examined the above changes. They are necessary to satisfactorily complete the Contract. The price changes are reasonable and I recommend that the changes be made. ENGINEER: DATE COASTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CONTRACTORS APPROVAL I agree that the above changes in said Contract, in accordance with Specifications for the price changes shown are satisfactory. CONTRACTOR: DATE RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Bob Solari, Chairman Attest: Jeffery K. Barton, Clerk of Court Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator DATE Change Order 4 - Alternative 1 136 ATTACHMENT 4 Change Order No. 4 - Alternative 2 137 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Change Order No. 4 - Alternative 2 PROJECT: SECTOR 3 BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION CONTRACTOR: RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. 4510 GLADES CUT-OFF ROAD FT. PIERCE, FL 34981 DATE OF ISSUANCE: March 2011 CURRENT CONTRACT PRICE $10,319,233.90 NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE DUE TO THIS CHANGE ORDER $177,030.00 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE 4/30/2011 NEW CONTRACT PRICE INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $10,496463.90 Change Order 4 - Alternative 2 138 ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE QUANT. UNIT PREVIOUS UNrr NEW UNrr NO. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE INCREASE DECREASE 2 SAND FILL Fuel Adjustment - All additional Quantities - Phase 1 & 2 281,000 CY NA $0.63 $177,030.00 CY $15.66 $16.29 TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE $177,030.00 NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT $177,030.00 CURRENT CONTRACT PRICE $10,319,233.90 NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE DUE TO THIS CHANGE ORDER $177,030.00 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE 4/30/2011 NEW CONTRACT PRICE INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $10,496463.90 Change Order 4 - Alternative 2 138 ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION I have examined the above changes. They are necessary to satisfactorily complete the Contract. The price changes are reasonable and I recommend that the changes be made. ENGINEER: DATE COASTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CONTRACTORSAPPROVAL I agree that the above changes in said Contract, in accordance with Specifications for the price changes shown are satisfactory. CONTRACTOR: DATE RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Bob Solari, Chairman DATE Attest: Jeffery K. Barton, Clerk of Court Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator Change Order 4 - Alternative 2 139 �IS�II INDIAN RIVER COUNTY / BEACH SECTOR 3 PROJECT PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION UPDATE March 14, 2011 Project Construction Summary --- Beach and dune restoration project consisting of 580,300 cubic yards of sand --- Phase 1 (south) ... Feb. 9, 2010 thru May 7, 2010 = 267,182 cubic yards ... Dec. 1, 2010 thru Dec. 17, 2010 = 32,118 cubic yards --- Phase 2 (north) ... Feb. 28, 2011 thru April 30, 2011 = 281,000 cubic yards --- 6% miles of coast between Treasures Shores Park and Town of Indian River Shores --- Sand provided by upland (inland) sand mines and delivered via truck --- Ranger Construction Industries of Fort Pierce selected by County to perform work --- $10,319,233 project construction cost shared by County and Sebastian Inlet District Phase 1— construction completed Dec. 17, 2010 Phase 2 The Phase 2 construction area is a 2.3 mile section of beach beginning at the Seaview Development and extending south to northern Orchid. Based on a January, 2011 beach profile survey, the total volume of sand needed to construct Phase 2 is 281,000 cubic yards. Phase 2 construction began on February 28, 2011. Beach access for Phase 2 will be divided between Treasure Shores Park and Golden Sands Park. Construction Update Staff is maintaining a Sector 3 project website which includes weekly construction updates as well as project photos. The web link can be found on the County website at www.ircgov.com, under "SECTOR 3 BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT". The contractor is currently using Golden Sands Beach Park for access and is delivering sand to the north Windsor area. As of March 11th, approximately 38,400 cubic yards or 13.7% of the 281,000 cubic yards estimated to complete Phase 2 have been delivered. To minimize material losses from high surf and strong northeast winds experienced during the first two weeks of construction (Feb 28th — March 11th), the contractor constructed a majority of the upper dune portion of the construction template. To date, approximately 2,000 linear feet of dune have been constructed of which 600 linear feet of the construction template fronting the northern portion of Windsor beaches have been completed. Construction Schedule As of March 11th, there are 35 construction days, not including weekends, remaining to complete Phase 2 prior to May 1, 2011. With 22% of available time now elapsed, the Contractor must maintain an average daily delivery of approximately 6,950 cubic yards or 386 truck loads to meet the beach fill requirements of Phase 2. The most recent 2 -week average was 201 trucks per day. Due to inclement weather, Ranger did not haul material on Friday, March 11th. Ranger worked Saturday, March 12th to make up for the lost workday. The March 12th sand volume is not included in the calculations detailed above. I Page 2 BEACH SECTOR 3 UPDATE March 14, 2011 Production / daily truck loads Monday, February 28tH ..... 225 Tuesday, March 1St........ 221 Wednesday, March 2nd ..... 260 Thursday, March 3rd ....... 194 Friday, March 4th ......... 236 Monday, March 7tH 277 Tuesday, March Stn ........ 256 Wednesday, March 9th ..... 245 Thursday, March 10tH 97 Friday, March 11th ........ 0 Saturday, March 12tH ...... 261 Ranger estimates that only 201,000 cubic yards of the 281,000 cubic yards of material will be available prior to May 1St. If sand production does not increase at the mine, Ranger will be unable to complete Phase 2 as designed, resulting in the northern 4,500 linear feet of the project (Seaview Development south to Treasure Shores Park) left incomplete this construction season. Nolen: Dunes plus Bern, L11n 0 Newly placed Completed to state Material to slate Eam Page 3 BEACH SECTOR 3 UPDATE March 14, 2011 Change Order #4 - Ranger Request For Fuel Price Increase Ranger contends that since the project was bid in 2009, unforeseeable and substantial increases in fuel costs have been incurred by the contractor and subcontractors. Ranger has therefore requested an additional $1.08 per cubic yard to truck, mine, and construct the Phase 2 project. Ranger's proposal would increase the total unit cost of sand from $15.66 per cubic yard to $16.74 per cubic yard. Staff will present Ranger's request to the Board on March 15, 2011. Prepared by Indian River County Coastal Engineering Staff Change Order #4: Fuel Cost Increase Beach Sector 3 Update March 4, 2011— Ranger requested Change Order #4 $ __ $10,622,714 (+ $303,480) --- Change order #4 requested due to unanticipated, significant increases in fuel prices --- Since bidding, diesel fuel has increased $1 per gallon, off- road fuel + 97 cents per gallon --- Ranger requesting increase of $1.08 per cubic yard of sand --- County cost to increase from $15.66 to $16.74 per cu. yd. la -:z'' - August 3, 2009 — County opened bids for Sector 3 project February 2, 2010 — Ranger Construction awarded contract, $7,270,807 March 23, 2010 — Board approved Change Orders 1 & 2 $012091880)1 $10,319,234 October 19, 2010 — Board approved Change Order #3 (partial payment for stockpiled sand) $10,319,234 Alternative #1: Approve 100% of Ranger's request, thereby increasing contract from $15.66 to $16.74 per cubic yard, overall price increase from $10,319,234 to $10,622,714 Alternative #2: Approve 58% of Ranger's request, representing fuel cost increase from March 23, 2010 forward, thereby increasing contract from $15.66 to $16.29 per cubic yard, overall increase from $10,319,234 to $10,496,264 Alternative #3: Deny Change Order #4 Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Melissa P. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney Office of INDIAN MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney DATE: March 7, 2011 i -6A Attorney's Matters - B.C.C. 03.15.11 RIVER COUNTY SUBJECT: IIndian River County/City of Vero Beach Electric Issues. ATTORNEY On February 1, 2011, Dr. Stephen Faherty, Sr. made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on the City of Vero Beach electric system, including the status of a case which he and Glenn Heran filed in September 2009 with the Florida Public Service Commission ("PSC"). At the end of the presentation, the Board expressed a desire to become more active in City electric issues, particularly as the issues relate to county residents served by the City system, but residing outside city limits ("non- resident customers"). The Board directed the County Attorney to explore alternatives that might be available to the Board, including possible intervention in the Faherty/Heran PSC case. BACKGROUND. The City and Florida Power and Light ("FPL") both provide electric service to the residents of Indian River County. The rate disparity between the two providers has led to much local controversy. While City rates are better than the average in Florida, FPL rates are approximately 25% less than City rates. APPROVED FOR MARCH 15, 2011 B. C.C. MEETING – A Y'S MATTERS COUN ATTORNEY F.\Anu ,,)kUnd,AGENM8B C CAg,nda Mem MRC-COVB(Ekcuk kv-).Ac Indian River Co. Ap ved Date Admin. 00 1/ Co. Atty. bt Budget — Dept. -- Risk Mgnit. --- -- 140 Board of County Commissioners March 7, 2011 Page Two The territorial service areas of the two providers, and County's relationship with the providers, are defined by three the fundamental documents: (1). the 1981 order of the PSC approving a territorial agreement between the City and FPL. This order and the underlying agreement provide that (a) the City shall serve an area, consisting of the City itself, and certain areas outside the City, including the Town of Indian River Shores, the south barrier island and other unincorporated parts of the County, and (b) FPL shall serve all other areas of the County, (2) IRC Resolution 87-12, in which the County granted a 30 year franchise to the City to provide electric service within the City's territory as defined in the 1981 PSC order. This franchise was accepted by the City on March 5, 1987, and the franchise resolution, similar to the water and sewer franchise resolutions, contains a five year notice provision for intent to renew, and (3) IRC Code, Chapter 312, Part II, adopted in June 2007, in which the County granted a 30 year franchise to FPL to provide electric service within FPL's territory as defined in the 1981 PSC order. It is important to note that while the County franchises include territorial service areas, those franchises follow the PSC order, because ultimately it is the PSC and not the County which defines electric utility territorial service areas. In 2008, then State Representative Stan Mayfield introduced legislation requiring that any municipal electric utility falling within certain parameters must hold a referendum of its retail customers on the following question: "Should a separate electric authority be created to operate the business of the electric utility in the affected municipal electric utility?" If a majority voted "yes" then an electric utility authority would be created with a governing board proportionately representing the number of ratepayers located. inside and outside of the municipality. The parameters of the legislation were designed specifically to include the City of Vero Beach. However, the City made a determination that it did not fall within the parameters of the legislation and never held the referendum. In 2010, City voters elected four new City Council members who were viewed as more favorably inclined to consider changes in the City's electric system, including a possible sale of the system to FPL. These four new members joined the single "carryover" member who had expressed many of the same views. The City Council has in fact engaged in discussions with FPL about a possible sale, and it is anticipated that FPL will decide whether to present a purchase offer by early summer 2011. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS. If the Board of County Commissioners wants to become more involved in City electric issues, there are several alternatives open to the Board, which are distinguished from each other by the level of involvement and aggression the Board wants to take. Those alternatives include: 1. Intervention in the Faherty/Heran PSC Case. The PSC has limited jurisdiction over municipal electric utilities, compared to its more extensive jurisdiction over private, investor owned utilities like FPL. With respect to private electric utilities, the PSC has jurisdiction to regulate and supervise virtually every aspect of rates and service. With respect to municipal electric utilities, however, its jurisdiction is limited to specifically enumerated matters, such as prescribing a rate structure (but not F.4lnnnre),Dn&AGENERAL\B C COge 1. Me MRC-COVQ (Elw k b—s).duc f Board of County Commissioners Warch 7, 2011 Page Three regulating rates), approving territorial agreements and resolving territorial disputes. This limited jurisdiction could impact the outcome of the Faherty/Heran case. In their petition, Dr. Faherty and Mr. Heran asked the PSC to take several steps: (1) to act, on its own motion, to determine that a territorial dispute exists with respect to the City and FPL territorial service areas, and ultimately to enter a new PSC order redefining the territorial service areas in a manner more favorable to non-resident customers; (2) to require that City rates be changed to eliminate or reduce the "subsidy" that is transferred from the City electric utility to the City general fund; (3) to address and mitigate the "taxation without representation" situation that exists for the 61% of City customers who are non-residents; and (4) to enforce the 2008 Mayfield legislation by requiring the City to hold a referendum and possibly create a utility authority, depending on the outcome of the referendum. The County Attorney's view of the Faherty/Heran petition is that they face an uphill battle because they are asking the PSC to take steps which the PSC has not previously taken, and because, given the PSC's limited jurisdiction over municipal electric utilities, there is, a question whether the PSC has jurisdiction over some of the issues raised — but the battle is not hopeless. The Faherty/Heran petition raises the fundamental issue of whether the PSC should protect, or the legislature should change the law to protect, non-resident customers of municipal electric utilities. Customers living inside city limits can protect themselves by voting in city elections, but customers living outside city limits have no protection — which becomes a serious issue when a city uses its utility to subsidize its general fund and thereby reduce taxes for city residents. Fundamental fairness would seem to require some level of protection for these non- resident customers. Thus, whether or not the PSC has jurisdiction, it may be motivated to find a way to protect non-resident customers; or, it may use the Faherty/Heran case as a platform to develop a factual record on the issue, and use the factual record to request that the legislature change the law to protect non- resident customers; or, of course, the PSC could conclude that it has no jurisdiction over the issues and do nothing. However the case develops, the battle will not be without its opponents, because there are other cities in Florida who are subsidizing their general fund just like the City of Vero Beach, and these cities are represented by powerful trade groups, all of whom will oppose any steps by the PSC or the legislature to prohibit the subsidy practice. If the County intervenes in the Faherty/Heran case, substantial work and expense may be required. In theory, the County can intervene for the simple purpose of staying informed of developments in the case. However, realities may force, the County to become far more involved. Dr. Faherty and Mr. Heran are not attorneys and they do not have attorneys representing them in the proceeding. Thus, if the County intervenes, it is likely that the County's outside utility attorney (hired in September 2010) will end up doing most of the legal work. Also, the political reality is that once the County is in the case, non-resident customers of the City system may not be satisfied with anything less than a full effort. The County's outside utility attorney has estimated that a full evidentiary case before the PSC could cost the County up to $200,000. Thus, intervention with less than a full effort may not be possible, and intervention with a full effort will be expensive. F:bUmme)kU,,da,GENERAL\B C CM8.da M—WRC-COM(Electric 1- ).dc 142 Board of County Commissioners March 7, 2011 Page Four As an alternative, the County could opt to closely monitor the PSC case for now, and intervene only if it becomes necessary. Under PSC guidelines, even if the County does not intervene, it is allowed to attend public meetings and most hearings, and even present arguments in favor of the County's position. This would give the County a less expensive, short term ability to follow the proceedings, and possibly even present the County's position, without a substantial commitment of effort and funds. 2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing the Board's Position. The Board could adopt a resolution setting forth the Board's position on the City electric issues. The resolution could be filed with the PSC, and Dr. Faherty and Mr. Heran could use it in support of their case. Also, the resolution could be sent to FPL to encourage FPL to make a purchase offer. In short, the resolution could be used to publish the Board's position on these important issues, withoutcommitting the County to a significant expenditure of funds. 3. Survey of City Customers. The Board, hopefully with assistance from the City, could conduct -a survey of City electric customers to determine whether they want to be served by the City or FPL. Several factors impact the use of the survey results: (1) they would not be evidence in the PSC proceeding. Like the resolution, they could be sent to the PSC, and Dr. Faherty and 1&. Heran could attempt to use them in support of their case — but the PSC could not base any decision on the survey results, (2) the exact wording of survey questions could impact the usefulness of the results. The results of survey questions which are not carefully and skillfully prepared could be subject to impeachment from those not agreeing with the results, and (3) the results would only be useful as long as the circumstances existing at the time of the survey do not change. For example, if City rates decreased or FPL rates increased after the survey, the results may no longer be relevant. Despite these limitations, the survey could still be helpful for limited purposes before the PSC and in informing the Board and the City Council of the desires of its constituents. 4. Local Political Solution. The City Council is entirely new and has expressed an interest in exploring a sale to FPL. If a sale occurs, it is likely that the electric issues will be resolved. One or more members of the City Council have also floated the idea of retracting the territorial service area of the utility to City limits, which would also resolve the issues as they apply non-resident customers. The bottom line is that the Board could attempt to work with the City Council to reach a local political solution which protects non-resident customers. 5. Political Solution at the State Level. It is arguable that the current issues exist because state law provides minimal regulation over municipal electric utilities. Changes in state law which grant to the PSC some level of authority over municipal electric rates, or which provide protection to non- resident customers, could resolve the issues. Thus, the County could work with the legislative delegation, and possibly with lobbyists, to introduce and pursue legislative changes. The political battle would be intense, however, as municipal electric utilities and trade groups would oppose such changes. FA.4nomey\Linda\GENERAUB C GWseada Afe--IRC-COVE (Electric Issues}dae �� Board of County Commissioners March 7, 2011 Page Five 6. Lawsuit to Enforce the 2008 Mayfield Legislation which Required a Referendum. The 2008 legislation was designed specifically to apply to the City of Vero Beach, The City nevertheless determined that the legislation did not apply, and never held the referendum. Dr. Faherty and Mr. Heran are challenging this determination in their PSC case; however, it is unclear whether the PSC has jurisdiction to enforce the legislation. A clearer path to enforcement might be a lawsuit in the local circuit court asking the court to determine that the legislation does apply and to order that the referendum be held. If the referendum is held and a majority vote in favor of a utility authority, an authority would be created 'to operate the City system and non-resident customers would be represented on the governing board of the authority. - 7. Termination of the City's 1987 Franchise. As stated,. the County granted a 30 year franchise to the City in 1987. The County could send notice of intent not to renew the franchise prior to March 5, 2012. However, this will not resolve the electric issues because ultimately it is the PSC and not the County which defines electric utility territorial service areas. Thus, even if the County elected not to renew the franchise; it is likely that the City would still have a right to serve the area under the 1981 PSC order. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OPINION. It is the County Attorney's opinion that the Board should adopt the following course of action: (1) adopt a resolution expressing support for the positions taken by Dr. Faherty and Mr. Heran in the PSC case, expressing support for a purchase of the City electric system by FPL upon terms that are fair and reasonable, and addressing other issues as the Board deems appropriate; (2) give the City Council and FPL a reasonable amount of time — perhaps to midsummer - to pursue a sale of the utility. City residents have elected an entirely new City Council. The new council. has expressed a strong desire to explore sale alternatives. Best estimates are that FPL will make a decision on whether to present an offer within the next three months or so. Under these circumstances, the City Council should be given an opportunity, without aggressive pressure from the County, to complete the process and possibly negotiate a sale to FPL; (3) monitor, but not intervene in, the Faherty/Heran PSC case, unless it appears that a sale to FPL will not occur. If the County intervenes in the PSC case, the County Attorney believes that a full effort will become inevitable, with resulting significant expense. The County Attorney does not recommend extensive proceedings before the PSC, funded by taxpayer money on both sides, while the prospect of a sale to FPL is still possible. In fact, the County Attorney believes that it might be appropriate for Dr. Faherty and Mr. Heran to ask the PSC to delay their case several more months, until FPL and the City are able to explore sale possibilities; R 4uom )k lndd6ENERAL\B MAgenda MenioMRC-COVB (Electric hs sJ doc 144 Board of County Commissioners March 7, 2011 Page Six (4) decide whether to pursue a carefully worded survey, including whether to conduct such a survey now or later, only after it appears that a sale to FPL will not occur. The County Attorney has no strong opinion on the timing issue. If the County pursues a survey now, the City Council might view it as interference in the sale process. On the other hand, the results of the survey could be helpful to the City Council in deciding whether to sell the utility. If the BCC decides to pursue a survey, the process might start with a formal request to the City to cooperate in conducting such a survey, possibly through a bill stuffer, as the least expensive method; and (5) if a sale does not occur, and if the City will not agree to changes in its electric system which better protect non-resident customers, then the County should consider an aggressive pursuit of all of the remaining alternatives listed above, including intervention in the PSC case, pursuit- of a political solution at the state level and filing a lawsuit to enforce the 2008 Mayfield legislation. In short, the County Attorney's recommendation is based on two underlying notions: FPL will decide whether to make an offer within a relatively short period of time, estimated to be three months or so, and the City Council, elected with a clear mandate to seriously consider a sale, should be given an opportunity to do so. Only if it appears that a sale will not occur and that the rate and subsidy burden will continue to be imposed on non-resident customers, should the County pursue aggressive alternatives. RECOMMENDATION. The County Attorney recommends that the Board (1) adopt a resolution stating its position on the electric issues, (2) give the -City Council a reasonable time to work out a sale to FPL, (3) monitor, but not -intervene in, the Faherty/Reran PSC case for now, (4) make a decision on the survey issue, and (5) aggressively pursue all remaining alternatives, if it appears that a sale to FPL will not occur and the City refuses to change current practices which place a rate and subsidy burden on non-resident customers. WAN FAARome,kU.dAGENERAA8 C C,4ge.da MemoAIRC-COVB (Electric hn,e4d- Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Melissa P. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney (e) Of CB Of Attorney's Matters 03115111 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMORANDUM ATTORNEY TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County orney FROM: William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney DATE: March 7, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval of Mediated Settlement Agreement with Matthew and Hilda Harbourt, 3675 66th Avenue, Vero Beach 1. Introduction. The following information is submitted for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. (Board) in approving a Mediated Settlement Agreement with Matthew and Hilda ;Harbourt for property acquisition associated with the construction of 66th. Avenue north of State Road 60 (hereinafter referred to as "Project"), in 'Indian River County. The limits of the Project are from the intersection of SR 60 to Barber Street in Sebastian, with this parcel falling within Phase I of the project, SR 60 to 41St Street. Mathew and Hilda Harbourt own a 9.33 acre parcel of property located at 3675 66th Avenue. This property is the Harbourts' homestead and lies at the southwest corner of 66th Avenue and 37th Street. This site is rectangular in shape with 1,290.11 feet of frontage along 66th Avenue and is 315 feet deep. The property is located outside the urban service boundary and is zoned A-1 Agricultural. The parcel contains a 4 bedroom, 3 bath, 2,797 square foot concrete block house built in 1964. The southern -most 7.8 acres of the property is planted in citrus trees and is a productive grove. The Harbourts are both in their Cate 80's and are interesting story tellers about life in the citrus business in the first half of the 1900's. Mrs. Harbourt was born in a house adjacent to the subject property and Mr. Harbourt is a long time resident of the County. APPROVED EOR 5:_LL _ 6.C.0 MEETING ® _ R AGENDA COUN A RNEYi Pt. ApPrnvad Dste 3 o3 - c ll u Mnr I — u Harbourt Parcel Memorandum March 7, 2011 Page 2 In order to accommodate the planned improvements to 66th Avenue, the County needs to acquire approximately 3.08 acres from the Harbourts. While none of the buildings lie within the area of take, the proposed right-of-way line falls approximately 45 feet from the home. The current right-of-way line lies approximately 150 feet from the house. A copy of the sketch of the parent parcel, the part taken, and remainder is attached to this memorandum. The take amounts to be about 33% of the Harbourts' property. The required "Notice to Owner" information and the Unconditional Offer have been received by the property owners. II. Background. On January 20, 2009, the Board approved an unconditional offer of $314,870 for the 3.08 acre parcel which is 15%- above the appraised value of $273,000. Due to the size and shape of the parent parcel, staff did not recommend purchase of the entire parcel. On May 12, 2009, the Board approved a Resolution of Necessity concerning the Harbourt Parcel. The County filed suit against Mr. and Mrs. Harbourt in August 2010. They are represented by Brent Simon and David Holloway of the firm of Simon Holloway. The parties have stipulated to the Order of Take and the County now owns the needed right-of-way having deposited the good faith offer into the registry of the court. In anticipation of trial, the County retained the services of Glenn Spivey, MAI, to appraise the property and serve as the County's expert witness for trial. Mr. Spivey is an experienced expert appraisal witness who testifies on behalf of private landowners and condemning authorities alike. An updated appraisal dated January 4, 2011, established the value of property to be taken to be $320,000: Mr. Spivey's appraisal valued the property taken as follows: • Value of land: $100,100 • Improvements: $25,900 • Net cost to cure: $194,400 In contrast, the appraiser hired by the Harbourts, Donald Trask, valued the property taken at $674,100 accordingly: • Value of land: $200,100 • Improvements: $11,300 • Net cost to cure: $463,700 The major difference between the two values was. the value of land and the net cost to cure. Both appraisers assigned significant severance damages and land damages in calculating the cost to cure. Land damages are found when the value of the remainder parcel is devaluated due to the take. Due to the dimensions of this property being long and thin, (1,290' x 315') the remaining parcel (1,290' x 210') will have a lesser land value after the take. III. Risk Assessment. If the case proceeds to trial (approximately a four day jury trial), the County is obligated by statute to pay all reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees 147 Harbourt Parcel Memorandum March 7, 2011 Page 3 on both sides of the case. The County's attorney's fees are conservatively. estimated at $16,000. The Harbourts' attorney's fees are set. by statute and will equal 33-1/3% of the difference between the County's first offer ($314,870) and the final jury verdict, which will be somewhere between $320,000 and $674,100. Using a verdict favorable to the County of $375,000, the Harbourts' attorney's fees will be $19,842.90. In addition, the County will have to pay all expert witness fees. There are eight total expert witnesses, four for each side. Conservatively, total expert witness fees through trial will be approximately $100,000 for a total cost of $510,842.90 plus prejudgment interest. Using a verdict favorable to the Harbourts of $625,000, the attorney's fees would be $102,342.90, expert witness fees of $80,000 and our own attorney's fees of $16,000, the total cost would be $823,342.90 plus prejudgment interest. The Harbourts' expert witnesses have already accrued over $4.8,000 in costs.at the time of mediation. IV. Mediation The mediation was attended by Matthew and Hilda Harbourt, their attorneys Brent Simon and David Holloway; Will Smith the mediator; outside counsel for the County Tony Policastro; Chris Mora, Public Works Director, and me. Mediator Smith formerly practiced exclusively in eminent domain and now works only as a mediator. He is one of the most sought after eminent domain mediators in the State of Florida. Negotiations took place over a period of 7 hours with 11 different offers and counter offers exchanged. The parties agreed (subject to Board approval) to a settlement of all issues as follows: • The County would pay the sum of $490,000 in full and final settlement for title to the right-of-way property. The county will receive a credit of $297,000 already paid into the registry of the court. • Statutory attorney's fees of $57,792.90 to Simon and Holloway, PA. • Expert witness fees in the amount of $40,000. This amount covers all fees for all of the Harbourts' experts. The total monetary cost of the Mediated Settlement Agreement -to the County is $599,792.90. • At the time of construction, the County's contractor will provide driveway connection to the Harbourt remainder property at the existing location of the 661h Street driveway. Additionally, the County's contractor will construct a 24 foot wide driveway connection with a drop curb design on 66th Avenue to align with the median opening at or about the southern property line of Defendant's property. (Approximate cost: $2,000) • Also at the time of construction, the County's contractor will install a culvert pipe and construct a 12 foot wide .driveway connection with a drop curb design at or about Station 503 on 37th Street. (Approximate cost: $10,000) V. Discussion. The risks have been set forth above. There is no way to predict how much a jury would award the Harbourts in this case but a jury would more than likely sympathize with the kindly couple. However, even if the verdict is as low as $400,000, the total cost to the County will.be roughly equivalent of the mediated amount and below a 50/50 "split" of the difference between the parties' estimates of value ($674,100 — 320,000 = 354,100 _ 2 = 187,050 + 320,000 = $507,050). Harbourt Parcel Memorandum March 7, 2011 Page 4 VI. Recommendation. The County Attorney's Office recommends that the Board approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board. All appraisal reports, expert reports and copies of invoices are not attached to this memo due to their length but are available for review at the County Attorney's Office. VII. Funding. A total of $2.3 million has been budgeted for this project for this fiscal year with $950,703 bein expended year to date. Funds of $848,600 are available in Optional Sales Tax/ROW/66t Ave/SR 60 to 59th Street, account # 31521441-066120-06040. Attachments: Mediated Settlement Agreement Sketch of the parent, part taken and remainder 149 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL, DIVISION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Case No.: 20091990 CA05 V. Parcel No.: 122-Harbourt MATTHEW STANLEY HARBOURT, JR., et al. Defendants. MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT At the Mediation Conference held on February 21, 2011, the parties reached the following Settlement Agreement: 1. Petitioner will pay to Defendants, Matthew Stanley Harbourt, Jr., and Hilda C. Harbourt, the sum of $490,000.00 in full settlement of all claims for compensation from Petitioner whatsoever, including statutory interest and all claims related to real estate and business damages, if any,. but excluding attorney's fees, experts' fees, and costs. Said sum will be subject to claims of apportionment, if any. Petitioner is entitled to a credit in the amount of $297,000.00, said amount having been previously, deposited in the Registry of the Court in this'case by Petitioner. Upon the satisfaction of the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement and the entry of the Stipulated Final Judgment in this matter, Petitioner will deposit in the Registry of the Court the sum of $193,000.00, representing the difference between the total settlement sum referenced above and Petitioner's previous deposit referenced above. 2. In addition to the settlement sum referenced in Paragraph 1, Petitioner will pay to Defendants' attorney $57,792.90 in full settlement and satisfaction of all attorney's fees and attorney's litigation costs incurred by Defendants in this case, including all attorney's fees and attorney's litigation costs related to monetary and non -monetary benefits, and supplemental proceedings, if any. 3. In addition to the settlement sum referenced in Paragraph 1 of this Settlement Agreement, Petitioner will pay to Defendants' expert witnesses $40,000.00 in full settlement and satisfaction of all experts' fees and costs incurred by Defendants in this case. 150 - 4. This Settlement Agreement is subject to and conditioned upon final approval by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners on or before March 22, 2011. Petitioner's legal counsel and staff will recommend approval of this Agreement to the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. 5. Counsel'for,Petitioner-and Defendants will jointly submit.to the Court - a mutually approved Stipulated Final Judgment containing the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement within ten days following the final approval of this Agreement by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. 6. As a condition of this settlement, Petitioner, at the time of construction of the subject road project, at Petitioner's expense, will construct a driveway connection to Defendant's existing driveway on 66th Avenue. As a condition of this settlement, Petitioner, at the time of construction of the subjectroad project and at Petitioner's expense, will construct a twenty -four -foot wide driveway connection with a drop curb design on 66h Avenue to align with the median opening at or about the southern property line ofDefendants' property. As a condition of this settlement, Petitioner, at the time of construction of the subject road project and at Petitioner's expense, will install a culvert pipe and construct a twelve -foot -wide driveway connection with a drop curb design at or about Station 503 on 37th Street. This Settlement Agreement, dated February 21, 2011, contains all of the agreements of the parties. . C9 of - Christopher R. Mora on behalf Defendant, Matthew 96nley Harbourt, Jr. Anthony V. Policastro, Esq. Attorney r Pe am K. De ra4, Lsq. Attorney for Petitioner William B. Smith, Esq. Mediator Defendant, Hilda C. Harbourt Brent E. i o Lsq. /j ^ Attorney for Went s/ David Alloway; Vs4 Attorney for Defendants 151 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned- have approved and executed this Mediated. Settlement Agreement on this day of March 2011. Approved: By Z Jose h A. Baird County Administrator Attest: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk of Court By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to fo BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA In Bob Solari, Chairman BCC Approved: ncy vviiiiam ry uenraw Deputy County Attorney 152 "yL`J(' 41f jY1'�y r� �'i S�;i 2�!�r vC ., pmummm� LL im No II pill; own Wa A - 1 sw f _Otl v 41knm.- oil L f1 1 ts ;.Jr OV , "of V too fill Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Melissa P. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney I IfA]— Of C2 Of Commissioner Solari 0-3115111 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Alto ney FROM: William K: DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney DATE: March 4, 2011 ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Resolution in Favor of Repealing Certain Sections of Chapter 2010-205, Laws of Florida Regarding Septic Tank Inspections At the March 1, 2011 meeting, the Board directed the County Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution in favor of repealing certain sections of Chapter 2010-205, Laws of Florida, which provides for mandatory inspection of all septic tanks in the State of Florida. Attached please find a resolution for your consideration and approval. Please contact our office with any questions. 155 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN FAVOR OF REPEALING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF" CHAPTER 2010-205, LAWS OF FLORIDA REGARDING SEPTIC TANK INSPECTIONS. WHEREAS, in 2010, the legislature passed Senate Bill 550/House Bill 1271, which was signed into law by the Governor and became Chapter 2010-205, Laws of Florida; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2010-205, Laws of Florida, entitled,. "An act relating to Environmental Protection" is -almost 100 pages in length and either creates or amends _.._....__.__...._s_ections_i.n_the _fol.lowi.ng statutes_:_Ch.apter 1-20-F_S., Chapter 1.6.3_F_..S:.,_C.hapter-1-89---------...- F.S., Chapter 215 F.S., Chapter 220 F.S., Chapter 682 F.S., Chapter.367 F.S., Chapter 369 F.S., Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 378 F:S., Chapter 380 F.S., Chapter 403 F.S., and most importantly §§381.0065; 381:00656 and 381.066 Fla. Stat. (2010); and WHEREAS, the amendments to §§381.0065 and 381.0066 Fla. Stat. (2010) direct the Department of Health to create and administer a statewide septic system evaluation program and authorized the Department to collect an evaluation report fee; and WHEREAS, the legislation called for inspection of all septic systems every five years and mandated their maintenance, repair or replacement if necessary; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that there are .2.3 to 2.7 million septic tanks in the state of Florida and this legislation would directly affect every owner of a septic system in the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the legislation would result in over 500,000 inspections- each year; and WHEREAS, the Department of Health estimates that '10% of the inspections would result in a failing report requiring the replacement of the septic tank which would equate to the replacement of 50,000 systems; and WHEREAS, the Department could not estimate how many of the remaining septic tank inspection would result in required maintenance or pump outs, and WHEREAS, owners who fail to replace, repair or pump out their septic tank could face accruing fines as high as $500 per day, and 156 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - WHEREAS, the amendments to Chapter 381 may serve a valid purpose where regular inspections of septic tanks near environmentally sensitive areas such as Florida's natural springs, would be an important health, safety and welfare issue. However, a blanket approach to requiring inspection and possible pump -out of all systems across the state every five years would be unduly burdensome upon the public as a whole, especially given the current economic � conditions facing Florida's homeowners; and WHEREAS, the amendments to Chapter 381 F.S. were to take effect on January 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the legislature met in special session in. November 2010 and enacted Chapter 20.10-2A, Laws. of Florida, which delayed enforcement of the septic tank inspection program until July 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the policy, of Indian River County as stated in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide public education programs on the proper use, inspection and maintenance of septic tanks, believing that in a democratic society, whenever possible, education is to be preferred to regulation. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners voices its opposition to the five year inspection and evaluation cycle of septic tanks and possible pump -out of a system as mandated by Chapter 2010-205, Laws of Florida, now codified in Chapter 381 F.S. 2. The Board of County Commissioners encourages the legislative delegation of Indian River County to repeal those sections of Chapter 2010-205 that mandate a state wide inspection and maintenance program for septic tanks in the State of Florida. This resolution was moved for adoption the motion was seconded by Commissioner _ vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Bob Solari Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan by Commissioner and upon being put to a The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this day of , 2011. 2 157 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk by its Board of County Commissioners Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal - ? it William K. DeBraal Deputy County Attorney 3 Bob Solari, Chairman 158