Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/2013AP 41 2A JEFFREY R. SMITH Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller 1801 27TH Street �LpRIpA Vero Beach, Florida 32961 -1028 Telephone (772) 226-1945 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: March 28, 2013 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS March 22, 2013 to March 28, 2013 FROM: DIANE BERNARDO - FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants (checks and electronic payments) 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 Comptroller's office, for the time period of March 22, 2013 to March 28, 2013. Attachment: DB: MS 1 CHECKS WRITTEN CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 296468 3/26/2013 ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 142.32 296469 3/26/2013 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 50.00 296470 3/26/2013 IRC FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOC 6,240.00 296471 3/26/2013 UNITED WAY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1,278.91 296472 3/26/2013 MISDU MICHIGAN STATE 445.75 296473 3/26/2013 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 202.86 296474 3/26/2013 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 205.61 296475 3/26/2013 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 114.73 296476 3/28/2013 PORT CONSOLIDATED INC 3,232.50 296477 3/28/2013 STURGIS LUMBER&PLYWOOD CO 383.11 296478 3/28/2013 FIRE EQUIPMENT SVC OF ST LUCIE INC 403.20 296479 3/28/2013 JORDAN MOWER INC 99.91 296480 3/28/2013 TEN-8 FIRE EQUIPMENT INC 4,227.04 296481 3/28/2013 RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND INC 239.46 296482 3/28/2013 COPYCO INC DBA 54.13 296483 3/28/2013 RICOH USA INC 386.23 296484 3/28/2013 RICOH USA INC 498.09 296485 3/28/2013 ALARM PARTNERS 116.34 296486 3/28/2013 CHISHOLM CORP OF VERO 874.00 296487 3/28/2013 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC 1,130.27 296488 3/28/2013 RUSSELL CONCRETE INC 475.00 296489 3/28/2013 AT&T WIRELESS 109.55 296490 3/28/2013 AT&T WIRELESS 1,330.85 296491 3/28/2013 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS INC 4,314.35 296492 3/28/2013 COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS WAREHOUSE 304.46 296493 3/28/2013 E-Z BREW COFFEE&BOTTLE WATER SVC 27.95 296494 3/28/2013 KELLY TRACTOR CO 2,791.20 296495 3/28/2013 COCA COLA REFRESHMENTS USA INC 553.92 296496 3/28/2013 MY RECEPTIONIST INC 264.20 296497 3/28/2013 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER INC 4.20 296498 3/28/2013 AMERJGAS EAGLE PROPANE LP 336.74 296499 3/28/2013 GAYLORD BROTHERS INC 249.57 296500 3/28/2013 MARK W HILL DBA 19.00 296501 3/28/2013 PATTERSON POPE INC 140.74 296502 3/28/2013 KSM ENGINEERING&TESTING INC 100.00 296503 3/28/2013 BOUND TREE MEDICAL 2,705.49 296504 3/28/2013 PETES CONCRETE 585.00 296505 3/28/2013 EGP INC 1,279.18 296506 3/28/2013 VERO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 1,198.96 296507 3/28/2013 FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE 1,376.40 296508 3/28/2013 CENTER POINT INC 212.10 296509 3/28/2013 BARTH CONSTRUCTION INC 133,596.00 296510 3/28/2013 CARTER ASSOCIATES INC 330.37 296511 3/28/2013 CLAUDE A GIBSON DBA 2,197.39 296512 3/28/2013 HOMELAND IRRIGATION 270.54 296513 3/28/2013 CAMPANA REALTY INC 359.85 296514 3/28/2013 R&G SOD FARMS 360.00 296515 3/28/2013 GENERAL PART INC 693.64 296516 3/28/2013 BAKER& TAYLOR INC 5,039.11 296517 3/28/2013 GROVE WELDERS INC 37.09 296518 3/28/2013 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 825.90 296519 3/28/2013 NORTHERN SAFETY CO INC 207.30 296520 3/28/2013 LOWES CO INC 1,321.74 296521 3/28/2013 PRECISION CONTRACTING SERVICES INC 6,280.00 296522 3/28/2013 MICROMARKETING LLC 147.93 296523 3/28/2013 FIRST HOSPITAL LABORATORIES INC 739.50 296524 3/28/2013 CENGAGE LEARNING CORPORATION 59.96 296525 3/28/2013 PALM TRUCK CENTERS INC 1,424.70 1 2 CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 296526 3/28/2013 GREENE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP LTD 3,114.58 296527 3/28/2013 LINDSEY GARDENS APARTMENTS 686.00 296528 3/28/2013 SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC 42,240.00 296529 3/28/2013 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 44,543.41 296530 3/28/2013 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 187,096.27 296531 3/28/2013 MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE 23,651.41 296532 3/28/2013 VICTIM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 4,428.66 296533 3/28/2013 ROGER J NICOSIA 1,500.00 296534 3/28/2013 CITY OF VERO BEACH 63,181.97 296535 3/28/2013 CITY OF VERO BEACH 1,972.54 296536 3/28/2013 CITY OF VERO BEACH 11,562.50 296537 3/28/2013 LSQ FUNDING GROUP L C 3,795.04 296538 3/28/2013 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORPORATION 410.00 296539 3/28/2013 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC 33.89 296540 3/28/2013 EBSCO INDUSTRIES INC 2,200.00 296541 3/28/2013 FLORIDA GOVERNMENT FINANCE 26.00 296542 3/28/2013 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA INC 836.40 296543 3/28/2013 PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS 35.22 296544 3/28/2013 PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS 90.00 296545 3/28/2013 WAL MART STORES EAST LP 266.74 296546 3/28/2013 ACUSHNET COMPANY 372.99 296547 3/28/2013 INTERNATIONAL GOLF MAINTENANCE INC 83,088.25 296548 3/28/2013 AQUAGENIX 372.00 296549 3/28/2013 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC 320.45 296550 3/28/2013 FEDERAL EXPRESS 33.73 296551 3/28/2013 CENTRAL A/C&REFRIGERATION SUPPLY 910.00 296552 3/28/2013 RIVERFRONT HOTEL LLC 375.00 296553 3/28/2013 PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY 90.16 296554 3/28/2013 SPRINT SPECTRUM LP 24.19 296555 3/28/2013 SPRINT SPECTRUM LP 104.17 296556 3/28/2013 SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC 97,813.40 ... 296557 3/28/2013 CALLAWAY GOLF SALES COMPANY 1,362.08 296558 3/28/2013 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 99,773.53 296559 3/28/2013 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 433.95 296560 3/28/2013 ACUSHNET COMPANY 1,553.29 296561 3/28/2013 MIKE CLIFFORD 300.00 296562 3/28/2013 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 930.95 296563 3/28/2013 MELECH BERMAN 450.00 296564 3/28/2013 KENNETH SCOTT ELLIS 69.42 296565 3/28/2013 THOMAS S LOWTHER FUNERAL HOME INC 425.00 296566 3/28/2013 TAYLOR MADE GOLF CO INC 1,861.38 296567 3/28/2013 BRE-CLEARWATER OWNER LLC 83.00 296568 3/28/2013 STATE ATTORNEY 11,486.32 296569 3/28/2013 L3 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY& 34,750.00 296570 3/28/2013 KENNY CAMPBELL SENIOR 180.00 296571 3/28/2013 US KIDS GOLF LLC 261.64 296572 3/28/2013 CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF PALM BCH 31096.02 296573 3/28/2013 TOCOMA RUBBER STAMP&MARKING SYSTEM 76.80 296574 3/28/2013 FLORIDA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 75.00 296575 3/28/2013 HOMELESS FAMILY CENTER INC 1,630.50 296576 3/28/2013 RICHARD ZORC 200.00 296577 3/28/2013 GERALD A YOUNG SR 240.00 296578 3/28/2013 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS 623.00 296579 3/28/2013 ALAN C KAUFFMANN 40.00 296580 3/28/2013 PETTY CASH 32.01 296581 3/28/2013 G K ENVIRONMENTAL INC 5,682.00 296582 3/28/2013 ADVANCED XEROGRAPHICS IMAGING 819.87 296583 3/28/2013 LINDSEY MATHENY 40.00 �,. 296584 3/28/2013 TIM GEIB 100.00 296585 3/28/2013 SOUTHERN PLUMBING INC 585.82 2 3 CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 296586 3/28/2013 PERKINS COMPOUNDING PHARMACY 49.43 296587 3/28/2013 RUSSELL PAYNE INC 290.85 296588 3/28/2013 TREASURE COAST MATS 476.00 296589 3/28/2013 CELICO PARTNERSHIP 267.91 296590 3/28/2013 EDUARDO RIVERA 184.26 296591 3/28/2013 VAN WAL INC 110.00 296592 3/28/2013 HYDROMENTIA 14,942.55 296593 3/28/2013 J&JAUTOWORKS INC 126.00 296594 3/28/2013 SYNAGRO-WWT INC 52,293.77 296595 3/28/2013 RANDOM HOUSE INC 407.25 296596 3/28/2013 ALAN HILL 376.62 296597 3/28/2013 COASTAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 8,982.90 296598 3/28/2013 JOHN M PICKERILL 500.00 296599 3/28/2013 CENTRAL PUMP& SUPPLY INC 454.16 296600 3/28/2013 UNITED FOR FAMILIES 506.65 296601 3/28/2013 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND 975.00 296602 3/28/2013 MASTELLER&MOLER INC 229.34 296603 3/28/2013 DICKERSON FLORIDA INC 197,151.15 296604 3/28/2013 GLOVER OIL COMPANY INC 112,419.04 296605 3/28/2013 HERITAGE PRESERVATION 150.00 296606 3/28/2013 GARY L EMBREY 60.00 296607 3/28/2013 LARRY STEPHEN FAISON 60.00 296608 3/28/2013 JOSE RIVERA 120.00 296609 3/28/2013 RUBIN, STEVE&KAREN 273.00 296610 3/28/2013 MOBILE PRO SHOP 659.10 296611 3/28/2013 1ST FIRE&SECURITY INC 339.00 296612 3/28/2013 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC 348.56 296613 3/28/2013 KENNY CAMPBELL JR 160.00 296614 3/28/2013 TIMOTHY&JODI VELDE 50.00 296615 3/28/2013 BRIAN WYKOFF 120.00 296616 3/28/2013 MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS INC 16,975.01 296617 3/28/2013 SPIELMAN, FLORENCE 14.27 296618 3/28/2013 CHARLES A WALKER 240.00 296619 3/28/2013 POLICASTRO& LEROUX PA 5,669.50 296620 3/28/2013 MARGARET TYSON 42.51 296621 3/28/2013 DANIEL IOFFREDO 60.00 296622 3/28/2013 BENNETT AUTO SUPPLY INC 399.91 296623 3/28/2013 MARK NOVAK 35.35 296624 3/28/2013 TREASURE COAST SPRINKLERS INC 433.00 296625 3/28/2013 KRISTIN DANIELS 133.01 296626 3/28/2013 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 336.25 296627 3/28/2013 TRITEL INC 99.00 296628 3/28/2013 SAMUEL JUST 58.20 296629 3/28/2013 SANDY ARACENA 120.00 296630 3/28/2013 AMANDA&TREVOR GIORDANO 41.77 296631 3/28/2013 ROBIN MILLER 241.96 296632 3/28/2013 HELPING ANIMALS LIVE-OVERCOME 75.00 296633 3/28/2013 BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC 2,441.43 296634 3/28/2013 NIC MANAGEMENT LLC 50.00 296635 3/28/2013 ALMM LLC 200.00 296636 3/28/2013 BENEFITS WORKSHOP 321.36 296637 3/28/2013 WITTENBACH BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 543.44 296638 3/28/2013 INEOS NEW PLANET BIOENERGY LLC 130,244.85 296639 3/28/2013 WOERNER DEVELOPMENT INC 133.00 296640 3/28/2013 BUSH ROSS PA 246.32 296641 3/28/2013 MDT PERSONNEL LLC 11,655.64 296642 3/28/2013 BOULEVARD TIRE CENTER 3,296.94 296643 3/28/2013 SOUTHEAST STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC 2,000.00 ,omw,. 296644 3/28/2013 ROBERT SHREFFLER JR 35.97 296645 3/28/2013 DELRAY MOTORS 388.58 3 4 CHECK NBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 296646 3/28/2013 TREKKER TRACTOR LLC 41.92 296647 3/28/2013 FLORIDA COAST EQUIPMENT INC 2,003.00 296648 3/28/2013 TELE-WORKS INC 14,154.00 296649 3/28/2013 AG SCAPE SERVICES INC 2,277.50 296650 3/28/2013 RAYMOND J DUCHEMIN 60.00 296651 3/28/2013 SURVEYMONKEY COM 204.00 296652 3/28/2013 SARA L MATHEWS 28.00 296653 3/28/2013 BORO BUILDING&PROPERTY MAINT INC 4,720.13 296654 3/28/2013 INTEGRITY LAWNS&LANDSCAPING 1,260.00 296655 3/28/2013 KEITH GROCHOLL 60.00 296656 3/28/2013 GFA INTERNATIONAL INC 1,620.00 296657 3/28/2013 YP LLC 142.30 296658 3/28/2013 WILD TURKEY ESTATES OF VERO LLC 1,932.05 296659 3/28/2013 RUTH BOMMARITO 36.00 296660 3/28/2013 REHMANN GROUP LLC 17,985.00 296661 3/28/2013 IRMA F POSS 112.00 296662 3/28/2013 SHAWN GINN 80.00 296663 3/28/2013 CHRISTOPHER LEE MERRITT 60.00 296664 3/28/2013 AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES LLC 23.77 296665 3/28/2013 MKI SERVICES INC 709.84 296666 3/28/2013 SEAPOINTE BUILDERS 20.00 296667 3/28/2013 BRENT E SIMON PA 40,000.00 296668 3/28/2013 ERNEST SHEPHARD 50.00 296669 3/28/2013 WINNI BARRANCE 33.41 296670 3/28/2013 ELSIE EGGEN 56.05 296671 3/28/2013 DORIS OLSEN 26.42 296672 3/28/2013 SUSAN HART 26.42 296673 3/28/2013 BARTON LABAR 26.42 296674 3/28/2013 EDWARD NORMENT 42.51 296675 3/28/2013 JAMIE THORSEN 31.78 296676 3/28/2013 MICHAEL BINGMAN 68.22 Grand Total: 1,592,436.44 4 5 ELECTRONIC PAYMENT - VISA CARD TRANS. NBR DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 1001203 3/25/2013 EVERGLADES FARM EQUIPMENT CO INC 207.40 1001204 3/25/2013 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST LLC 1,782.50 �.. 1001205 3/25/2013 COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 396.00 1001206 3/25/2013 LIGHTSOURCE IMAGING SOLUTIONS LLC 112.47 1001207 3/25/2013 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY 370.70 1001208 3/25/2013 RING POWER CORPORATION 775.00 1001209 3/25/2013 REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA 146.61 1001210 3/25/2013 MUMFORD LIBRARY BOOKS INC 348.56 1001211 3/25/2013 MIKES GARAGE&WRECKER SERVICE INC 55.00 1001212 3/25/2013 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 2.07 1001213 3/25/2013 ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP 2,784.65 1001214 3/25/2013 RECORDED BOOKS LLC 99.00 1001215 3/25/2013 ARAMARK UNIFORM&CAREER APPAREL LLC 236.18 1001216 3/25/2013 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE 23.33 1001217 3/25/2013 SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY CO 248.90 1001218 3/25/2013 COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP 831.64 1001219 3/25/2013 MIDWEST MOTOR SUPPLY CO 349.06 1001220 3/25/2013 SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY INC 976.92 1001221 3/25/2013 CAPITAL OFFICE PRODUCTS 596.15 1001222 3/25/2013 AUTO PARTNERS LLC 378.58 1001223 3/25/2013 L&L DISTRIBUTORS 44.74 1001224 3/25/2013 CON-AIR INDUSTRIES INC 1,378.24 1001225 3/25/2013 S &S AUTO PARTS 253.93 1001226 3/26/2013 S &S AUTO PARTS 99.62 1001227 3/27/2013 COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 348.80 1001228 3/27/2013 SAFETY PRODUCTS INC 1,814.77 1001229 3/27/2013 LIGHTSOURCE IMAGING SOLUTIONS LLC 188.08 1001230 3/27/2013 AMERICAN CONCRETE INDUSTRIES INC 960.00 1001231 3/27/2013 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 692.56 1001232 3/27/2013 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO INC 324.93 1001233 3/27/2013 ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP 8,253.30 1001234 3/27/2013 ARAMARK UNIFORM&CAREER APPAREL LLC 77.34 1001235 3/27/2013 SVI SYSTEMS INC 198.00 1001236 3/27/2013 SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY CO 5.99 1001237 3/27/2013 COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP 6,105.31 1001238 3/27/2013 FLAGLER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LLC 3,719.36 1001239 3/27/2013 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC 579.60 1001240 3/27/2013 CAPITAL OFFICE PRODUCTS 168.84 1001241 3/27/2013 S &S AUTO PARTS 146.66 1001242 3/28/2013 AT&T 9,224.92 1001243 3/28/2013 OFFICE DEPOT BSD CUSTOMER SVC 1,111.56 1001244 3/28/2013 COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL 18,683.18 1001245 3/28/2013 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC 95.50 1001246 3/28/2013 ARAMARK UNIFORM&CAREER APPAREL LLC 101.52 1001247 3/28/2013 COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP 403.50 1001248 3/28/2013 RECHTIEN INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 3,907.59 1001249 3/28/2013 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC 1,544.25 1001250 3/28/2013 CAPITAL OFFICE PRODUCTS 636.91 1001251 3/28/2013 EAST COAST ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER 98.00 Grand Total: 71,887.72 1 6 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS - WIRE & ACH TRANS NBR DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 2360 3/27/2013 BENEFITS WORKSHOP 6,940.49 2361 3/28/2013 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION 12,465.72 2362 3/28/2013 NACO/SOUTHEAST 21,700.12 2363 3/28/2013 FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC 3,968.60 2364 3/28/2013 NATIONWIDE SOLUTIONS RETIREMENT 301.98 2365 3/28/2013 ICMA RET CORP 1,635.00 2366 3/28/2013 KIMLEY HORN&ASSOC INC 27,691.00 2367 3/28/2013 SENIOR RESOURCE ASSOCIATION 175,588.93 2368 3/28/2013 US BANK 938,166.25 2369 3/28/2013 FL SDU 6,222.56 Grand Total: 1,194,680.65 7 CONSENT ITEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES v... AGENDA ITEM DATE: APRIL 3, 2013 TO: JOSEPH A. BAIRD, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: CINDY CORRENTE,UTILITIES FINANCE MANAGER(",' n THRU: VINCENT BURKE, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES* SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT TO ADVANCED UTILITY SYSTEMS BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2009, The Board of County Commissioners awarded a contract for utility Billing Software to Advanced Utility Systems. On May 1, 2011, the department went live with the new software. However, at the time, the Loans module was not ready for implementation. Over the past two years staff worked with Advance Utility Systems to modify their loan module to accommodate the impact fee loans, paving and drainage assessments and utility assessments. After extensive testing, the module has finally been implemented into the live Utility Billing database. FUNDING: Funding for the software is derived from the Utilities Software Account in the operating fund. The operating fund budget is derived from water and sewer revenues. DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT Utilities Software 471-169000-10507 $44,200.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the final payment to Advanced Utility Systems in the amount of $44,200. The total contract was awarded for $527,200.00. This final payment completes the County's obligation under the contract. ATTACHMENT: Invoice Indian River Co. Approved Date Approved: Administration -'113 Utilities Utilities ct"c- Y-3-/3 oseph A. Baird, County Administrator Legal q,3, ?. Budget Gate) 8 D VAN C ED rNi Invoice CT008550 II t I T tl' SYSTEMS S T M S Date 5/6/2011 U T Page 1 of 1 .x Dhtvrsioxy Of N, Hw7ir C:trlxtt:wer f:xfui i?i�axt Remit To: N. Harris Computer Corporation 62133 Collections Center Drive Chicago, IL 60693-0621 Bill To Ship To Indian River County Utilities Indian River County Utilities Cindy Corrente(Assistant Director of Utilities) 1801,27th Street 1801,27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Vero Beach, FL 32960 USA USA PO Number Customer No. Salesperson ID Shipping Method Payment Terms IND01A LOCAL DELIVERY Receipt Ordered Item Number Description Unit Price Ext Price 1.00 AUS-CUST DEP Service Payment Milestone#8 of 8-GO LIVE Data Conversion US$ 44,200.00 US$ 44,200.00 and GO LIVE Subtotal US$ 44,200.0 Mise US$ 0.0 Tax US$ 0.0 ws� Freight US$ 0.0 Invoice Questions?Please call Juliana Gomes at 613-226-5511 ext 2204 OR e-mail Trade Discount US$ 0.0 JGomes@harriscomputer.com Total US$ L44,200.0 9 Consent Agenda 12(2_0 Indian River County Interoffice Memorandum Office of Management & Budget To: Members of the Board o nt Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown Director, Office of Manag men & Budget Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 013 Description and Conditions The attached budget amendment appropriates funding necessary for the following: 1. On April 2, 2013 the Board of County Commissioners approved the purchase of 24 Sheriff's Department patrol vehicles totaling $799,530. Capital expenditures in the *AWW amount of$751,458 will be funded from Optional Sales Tax/Cash Forward Oct 1st, while miscellaneous expenditures in the amount of $48,072 will be funded from MSTU Fund/Cash Forward Oct 1St, 2. The average age of the Indian River County Fire Rescue ambulance fleet is 2007, while 4 ambulances are between 9 and 11 years old. In keeping with the replacement policy of emergency vehicles, Fire Rescue is in need of a replacement ambulance. Staff recommends that the purchase be funded from Optional Sales Tax/Cash Forward-Oct 1St. in the amount of $225,000. 3. Indian River County Libraries have received donations totaling $11,064. The attached entry appropriates these donations. 4. The Community Development Department is in need of a new copier, as the current copier can no longer be maintained. An outright purchase of a copier would be more cost effective than a lease. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $8,300 from MSTU Fund/Reserve for Contingency. 5. A new e-mail server is needed to provide additional storage capacity as well as streamline the e-mail system. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $ 11,276 from General Fund/Reserve for Contingency. 6. Revenues and expenses have exceeded estimates for the 2012/13 fiscal year in the Nftw� Shooting Range. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $25,000 from ammunition sales. 10 Board of County Commissioners April 2, 2013 Page 2 of 2 7. On March 19, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners approved a FIND grant application for boat dock and signage improvements at the Jones' pier conservation area. The attached entry appropriates the grant of $15,000 and the required match of $15,000 from Land Bond Series 2006/Cash Forward Oct 1st. 8. On February 15, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Neighborhood Stabilization Plan-3 (NSP-3).Program Income from the sale of homes is reinvested back into the program. The attached entry appropriates the revenue generated from the sale of homes purchased through these grants. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the attached budget resolution amending the fiscal year 2012/2013 budget. Attachments Budget Amendment 013 and Resolution APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: Indian River County Approved Date BY: Administrator y 'Joseph A. Baird Legal County Administrator Budget 13 FOR: April 9, 2013 Department Risk Management 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 BUDGET. WHEREAS, certain appropriation and expenditure amendments to the adopted Fiscal Year 2012-2013 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 2012-2013 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 2012-2013 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 Joseph E. Flescher Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari Commissioner Tim Zorc The Chairman thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of 12013. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith Board of County Commissioners Clerk of Court and Comptroller By By Deputy Clerk Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman APPROVED ASJR FORM E AL I IENCY BY 1 • COUNTY ATTORNEY 12 Exhibit "A" Resolution No.2013- Budget Office Approval: /A�_ Budget Amendment:013 Jason EUBrown BudgetDirector Entry Fund/DepaNumber count Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. Revenue Optional Sales Tax/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward-Oct 315039-389040 $751,458 $0 1st MSTU Fund/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward-Oct 1st 004039-389040 $48,072 $0 Expense Optional Sales Tax/Sheriff/Law Enforcement 31560086-099040 $751,458 $0 MSTU Fund/Sheriff/Law Enforcement 00460086-099040 $48,072 $0 2. Revenue Optional Sales Tax/Non-Revenue/Cash Forward-Oct 315039-389040 $225,000 $0 1st Expense ... Optional Sales Tax/Fire Rescue/Automotive 31512022-066420 $225,000 $0 3. Revenue General Fund/Donations/Main Library 001038-366095 $9,844 $0 General Fund/Donations/NC Library 001038-366100 $1,220 $0 Expense General Fund/Main Library/Books 00110971-035450 $9,844 $0 General Fund/NC Library/Books 00111271-035450 $1,220 $0 4 Expense MSTU Fund/County Planning/Office Furniture& 00420515-066410 $8,300 $0 Equipment MSTU Fund/Reserves/Reserve for Contingency 00419981-099910 $0 $8,300 13 Exhibit "A" Resolution No.2013- Budget Office Approval: Budget Amendment:013 Jason E.r rown, Budget Director Entry Fund/Departe Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease Number 5. Expense General Fund/Computer Services/EDP Equipment 00124113-066470 $11,276 $0 General Fund/Reserves/Reserve for Contingency 00119981-099910 $0 $11,276 6. Revenue MSTU Fund/Service Charges/Ammunition Sales 004034-347520 $25,000 $0 Expense MSTU Fund/Shooting Range/Pro Shop 00416172-035630 $25,000 $0 7. Revenue Series 2006/Land Acquisition Bonds/Non-Revenue/ 145039-389040 $15,000 $0 Cash Forward-Oct 1st Series 2006/Intergovernmental/FIND Grant/Jones Pier 145033-337304-09008 $15,000 $0 Remediation v... Expense Series 2006/1-and Acquisition Bonds/Other Professional 14514639-033190-09008 $30,000 $0 Services/Jones Pier Remediation 8. Revenue NSP3 Grant/Program Income 130038-369919-11813 $720,000 $0 Expense NSP3 Grant PI/Home Rehab/Other Contractual Svcs 13013854-033490-11813 $595,000 $0 NSP3 Grant PI/Home Rehab/Home Maint Costs 13013854-049100-11813 $50,000 $0 NSP3 Grant PI/Home Rehab/Closing Costs 13013854-088052-11813 $50,000 $0 NSP3 Grant PI/Home Rehab/Developer Fees 13013854-088053-11813 $25,000 $0 w 14 PUBLIC HEARING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator D AR MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, A1q; Com rty Development Director FROM: Sasan Rohani,AICP � , Chief, Long-Range Planning DATE: April 1, 2013 SUBJECT: Vero Estates,LLC's Request to Amend the Text of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 9, 2013. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to amend the text of the Future Land Use Element of the county's comprehensive plan. The purpose of this amendment is to revise policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element to modify certain policy requirements for mixed use PDs (planned developments) located in residentially designated areas. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Procedures Although the number of plan amendments that the county may consider is not limited, the County's Comprehensive Plan regulates the frequency with which the county may amend its comprehensive plan. According to the County's Comprehensive Plan,plan amendments are limited to four times per calendar year. For that reason, the county accepts general plan amendment applications only during the "window" months of January, April, July and October. In this case, the subject application was submitted during the January 2013 window. The procedures for reviewing a comprehensive plan amendment involve several steps. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission,as the Local Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to review the request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of County Commissioners. 1 15 Following the Planning and Zoning Commission action,the Board of County Commissioners conducts two public hearings. The first of those hearings is for a preliminary decision on the amendment request. At that hearing,the Board determines whether or not the amendment warrants transmittal to state and regional review agencies for their consideration. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is transmitted,state and regional review agencies will review the amendment as it pertains to each agency's focus area. Review agencies will then send their comments directly to the county and the State Land Planning Agency. Subsequent to staff and/or the applicant addressing any issues that were raised by the review agencies, a second and final Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted. If the Board approves the request, the approved amendment is submitted to the State Land Planning Agency and to the other review agencies that provided comments. The amendment becomes effective 31 days after the State Land Planning Agency determines that the amendment package is complete, unless a challenge is filed by an affected party. This public hearing is the second step in the comprehensive plan amendment process. At this time,the Board of County Commissioners must decide whether or not to transmit the proposed amendment to the state and regional review agencies. Proposed Amendment As proposed, the subject text amendment will revise policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element. The �•• proposed revisions are shown as underlined and s*ri�su in attachment#2. Currently, Policy 5.6 provides an allowance for mixed use (residential and commercial uses) PDs to locate within residentially designated areas. That allowance was one of the initiatives that came from the county's last comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report. Incorporated within Policy 5.6 are various conditions and limitations that ensure that mixed use PDs are compatible with surrounding residential areas. Among those criteria are size restrictions,timing requirements,use limitations,design standards, connectivity requirements, and others. In this case,the applicant proposes to amend policy 5.6 to allow fuel sales within mixed use PDs. The applicant also proposes to modify Policy 5.6's current limitation that no commercial may be permitted until at least 25% of the residential portion of the mixed use project has been permitted. Instead, the applicant proposes to allow up to 2.5 acres of commercial development prior to the initiation of residential development within mixed use PD projects. In support of this application,the applicant has submitted a three page document(attachment#1). Staff supports this application and agrees with the applicant's assessment. Background In June,2012,the applicant for the subject text amendment submitted a small scale land use amendment for the property at the northeast corner of CR 510 and 66th Avenue. That application proposed to change the land use designation for the subject property from L-2 (residential) to C/I (Commercial/Industrial). In its analysis of the proposed amendment, staff determined that the amendment was inconsistent with several policies of the comprehensive plan. For that reason, staff 2 16 recommended that the application be denied. At its October 25, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and voted unanimously to table the applicant's small scale land use amendment and rezoning request (see attachment#3). After the October meeting,the applicant and staff met to discuss the property. At that time, staff acknowledged that limited commercial uses would be appropriate for the site, but a new commercial node would not. With that in mind, staff indicated that the applicant could do a mixed use project on the site. To address some of the applicant's concerns, staff indicated that it could support minor changes to the comprehensive plan's mixed use policy. As a result, staff and the applicant agreed to the subject text amendment changes referenced above. If adopted, those changes will allow the applicant to develop his C.R. 510/661h Avenue properly as a mixed use PD in a manor acceptable to the applicant and staff. Consequently, this .text amendment replaces the applicant's previous commercial land use re-designation and rezoning request for property at the northeast corner of C.R. 510 and 66th Avenue. Planninix and Zoning Commission Action On March 14, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC)voted 5 —0 to recommend that the Board approve this comprehensive plan text amendment request with the following two changes. The first change involves the percent of the total mixed use project site that can be developed with commercial uses. Currently,sites with L-1 or L-2 land use designations have a lower percentage(20%) of commercial allowances than sites designated M-1 or M-2 (25%). After considering the proposed amendment,the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that L-1 and L-2 sites be allowed the same commercial percentage that M-1 and M-2 sites are allowed.The second change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission is to allow up to 3 acres or 50%of total allowed commercial area, which ever is greater,to be developed prior to construction of any residential development. Those two changes are analyzed in this report and have been incorporated into the text amendment proposal now under consideration. ANALYSIS When staff drafted Future Land use Element Policy 5.6, the mixed use policy adopted as part of the county's 2010 EAR based comprehensive plan amendments,the policy was structured to be somewhat restrictive. As such, the policy limited the allowable uses in a mixed use project, established timing requirements for permitting and constructing commercial square footage, required certain design elements, and imposed various other restrictions and limitations. In terms of uses, mixed use projects are permitted to have uses comparable to those allowed in the neighborhood commercial (CN) zoning district. As with the CN district, the mixed use regulations prohibit gasoline service stations. Unlike the CN district, however, the county's mixed use policy prohibits fuel sales. Besides the use limitations, development timing restrictions also apply to mixed use projects. Those restrictions were structured to ensure that commercial portions of mixed use �-- projects were not built without the residential component being constructed. Both the use and timing provisions of the mixed use regulations are the subject of this text amendment. 3 17 Generally, gasoline service stations (includes repair and maintenance services) and restaurant drive- throughs are prohibited in neighborhood commercial areas. One reason for that is that those uses are car centric, while neighborhood commercial areas are more pedestrian oriented. That being said, certain car-oriented uses can function within the neighborhood environment. In fact, a fuel sales use can sometimes act as a kind of anchor tenant,drawing customers into the project and enhancing the viability of the other tenants. With such uses,however,project design is particularly important. Because of the nature of fuel sales uses, a project's design needs to buffer adjacent residential areas from fuel sales impacts,maintain proj ect aesthetics,and mitigate potential auto/pedestrian conflicts. With a mixed use development,the project must be approved through the Planned Development(PD)process. Since the PD process gives the county more control of project design,staff's position is that fuel sales uses can be appropriate within mixed use PD projects and supports the proposed change. The other proposed amendment relates to development timing. When policy 5.6 was drafted, staff's concern was that, without a timing restriction, mixed use project developers would build the commercial component of the project and not build the residential portion. That then would defeat the purpose of mixing uses. To address that issue, staff structured policy 5.6 to require that a certain amount of the residential portion of the project be permitted before commercial development is allowed. At the time that policy 5.6 was developed, there were several alternative ways to address the timing issue. Although the current policy does not allow any commercial development to commence until a certain amount of residential is permitted, other options were considered when policy 5.6 was being ... developed. One such alternative was, like the proposed timing amendment, to allow a portion of the commercial development to proceed without any residential being permitted. In the case of the proposed amendment, up to 2.5 acres of commercial could be allowed prior to any residential being permitted. That amount of acreage allows for a typical convenience retail and fuel sales development. Any further commercial development would require that at least 25% of the residential be permitted. Staff's position is that the amendment is acceptable. Generally, the change will accomplish the objective of ensuring that proposed mixed use projects do not end up as stand alone commercial sites with no residential component. Analysis of the Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed Changes When the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the subject text amendment at its October 25, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended two changes to policy 5.6 in addition to those changes proposed by the applicant.The first change is to revise the policy to eliminate the differences between the L-1/L-2 and the M-1/M-2 land use designations with respect to the percentage of the mixed use site that is allowed to be developed with commercial uses. While the current policy allows a higher percentage of commercial area within mixed use projects in medium density, residential districts than in low density residential districts, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended change would allow the percentage of commercial area within mixed use projects to be 25% for all residential land use designations (L-1, L-2, M-1, M-2), an amount which could be increased to 30%for projects that vertically mix uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission's rationale for recommending that change was that,because the 4 18 difference between the allowed commercial area within low density residential districts and medium density residential districts is only 5%,allowing the same percentage in both low and medium density residential districts will simplify the policy without much additional impact. Staff's position is that the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation is acceptable, and staff supports the change. The second change recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission is to increase the amount of commercial area that may be developed prior to any residential development to a maximum of 3 acres or 50% of the total allowed commercial area, whichever is greater. That change would increase the amount of upfront commercial acreage allowed,especially for larger mixed use projects. Table below shows the impact on different size mixed use projects. Project area(acres) Maximum Commercial Area Allowed Proposed Maximum upfront Commercial (30%) in a mixed use project(acres) Area Allowed (3 acres or 50% of total commercial area allowed) 10 0 6 0 9 4.5 40 12 6 With respect to the timing issue,the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that all projects regardless of their size should be treated equally. The Planning and Zoning Commission also felt that permitting up �... to 50% of the total allowed commercial area to be constructed before any of the residential is constructed would encourage larger sites to be developed as mixed use projects. Staffs position is that both recommendations are acceptable, and staff supports the changes. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code,the"Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan". For a proposed amendment to be consistent with the plan,the amendment must be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions that the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county,policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions,including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request is Policy 14.3 of the Future Land Use Element. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating a comprehensive plan amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. That policy requires that at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment request. Those criteria are: 5 19 w • The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances ; or • The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites,and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In this case, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment meets Policy 14.3's first criterion. When policy 5.6 was adopted, the policy was structured to be too restrictive. In retrospect, it appears that limiting uses and restricting development timing to the extent that policy 5.6 does was an oversight. The subject amendment will correct that oversight. Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan While Policy 14.3 is particularly applicable to this request, other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason,staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis,staff determined that the request is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Companion Land Development Regulation Changes As structured, the county's comprehensive plan provides overall policy direction, while the county's land development regulations(LDRs)provide more detailed rules to implement those policies. In the case of mixed use projects in residential areas, Policy 5.6 is relatively detailed and specific. Even so, Section 915.20 of the county's land development regulations (LDRs) contains more detailed requirements for mixed use projects. If Policy 5.6 is amended as proposed,the LDRs will need to be changed to be consistent with the updated Policy 5.6. Consequently, staff will initiate an LDR amendment to modify Section 915.20 if the Board of County Commissioners agrees to transmit the subj ect comprehensive plan amendment to the state. In so doing,staff will ensure that the LDR changes will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at its final adoption hearing for the Policy 5.6 amendment. Prior to that hearing, staff will present the companion LDR changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CONCLUSION Staff's position is that amending Future Land Use Policy 5.6,as proposed,is warranted and is needed to provide mixed use PD project applicants the flexibility needed to respond to changing commercial and residential market conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment for transmittal to state and regional review agencies. 6 20 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application and Attachments 2. Proposed Policy 5.6 Text Amendment 3. Minutes from October 25, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Transmittal Resolution Approved Agenda Item: Indian Approved Date River Co. Admin. For O Legal r3 By: Budget Dept . Risk F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\January 2013 FLU element policy 5.6\Staff Reports\l3CC staff report for FLUE Text amendment-April 9,2013 meeting.rtf +rr.- 21 APPLICATION FORM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT (CPTA) �— INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Planning Division accepts Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment applications o;hly during the months of January and July of each 'year, Each application must be complete when submitted and must include all required attachments. An incomplete application Will not. be processed and will be returned to the applicant. Assigned Project Number: CPTA -_,401261 Current Owner/Applicant— Agent Narne: Vero Estates, LLC Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC Colrlplete Availing 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 401F 1717 Indian River Blvd, Suite 201 Address: Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone# (including area 305-865-1923 772-770-9622 code) Fax # (including area code) 305-937-0973 772-770-9496 E-Mail. emiliosuayaagma' . m jschulkeCsbsengineers.com Contact Person: Emilio Su Joseph Schulke, P.E. Signature of Owner or Agent: Please attach the fol lo\\Ing item dthi applicat 1011. Do not ignore an\ of'the following items. Indicate :N A ifan item is not npplicahle. 1 . What is the pr lloscd .unrndnlent s citation in the Plan? lllellldC the clement or suh- elenlcnt. page nunlher. and ifapplirlble. the ohjecti\e and polis\ 111,11Ilhcr(s). :'= attac'h,<-d. 2. � hat is the exact lan�auage proposed to be added and ordeleted Irons the plan', see attached. i. �O hat is the purpose 0f the request'' attach=d. 4. \ hat is the justification for the request? See attached. 5. Pro\ide an anal\sis of the proposed anlendnlent's consistcnc\ n ith all applicable goals- objecti\es. and policies o1 the colllprehensl\'t I?lall. == gr r;i_•! ._ 6. Pro\ Ide all (sisalV sis o the proposed II11cI1dI11eIIt S Ilrpact on publlC tacllltles and seI'V'Ices. S"= aft.-cii- 1. 7. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's em ironlllental nllpacts. See attached. 8. Provide a check, monev order or cash ill the amount ol-91600.00. niade payable to Indian River Count\. application fee :as submitted �,re: io. s? . THE APPLICANT MUST ATTEND A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH LONG- RANGE PLANNING SECTION STAFF PRIOR TO APPLI'IN . 3 nT ti s 22 1 JOSEPH W.SCHULKE,RE, SCHULKE BITTLE & STODDARD L.L.C. JODAH B.BITTLE,P.E. WILLIAM P.STODDARD,Ph.D.,P.E. CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING January 31, 2013 Stan Boling Indian River County Planning Department 1801 27`h Street, Building A Vero Beach, FL 32960 Subject: Vero Estates, LLC 648085 th Street Dear Mr. Boling: Enclosed for your review and approval, please find a completed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment application relating to the above referenced project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sinpe el J�e9t1 W Schul e. P E. �C/ Joe Paladin Vero Estates. LLC nfi 1717 INDIAN RIVER BLVD.,SUITE1,VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 23 TEL 772/ 770-9622 FAx 772/ 770-9496 FMAIi infn(achconnt..o.— Application Form Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPTA) Indian River County Re: Vero Estates, LLC 1. What is the proposed amendment's citation in the Comprehensive Plan? Include the element or sub-element, page number, and if applicable, the objective and policy number(s). This amendment will change/add text to the Comp Plan's future land use element policy 5.6. Please see the attached draft Ordinances with applicable Comp Plan references. 2. What is the exact language proposed to be added and/or deleted from the plan? Please see the attached draft Ordinances with exact language to be added. 3. What is the purpose of the request? To add gas station and fuel sales within the commercial uses allowed in mixed use PD's and to permit a limited amount of commercial development prior to residential development in a "Mixed Use" PD. 4. What is the justification for the request? A. Gas station and fuel sales are allowed within all commercial zoning districts (CH, CG, and CL). Prohibiting this use would be inconsistent with the established/permitted uses normally permitted in commercial development. B. A "Mixed Use" PD's location is limited to areas located along SR 60, US 1, Indian River Blvd, 58'h Ave, CR 510, CR 512, and Oslo Road. These are major �..- thoroughfare roads with heavy vehicular use and should have permitted uses like gas stations and fuel sales which support the vehicular uses that occur. C. Timing is proposed to be changed to permit a limited amount of commercial development prior to residential development. This is needed to provide an economic incentive to develop a 'Mixed Use' PD. 5. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with all applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Goals Objectives and Policies - Consistency Analysis As required by the County's Comprehensive Plan, any amendment request must be analyzed on whether the change in designation is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The following analysis verifies that the proposed change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Goal Land development in Indian River County will occur in an orderly and controlled manner which ensures balanced growth that optimizes the potential for economic development, provides for the efficient use of facilities and services, and ensures the protection of the county's rich and varied environmental resources. Including gas stations and fuel sales within Mixed Use PD's is consistent with these stated goals. is appropriate, and is a logical inclusion for PD's. The inclusion of this use will enhance the economic development opportunities. ATTACHIVIl"'JI 1 _ 24 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPTA) Vero Estates, LLC Page 2 of 3 - The inclusion of this use will make the development of the commercial "Mixed Use" more viable. Future Land Use Element Policy 3.2- Regardless of land use designation or zoning district, no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system in the capital improvements element, and the levels of service established in this element and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The requested future land use plan amendment will not create any adverse impacts to the County's adopted levels of service. Gas station and fuel sales will not generate any more demand than other commercial uses currently permitted in the "Mixed Use" PD. Future Land Use Element Objective 4: EFFICIENT MIX OF USES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEMAND AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - By 2030, Indian River County will have a land use pattern that maintains the number of daily automobile trips per capita and the length of trips on county roadways at or within 10% of 2005 levels. Those levels were 4.53 daily automobile trips per capita and 18.94 minutes per trip. The inclusion of this use within a "Mixed Use" PD will provide additional incentives and the opportunity for new commercial development, which can provide commercial, retail and services, and new employment opportunities in close proximity to housing which will result in a decrease in vehicle trip lengths. Specifically permitting gas stations and fuel sales to be developed in another "type" of commercial project (which was previously prohibited), provides the opportunity to place and locate more of a use that directly services vehicles and will directly reduce the length of car trips in Indian River County. Future land use element Policy 4.1Land use districts shall be located in a manner which concentrates urban uses, thereby discouraging urban sprawl. Inclusion of gas stations and fuel sales within the "Mixed Use" PD's shall provide additional incentives to develop "Mixed Use" PD's. Mixed Use PD's were permitted in Policy 5.6 with a specific purpose to minimize urban sprawl. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6: By 2011. IRC shall adopt development regulations allowing Mixed Use PD's in residentially designated areas ... Subparagraph 6 - "Mix of uses': Gas stations and fuel sales are proposed to be added to the commercial uses allowed. The reasons are as follows A. Gas station and fuel sales are allowed within all commercial zoning districts (CH, CG, and CL). Prohibiting this use would be inconsistent with the established/permitted uses normally permitted in commercial development. B A "Mixed Use" PD's location is limited to areas located along SR 60, U$ 1, Indian River Blvd, 581hAV', CR 510, CR 512. and Oslo Road. Thes ATTA INM E NT 1 25 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPTA) Vero Estates, LLC Page 3 of 3 are major thoroughfare roads with heavy vehicular use and should have permitted uses like gas stations and fuel sales which support the vehicular uses that occur. Subparagraph "Timing of Construction": Timing is proposed to be changed to permit a limited amount of commercial development prior to residential development. This is needed to provide an economic incentive to developa "Mixed Use" PD. Economic Development Element Objective 4: The County will continue to have policies, regulations, and economic development incentives in effect which encourage economic development. This amendment .request will increase the incentive to develop "Mixed Use" PD's, thereby providing new business opportunity and encourage economic development. 6. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities and services. There is no impact anticipated to public facilities. Gas station and fuel sales will not generate any more demand than other commercial uses currently permitted in mixed use PD's. 7. Provide an analysis of the proposed amendment's environmental impacts. There are no environmental impacts anticipated. Gas station and fuel sales will not create any more environmental impact than other commercial uses currently permitted in mixed use PD's. 8. Provide a check, money order or cash in the amount of$2,600.00 made payable to Indian River County. The application fee was previously submitted. ATTAOHMr� T 4y 26 Vero Estate LLC's Proposed Text Amendment �. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6: By 2011, Indian River County shall adopt development regulations allowing mixed use PDs in residentially-designated areas. All mixed use PDs in residentially designated areas shall meet all of the following criteria: Development Parameters 1. The maximum project area for a mixed use PD in a residential area shall be 40 acres. Mixed use projects exceeding 40 acres shall be designed as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) developments and shall comply with Future Land Use Element Policies 18.1, 18.2, and 18.3. 2. Mixed use PDs shall be limited to areas designated L-1, L-2, M-1, and M-2 and shall be located along SR 60, US 1, Indian River Blvd., 58th Avenue, CR 510 (west of the Indian River Lagoon), CR 512, or Oslo Road. Alternatively, mixed use PDs in M-1 and M-2 designated areas may be located on sites that are adjacent to C/I nodes. Mix of Uses 3. To ensure that mixed use PDs contain an appropriate mix of residential and commercial uses, commercial uses shall be allowed to constitute no more than 2025% of a project's land area in r , and r 2 deli p atea areas and no more- than 250% of a et's landarea in M 1 and M 2 designated areae._ 4. The vertical mixing of uses is allowed and strongly encouraged. Where residential and/or office uses are designed and located above commercial uses, the amount of commercial area may constitute up to 2-530% of the project's land area i r , and r 2 designated areas and up to 301 of the r eet'r_!an area in N4 1 wid N4 2 designated areas. 5. For purposes of these mixed use regulations, commercial area shall include buildings, parking areas, and adjacent improvements that serve commercial uses. Open space areas and common areas/improvements that are shared with residential uses, however, shall not be treated as commercial area. 6. Commercial uses allowed in mixed-use PDs shall be limited to lodging, institutional, office, retail (including fuel sales), personal service, and restaurant uses. 7. Within mixed use PDs, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for commercial uses shall be applied to the commercial area. For the commercial area, the maximum FAR shall be 0.35. Attachment# 2 27 8. Within mixed use PDs, the maximum number of allowable residential units shall be derived by applying the applicable comprehensive plan land use designation density allowance to the entire area of the project and, in addition, may include any applicable density bonuses. 9. Within mixed use PDs, commercial areas may be internal to the project or may be located along a project's boundary, where such boundary abuts a thoroughfare road or is adjacent to C/I-designated property. Where such commercial uses would face residential uses located outside the project, buffering and compatibility improvements shall be required to mitigate any adverse impacts. 10. On-street parking shall be allowed within mixed use projects. 11. All mixed use PDs shall be designed to include a transit stop within the project. Building Design and Setbacks 12. Within mixed use PDs, common architectural themes, common hardscape and signage themes, and multiple pedestrian connections shall be required to integrate nonresidential uses with residential uses. Common architectural themes shall apply to both commercial and residential areas of the project. 13. Within mixed use PDs, no individual commercial building shall exceed 25,000 sq. ft. in commercial floor area. Lodging uses shall be exempt from this limitation. 14. Where a nonresidential building in a mixed use PD is adjacent to residential buildings located outside the project, the nonresidential buildings shall be compatible with nearby residential buildings. The scale of such nonresidential buildings may be minimized by articulating the building's mass, using sloped roofs instead flat roofs screened by parapets, and/or by planting canopy trees around the building's foundation. For residential buildings adjacent to a mixed use PD, an existing buffer may be used to satisfy the compatibility requirement. Street Network 15. Each mixed use PD shall offer alternative routes and connections between destinations within the project and to appropriate uses on adjacent sites by designing and constructing a street network that consists of a grid or modified grid pattern that accommodates connections to appropriate uses on adjacent sites. Attachment#2 28 16. The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and ,. pathways. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than concentrate it. 17. Street trees shall be provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer sidewalk areas from automobile traffic. Timing of Construction 18. In each mixed use PD, no e ^^-mon no more than 3 acres or 50% of the total commercial area allowed, whichever isregi ater, shall be constructed, pefritted until at least 25% of the proposed residential development has been pemiAted constructed, and no ^^mmereia eenstt: ^fi^. certificate of occupancy shall be issued for commercial area exceeding3_ acres or 50% of the total_ comimercial_ area alloweder- aeates of^ y unless at least 25% of the total residential development has received certificates of occupancy. GonHnere al-eenstr-tietion shallQ be 1000% built end .��». a 0 34 of the residential development has Attachment#2 29 C• ATTACHMENT l"3 lvw Discussion ensued. •3 Mr. Hamner uggested if an applicanttriggered the ordinance as it was written today the sig ge must be changed; but five years allowed to put the new sign in place. Ms. Seyer suggest tying in the onset of the f" e year period to receiving the County's certificate of c pletion after the ren o tions had been made. Chairman Zimmerman clo d the publi earing at 7:41 p.m. 15:59:26 ON MOTION BY Chair Zimmerman, SECONDED BY Mr. Brognano, t me ers voted unanimously (7-0) to recomm Ind that a Board of County Commissioners accept the p posed modification with the con ' ion that if the re irement triggered that the Agn be changed, a the applicant petitione this not occur at th time of the renov on, the applicant had no m e than five year to comply beginning at the time th certificate of ompletion was issued by the County. Chairman Zimmerman read the following into the record: C. Vero Estates, Inc., Request for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to Redesignate ± 9.98 Acres From L-2 to C/I; and to Rezone those ±9.98 Acres from RM-6 to CG (2005090329) [Legislative] Mr. Robert Keating reviewed the information contained in a memorandum dated October 17, 2012 and gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He concluded his presentation with staffs recommendation that the PZC deny the applicant's request. Mr. Keating stressed staff had met with the applicant and advised him the proposal was not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and told him if he felt strongly about the issue he should come in to amend the policies of the Comp Plan, and if the policies were amended the Comp Plan Future Land Use Map could be changed. Chairman Zimmerman opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Mr. Joseph Schulke, 1717 Indian River Boulevard, Vero Beach, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Joseph Paladin, PZC/Approved 4 October 25,201 F:\BCCWII Committees\P&Z\2012—AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-10-25-12.doc A17A 4INT 3 30 ,. President of Black Swan Consulting, representing the applicant, distributed a copy of the bullet points in the presentation, which is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Schulke outlined the reasons he felt the proposal was consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Comp Plan and went over what he thought the benefits of the proposed project would be for the community. Mr. Paladin related the County had approved approximately 69 townhouses to be built on the subject property; however this was not viable in today's economy and commercial retail services would make more sense in this location. Mr. Sandy Watts stated he travelled up and down the Wabasso Corridor a lot and noticed there was no retail in the area. He was in favor of the applicant's request. Mr. Eugene Douglas, President of the West Wabasso Civic League, P.O. Box 489, Wabasso, indicated there were many senior citizens in Wabasso and he was concerned about an increase in traffic at County Road (CR) #510 and 64th Avenue. He mentioned he was not averse to what was being proposed; however he wanted to be kept aware of anything that might affect the neighborhood in order to consider the pros and cons. Ms. Julianne Price, 2179 10th Avenue, Vero Beach, related she was not opposed to commercial; but she thought commercial with a mixed-use was the best way to go because it would be more compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Deputy Teddy Floyd, IRC Sheriff's Office, said he worked in the Wabasso community and liked the idea of new local jobs being created by the proposed project. Mr. Mike Ray, 440 Greystone Court, Vero Beach, was neither for nor against the applicant's proposal but wanted to know when the road improvements to CR #510 would be initiated by the County. He noted if the road was widened it would likely create 2,500 to 3,000 jobs; and he thought it made more sense to get that infrastructure in place so projects such as this could be built. Mr. Paladin commented it made no sense to build the proposed project only to have the road in front of it torn up for widening. He mentioned he was in negotiations with the County to ensure that roadwork would be completed at the same time the proposed stores were completed, which would be two to three years. PZC/Approved 5 October 25, 2012 F:\BCCWII Committees\P&Z\2012—AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-10-25-12.doc 31 ,""'w Chairman Zimmerman observed this application would look far better to the PZC if CR #510 was a four-lane road and if the intersection at U.S. #1 was complete. Mr. Ken Brennan thought it was important to think outside the box and felt it was time to do innovative things in the area. Mr. Michael Abt, 6780 85th Street, stated his property was directly to the west of the subject site. He noted about ten years ago the County had denied his request to rezone his property to commercial and told him he would better off annexing to the City of Sebastian and asking them. He asserted if tonight's request got approved he would start an application to put a commercial strip mall on his property because the node would only be going across the street. Mr. Abt related he was told by County staff ten years ago there would never be commercial property in that area and he had sold right-of-way to the County at agricultural land prices. He emphasized had he thought there was any chance of it being changed to commercial zoning he would never have sold the parcel because it would be much more valuable than what he sold it for. Ms. Taffy Abt, 6780 85th Street, indicated she would not be totally opposed to what the applicant was proposing but would want to know more about it. She observed there was good potential for such a proposal, adding she and her husband owned 35 acres across the street and would be interested in looking at new opportunities. Ms. Tammy Vogel, 7375 85th Street, asked how much frontage on CR #510 was commercially zoned west of the Liberty Park project because she had property fronting CR #510 and wanted to know how much commercial would be allowed in the area. Mr. Boling estimated there was approximately 1,000 feet of commercially zoned property on CR #510 and was mostly concentrated up in the northeast corner of the proposed Liberty Park project, well to the east of her property. Discussion followed. Mr. Andrew Kennedy, 2050 U.S. Highway #1, advised the Liberty Park project was approved in 2008 and had a sunset provision until 2025, and it was presently in the monitoring mode. Mr. Mike Garofolo, 5550 42nd Terrace, said he was in favor of the proposal. PZC/Approved 6 October 25,2012 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2012—AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-10-25-12.doc 32 Mr. Paladin summarized if this came to fruition he foresaw a service retail center to service the area and would share plans with the community before anything was decided. Chairman Zimmerman closed the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. Mr. Hamner thought the situation with the widening of CR #510 needed to be straightened out before any redevelopment could happen in this area of the County. Mr. Keating advised there was no impact fee money left and the CR #510 project was still in years four and five of Capital Improvements Element. Mr. Brognano did not see any reason why this proposal should not be seriously considered because there would be a minimum of a 100 foot easement between the project and the community behind it, and he felt it mirrored a mixed- use project. Mr. Keating pointed out there had never been an extension of a node that was non-contiguous and this was the creation of a new node. He explained Liberty Park was not a node that could be expanded on and the applicant needed to change Policy 1.25 of the Comp Plan if he wanted to do this project. Mr. Keating stated if Mr. Paladin had applied for a text amendment to the Comp Plan when he had originally talked about this with staff, he would be well on his way. He noted a specific policy change could be made for the Wabasso Corridor, and felt this may very well pass in light of today's economy. Discussion ensued. 18:02:53 ON MOTION BY Mr. Brognano to approve the applicant's proposed land use amendment and rezoning request. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Emmons opined if this was approved it would be an arbitrary decision and while he wished the applicant success, the reality was the County needed rules. He felt modification of Policy 1.25 would be the best course in this situation. PZC/Approved 7 October 25, 2012 F:\BCC\All Committees\P&Z\2012—AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-10-25-12.doc 33 18:04:17 ON MOTION BY Mr. Tripson to approve staff's recommendation for denial of the proposed land use amendment and rezoning request and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Zimmerman noted the members seemed to have reservations about the request and wondered if Mr. Paladin would like to try and work with IRC staff on this matter. Mr. Paladin asked for his request to be tabled in order for him to work with IRC staff on this issue. 18:09:21 ON MOTION BY Mr. Brognano, SECONDED BY Mr. Tripson, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to table the applicant's land use amendment and rezoning request. �.,. Commissionert Matters There were no Planning Matters Mr. Boling dvised sta anticipated PZC meetings would be held next month on Nove ber 8 and on D cember 13, 2012. Attorne 's atters T re were none. Adio rnment There being no further business, the meeting a journed at 10:05 p.m. PZC/Approved 8 October 25, 2012 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2012—AGENDAS & MINUTES\P&Z-10-25-12.doc 34 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA,APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT TO STATE AND REGIONAL REVIEW AGENCIES. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS,the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2013 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on March 14, 2013, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners held a Transmittal Public Hearing on April 9, 2013, after due public notice; and WHEREAS,The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to State and Regional Review Agencies (Appendix A, proposed policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element): FACommunity Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\January,7013 FLU element policy 5.6\Ordinances and Resolutions\Transmittal Resolution, ~- 1 of 2 ,A17A p of,JENT 35 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- ,NOW AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE POLICY 5.6 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY,AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner and upon being put to a vote,the vote was as follows: Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner Timothy Zorc, Commissioner Bob Solari, Commissioner The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 9th day of April 2013. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller APP V E D AST F ND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William . DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney APP VED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS K.Zzi /p, RobertM. Keating, AIVP Community Development Directo FACommunity Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\January 2013 FLU element policy 5.6\Ordinances and Resolutions\Transmittal Resolution.doc 2 of 2 36 Appendix "A" Vero Estate LLC's Proposed Text Amendment Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6: By 2011, Indian River County shall adopt development regulations allowing mixed use PDs in residentially-designated areas. All mixed use PDs in residentially designated areas shall meet all of the following criteria: Development Parameters 1. The maximum project area for a mixed use PD in a residential area shall be 40 acres. Mixed use projects exceeding 40 acres shall be designed as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) developments and shall comply with Future Land Use Element Policies 18.1, 18.2, and 18.3. 2. Mixed use PDs shall be limited to areas designated L-1, L-2, M-1, and M-2 and shall be located along SR 60, US 1, Indian River Blvd., 58ffi Avenue, CR 510 (west of the Indian River Lagoon), CR 512; or Oslo Road. Alternatively, mixed use PDs in M-1 and M-2 designated areas may be located on sites that are adjacent to C/I nodes. Mix of Uses 3. To ensure that mixed use PDs contain an appropriate mix of residential and commercial uses, commercial uses shall be allowed to constitute no more than 2925% of a project's land area in L 1 and-L-2 designatedareas "a no ^ti than 25% of a prejeet's !and area in N4 1 and N4 2 designated areas. 4. The vertical mixing of uses is allowed and strongly encouraged. Where residential and/or office uses are designed and located above commercial uses, the amount of commercial area may constitute up to 2-530% of the project's land area i Tom' and L 2 designated areas and up to 300 of the r eet's !a a area in Na i and r4 2 designated 5. For purposes of these mixed use regulations, commercial area shall include buildings, parking areas, and adjacent improvements that serve commercial uses. Open space areas and common areas/improvements that are shared with residential uses, however, shall not be treated as commercial area. 6. Commercial uses allowed in mixed-use PDs shall be limited to lodging, institutional, office, retail (including fuel sales), personal service, and restaurant uses. 7. Within mixed use PDs, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for commercial uses shall be applied to the commercial area. For the commercial area, the maximum FAR shall be 0.35. 37 Appendix"A" 8. Within mixed use PDs, the maximum number of allowable residential units shall be derived by applying the applicable comprehensive plan land use designation density allowance to the entire area of the project and, in addition, may include any applicable density bonuses. 9. Within mixed use PDs, commercial areas may be internal to the project or may be located along a project's boundary, where such boundary abuts a thoroughfare road or is adjacent to C/I-designated property. Where such commercial uses would face residential uses located outside the project, buffering and compatibility improvements shall be required to mitigate any adverse impacts. 10. On-street parking shall be allowed within mixed use projects. 11. All mixed use PDs shall be designed to include a transit stop within the project. Building Design and Setbacks 12. Within mixed use PDs, common architectural themes, common hardscape and signage themes, and multiple pedestrian connections shall be required to integrate nonresidential uses with residential uses. Common architectural themes shall apply to both commercial and residential areas of the project. 13. Within mixed use PDs, no individual commercial building shall exceed 25,000 sq. ft. in commercial floor area. Lodging uses shall be exempt from this limitation. 14. Where a nonresidential building in a mixed use PD is adjacent to residential buildings located outside the project, the nonresidential buildings shall be compatible with nearby residential buildings. The scale of such nonresidential buildings may be minimized by articulating the building's mass, using sloped roofs instead flat roofs screened by parapets, and/or by planting canopy trees around the building's foundation. For residential buildings adjacent to a mixed use PD, an existing buffer may be used to satisfy the compatibility requirement. Street Network 15. Each mixed use PD shall offer alternative routes and connections between destinations within the project and to appropriate uses on adjacent sites by designing and constructing a street network that consists of a grid or modified grid pattern that accommodates connections to appropriate uses on adjacent sites. 38 Appendix"A" 16. The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and pathways. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than concentrate it. 17. Street trees shall be provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer sidewalk areas from automobile traffic. Timing of Construction 18. In each mixed use PD, ne ^�^' ^^„^^"�vrrJtiaccivn no more than 3 acres or 50% of the total commercial area allowed, whichever isreg` ater, shall be constructed, pefritted until at least 25% of the proposed residential development has been pei:mit4ed constructed, and no ^^m mere^ ' ^0fistr- etie certificate of occupancy shall be issued for commercial area exceeding3_ acres or 50% of the total commercial area allowede� :ific-ates of oecur^rwney unless at least 25% of the total residential development has received certificates of occupancy. Genffnereial eenstmetion shall not be 1000% built aidrrssue� 50,04o ef the residential development has 39 Board 1County Commissioners April Comprehensive Amendment PolicyFLUE Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Application Submitted to Community Development Department j Public Hearing before Planning And Zoning Commission Transmittal public hearing before Board of County Commissioners 1 Application transmitted to State and Regional Review Agencies 1 State and Regional Review Agencies send their Comments to the County and to the State Land Planning Agency Board of County Commissioners holds final public hearing Adopted amendment are transmitted to State and Regional Review Agencies and State Land Planning Agency Amend Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6 to change: use requirements and timing requirements for mixed use planned developments (PDs) in residential areas along major roadways. Policy 5,6 Background To allow mixed use PDs in residentially designated areas, Policy 5.6 was: developed in concept during the 2008 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process. adopted in 2010, as part of the EAR based comprehensive plan amendments Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6 Contains requirements for mixed use PDs in residentially designated areas along major roadways Limits commercial uses to: lodging, institutions, office, retail, personal service, and restaurant uses Applicant proposes to specifically include fuel sales use as an allowed use Future LandUse ElementPolicy TimingRe• Safeguards to ensure that project is a mixed use and not a stand alone commercial Prohibits commercial development in a mixed use PD project until at least 25% of the residential development constructed Applicant proposes to change policy to allow up to 2.5 acres commercial development prior to residential development Background ® In June, 2012: applicant requested a land use amendment at the NE corner of CR 510 and 66th Avenue from L-2 to C/I Staff determined that the amendment was inconsistent with several policies of the comprehensive plan and recommended that the application be denied Back • round October 25, 2012: PZC voted to table the applicant's request Subsequently: staff met with applicant and indicated that ® limited commercial uses would be appropriate for the site, but a new fop node would not applicant could do a mixed use PD project ® staff would support minor changes to the mixed use policy 511 of the MIE Analysis of • • - • amendmentfuel sales use Fuel sales uses can can act as an anchor tenant, drawing customers int0 - se - see the poeand enhancing the viability of the other tenants ® Project design is particularly important buffer, project aesthetics, and mitigate potential auto/pedestrian conflicts Staff's position is that fuel sales uses can be appropriate within mixed use projects and supports the proposed change Analysis • the proposed timing change • mendment Several alternative ways to address the timing issue: Current policy — no commercial development until a certain amount of residential is constructed ® Another option -- allow a portion of the commercial development to proceed prior to residential being constructed Analysis of the proposed timing change amendment Allow 2.5 acres of commercial prior to any residential construction ® Further commercial development would require that at least 25% of the residential be permitted Staff's position is that the amendment is acceptable PZC Action On March 14, 2013, PZC recommended that the BCC approve this request with two PZC Recommendation additional changes The PZC recommended ® To allow the same % of commercial area (30%) in all residential districts To allow up to 3 acres or 50% of total commercial area allowed, whichever is greater, prior to residential development Staff support these changes Proposed • Commercial Area Project area Max. Commercial Max. Proposed (acres) Area Allowed in a upfront Comm. mixed used project Allowed (30%) (acres) (acres) 10 3 3 20 6 3 30 9 4.5 40 12 6 Consistency • Comprehensive Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 requires that one of four criteria be met to approve a comp plan amendment. ® An oversight in the approved plan; ® A mistake in the approved plan; ® A substantial change in circumstances; or � A swap or reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites Companion Land Development Regulation Changes n Amendment to LDR Section 915.20 if BCC agrees to transmit the subject amendment • the state m Companion LDR changes will be presented • the PZC m LDR changes will be presented to the BCC at the final Comp Plan amendment • Recommendation Staff and the PZC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to amend policy 5.6 of the FLUE by approving the attached transmittal resolution .3g• a • 9 P.O. Box 1263 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER_ STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Debbi Vickers who on oath says that she is Manager Display Advertising of the Press Journal, a daily newspaper published in Indian River County, Florida-, that A(Ay 'Aj€` t ' billed to To :i :r_'s�'3 was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of r Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A-D. r.pa/liPu•e.. —1-1-6-62... m...un..• ........... a..•.•...•...nutuupuu.� CAS' ,t..iCARE w CATHERINE POLICARE carr ,,;, DD0903382 = " ip"'�,, Comm#DD0903382 { x)12512013 Expires 9/25/2013 . k'i 4cf' i=londe rjpta(y A63tl.r IfiC ;;y ASBILrhn... r. \J( HU�� \ •• ••• •e.n..uunuu.v ........... uuO Advertising Manager BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider the transmittal of an amendment to the text of the comprehensive plan to state and regional review agencies. A public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held on Tuesday April 9, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of County Administration BuildingA,located at 1 80127thStreet, Vero Beach, Florida. The proposed amendment is included in proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE POLICY 5.6 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the Community Development Department in County Administration Building A, located at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach,Florida,between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.on weekdays. For more information, contact Long Range Planning Section at (772) 226-1241. NO FINAL "ACTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at (772) 226-1223 (TDD# 772-770-5215), at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s- Joseph E. Flescher,Chairman e Public Hearin-A ``w INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator nPRTI%1E T JIEAD CONCURRENCE l Robert M. Keating,A CP; C�yiunity Development Director FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Range Planning DATE: March 25, 2013 RF.: North County Charter Elementary School's Request to Rezone t 0.94 Acres from CH to CL (RZON-2002100209-70378) It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 9, 2013. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to rezone ±0.94 acres from CH, Heavy Commercial District, to CL, Limited Commercial District. The subject property is located on Old Dixie Highway, approximately 700 feet north of 65th Street. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to allow expansion of the adjacent North County Charter Elementary School to the subject property. Improvements proposed for the subject site are the school's playground and recreation area, parking spaces, and stormwater management area. Currently, the North County Charter Elementary School is located on a site adjacent to the subject property. That site is zoned CL, a district that allows elementary school uses. At this time, the North County Charter Elementary School proposes to expand its campus to the subject property. With its current CH zoning, however, the subject property cannot accommodate an elementary school use. Consequently, the North County Charter Elementary School has submitted this application to rezone the subject property from CH to CL. On March 14, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 —0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this rezoning request. 1 40 �rlesru. Subject Property approx-94 ac s o f 0 R Se�ncr:IliCC�Ow�bpnwMp�W'+��FWnu�'26.10n Existing Zoning Map Figure 1:North County Charter ElememarySthool and 3uroundgug Orogen es 1 67TH 57 N t s�l.nrmpeq ... 'f R3-3 , CHz CHCI \ M Legend �•`y i zOmNG CH CL 0 IL O PD PD RM-3 t C�R&3 11{{ --�'FEC Rvlmad a 1 1 Sofa:P.0 CgmurAy Ceyebpinsa Dpwmw.tieMtry:9..'D13 Proposed Zoning Map Fl9m 2:NOM County charter Ela noNay Shod and surrounding Drooeroes �L 40 67rN sr N ,L .k Legend -� zoNWG 4, � H M 2 ICL 6 -4 PO _RN-3 sei RS3 S Syi} ..a.v�r:riC Cm.vn3f Ofwiwnwrt OroYmnq Ffawy Y.Sts 2 41 Existing Land Use Pattern This area of the County mainly contains industrial and commercial zoning districts. Currently, the subject property is vacant cleared land, and it is zoned CH. The property to the west of the subject property, across Old Dixie Highway and the FEC Railroad, is zoned PD and contains a golf course. To the east and south of the subject property, land is zoned CH and contains various commercial uses. The land to the north of the subject property is zoned CL and contains the North County Charter Elementary School. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and all surrounding properties are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. Environme�x The Comprehensive Plan does not designate the subject property as either environmentally important or environmentally sensitive. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard areas. Utilities and Services r.. The site is within the Urban Service Area of the County. Wastewater service is available to the site from the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Transportation System The subject property's west boundary abuts Old Dixie Highway, a road which is classified as a major collector on the Future Roadway Thoroughfare Plan Map. This segment of Old Dixie Highway is a two lane paved road with approximately 60 feet of existing public road right-of- way. According to the county's comprehensive plan, this segment of road needs 45 feet of additional right-of-way. Zoning District Differences In terms of permitted uses, there are both similarities and differences between the existing CH district and the proposed CL district (see Attachment 3). Their respective zoning districts' purpose statements best illustrate the differences between the zoning districts. These purpose statements, found in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), are as follows: CH: Heavy Commercial District. The CH, heavy commercial, district is intended to provide areas for establishments engaging in wholesale trade, major repair services and restricted light manufacturing activities. The CH district is further intended to provide support services necessary for the development of commercial and industrial uses allowed within other nonresidential zoning districts. 3 42 CL: Limited Commercial District. The CL, limited commercial, district is intended to provide areas for the development of restricted commercial activities. The CL district is intended to "WO. accommodate the convenience retail and service needs of area residents, while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas. One principal difference between the CH and CL districts that is particularly applicable in this case is that the CH district does not permit education centers, including primary and secondary schools, while the CL district allows that use. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: • An analysis of the request's impact on public facilities; • An analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • An analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • An analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality. Concurrency of Public Facilities The subject property is located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. Within the urban service area, the comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of those services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for those services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed for concurrency determination. For rezoning requests, that review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested rezoning district. For commercial rezoning requests, the most intense use of a property varies with the zoning district. In the case of CL zoned property, the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is 10,000 square feet of retail commercial gross floor area per acre. With CH zoning, the most intense use of a property is 20,000 square feet of general industrial gross floor area per acre. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be rezoned: ±0.94 2. Existing Land Use Designation: GI CommerciaUIndustrial 43 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Zoning (CH): 18,800 square feet of General Industrial 4. Trips Associated with 18,800 square feet of 131 General Industrial at 6.97 trips/1000 SF: 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Zoning (CL): 9,400 square feet of Retail Commercial 6. Trips associated with 9,400 square feet of 404 Retail Commercial at 42.94 Trips/1000 SF: Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district, and it assigns those trips to the County's thoroughfare roadway network within the project's area of influence. That area of influence is defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3(a) of the County's LDRs as roadway segments that receive eight (8) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for two-lane roadways or fifteen (15) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for four-lane (or wider) roadways. For this rezoning request, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering Division staff (attachment #4). That analysis showed that all roadway segments within the area of influence would operate at an acceptable level of service with the most intense use of the property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore,the transportation concurrency test has been satisfied. Water With the proposed rezoning, the subject property could accommodate 9,400 square feet of retail commercial development. Development on the subject property will be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently has sufficient existing and planned capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed rezoning. Wastewater County wastewater service is available to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has sufficient existing and planned capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request. Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill as well as planned expansions of the landfill indicates that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed rezoning. 5 44 Stormwater Management All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations, which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the subject property lies within a flood zone "X", the minimum floor elevation level of service standard does not apply. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards, however, do apply. In this case, the stormwater management level of service standard will be met by limiting off-site discharge and maintaining on-site retention of the stormwater runoff associated with the most intense use of the property. Concurrency SummM Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency-mandated facilities, including transportation, stormwater management, solid waste, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to acconuriodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed rezoning. As with all development, a more detailed concurrency review will be conducted during the development approval process. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan NNW Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In this case, the subject properly is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the Future Land Use Map. Since CL zoning is allowed in the C/I district,the proposed zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Other than the Future Land Use Map, the goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.17 and 1.18. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.17 and 1.18 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17 states that all commercial/industrial uses must be located within the county's urban service area. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.18 states that the commercial/industrial land use designation shall permit uses that include retail, office, and service commercial development. 6 45 Since the subject property is located within the County's urban service area and the requested CL district is intended for uses permitted within the commercial/industrial land use designation, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.17 and 1.18. While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that either the current zoning district or the requested zoning district is appropriate for the site and that development under the requested zoning district will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Generally, sites such as the subject property that front on major roads and are not adjacent to residential areas are appropriate for any one of several different commercial zoning districts, including CL, CG, and CH. Like the subject property, land to the east and south is zoned CH. Since CH and CL are both commercial districts, no incompatibilities are anticipated with land to the east and south. Because property to the north is zoned limited commercial, the proposed zoning will be a continuation of that zoning, and development on the subject property under the CL zoning district should not have any adverse impacts on the property to the north. Since property to the west is separated from the subject property by Old Dixie Highway and the FEC Railroad and since the property to the west contains a golf course, the CL zoning proposed for the subject property should have no adverse impacts on the property to the west. For those reasons, it is staff's position that development of the site under the requested CL district will be compatible with surrounding areas. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Since the subject property is cleared land with no important environmental characteristics, there will not be any adverse environmental effects from rezoning the site from CH to CL. CONCLUSION The requested zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area and is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Located in an area deemed suitable for commercial uses, the subject property meets all applicable criteria to be rezoned CL. For those reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from CH to CL by adopting the attached ordinance. 46 ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Page 2. Rezoning Application 3. Table of Uses for Commercial Zoning Districts 4. Copy of several pages of the project's Traffic Impact Analysis 5. Rezoning ordinance Approved Agenda Item: _ Indian River Co. Approved Date Admin. For: �/v Legal By. Budget Q ) Dept. Risk Mgr. F:\Community Development\Rezonings\North County Charter School 2013 ZC-585\Staff Reports\PZC staff report north county charter school March 14,2013.rtf g 47 SUMMARY PAGE GENERAL Applicant: North County Charter Elementary School Location: Old Dixie Highway, about 700 feet north of 65th Street Acreage: ±0.94 Land Use Designation: CA, Commercial/Industrial ExistingZoning:oning: CH, Heavy Commercial District Requested Zoning: CL, Limited Commercial District Existing Land Use: Vacant ADJACENT LAND North: CL, Limited Commercial South: CH, Heavy Commercial East: CH, Heavy Commercial West: PD, Planned Development INFRASTRUCTURE Wastewater service is available to the site from the North County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None/Flood Zone X PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Planning and Board of County Zoning Commissioners Commission ExMng Zoning Map Staff Sasan Rohani Sawn Rohani F"1:N—c.Wb EWM Y6N Wwmxaiv wwsrxs Contact: Date Advertised: Feb.27,2013 3/25/13 a #of 3 Surrounding Property 10 10 Owner Notifications: $ Date !. y Notification 2/27/13 3/25/13 R Mailed: Date Sign 2/27/13 3/25/13 Posted: a1 1 F STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval ATTACHMENT 1 48 9 APPLICATION FORM REZONING REQUEST (RZON) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ?013 Each application must be complete when submitted and must include required' attachments. An incomplete application will not be processed and will be ret d to the applicant. Z 00— /D 0.2-01 - 70378 2- 59 Assigned Project:Number: RZON - - Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Purchaser) Name: NORTH COUNTY CHARTER SCHULKE, BITTLE & SCHOOL, INC STODDARD, LLC Complete Mailing 6640 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY 1717 INDIAN RIVER BLVD Address: VERO BEACH, FL 32967 SUITE 201, VERO BEACH Phone 4: (including area 772-794-1941 772-770-9622 code) Fax 4. (Including area 772-770-9496 772-770-9496 code) I E-Mail: verokenmll@aol.com jbittle@sbsengineers.cca Contact Person: KEN MILER JODAH BITTLE, P E. Signature of Owner or Agent: Property Information Site Address: 6610 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY Site -Fax Parcel I.D. gS: 32-39-10-00000-1000-(j'0029. 1 Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Existing Zoning District- CHC/1 Existing Land Use Designation: Requlested Zoning District: -fotai Oro.s-s') Acreageof Parcel: 0. 94 Acreage (net) to be Rezoned: 0. 94 Existing Use on Site: UNDEVELOPED Lj'r iposed Use on Site: ELEMENT-�RY SCHOOL ATTACH MMT 49 THE APPLICANT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH LONG-RANGE PLANNING SECTION STAFF PRIOR TO APPLYING IN ORDER TO RESOLVE OR AVOID PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE REZONING REQUEST. REZONING APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please attach the following items to this application. Do not ignore any of the items. Indicate "N/A" if an item is not applicable. ITEMS App licl1ant's Checklist n Staff Checklist - l. Fee: P' fi51kt " - Property Size 4 'S yAl 4 � - Less than 5 Acres $1,550.00 - 5 to 40 Acres $2,000.00 - 41 to 100 Acres $2,300.00 - More than 100 Acres $2,500.00* * $125.00 for each additional 25 acres over 100 acres _ ,nom nx )P i:�4 s.:•Y ,�e -� a.^'+�,��-.e w„r' a 2. Completed Rezoning Application Form (front page) —[ 3 Letter of Authorization from Current Owner(s) OR Current Owner is Applicant 4. Verified statement (separate letter) naming every / individual or entity having legal or equitable ownership in the property. One(1) Copy of the current Owner's Deed Current Owner's Title Policy OR A Certificate of Title from a Title Company OIC An attorney's written opinion evidencing fee ownership of the property. One (1) SEALED boundary survey of the area to be rezoned. The boundary survey shall include, but not be limited to the following: a legal description of the land to be rezoned the size of the land to be rezoned ❑ the public road right-of-way width of adjacent roads-, and ❑ a north arrow 8. Electronic version (MS Word is preferable) of the legal description Copy of.Approved Concurrency Certificate OR Copy of filed application for Concurrency Certificate, including traffic study, if ap2licable NOTE: ITEMS 2-6 MUST INDICATE THE SAME OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. �. Revised: January 10, 2008 F'.Cornrunm-DevefopmenftUscrs\V ICKI E'POR ViS�rezonmerequesttonn doC 50 Municode Page 1 of 11 �— Section 911.10. - Commercial districts. (1) Purpose and intent. The commercial districts are established to implement the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan policies for commercial development. These districts are intended to permit the development of commercial property to provide an efficient use of land and public infrastructure, promote the economic well being of the county, protect the natural resources and beauty of the county and ensure commercial development compatible with existing and proposed development. In order to achieve this purpose, these districts shall regulate the size, scope, and location of commercial uses and provide standards to ensure development compatible with the built and natural environment. (2) Districts. The following districts are established to implement the provisions of this chapter: (a) PRO: Professional office district. The PRO, professional office district, is designed to encourage the development of vacant land and the redevelopment of blighted or declining residential areas along major thoroughfares in selected areas of the county. The selected areas will be deemed as no longer appropriate for strictly single-family use but which are not considered appropriate for a broad range of commercial uses, as permitted in a commercial zoning district. The PRO district may serve as a buffer between commercial and residential uses or be established in areas in transition from single-family to more intensive land uses. The PRO district shall be limited in size so as not to create or significantly extend strip commercial development. In order to further encourage redevelopment, any legally nonconforming structure may continue to be utilized, and its use may be changed from one nonconforming or conforming use category to another use category permitted in the PRO district, provided the change of use of the legally nonconforming structure receives site plan approval, or any other necessary approvals. (b) OCR: Office, commercial, residential district. The OCR, office, commercial, residential district, is intended to provide areas for the development of restricted office, commercial, and residential activities in a manner which will be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The OCR district is further intended to provide land use controls for ensuring the separation of potentially incompatible activities, such as intense commercial uses, from established residential areas. (c) MED: Medical district. The MED, medical district, is intended to provide a variety of uses which support a major medical facility, and to protect such major medical facility from encroachment by land uses which may have an adverse effect on the operation and potential expansion of the facility. Land uses that could cause an adverse effect would generally include those uses that are likely to be objectionable to neighboring properties because of noise, vibration, odors, smoke, amount of traffic generated, or other physical manifestations. (d) CN: Neighborhood commercial district. The CN, neighborhood commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of highly restricted commercial activities to serve primarily the residents of the immediate area. The CN district is further intended to limit the intensity of commercial activities in order to ensure compatibility with nearby residential uses. (e) CL: Limited commercial district. The CL, limited commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of restricted commercial activies. The CL district is intended to accommodate the convenience retail and service needs hf area residents;while minimizing w.. the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas. ATTACHMPNT ��j httb://Iibrarv.municode.com/i)rint.asDx?h=&clientID=1223 2&HTMRea uest=httn%3 a%2P/o2flibrar... 2/6/2(113 Municode Page 2 of I I (f) CG: General commercial district. The CG, general commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of general retail sales and selected service activities. The CG district is not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities, such as commercial service uses, heavy repair services nor industrial uses. (g) CH: Heavy commercial district. The CH, heavy commercial district, is intended to provide areas for establishments engaging in wholesale trade, major repair services and restricted light manufacturing activities. The CH district is further intended to provide support services necessary for the development of commercial and industrial uses allowed within other nonresidential zoning districts. (3) Relationship with land use map. The commercial districts may be established in the following land use designations: Commercial Land Use Designation District C/I PUB RC PRO' OCR ED CN' CL CG CH C/I - Commercial industrial PUB- Public r... RC - Regional commercial 'PRO may also be established in L-1, L-2, M-1, and M-2 land use designations. 2C may also be established in AG-1, AG-2, AG-3, R, L-1, L-2, M-1, and M-2 land use designations. (4) Uses. Uses in the commercial districts are classified as permitted uses, administrative permit uses, and special exception uses. Site plan review shall be required for the construction, alteration and use of all structures and buildings except single-family dwellings. Commercial uses and activities shall be contained within an enclosed area unless otherwise specifically allowed herein or unless allowed as an accessory or temporary use approved by the community development director. District PRO OCR MED CN CL CG CH' Agriculture Agricultural Production Horticultural and P P P landscape plants and specialties Kennels and animal boarding Pet-grooming (no - P P P hoarding) riculturat Services "47Landsca e services IP IP http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=12232&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrar... 2/6/2012 Municode Page 3 of 11 Commercial fisheryA P Commercial )nstruction "ftnenerat building - - P contractors/special trade contractors/construction ards4 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Legal Services Banks and credit P P P P institutions Small-scale banks and A P - P P P P credit institutions Security and commodity P P - P P P brokers Insurance agents, P P P P P brokers and service Automatic teller P P P P P machines Real Estate P P P P P = Holding and other P P - P P P - investment offices Legal services P P P P P Services Lodging facilities hotels P P - P P and motels -)ardin houses A A A P c-d and breakfast P Membership based - P - hotels Personal Services Laundries and - P P P - laundromats (excluding d cleaners) Garment pressing and P P P drycleaners drop- off/pickup Linen supply P P Carpet and upholstery P P cleaning Dryc[eaning plants P Photographic studios A P P P Beauty shops P P P Barber shops A P P P Shoe repair A P P P Funeral homes P Funeral chapels - - P P Crematoriums P P Business Services Advertising P P P P P Credit reporting and P P - - P P P -ottection ailing, reproduction P P P P and stenographic services 53 httr�•lllihrary mnnirn�a nnm/r�rint acrw�h—Rrr�iAn+TT1-17727,PrT�TA�TRArniP�t—httr��/2o0/7�/7flihrar '�/(./'�(112 Municode Page 4 of 11 Equipment rental and P P p leasing cm to ment agencies P P P P P alp supply services - P p Computer and data P P P P P processing Bail bondsman P p p General and professional P P P P P office Auto Repair, Services and Parkin Automotive rentals - P p Automobile parking and - - P p storage Body and paint shops p General automotive - P p repair Carwashes P P p Automotive fluid sales A P p and services (other than gasoline Miscellaneous Repair Electrical repair p p p Watch, clock, jewelry P P p Reupholsters and p furniture Welding p Motion Pictures oduction and p p istribution services Motion picture theaters P P Drive in theaters - S (unenclosed commercial amusement Video tape rentals - P P P Amusement and Recreation Dance studios, school - P P p and halls, gyms Theatrical production P P _ including music Enclosed commercial - P P p amusements Unenclosed commercial S amusements except miniature golf courses and driving ranges Health and fitness - A P P P centers Membership sports and - P P P recreation Coin-operated - P P P amusements ^iniature golf courses - - S —..iving ranges - http://Iibrary.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=12232&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f%2flibrar... 2/6/2014 Municode - Page 5 of 11 ( Health and Medical Services ffices and clinics P P p p p p otal care facilities p Hospitals p _ Medical and dental P _ p p laboratory Home health care p p p services Specialty outpatient p p p clinics Veterinarian clinic Wholesale Trade Durable goods (not _ p including demolition debris site, junkyards, recycling center Nondurable goods - p Recycling center _ (including vegetation debris mulching) Retail Trade Convenience stores p p p p Building materials and A p garden supplies Paint, glass and p p p wallpaper stores 'ardware stores p p p etail nurseries and p p p garden supplies Model mobile home A p display Mobile home trailer sales General Merchandise Department stores A p Variety stores A p Flea market Auction facilities, _ unenclosed Auction facilities, p p enclosed Used merchandise p p p (including awn shops) Food Stores Grocery stores p p p Meat and fish markets p p p Fruit and vegetable p p p markets Candy, nut and P P P P confectionery stores Dairy product stores p p p Retail bakeries p p p utomotive Dealers and ervices 1_1.___//1'1_-.____ _______•__ -I_ _____ / __ _i __.___M___n t•_ ,rr� nn�nnrrm� rr t n • .. � .. Municode Page 6 of 11 New and used cars P P dealers ,ed vehicle sales - S uto and home supply P P P stores Gasoline service stations- A P P Boat sales and rentals A P Recreational vehicle sales Motorcycle dealers P P Automotive fuel sales - A A P P Commercial marina A P Marine repair and A P service Apparel and Accessory P P P Stores Furniture and Home Furnishings Furniture and home - P P furnishing stores Small-scale home - P P P furnishings showrooms (excluding furniture and majorappliances) Household appliance A P P stores Radio, television and P P P -om uter stores Ating and Drinking Establishments Restaurants A P P P P Carry out restaurants A A P P P P Drive through - P P restaurants Bars and lounges S P P Bottle clubs - $ Miscellaneous Retail Drug stores P A P P Liquor stores - P P P Miscellaneous shopping P P goods Florists P P P P News stands - P P P P Sporting oods P P Optical goods P P P P Gift stores - P P P P Book and card store - P P P P Catalogue and mail P P order house Fuel Dealers P P Food and Kindred - P Products Iruit and vegetable A A icking houses ruit and vegetable juice extraction ht4r�•//�ihrarcmnnir+n�a rnm/rrint acr��>`���—Rr��iantTTl-1' '7Z'�RrT�TATRPnnaat—httr�/2a�/7{�/7Flihrar ')/(./7(112 U Municode Page 7 of 11 Communit Services Educational Services educational centers - 'N .-icluding primary and secondary schools Colleges and universities Libraries A A A A P P Vocational, technical P P P P P and business Institutional Individual and family - P P P services Job training services - P P P Child care and adult A A p A P P _ care Homes for aged, A - S S including nursing homes and rest homes Residential treatment P S S S center Place of worship P P - P P P Group homes P - S S S (residential centers Adult congregate living - P - S S S facility 21+ residents Cultural and Civic P P A - P P Facilities Civic and social A _ P P embership r anizations Public Administration Government A P A P P P administrative buildings Courts _ P P Emergency services P P P P P P P Industrial Printing and publishing P Machine shops P Chemicals and Plastics Rubber and plastic - _ P footwear Hose, belts, gaskets _ P packing Assembly production - P (not including manufacturing) Transportation and communication Railroad/Bus Transportation Services Local and suburban P P transit Trucking and courier _ P -:�rvices ommercial warehousing - _ P and storage 57 httn•//lihrnry mrnnimde cnm/print acnx�h=Rr.clientTT�=1�.���RT.HTMRennect=httn%ia%7f�/��.flihrar �/h/�(111 Municode Page 8 of 11 Ooving and storage _ P rucking terminals - _ _ P elf-service storage S P cilities Outdoor storage Vehicle storage tot - _ P (paved/unpaved)3 Post Office P p p p p P P Water transport services - P Air transport services - P Pipelines - _ _ P Heliport/heliad S - S Recycling centers - ravel and tour agencies- P p p - Freight transport P p p arrangement Communications Telephone and - P - p p p telegraph Radio and television - P - p p p broadcasting Cable and pay T.V. - P - p p p Communications towers A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 wireless facilities Communications towers (non-wireless facilities)4 Amateur radio �ccessor use Less than 80 feet P P P p p p p 80 feet or taller S S S S S S S (see 971.44(4) for special criteria Commercial Up to 70 feet: Camouflaged P P P p p p p Non-camouflaged P P P P p p p 70 feet to 150 feet: Camouflaged Monopole (minimum of 2 users) Not camouflaged S S S S S S and not monopole Over 150 feet: All tower types _ (see 971.44(1) for special criteria Public and private utilities, limited Public and private - S utilities, heavy Residential Uses Single-family dwelling P P ')u lex P P - ultifamily dwelling P P Iccessory housing - _ p watchman) http:Hlibrary.municode.com/print.asi)x?h=&clientID=12232&HTMRequest=htti)%3 a%2f`/`2flibrar... 2/6/20158 Municode Page 9 of 11 P = Permitted use A =Administrative permit use S = Special exception use No industrial use shall be permitted in the CH district unless public sewer service is provided to the subject property. 2 The requirements of subsection 917,06(l 1), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter, shall apply to towers less than 70'. 3 Standards for unpaved vehicle storage lots are found in subsection 954.08(6). 4 Uses, such as limousine services, construction offices, and contractors trades offices shall be considered general office uses if the following conditions are met: -All types of vehicles [reference 911.15(3)(a)) kept on site shall be limited to those types of vehicles allowed in residential areas, except that commercial vehicles completely screened from adjacent streets and properties shall be allowed to be kept on site. All commercial vehicles allowed to be kept on site shall be parked in designated paved spaces. -The number of vehicles used for business purposes and that meet the above condition and that are kept on site shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the number of parking spaces required for the office use. -Except for vehicle parking, all uses shall be conducted within an office building. 5 For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see subsection 971.44(5), Section 4 use table. (5) Accessory uses and structures as provided in Chapter 917 (6) Required improvements. All future subdivisions and site plans for development in commercial ~` districts shall install the following improvements, designed and constructed to meet the requirements and specifications of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida. District PRO OCR MED CN CL CG CH Bikeways Sidewalks ,Streetlights (7) Size and dimension criteria: PRO OCR MED CN CL CG CH Min. Lot 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Sizes . ft. Min. Lot 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Width ft. Min. Yards ft. Front 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Rear 25 20 20 20 10 10 10 Side 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 *surtax. 35 40 40 40 40 40 40 overa e � �/ __- T1-%_i���,No_TTrrlSI-)-- --`—�-"--ni�_oi�minna- - ni�inni Municode Page 10 of 11 in. Open 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 S ace ax. 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 ,ftwuitcling Height ft. Residential RM-6 RM-6 RM-8 RM-8 RM-8 RM-8 RM-8 District Re Mations Hotel and - 1200 1200 1200 1200 motel minimum square feet of land area per unit Notes: Yards - Front Yards abutting S.R. 60 shall be seventy-five (75).feet; Rear Yards (CH only) 0 if abutting FEC Railroad; Side Yards (CL, CG, CH) 0 if abutting a nonresidential use with interconnected parking and approved access easement 0 if abutting FEC Railroad (CH only). Height- See section 911.15 for exceptions. Maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio): • Retail trade 0.23 FAR ``"' • Office, business/personal services, recreational, schools, institutional 0.35 FAR • Industrial, storage, wholesale/distribution, utilities, heavy repair 0.50 FAR (8) Required buffer yards: Abutting Use/District District Single-Family Multi-Family Buffer Type Buffer Type PRO C - 6 ft. Opaque C - 3 ft. Opaque OCR C - 6 ft. Opaque C - 3 ft. Opaque ED C - 6 ft. Opaque C - 3 ft. Opaque CN B - 6 ft. Opaque C - 6 ft. Opaque L B - 6 ft. Opaque C - 6 ft. Opaque CG B - 6 ft. Opaque - 6 ft. Opaque CH B - 6 ft. Opaque B - 6 ft. Opaque Buffer yards are required along rear/side property lines and measured at right angles to lot lines. All screening and buffering requirements shall meet the standards established in section 926, Landscaping and buffering. No parking or loading shall be permitted within buffer yards. When a loading dock is proposed to serve a use that normally requires frequent deliveries (e.g., grocery store, department store, big box retail), and when the loading dock is to be located adjacent to a law residentially designated site, and when the loading dock will not be screened from view from an adjacent residential site by an intervening building or structure, an eight-foot high wall shall be required between the httn //lihrary mnnirnrle r.nm/print acnx9h=RrclientTT7=177�7RTNTMRPnnest=httn%�a%2fti/�7flihrar 7/Fi/7(11 0 Municode Page 11 of 11 loading dock and the residential site. Wall height shall be measured from the grade elevation of the parking area adjacent to the loading dock. Plantings along the wall are required in accordance with the standards of landscape section 926.08. (9) Special district requirements. (a) PRO-Professional office district. 1 Location and land use. a• The PRO district may be established in areas designated as L-1, L-2, M-1, M-2 or commercial on the future land use map. b. The PRO district may be established on residentially designated land if located on an arterial or collector road as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. District size. The PRO district shall have a minimum district size of five (5) acres and a maximum district size of twenty-five (25) acres. The PRO district may be reduced to two and one-half(2'/) acres if the parcel(s) under consideration to be zoned PRO satisfies all of the following criteria: a• The parcel(s) abuts a commercial node or corridor; and b. The parcel(s) is located within a substantially developed area; and C. The parcel(s) is located in an area dominated by nonresidential uses. 3. District depth. The PRO district shall have a maximum district depth of three hundred (300)feet, measured from the adjacent collector and/or arterial roadway. The maximum depth may exceed three hundred (300) feet for platted lots of record where the majority of the lot is within three hundred (300) feet of the collector on arterial roadway. (b) CN-Neighborhood commercial district. W... 1 Land use and location. The CN, neighborhood commercial, district has been established on various sites throughout the county that are designated AG-1, AG-2, AG-3, R, L-I, L-2, M-1 or M-2 on the future land use map. No new CN neighborhood commercial districts shall be established, and no existing CN district shall be expanded. 2. Allowable uses. Uses allowed within a neighborhood node shall be those uses allowed within the neighborhood commercial (CN) zoning district. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90;Ord, No. 91-7. §§6, 8, 2-27-91; Ord. No. 91-48, §§20, 22, 23, 12-4-91; Ord. No. 92-11, §§3, 14. 24, 4-22-92;Ord. No. 92-39, §8, 9-29-92; Ord. No. 93-8§§ 13, 18, 3-18-93; Ord. No. 93-29, §§5D, 11C; 9-7-93; Ord. No. 94-1, §2E. 1-5-94; Ord. No. 94-25, §§ 1. 13, 8-31-94; Ord. No. 96-24, §6, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 97-16, §3(5); 5-6-97; Ord. No. 97-21, §4(A), 7-15-97;Ord. No. 97-29, §§2(A), 6, 12, 12-16-97;Ord, No. 98-9, §9, 5-19-98;Ord. No. 99-13, § 7A, 5-5- 99; Ord. No. 2000-039, § 1, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 2002-016, § 1E, 4-2-02;Ord. No. 2002-031, § 1E, 11-12-02;Ord. No. 2003- 004, § 1. 2-4-03; Ord. No. 2010-017, § 1, 10-5-10: Ord. No. 2012-016, §§4, 7E, 8, 9, 7-10-12) htt„•//lihrarmnnirnr�a rnm/rrint acrw7h=RrrliantTTl=177"�'�RrNTI�/TRPrntact=httno/2a�/7fti/')flihrar 7/F./7(112 ® MOTORIST DESIGN OF MERRITT ISLAND, INC. Traffic Engineering Consultants Phone: Vero Beach 772/539-8512 Merritt Island 3211459-2905 1237 Guy Road, Orlando,Florida 32828 Fax: 321 1459-2012 Email motoristdesiQn(&aol.com "MAW TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NORTH COUNTY CHARTER SCHOOL REZONE Indian River County, Florida February 11 , 2013 Prepared for: Mr. Ken Miller 6650 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, Florida 32967 Prepared by: Motorist Design of Merritt Island, Inc (772) 539-8512 or (321) 459-2905 Project Number 13-0130 ANT Serving Florida's Treasure Cast and Space`0766st for Twenty-FiL Years 62 MOTORIST DESIGN OF MERRITT ISLAND, INC. Traffic Engineering and Planning Consultants :t} <>.;. - _ 1237 Guy Road,Orlando,Florida 32828 Phone:772 539-8512(IRC)or 321 459-2905(Brevard) �$�6 Email motoristdesign(&aol.com EMA#8720 �31Qr� 1819 NORTH COUNTY CHARTER SCHOOL REZONE o >f. —TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY r L£BE 1. Location: East side of Old Dixie Highway,north of 65"'Street. 2. Size: 0.94 acres(analyzed as 9,400 sf Shopping Center). 3. Trip Generation: See attached. 4. Area of Influence Boundaries: 691h Street(north),65"'Street(south),US 1 (east),Old Dixie Highway(west). 5. Significant Roads: Old Dixie Highway(65"'Street to 69`h Street),65`h Street(Old Dixie Highway to US 1),69`h Street(Old Dixie Highway to US 1) 6. Significant Intersections: None 7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A 8. Internal Capture: none 9. Pass-by Capture: 51% 10. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): am: 62%in/38% out; pm: 48% in/52% out 11. Traffic Count Factors Applied: N/A 12. 12.Off-Site Improvements: none 13. Roadway Capacities(IRC Link Sheets): See Appendix B 14. Assumed roadway and/or intersection improvements: none 15. Significant Dates W" a. Pre-study conference: February 2013 b. Traffic counts: intersections—none required roads—link sheets based upon year 2011 seasonally-adjusted traffic counts provided by Indian Riv r Co I nt c. Study approval: . . .................................... 16. The site is less than 8 miles from the section of SR 60 between 66`h Avenue and 82nd Ave. and will be required to contribute an interest share contribution toward the roadway improvement equal to the site's fare share based upon the number of peak hour m westbound trips assigned to the link(a 'Ount to be calculated at the time of site plan approval). C%� APPROV BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY I �r GIIvBERING i 02/11/2013 L_ -PtiljLll WOC DIRECTOR Faithfully Serving Florida's Treasure Coast and Space Coast for Twenty-Five Years 63 INTRODUCTION The following document is an evaluation and analysis of the ith the east side to traffic, of the proposed North County Charter School Rezoning located o of Old Dixie Highway, north of 65th Street, in Indian River County, Florida. The location of the site is depicted in Figure 1. The project proposes to rezone 0.94 acres from CH to CL. The following traffic analysis assumes a potential of 9,400 sf of shopping center as the hypothetical site based upon the rezoning alone. Site access is not addressed during the rezoning process, but will need to be addressed with the site plan application. The analysis has been provided in this specific format based upon the County's "Typical Traffic Study Format" as required by IRC Traffic Engineering Staff. A "Traffic Impact Summary" has also been provided as a stapled insert at the back of this report, also in the specific format required by IRC Traffic Engineering Staff. The analysis period is for a 2013 opening. Per Indian River County requirements, the study area includes those 2-lane roadways on the concurrency network that are impacted by 8 or more PM peak hour directional trips, those multi-lane roadways on the concurrency network impacted by 15 or more PM peak hour directional trips, and major intersections on significantly impacted roadway links on the concurrency network that are operating at or above 80% of Level of Service D. See Appendix G of this report to view all links contained on the Indian River County concurrency determination network. For this particular analysis, the only links found to be significantly impacted were on Old Dixie Highway, 65 thStreet, and 69th Street, none of which are operating at or above 80% of Level of Service D. 1 64 TABLE 1 NORTH COUNTY CHARTER SCHOOL REZONE TRIP GENERATION Total Tris Prima Tri s excludin ass-b Land Use Intensity Daily Tris AM AM in AM out PM PM in PM out Daily Tris AM in AM out PM in PM out Proposed Site Traffic Shopping Center 9,400 1,460 9 6 3 123 59 64 715 3 1 29 31 Subtotal 1,460 9 6 3 123 59 64 715 3 1 29 31 NET INCREASE NEW SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1,460 9 6 3 123 59 64 715 3 1 29 31 w Total Driveway Volumes 1,460 9 6 3 123 59 64 Notes: Trip generation was calculated using the following rates from ITE's Trip Generation. 9th Edition. The equations were used instead of the average trip rates(ADT& PM) per the policy of IRC staff even though the equations explode for small sites. IRC pass-by rates were used to determing percentage new traffic. Daily Traffic Generation Shopping Center ITE = Ln(T)=0.65 Ln(x)+5.83 IRC=49% new (previously accepted by IRC on numerous simlar sites) AM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Shopping Center ITE = T=0.96(x) (62% in, 38%0 out) PM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Shopping Center ITE = Ln(T)=0.67 Ln(x)+3.31 (48% in, 52% out) (Rev. 2/11/2013) .r� Cn i Cal i DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTIONS - TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANT LINK FROM TO 80%OR MORE OF LOS D? Old Dixie Hwy 65th Street 69th Street NO 65th Street Old Dixie Hwy us 1 NO 69th Street Old Dixie Hwy us 1 NO No significantly impacted links found to operate at 80%or more of LOS D. Therefore no intersection analyses required per IRC policy. 4 r.. Per Indian River County policy,2-lane roadways impacted by 8 or more peak hour directional trips, and multilane roadways impacted by 15 or more peak hour directional trips, are considered to be significantly impacted. Links operating at greater than 80%of LOS D require link analysis if significantly impacted by the new project trips. None required for this project. Major intersections on significantly impacted links operating at greater than 80%of LOS D(IRC adopted capacity) require analysis. None required for this project. See Appendix G of this report for specific LOS D percentages on each link. I 4 66 LOCATION MAP - FIGURE 1 1Xti�'�`�. m�tiJ1yt�''- jir- :� f r , Qfff l l 615 i d 85th_St 510 f1�530 St St i i T Al A!:. 1 11 St > SITE w 508 , e ....: .' , i 'each �)• . �.' 65th St --- 632 j 1 61 st St j • Y' 57th :.....__St , h A 615•- !6 ;53rd St _ S �. :49th St - U_ I 0, 45th St I - 1 j i L IfOr1 a 811; _..`Q- 4bttT - Y� I it � ` 141 St St 630 1` - �._. j) --- ------- '—•, ,63:. I ` 63}0` 1 0 � s � f �? i37th St it �r r 133rd St rl T m i ? I ' tZ51i .} , rTr: Copyright©and(P)1988-2009 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers.All rights reserved.http:/Avww.microsofLcorn/streets! 0 mi 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Certain mapping and direction data®2009 NAVfEQ.All rights reserved.The Data for areas of Canada includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities,including: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,®Queen's Printer for Ontario.NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are trademarks of NAVTEQ.®2009 Tele Atlas North America,Inc.All rights A reserved.Tele Atlas and Tele Atlas North America are trademarks of Tele Atlas,Inc.0 2009 by Applied Geographic Systems.All rights reserved. /V,� CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the preceding analysis, no intersections or roadway segments were ' determined to require specific detailed analysis or determined to be adversely impacted by the proposed site. ' Site access will need to be addressed with the site plan. The project is located less than 8-miles from the westbound section of State Road 60 between 821° Avenue and 66th Avenue. The project will therefore be required to make ' an interest share contribution toward the SR 60 widening project based upon potentially as much as 0.6 peak hour direction trips westbound impacting that section of highway. The trips calculated based upon a future site plan submittal will be used to calculate the actual contribution requirement. I I 14 68 ORDINANCE NO. 2013- AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ± 0.94 ACRES LOCATED ON OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 65TH STREET, FROM CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Curnmissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to-wit: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY , FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, RUN SOUTH 00°10'11" WEST (BASIS OF BEARINGS) ON THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 67TH STREET, A VARIABLE WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 00°10'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 195.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 32391000000100000038.0 (3435 67TH STREET); THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°44'06"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 412.12 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 000,20'36"EAST, A,DISTANCE OF Paae 1 of 3 ATT of 69 ORDINANCE NO, 2013- " 54.56 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S.HIGHWAY No.1, A 120 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY AND ALSO BEING A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE WEST, THE RADIUS OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 75016'34"WEST, A DISTANCE OF 17128.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°08'43", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 342.38 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL NUMBER 32391000000100000029.0 (6605 US HIGHWAY#1); THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, RUN NORTH 89044'06"WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 227.62 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL: THENCE RUN SOUTH 13012'21"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 185.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AFORESAID PARCEL NUMBER 32391000000100000029.0 (660.5 US HIGHWAY 41, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL NUMBER 32391000000100000028.0 (6595 US HIGHWAY#1); THENCE RUN NORTH 8902756"WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 212.92 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 89027'56"WEST, A DISTANCE OF 14.50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, A 66 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGES 82 THROUGH 93, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALSO BEING A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE EAST, THE RADIUS OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 75°29'07"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 5467.49 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01-56'11", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°44'06"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 14.36 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 89°44'06"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 213.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.94 ACRES MORE OR LESS. is changed from CH, Heavy Commercial District,to CL, Limited Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 9th day of April, 2013. This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Journal on the day of 2013, for a public hearing to be held on the 9th day of ARril, 2013 at which time it was moved for •- adoption by Commissioner seconded by and PaR-e2of3 ~ ' 70 ORDINANCE NO. 2013- adopted by the following vote: Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman Bob Solari, Commissioner Tim Zorc, Commissioner Peter O'Bryan, Commissioner BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman ATTEST BY: Jeffrey Smith, Clerk Of Circuit Court and Comptroller This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: APP VED AS O FO D GAL SUFFICIENCY W> liam K. D raal, eputy County Attorney AP VED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS r Robert M. Keating, Al ; Comm y Development Director FACommunity Develop ment\Rezonings\North County Charter School 2013 ZC-585\Ordinance\Ordinance north county charter school.doc F' Pave 3 of 3 71 Board of County Commissioners April 9, 2013 North County Charter Elementary School Rezoning Request from CH to CL LOCATION Old Dixie HWY about 700 ft North of 65th Street 4 ` a -71 A - � Purpose • Secure the zoning necessary to use the site with uses that are allowed under the CL zoning district • North County Charter Elementary School located north of the subject property, zoned CL, and plans to expand onto the subject site • Subject property zoned CH, cannot accommodate school use • School proposes to rezone subject property from CH to CL • Improvements proposed for subject site are playground and recreation area, parking spaces, and stormwater management area 71 A. 2 PZC Action On March 14, 2013, PZC recommended that BCC approve the request Existing Land Uses • North : CL, North County Charter Elementary School • West: Residential PD • East and South: CH,Various commercial uses r 1y } } YI k '7/• A 3 Proposed Zoning Map s .... km Criteria Analyzed • Concurrency • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan • Environmental impact • Compatibility with surrounding uses 71• A• 4 Concurrency Sufficient Capacity in all Concurrency Mandated Facilities: • Transportation • Water • Wastewater • Solid Waste • Stormwater Management A detailed concurrency review will be done at the time of project development Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policies 1 .17, 1 .18 Site's Land Use Designation: C/I Request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan � 1 •A• 5 Environmental Impacts Impact is the same for existing and requested zoning No Adverse Impacts Anticipated o-p Compatibility • East and South: CH, no incompatibilities • North: CL, no incompatibilities, • Continuation of that zoning district • West: PD, , Separated by Old Dixie HWY and . FEC Railroad,no incompatibilities - -71 �1 6 Conclusion Requested CL is: • Compatible with surrounding uses • Consistent with the comprehensive plan • Meets Concurrency test • No additional environmental impacts • Staff supports the request Recommendation Staff and PZC recommend that BCC approve the rezoning request from CH to CL by adopting the attached ordinance -71- A 7 r� SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST •- -� NEWSPAPERS Indian River Press Journal 1801 U.S. 1, Vero Beach, FL 32960 SCPJPPS AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Before the undersigned authority personally appeared,Sherri Cipriani,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. Ad Pub Customer Number Date Copyline Po# INDIAN RIVER CO PLANNING 2498642 3/25/2013 PUBLIC HEARING 4-9-13 NO COUNTY NEWSPAPER E-Sheet® LEGAL NOTICE ATTACHED DO NOT SEPARATE PAGES Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of, March 25, 2013, by who is Sherri Cipriani ORIGINAL L] personally known to me or [ ] who has produced as identification. r -t r , Mary T. Byrne Notary Public E----�' Notary MARY T BYRNE Public-State of FloridaComm.Expires Aug 2,2014 Commission#F EE 7134 f` C ORDINANCES ORDINANCES ORDINANCES • &PETITIONS &PETITIONS &PETITIONS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l0 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY d NOTICE OF REZONING-PUBLIC HEARING Q Q The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Flori- e da,will consider the adoption of a county ordinance rezoning land .V4 O within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A pub- 4-1 lic hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an cc opportunity to be heard,will be held on Tuesday April 9, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Ad- ministration Building A, located at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, l ^"r ++ Florida. The proposed ordinance to rezone the subject property is 0 entitled: .0 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMEND- i +' ING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZON- d ING MAP FOR APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES LOCATED ON OLD t-4 M 0DIXIE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 65TH CAM ♦—♦ STREET, FROM CH, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO CL, 4".4 LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING CODIFICA- TION,SEVERABILITY,AND EFFECTIVE DATE. •� The rezoning application may be inspected by the public at the r d Community Development Department of the County Administra- tion Building A, located at 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For more information,contact(772)226-1241. The Board of County Commissioners may adopt another zoning district, other than the district requested, provided that the adopt zoning district is consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. \V Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision that may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the U) proceedings is made, which includes the testimony and evidence cc upon which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator �C at (772) 226-1223 (TDD# 772-770-5215), at least 48 hours in ad- vance of the meeting. ■2 L. Indian River County•1: �� Q Board of County Commissioners y By:-s-Joseph E.Flescher,Chairman �riy g. GFa � s>�33i�sq w6- i r.1�. ^ ,.,•r� ••R 6-•J.w...�.�.n.,�..,+ ..,....� r7�o •+� i ; :. as 'fat h� LLJ ANq R N amGw sua s :w ,v s Pub:March 25,2013 TCN2491008 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION 0 REQUEST TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Any organization or individual wishing to address the Board of County Commission shall complete this form and submit it to the Indian River County Administrator's Office. PUBLIC DISCUSSION INFORMATION Indian River County Code Section 102.04(9)(b): as a general rule, public discussion items should be limited to matters on which the commission may take action Indian River County Code Section 102.07(2): limit remarks to three minutes unless additional time is granted by the commission NAME OF INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION: Ardra Rigby and Bill Rigby ADDRESS: 8465 591h Avenue PHONE: 501-4753 SUBJECT MATTER FOR DISCUSSION: Recap of April god BCC Meeting Discussion IS A PRESENTATION PLANNED? YES NO IS BACK-UP BEING PROVIDED YES NO ... IS THIS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION YES a NO WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU Clarity on issues discussed on April 2nd REQUESTING OF THE COMMISSION? ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED? a YES NO WHAT FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUEST? Transmitted to Administrator Via: Interactive Web Form COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: E-Mail Joseph A. Baird Fax Mail MEETING DATE: April 9,2013 Hand Delivered Phone Document3 Board Approved 1117/06 Wr 72 mem... INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION REQUEST TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Any organization or individual wishing to address the Board of County Commission shall complete this form and submit it to the Indian River County Administrator's Office. PUBLIC DISCUSSION INFORMATION Indian River County Code Section 102.04(9)(b): as a general rule, public discussion items should be limited to matters on which the commission may take action Indian River County Code Section 102.07(2): limit remarks to three minutes unless additional time is granted by the commission NAME OF INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION: Fred Mensing ADDRESS: 75801291h Street,Sebastian,FI PHONE: 772-532-6035 SUBJECT MATTER FOR DISCUSSION: Settlement Offer, Public Records,County Employees speaking at meetings IS A PRESENTATION PLANNED? YES NO IS BACK-UP BEING PROVIDED YES NO IS THIS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION YES NO WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU Settlement, Receipt of Public Records,Requirement that employees REQUESTING OF THE COMMISSION? be subject to rules of court as to facts stated ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED? a YES NO WHAT FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUEST? Transmitted to Administrator Via: Interactive Web Form COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: E-Mail Joseph A. Baird Fax , Mail MEETING DATE: April 9,2013 Hand Delivered Phone F\County Admin\EzecAsst\AGENDA\Public Discussion Items Form.doc Board Approved 11/7'06 mss.- 73 04/02/2013 20:15 7073710664 INOSYS INC' RAGE 01 Indian River County APR 3 - 2013 Office of the County AdminWraW _._.._.,�...,. � ..�,ti:� ��E 1d.��....C C_ _..--.w.�_,.__.._��v��"��,'t� �•..`.ig ra+.�.����.� t"��:-z�tcw JE5A, A i 31 zc k Z. L, 0 0 -1 S�TIC „��r.,c„�^�.__ -.._-�`'-/�_��_--_-�.,�-��i p ---------- L5 ile We te( cc, ice 4� �t�'` k'4 I L �, �1�zc.� —� +���1.....`;...___�...��j��__._.._.._._ 1�t�..�f_��art t1J�'�" - ---- bc. N Z k 44 T t -1-2 1 J 1,'V�77 74 � OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY �, v�� � Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida Serving / �✓ Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties BRUCE H. COLTON State Attorney INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CO. OF ORIGIN: Indian River DATE OF REPORT: December 12, 2011 CASE TITLE: Indian River County CASE NUMBER: 548230 CASE TYPE: Public Records Request REPORT BY:SAI Edward W. Arens, 3 ./m COPIES TO: AIC Chris Taylor APPROVED: Chief Investigat REPORT NUMBER: 005 SYNOPSIS On December 9, 2011, Assistant State Attorney Christopher Taylor, Attorney- in-Charge, Indian River County, Office of the State Attorney, 19th Judicial Circuit of Florida,2000 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960,wrote a response letter addressed to Mr_ George Maib, 4659 SE May Street, Stuart, FL 34997. The letter was in response to the Public Records Request made by George Maib for all E-mails generated by Indian River County staff relating to the Concrete Batch Plant project between the dates of December 2006 and July 2007. The E-mails included those generated by former Indian River County Attorney Will Collins, Indian River County, 180127th Street,Vero Beach, FL 34960. A copy of the response letter is attached to this report. F OFFICE OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA SERVING INDIAN RNER,MARTIN,OKEECHOBEE 2000 Sixteenth Avenue,Suite 329 SOD° AND ST.LUCIE COUNTIES Vero Beach,Florida 32960 Bruce H. Colton (772)226-3300 State Attomey Fax: (772)778-7211 December 9, 2011 Mr. George Maib 4659 SE May Street Stuart,FL 34997 Dear Mr.Maib, Upon request for certain e-mails from the Indian River County Attomey's Office, you discovered that e-mails were deleted from the computer of Will Collins (former County Attorney). You have asked this office to investigate this matter. Investiyation After your e-mail request, Basil Dancy, Information Technology Manager- Indian River County,while conducting a search of Will Collins's e-mail account, including received and sent e-mails, discovered that these e-mails were deleted (except for a few e-mails on Mr. Collins's last day of work). Mr. Dancy stated that the deletions could only occur if someone with access to Mr. Collins's computer manually deleted the e-mails. Mr. Collins and Mr.Dancy confirmed that Mr. Collins's computer was to be moved to a different department after his employment ended. Mr. Collins stated that on a few occasions he observed a member of the IT department"working" on his computer prior to his departure. Mr. Collins stated that the only e-mails he had ever deleted from his computer were e-mails from the International Municipal Lawyer's Association. He stated he never directed anyone to delete his e-mails or had knowledge of anyone deleting his e-mails. Mr. Collins stated that he had a practice of leaving his computer on after leaving work for the evening.Mr. Collins stated he did have a practice of logging off his computer at the end of the work day after his computer was replaced by a faster model (this occurred 2-3 years before his employment ended.) Also, Mr. Collins stated that he left his computer unattended when he left his office for job related functions and meetings. Mr. Collins stated that any e- mails that he believed were relevant to matters he was working on would be printed and placed in the appropriate work file. Mr. Dancy stated that Mr. Collins's computer had a time-out default feature that would function after fifteen minutes. After fifteen minutes of inactivity,Mr. Collins would need to type in his password to unlock the computer. 7,q.A a Mr. Dancy stated that this function could be turned off. Mr. Collins stated that he did not believe this function was in place on his computer_ He could not recall having to type in his password to un-lock his computer after fifteen minutes of inactivity. Mr. Dancy stated that he could not prove by computer records that Mr. Collins or any other specific individual manually deleted the e-mails from W. Collins's e-mail account. Mr. Dancy stated that in his opinion the e-mails were deleted manually and could not have been inadvertently lost or automatically deleted. He also states that neither he nor any other member of his staff would have deleted the e-mails on said computer in preparation for its move to a new location. Conclusion A criminal prosecution in this matter cannot be commenced. In order to proceed with criminal prosecution, not only must it be proven that a violation has occurred, but also that a specific individual has committed the violation. The State of Florida can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific individual deleted e-mails from Mr. Collins's e-mail account. It can be established that the e-mails on Mr. Collins's e-mail account were manually deleted. The computer records will not show the day and time when the e-mails were deleted. It cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person deleted the e-mails in question. Although the computer was used by Mr. Will Collins, Mr. Collins was not the only person that had access. Therefore,the following scenarios are equally possible: 1. Mr. Collin deleted the e-mails in question. 2. If someone had Mr. Collins's password,that person would have had access to Mr. Collins's e-mail account. 3. An individual,other than Mr. Collins, could have deleted the e-mails in question without the password. a. If the time-out function was working, a fifteen minute window existed. b. If, as stated by Mr. Collins,the computer did not have a time-out function, other individuals would have had access to the computer. In addition, on a few of occasions,members of the IT Department were observed working on the computer in preparation for the computer to be moved once Mr. Collins's employment. ended. This would indicate that individuals other than Mr. Collins had access to the computer. Should you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 772-226-3300. Sincerely C * opher E. ylor Assistant State Attorney CT/lr -7y. A•3 • OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida Serving Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties BRUCE H. COLTON State Attorney INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CO. OF ORIGIN: Indian River DATE OF REPORT: December 12, 2011 CASE TITLE: Indian River County CASE NUMBER: 548230 CASE TYPE: Public Records Request REPORT BY: -�— SAI Edward W. Arens,J Jm COPIES TO: AIC Chris Taylor APPROVED: Chief Investigat REPORT NUMBER: 005 SYNOPSIS• On December 9,2011, Assistant State Attorney Christopher Taylor, Attorney- in-Charge, Indian River County, Office of the State Attorney, 191h Judicial Circuit of Florida, 2000 16th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960, wrote a response letter addressed to Mr. George Maib, 4659 SE May Street, Stuart, FL 34997. The letter was in response to the Public Records Request made by George Maib for all E-mails generated by Indian River County staff relating to the Concrete Batch Plant project between the dates of December 2006 and July 2007, The E-mails included those generated by former Indian River County Attorney Will Collins, Indian River County, 180127th Street, Vero Beach, FL 34960. A copy of the response letter is attached to this report. 7y. A. y• E tvOffice the /�A R�o ff ce of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR L0R1�A Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator FROM: Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator DATE: April 4, 2013 SUBJECT: Amendment and Renewal of Facility Lease Agreement with Verotown, LLC DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On March 5, 2013, the County Attorney presented an item to the Board of County Commission which provided an opportunity to discuss at a public meeting, the status of the facility formerly known as "Dodgertown." Since Agenda item was presented for "informational purposes," it did not contain detailed analysis or a specific ,.,off recommendation; however, following discussion, the Board offered in good faith, the following incentives to renew the lease: 1. The County would eliminate the liquidated damages provision during the renewal period in exchange for a provision requiring 4 months written notice of termination. 2. The County would renovate the remaining hotel rooms up to a standard consistent with the recently renovated rooms at a cost not to exceed $600,000. 3. During the renewal period, the County would increase its annual contribution to the Capital Reserve Account to total $150,000 annually. 4. All terms under the existing lease as twice amended and guaranteed would remain in full force and effect through to its natural expiration in May of 2014. All insurance requirements would remain the obligation of Verotown, LLC during the current and renewal periods. On April 2, 2013, the Board of County Commission directed Staff to summarize its negotiation position as of February 5, 2013 when negotiations had stalled following the County's receipt of Verotown, LLC's written notice of intent not to renew the Facility Lease Agreement. The Board further directed Staff to provide a comparison of its last negotiation position with the terms of the Board's offer of March 5, 2013, and if possible, to resume negotiations and provide an updated recommendation to the Board. April 3, 2013, Staff resumed negotiations with Verotown, LLC, resulting in the following alternatives, analysis, and recommendation. 75 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: As requested, please find a table below comparing Staff's unsettled position at the stall of negotiations with the decisions reached by the Board of Commissioners on March 5, 2013, and Staff's updated recommendation regarding the main alterations to the extension option in the current lease agreement. Lease Provision - Staff Negotiation;Position Board of Commission StaffRecommendahon, Description on 2/5/13Approval on 3/5/13 a�1z4/3/ 3 Remain unchanged from Remain unchanged from Change lease to require Property& County payment of Casualty Insurance current lease, Verotown pays current lease,Verotown pays premiums on County premiums premiums property Remain unchanged from Removes liquidated Removes liquidated Liquidated damages current lease, $200,000 damages in exchange for a 4 damages in exchange for a 4 liquidated damages month notification month notification requirement requirement Capital Reserve County funds any capital County funds any capital County funds any capital Account Funding improvements up to $250,000 improvements up to improvements up to per year $150,000 per year $250,000 per year Provide funding up to Provide funding up to Provide funding up to Room Renovations $600,000 for room $600,000 for room $600,000 for room (Current Term)(2) renovations not already renovations not already renovations not already com leted completed completed Verotown invests profits in This concept was discussed, Verotown invests profits in Profits from facility enhancements to be though no formal Board facility enhancements to be operations owned by County action was taken owned by County Notes: (1) Property & Casualty coverage has been included in the county's insurance program in an effort to reduce costs. Verotown (previously MiLB) reimburses the County for the cost of insuring the County's property. In the current staff position @ 4/3/13, the County would pay for P&C coverage for County Property. Verotown, LLC would pay for P&C coverage for Verotown property, plus any necessary liability and other insurance costs. (2) Approximately 22 rooms have been renovated as of 3/31/13. Funding would be available for the remaining rooms (about 67) at an estimated cost of not to exceed $600,000. These funds would be available upon execution of the agreement rather than at the start of the renewal (second) term. Therefore, they are not included in the annual cost of the renewal period. The table below shows an estimated annual cost of the renewal term: ,staff Nggoti hQ+� 'o ition Board of Com sir Appro�3olm ��� f E Property & Casualty $0 $0 $81,704 Insurance Liquidated 4 months notice in lieu of 4 months notice in lieu of damages $0 $200,000 liquidated damages $200,000 liquidated damages Capital Reserve up to $250,000 up to $150,000 up to $250,000 Account Funding Room Renovations Cost during current lease term Cost during current lease term Cost during current lease term (Current Term)(z) profits from $0 (potential benefit for $0 $0 (potential benefit for erations County) County) Grand Total $250,000 $150,000 $331,704 76 Please note the costs shown above are for the first year of the renewal term (commencing May 2014). Costs for property & casualty insurance may change in subsequent years; however, the total costs for the remainder of the —newal period should be similar to the level shown above overall. It should be noted that both Staff and the ,,,,.jmmission have consistently supported the initial capital investment of up to $600,000 to renovate the remaining hotel rooms as an immediate necessity. This amount is not shown in the table above as such costs would be incurred during the current lease term. FUNDING: Funding for the initial room renovations during the current term will be provided by Optional Sales Tax. The ongoing capital reserve account funding will be split 50%/50% between Optional Sales Tax and General Fund dollars. Property and casualty insurance on the County-owned facilities will be funded from General Fund dollars through an allocation of charges from the Self Insurance Fund. RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the Board grant conceptual approval of the terms summarized in the above referenced column titled "Staff Recommendation April 3, 2013" including the initial room renovations, and direct the County Attorney to return to the Board with a final draft of the. Third Amendment to the Facility Lease Agreement. ATTACHMENT: County Attorney's Memo to BCC dated February 26, 2013 APPROVED AGENDA ITEM Indian River Co Approved Date Administrator BY: Legal 13 Budget �3 FOR: April 9, 2013 77 - ATTACHMENT Attorney's Matters-B.C.C. 03.05.13 Off C2 Of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY Alan S.Polackwich,Sr.,County Attorney William K DeBraal,Deputy County Attorney Brooke W.Odom,Assistant County Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alan S. Polackwich, Sr., County Attorney�� DATE: February 26,2013 SUBJECT: Vero Beach Sports Village—Lease Update On May 1, 2009, the County entered into a Facility Lease Agreement (the "Lease") with MiLB Vero Beach, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("MiLB"), relating to the former Dodgertown facility. The Lease is for an initial five year term (through April 30, 2014), with two successive options to renew for additional five year terms. On January 1, 2012, the County approved an amendment and assignment of the Lease to Verotown, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Verotown"),which is the current tenant. Under section 2.03 of the Lease, Verotown was required to deliver written notice of renewal no later than October 31, 2012, if it chose to exercise its first option to renew for an additional five year term. Verotown did not deliver a written notice of renewal. On February 5, 2013, although not required by the Lease terms, Verotown delivered written notice that it would not exercise its option to renew. Consequently, the Lease is scheduled to expire on April 30,2014. The primary sticking points in renewal negotiations between the County and Verotown have been Verotown's liability for capital expenses, casualty insurance premiums and liquidated damages, in the event Verotown breaches the lease by leaving early. Indian River Co. Apved Date APPROVED FOR MARCH 5, 2013 Admin. B.C.C. MEETING—ATTORNEYS MATTERS Co.Avt% ?- Budget 127 ;r ` Department --- UNTYg ORNEY Risk Management --- P:L4tmrnryltindatGEKFR,IU8CC14gendaMemosiDodpertaxn(I 857)08.doc 78 ATTACHMENT NOW Board of County Commissioners February 26, 2013 Page Two Meanwhile, the County has received inquiries from third parties interested in leasing the facility. At present, any discussions with third parties are very preliminary. Unless the replacement tenant is a non- profit organization, it is likely that a competitive selection/RFP process will be required before the County can enter into a replacement lease. RECOMMENDATION. This agenda item is intended to be for informational purposes, and to provide the Board with an opportunity to discuss the facility and the Lease in a public meeting. ATTACHMENT(S). Verotown, LLC's Letter of Non-Renewal ASP:LAC F.•l4florr+eylU daiGrnerafl8 CCL?gencN dfenusVJodgrrrrnvn(NdSl J(r3.doc 79 -ATTACHMENT Indian River County -' FEB 5 2013 office of the TU County Administrator February 5,2013 Joe Baird Indian River County Administrator 180127' Street Vero Beach,F-L 32-960 Dear Joe, As you know the partners have been disappointed that we have been unable to identify future lease terms with the County. While we respect your decision, we believe our proposal is extremely fair. When Peter O'Malley and partners became responsible for the facility, it was their intention to save and polish what has been known as Dodgertown. They were not .. motivated by profit but they also have no interest in significant losses. We explained to you that all profits would be put back into the facility. We are proud of the ways we have contributed economically to Indian River County while simultaneously enhancing a historically significant facility. The business model for the Sports Village is sound and for the last three years losses have been diminishing. However, we cannot continue under the terms you have given us. Consequently, we have concluded with great regret that we will not exercise our renewal option in Section 2.03 of the Facility Lease Agreement. Continued best wishes. Sincerely Craig Callan Vice President,Vero Beach Sports Village Cc: Bryant Miller Olive P.A. Attn: Robert C. Reid, Special County Attorney 101 N. Monroe Street, Suite 900 Tallahassee,FL 32301 80 IC_� I Departmental Matters Indian River County Inter-Office Memorandum Office of Management and Budget To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: April 3, 2013 Subject: Dune Restoration equ t f m the City of Vero Beach From: Jason E. Brown Director, Management Bu get Background On March 19, 2013, the City Council of the City of Vero Beach adopted Resolution Number 2013-12 requesting that the County reirnburse the City for expenditures incurred for the repair of erosion damage caused by Hurricane Sandy and restoration of the dunes at Conn/Jaycee Park Beach and Humiston Park Beach from Tourist Tax revenues. According to the resolution, the City has incurred expenditures totaling $161,505.55 for this work. Prior to this resolution, the matter was presented to the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee (BSPAC) on December 12, 2012. At that meeting, the BSPAC voted to, "recommend to the Board of Commissioners as money became available, the City of Vero �•..- Beach be considered for assistance with restoration of the dunes in the City of Vero Beach." Subsequently, at its January 21, 2013 meeting the BSPAC requested that County staff provide a presentation on the availability for funds for this request. On February 25, 2013, staff made a presentation detailing some of staff's concerns about funding for the Beach Preservation Plan and recommended against funding the request. After the presentation, the BSPAC took no further action to recommend funding for the request. At the Tourist Development Committee (TDC) meeting on February 19, 2013, during general discussion, a question was raised regarding the availability of funding for the City of Vero Beach's dune restoration costs. Staff recommended against this request and the TDC took no action to recommend funding for the request. Then on February 20, 2013, City staff sent a letter to the County requesting funding for dune restoration (see attachment). County staff replied to this request on March 5, 2013 that due to several factors, staff would not recommend funding for the request (attached). Discussion and Analysis The City of Vero Beach has requested funding reimbursement from the County for dune restoration for the last two years. During the current fiscal year, the City requested $161,506. Last fiscal year, the City requested $93,200. The County denied this request also. Previously, the City has funded these expenses from City revenue sources. In 2008, the County adopted the most recent ten-year Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). The BPP identified a total of approximately $55 million in projects over the ten-year period. After accounting for expected State grants, the report estimated local funding needs of $23.8 million, or $2.4 million per year. Currently, the local Option Tourist Tax provides about $500,000 per year towards these expenses. The only other significant local revenue source for these projects 81 Board of Commissioners Page 2of3 April 3, 2013 is the Optional Sales Tax. This implies a need to use approximately $1.9 million from Optional Sales Tax for beach restoration annually, which is approximately 15% of total Optional Sales Tax revenues. Any funds used for sporadic dune restoration projects divert funding away from the projects identified in the ten-year plan. Staff has several concerns regarding this funding request as outlined below: 1. Historically, municipalities and the County have funded dune restoration to protect public infrastructure from sources other than Tourist Tax. The County incurred expenses of $139,590 for dune restoration after Hurricane Sandy this year. These expenses were funded from the County's share of Optional Sales Tax, rather than tourist tax. 2. The request for funding represents a cost shift from one local government to another, rather than a cost reduction. 3. The local funding needs identified in the BPP utilize the vast majority of Tourist Taxes. The County has committed a substantial amount of Optional Sales Tax to beach restoration project over time. It should be noted that the municipalities receive a share of the Optional Sales Tax as well. Therefore, the County's use of Optional Sales Tax results in a subsidy from unincorporated residents to City residents for this activity. 4. On March 20, 2013, the Town of Orchid submitted a request for funding to reimburse the Town for dune restoration activities undertaken by the Town and its constituents in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in the event that funding is made available by the legislature. The total amount expended for this activity was $270,393. If the County were to fund the dune restoration expenses for the Town, the City and the County, the total cost for the current year would exceed the amount provided by Tourist Taxes for this fiscal year. 5. Continued use of tourist tax revenues to fund periodic dune restoration could jeopardize the funding framework for long-term beach restoration projects. 6. The amount of State grant funding has declined substantially since the development of the BPP in 2008. This will result in an increase in local funding needed above the $23.8 million identified in the BPP. Currently, the County is undertaking a five-year update of the ten-year BPP. As part of that project, the County and its consultant will review the local funding needs based upon these funding changes and potential project changes. 7. If funding for dune restoration is approved, the County may need to evaluate the funding streams available for beach restoration due to the additional financial drain on resources. Currently, the three cents of the original Local Option Tourist Tax are split evenly (50%/50%) between tourism promotion and beach restoration. One option would be to increase funding for beaches while decreasing the amount available for tourism promotion activities. Staff does not recommend this approach at this time, as this action would negatively impact the hotels and tourism industry overall. 8. The State legislature is currently considering funding for Indian River County beaches to replenish sand lost in Sectors 1, 2, and 3 after Hurricane Sandy in the amount of $4.8 million. If approved as proposed, this grant will require a local match of $4.8 million. While the County is currently able to match this grant, this will deplete most of the funds in the Beach Restoration Fund. 82 Board of Commissioners Page 3of3 April 3, 2013 Alternatives Alternative 1 — Deny the request for funding. Continue to fund dune restoration from other sources for the County and the municipalities. Alternative 2 —Approve funding for this request. If full funding is approved, the total amount for the City of Vero would be $161,506. In the event that the Board approves funding for the City of Vero's expenditures, it would be equitable to fund the County's dune restoration expenses totaling $139,590. Likewise, funding for the Town of Orchid should be considered for funding as well. Staff does not recommend this alternative for the reasons listed herein. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve Alternative 1, denying the request for funding. Attachments Resolution of the City of Vero Beach, Number 2013-12 Letter from James R. O'Connor, dated February 20, 2013 Letter from Jason E Brown, dated March 5, 2013 Letter from Harold A. Ofstie, Dated March 20, 2013 APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: BY: Joseph A. Baird County Administrator FOR: Aoril9 2013 Indian River County Approved Date Administrator sf/� County Attorney Budget 3 r3 Department Risk Management 83 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH FOR DUNE RESTORATION EXPENDITURES INCURRED DUE TO HURRICANE SANDY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach currently provides and maintains public beaches within the City for the benefit and enjoyment of all regardless of their residency within or without the City of Vero Beach; and WHEREAS, these public beaches are also maintained for the benefit and enjoyment of all visitors to Indian River County; and WHEREAS, these well-maintained and guarded beaches are one of the major attractions that help draw vacationers and other visitors and travelers to Indian River County, providing significant benefit to hotels and other businesses within the City and ... Indian River County; and WHEREAS, these public beaches clearly are a valuable natural resource and local asset for the entire Indian River County community and contribute greatly to the coastal economy of the County; and WHEREAS, two of these public beaches within the City, Conn Beach/Jaycee Park Beach and Humiston Park Beach recently suffered significant erosion damage due to Hurricane Sandy, requiring the emergency replacement of sand to the dune system at each beach at a total cost to the City of $161,505.55; and WHEREAS, such emergency expenditure was necessary to restore and maintain these popular public beaches for the continued benefit and enjoyment of the public and NAClicnt Docs\RCSOInUOnS\C ill'Council\2013.63.1 l.lR.Count}'.Conun.Dunc.(Zcst.pundine.crcdoc 84 protection of these valuable assets for the benefit of the entire Indian River County community, including its businesses; and WHEREAS, the significance of the attraction of these public beaches to the City and Indian River County and the exigent need to restore and maintain these beaches are evident in the fact that the majority of Indian River County Tourist Tax revenue is derived from those hotels and businesses located within the City of Vero Beach; and WHEREAS, these Tourist Tax revenues are within the control of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a portion of which revenues are already allotted to beach and shore use; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee at its December 17, 2012 public meeting unanimously recommended to the Board of County Commissioners to consider financial assistance to the City of Vero Beach for dune restoration within the City as money is available; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vero Beach also determines that it is fair and reasonable for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize such financial assistance and reimbursement to the City in light of all of the foregoing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 — Adoption of "Whereas" clauses. The foregoing `Whereas" clauses are hereby adopted and incorporated herein. Section 2 — Request for Financial Assistance. The City Council of the City of Vero Beach hereby respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County authorize reimbursement to the Page 2 of 4 NAClient Docs\ResolLit ions\Cite Council\2013.03.1 1.[R.Coum1'.Conun.Dunc.Rest.Funding.wle.doc 85 City of Vero Beach from Tourist Tax revenues the expenditures incurred by the City for the repair of erosion damage caused by Hurricane Sandy and restoration of the dunes at Conn Beach/Jaycee Park Beach and Humiston Park Beach, thereby preserving and protecting the benefits and enjoyment these beaches provide to all citizens of Indian River County and its visitors and businesses alike. Section 3 — Direction to City Clerk. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution, upon adoption, to the Chairman and members of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Section 3 — Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council. This Resolution was heard on the day of 2013, after which hearing it was moved for adoption by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember (" fA )A t and adopted by the following vote of the City Council: Mayor A. Craig Fletcher L I P F`1 Vice-Mayor Tracy M. CarrollZ Councilmember Pilar E. Turner C 1l Councilmember Jay Krarner L �J Councilmember Richard T. Winger Com` ATTEST: CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA U11�J- - - d)�)p Tammy ock A. Craig letcher City Clerk Mayor [SEAL] Paoe 3 of 4 NAC'liem Docs\RCsolutians\City Council\2013.03.1 LIR.Count}.Comm.Dune.ftest.l'undiii�.crc.doc 86 Approved as to form and legal Approved as conforming to municipal sufficiency: policy: Way R. Convent James . O'Connor City A4orney City Manager Approved as to technical requirements: Monte . Falls Public Works Director Paae 4 c)1'4 NIAClient DOCS\Resolutions\Cit\ Council\2013.03.1 I.IR.County.Comm.Diine.Rest.Fundill'-,wrc.doc 87 City of Nero Beach 105; 20th Place - P.O. Box 1;89 Vera Beach, FL. :32961-1389 J OFFICE OF 1'111: Phone: (772) IM--1710 Fax: (772) 975--1710 CITY MANAGER [-nulil: eit�mer(rcco�h.ora www.ctkb oro February 20, 2013 Indian River County Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator FEB 2 5 2013 Indian River County office of the 1801 27th Street County Administrator Vero Beach, FL 32960 Re: Hurricane Sandy Dune Restoration Dear Mr. Baird: At the December 17, 2012 meeting of the Beach and Shores Advisory Committee, as a result of the erosion caused by Hurricane Sandy, the City requested that Indian River County contribute to the dune restoration. The following is an excerpt from the minutes of said meeting: ON MOTION BY Councilman Ochsner, SECONDED BY Mr. Anderson, the members voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend to the Board of .�.. County Commissioners as money became available, the City of Vero Beach be considered for assistance with restoration of the dunes in the City of Vero Beach. The City recently completed the dune restoration at two locations, Conn Beach/Jaycee Park and Humiston Park with a total cost of $153,988.77. Additional sand was placed immediately after the storm to protect Ocean Drive near the south end of Conn Beach Boardwalk. The cost of that work totaled $7,516.78. Since these facilities are used by City and County residents alike, we respectfully ask for any funding assistance that the County could offer to offset this $161 ,505,55 expense. Sincerely, j t James R. O'�onnor City Manager Cc: City Council Monte K. Falls, Public Works Director MKF:DHD/ntn 88 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 180127' Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3388 cow � Office of Management & Budget Telephone: (772) 226-1214 March 5, 2013 �lOR1�p' Mr. James R. O'Connor, City Manager City of Vero Beach 10532 oth Place P.O. Box 1389 Vero Beach FL 32961-1389 Re: Hurricane Sandy Dune Restoration Dear Mr. O'Connor: The County has received a copy of your letter dated February 20, 2013 requesting funding for dune restoration at Conn Beach/Jaycee Park and Humiston Park. County staff does not recommend funding for this expense for several reasons as listed below: l.. 1. The City has historically funded dune restoration from City revenue sources. Likewise, the County funds dune restoration at County parks from the M.S.T.U. Fund or Optional Sales Tax (rather than tourist tax). Please note, these are both unincorporated area revenue sources. 2. The County's 10-year Beach Preservation Plan allocates the vast majority of the 1-1/2 cents of tourist tax dedicated to beach restoration for long-term beach renourishment projects. If the County were to use these funds for periodic dune restoration, there would not be sufficient revenues to fund the long-term restoration projects. 3. On January 21, 2013, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee (BSPAC) requested a presentation from County staff regarding funding for dune restoration for the City of Vero Beach. On February 25, 2013, staff made a presentation to BSPAC which included a recommendation not to fund this request for the reasons presented above, as well as other factors. The BSPAC took no action to recommend funding for the City of Vero dunes restoration after the presentation. 89 Mr. James R. O'Connor Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2013 4. On February 19, 2013, there was a discussion during the Tourist Development Council (TDC) meeting regarding funding for dune restoration for the City of Vero Beach. No action was taken at the TDC meeting to recommend funding for dune restoration. In conclusion, County staff does not recommend funding for the dune restoration ($161,506 expense). Funding for periodic requests such as dune restoration would undermine the funding plan for long-term beach renourishment projects. Further, the BSPAC did not recommend funding at the February 25, 2013 meeting following the staff presentation. Additionally, the TDC — the advisory committee tasked with allocating tourist tax dollars — did not recommend funding for these expenses. Therefore, County staff does not plan to take further action on this matter at this time. If you have any questions, please contact me at 226-1214. Sincerely, Jaso E. B own Drec or, anagement & Budget cc: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator Board of County Commissioners Chris Mora, Public Works Director James Gray, Coastal Engineer 90 ( 3E RKE1 i E n TOWN OF ORCHID ... MAR 2 5 2013 Joseph A. Baird County Administrator Cet o .ce 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach 32960-3388 March 20, 2013 Re: Funding of 2013 "Orchid Beaches" Replenishment Project Dear Joe, In a report dated November 7, 2012 entitled Preliminary Beach Damage Assessment Hurricane Sandy(the Assessment") prepared by the Indian River County Coastal Engineering Division, it was stated in the section entitled General Comments ,page 2)that" In most beach segments the erosion was consistent with what the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)) defines as ...Moderate Dune Erosion...less than 10 feet of dune recession and three to ten feet vertical escarpments. However, the damage throughout the recently completed Sector 3 Beach restoration project area experienced...Major Dune Erosion, dune erosion greater than 10 feet." In "Segment 3:Windsor to Wabasso Beach Park (R-30 to R-40) page four of the Assessment, it states "Significant dune retreat and bone profile lowering was observed throughout this - segment...Approximately 10-15 feet of dune retreat was observed along the Orchid (R-34-R- 37)beaches." The County has long recognized that dune stability is an essential element to protecting public assets and private property from catastrophic storm damage. As a result of the extensive damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, Indian River County, in concert with the State of Florida, sought federal funding. Unfortunately, this application was denied. There also has been a long standing application to the FDEP to obtain partial reimbursement for the costs incurred by the County on the Sector 111 Project. To date, the FDEP appears unfavorably inclined toward this application. More recently, the County has appealed to the State Legislature to obtain funds to remediate the damage clone by Hunicane Sandy. Chairman Flescher wrote on behalf of the Commission to our legislators and articulately stated the strong need for funding. In pertinent part, he stated: The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests your support and assistance..., as the State has done in the past for Indian River County, a special and separate shoreline erosion appropriation under the statewide beach management for FY 2013/14. A special appropriation is specifically needed to address the extensive erosion to our dunes and beaches from Hurricane Sandy... As a result of the high surf, 12 miles of our non- federal engineered shoreline was damaged, resulting in an estimated $9.6 million in beach repair costs....: Without this financial assistance, we risk impacting tourism that is leading the economic recovery in Indian River County and statewide, and further leave miles of beaches, public infrastructure and upland development vulnerable to the next storm event... With the 7707 US HIGHWAY 1, Suite 3 • VERO BEACH, FL 32967 ^ PHONE: 772.581.2770 •FAx: 772.581.2771 y recent FEMA denial, Indian River County is not financially able to fully repair the $9.6 million in beach damages without funding assistance from the State, thereby affecting our local tourism.-The only remaining alternative is for the State to partner with the impacted local governments to assist in the funding of beach stabilization projects.. As detailed above, this action is essential in order to perform necessary beach repairs that are critical to the statewide economy and our community's health and safety, as well as important environmental considerations including sea turtle and shorebird nesting. " Recognizing the findings of the Assessment that the Orchid Beaches received significant beach erosion and damage to its dune system, the financial limitations of the County and the short time frame provided by the FDEP to undertake a dune replenishment project, the Town of Orchid adopted Resolution Number 2013-01 on January 10, 2013. A copy of this resolution is attached. In essence, the Town, like the County, recognized that the damaged dune system needed to be restored without further delay because of the potential risk to the community that a degradation cif-,the.dunes will present. The Town and its constituents stepped in because the County could not. The Town and its constituents expended $270,393.36 to stabilize the beach/dune system. We believe it is fair and reasonable that should the legislature or FDEP step in and provide funding to replenish the Indian River beaches as requested by the Indian River County Commission, that the Town of Orchid and its constituents be reimbursed for its expenditures. We thank you for or your consideration of our request. Please be assured of our continuing cooperation. We look forward to working with you and others to obtain a thoughtful update of the Beach Preservation Plan. This Plan will need to have well thought out short and long term financing requirements so we protect our community from avoidable catastrophic harm. Res es y, H old A. Ofstie Mayor, Town of Orchid C: Indian County Board of County Commissioners Jason E. Brown, Management and Budget Director Dave Barney—Chairman, Beach and Shore Advisory Committee Orchid Town Council Orchid Island Community Association Board 92 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator THROUGH: Christopher R. Mora, P.E. Cy,,, Public Works Director FROM: James D. Gray,Jr. Job Engineer SUBJECT: Work Order No. 1 Ecological Associates, Inc. Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project Post Construction Biological Monitoring Services DATE: April 2, 2013 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On March 19, 2013 the Board approved a contract with Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI) for professional coastal environmental services in Indian River County for a two-year term, 2013- 2015. EAl is the selected County consultant for professional biological monitoring services �.. related to the Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project. The proposed Work Order No. 1 provides year 2013 post construction biological monitoring services relative to sea turtle monitoring and reporting and Nearshore Hardbottom monitoring and reporting of the Sector 3 Beach Restoration Project Area. By Permit, annual Post Construction Biological monitoring is required for 3 years following a large scale beach restoration project. The 2013 monitoring entails the following: • "Year 3" annual post construction biological monitoring of the Phase 1 project area, • "Year 2" annual post construction biological monitoring of the Phase 2 project area, and • "Year 1" annual post construction biological monitoring of the Phase 2b project area. All subsequent annual biological monitoring of the Sector 3 Project area will be addressed through future work orders. ANALYSIS As a result of the recent Request for Qualifications, March 2013, the County contracted with an environmental monitoring consultant and an engineering consultant. By directly contracting the 2013 Sector 3 Biological monitoring tasks with an environmental consultant instead of authorizing the work though an engineering consultant resulted in significant savings to the County. In addition staff worked with EAI to reduce Work Order No. 1 costs as well as various sub-consultant costs where possible. F:\Public Works\JamesG\Sector 3\EAI Work Orders\WO# 1 --Biological Monitoring 2013\Agenda Item\FINAL agenda item Ecological Associates Inc Work Order#1 4-9-13.docx 93 Page 2 BCC Agenda Item Sector 3 Beach Restoration April 2,2013 w.. Based on review of actual expenditures from previously authorized post construction biological monitoring services, Work Order No. 1 represents a net reduction of$44,441 or approximately 9.7% lower than similar work conducted last year. Work Order#1 totals a lump sum amount of$399,995. FUNDING Local funding of Beach Restoration includes a portion of Local Option Tourist Tax Revenue as well as allocation of the One Cent Sales Tax. For FY 12/13, funding in the amount of$880,940 is budgeted and available for monitoring and mitigation of the Sector 3 Beach Restoration project in the Beach Restoration Fund, Sector 3 Beach Restoration Account No.12814472-066510- 05054. Please note that $1.6 million in mitigation costs may or may not be needed. Additionally, these funds would not be expended until December 2015 which would allow one to two additional years of tourist tax revenues and other sources as budgeted, to accumulate for this purpose. 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 2012-2013 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. RECOMMENDATION The recommendation of staff is for the Board to approve Work Order No. 1 to the contract with Ecological Associates, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to sign on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENT Ecological Associates, Inc. Work Order No. 1 (2 original copies) APPROVED AGENDA ITEM Indian River County Approved Date Administration FOR: April 9, 2013 Budget q 3 BY: Legal 1.1'3—� Public Works Gly— 'Y—3- Coastal Coastal Eng. Division JYV 412113 F:\Public Works\JamesG\Sector 3\EAI Work Orders\WO# 1 --Biological Monitoring 2013\Agenda Item\FINAL agenda item Ecological Associates Inc Work Order#1 4-9-13.docx 94 WORK ORDER NUMBER 1 SECTOR 3 BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE 1,PHASE 2,AND PHASE 2B 2013 POST CONSTRUCTION BIOLOGICAL MONITORING SERVICES This Work Order Number 1 is entered into as of this day of , 2013 pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of March 19,2013 ("Agreement"),by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and Ecological Associates, Inc. ("CONSULTANT"). The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on Exhibit 1, attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit 2, attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. The Consultant will perform the professional services -Mthm the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit 2, attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein. ""— IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above. CONSULTANT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ecological Associates, Inc. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: &4. By: Robert G. Ernest Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman Title: President Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller Date: March 27. 2013 By: (Seal)Deputy Clerk Approved: By: Jos A. Baird, County Administrator Approve4 as to form 1 ciency: `•► y: Alan S.P ac ch, Sr., County Attorney 95 010 ,7 ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. James D. Gray, Jr. Coastal Engineer April 2, 20.13 Indian River County Public Works 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Post-construction Biological Monitoring Services for Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project—2013 Dear Mr. Gray: Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI) is pleased to submit its Scope of Work (SOW) and Cost Proposal for providing Professional Environmental Support Services in support of Indian River County's Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project. Services described herein conform to biological monitoring requirements stipulated in Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) JCP Permit #285993-001-JC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion (BO) for the Sector 3 Project, dated December 2, 2009, and the Biological Monitoring Plan, approved by FDEP on May 29, 2009. This work will satisfy requirements for: ➢ Year 3 annual monitoring for the previously completed Phase 1 fill area (R-36-R- 55), ➢ Year 2 annual monitoring for the previously completed Phase 2 fill area (R- 26+500-R-36),and ➢ Year 1 annual monitoring for the previously completed Phase 2b fill area(R-20-R- 26+500). EAI will perform the following tasks under this SOW with support from its sub- contractor, CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. (CSA), as detailed in Exhibit A: ➢ Pre- nesting season lighting evaluations; ➢ Weekly post-construction escarpment monitoring; ➢ Post-construction sea turtle monitoring; ➢ Marking and monitoring of a representative sample of nests to determine nest fate and reproductive success; ➢ Quarterly in-water sea turtle monitoring; ➢ Nearshore hardbottom monitoring; ➢ Post-construction UMAM analysis of hardbottom impacts; and ➢ Data management and reporting, as conditioned in regulatory permits for the project. Ecological Associates, inc. ° Post Office Boz 405 ° Jensen Beach, Florida 34958 Phone:(772)334-3729 • Fax:(772)334-4925 • Email: info@ecological-associates.com 96 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 2 2013 Scope of Work Records of monitoring activities during 2013 will be provided to the County in a form and at frequencies mutually agreed upon. Monthly data reports and a year-end summary report will be provided to the County in accordance with Exhibit C (Project Schedule). EAI will submit its monthly billings for services to the County in accordance with the fees set forth in Exhibit B (Costs). No deposit or retainers are required. Implementation of EAI's services is contingent upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed. Ecological Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of continued service to Indian River County. Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions regarding EAI's proposed services or associated costs. Sincerely, "� "t6. - Robert G. Ernest President enclosures c: R. Erik Martin/Scientific Director Ecological(associates, inc. ° Post Office Box 405 Jensen Beach, Florida 34953 Phone:(772)334-3729 s Fax: (772)334-4925 • Email: info@ecological-associates.com 97 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT A ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 405 JENSEN BEACH, FLORIDA 34958 SCOPE OF WORK 1) Project Boundaries. The area to be monitored (Project Area) extends from R-20 south to R-68 in Indian River County (Sector 3). This includes three separate project phases (1, 2, and 213), as well as a control beach. Phase l (R36-R55) was constructed in 2010, Phase 2 (R26.4-R36) was constructed in 2011, and Phase 213 (R20-R26.4) was completed prior to the 2012 nesting season. The control beach, immediately south of the Sector 3 Project Area, will extend from R55 to R60. 2) Monitoring Period. Post-construction monitoring activities will commence March 1, 2013 and will continue through approximately February 2014, as stipulated below. 3) Lighting Evaluations (BO Condition No. I1). A single pre-season nighttime lighting evaluation will be conducted in Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 2B segments of the Sector 3 Project Area. Standard protocol will be utilized to evaluate all exterior lights visible from the beach within each phase. Problematic lights will be identified on standard field forms provided to the County along with recommendations for remedial measures. It shall be the responsibility of Indian River County to document and report any remedial and/or enforcement actions taken by the County in response to lighting violations reported by EAI. 4) Weekly Post-construction Scarp Monitoring (FDEP Special Condition No. 24). Escarpment (scarp) surveys will be conducted on a weekly basis from March 1 through September 30 in all three phases of the Sector 3 Project Area. In accordance with FWC protocol, scarps will be functionally defined as an abrupt change in beach slope (greater than 45°) that is at least 18 inches in height and persists for a distance of 100 feet or more. The location of both the northern and southern terminus of each scarp will be recorded by GPS and average scarp height assigned to one of three categories (0 to 2 feet, 2 to 4 feet, and 4 feet or higher). Additionally, the maximum height of each scarp will be measured. The location (relative to R monuments), approximate length, height category, maximum height, and percentage of beach scarped will be presented in tabular and/or graphic format for reporting purposes. EAI will notify the County of any persistent scarps within the Project Area that may interfere with sea turtle nesting. The County shall be responsible for notifying FDEP of the presence of those scarps and for coordinating any remediation measures, if required. ro.. 98 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 2 Exhibit A—2013 Scope of Work 5) Post-construction Nesting Beach Sea Turtle Monitoring (FDEP Special Condition No. 29). Daily early morning nesting surveys will commence on March 1, 2013 for all three phases of the Sector 3 Project. Post-construction monitoring of the entire Project Area will continue uninterrupted through September 30, 2013. Thereafter, the surveys will be conducted three days each week until the last marked nest has been evaluated. During the daily surveys, all emergences (turtle crawls) apparent from the previous night will be interpreted to determine which species of turtle came ashore and whether or not it nested. Crawls will be denoted as being either above or below the previous high tide line. Only those crawls above the tide line will be included in data summaries and analyses. Nests and false crawls will be enumerated by pre-established survey zones and their approximate geographic locations determined by GPS (general accuracy of 3-5 meters). This data will be incorporated into EAI's GIS database and nest distribution maps produced for inclusion in a year-end summary report. Each false crawl will be categorized as to the stage at which the nesting attempt was abandoned in conformance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) requirements for beach restoration projects. Additionally, all obstacles (e.g., scarps, seawalls, etc.) encountered by turtles during their NOW emergences onto the beach will be documented. EAI will directly confer with existing Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FWC's) Marine Turtle Permit Holders in collaboration with the County to appropriately coordinate its monitoring efforts with the existing yearly monitoring efforts by others within the Project Area. EAI will also coordinate its monitoring activities in a manner that best supports the County's Habitat Conservation Plan and will furnish data collected under this Scope of Work to the County's HCP Coordinator in a format compatible with the HCP database. 6) Nest Marking and Monitoring (FDEP Special Condition No. 29). A representative sample of nests within each phase of the Project Area, including the control, will be marked and monitored for the purpose of determining nest fate and reproductive success. The clutch of each marked nest will be located and surrounded by a series of small stakes connected by brightly colored surveyor's tape. Marked nests will be monitored throughout their incubation period to determine nest fate (e.g., hatched, washed out, depredated, vandalized, etc.). After an appropriate incubation period, and in accordance with FWC guidelines, nests will be excavated to determine reproductive success. Nest contents will be assigned to standard categories (e.g., unhatched eggs, dead hatchlings, etc.) developed by FWC. Two measures of reproductive success will then be calculated: hatching success (the percentage of eggs in the nest that hatch) and 99 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 3 Exhibit A—2013 Scope of Work �., emerging success (the percentage of eggs in the nest that produce hatchlings which successfully escape from the nest). For the purpose of evaluating the effects of the Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration.Project on sea turtle reproductive success, at least 75 loggerhead nests will be marked in each of the three phases and in the control. This will yield a minimum of 300 marked loggerhead nests. All green turtle nests, up to a maximum of 200, will be marked for evaluations. Too few leatherback nests occur within the Project Area to provide a statistically meaningful number to assess project impacts, if any, on reproductive success. Therefore no leatherback nests will be marked. Nest fate and reproductive success data for loggerhead and green turtles will compared between each of the three project phases and the control. As appropriate, statistical analyses will be performed on the data. All activities described in Tasks 5 and 6 will be performed under Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Marine Turtle Permit TP-010 in accordance with current or future superseding conditions and guidelines issued by the permitting agency. 7) In-water Sea Turtle Monitoring (FDEP Special Condition No. 32). EAI will assess sea turtle population levels in the nearshore area within and adjacent to the Sector 3 Project Area. This assessment will be conducted quarterly during the following time frames: June-August 2013, September-November 2013, December 2012-February 2014 and March-May 2014. The surveys will employ the same methodology and transect locations used in the 2007 Sector 3 Baseline Study of nearshore sea turtle abundance conducted by Inwater Research Group (IRG) for Coastal Technology Corporation and the COUNTY. The methodology will include concurrent sampling of the Project Area and an appropriate control area to permit isolation of potential project effects from natural background variability. In-water surveys will be conducted from a boat equipped with an elevated observation platform and a GPS navigational system to allow constant monitoring of speed and location. The boat will traverse a series of 3-kilometer long transects (three each within the Treatment and Control sites) at slow and constant speed (5- 6 knots). The County shall provide EAI with the end-point GPS coordinates for each transect to ensure seamless transition in monitoring effort from IRG to EAI. Two experienced biologists will be positioned on the platform and will make observations at an eye level of approximately 12 ft above the water; one will monitor the port side and the other the starboard side. When a turtle is sighted, the position of the vessel at the time of the sighting will be recorded by GPS. The position of the turtle will be mapped based on the position of the boat and the observer's estimate of the distance and bearing to the turtle. In addition to recording the position of the turtle, the observer will also record the time the turtle was first observed, the species, its relative size, and whether it was at the surface or submerged. 100 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 4 Exhibit A—2013 Scope of Work Surveys will only be conducted when weather conditions are acceptable for survey accuracy and safety. To eliminate the effect of day-to-day variability in turtle sighting conditions on the data set, surveys of the Treatment and Control sites will be conducted on the same day. If deteriorating weather conditions do not allow for a complete survey of both sites to be conducted in the same day, the entire survey effort will be repeated on the next acceptable date at no additional costs to the County. 8) Nearshore Hardbottom Monitoring (FDEP Special Conditions No. 48 through 54). CSA will perform nearshore hardbottom monitoring within and surrounding the Project Area, extending from R-20 through R-65 (including reference areas), to fulfill requirements for "Nearshore Hardbottom Monitoring" as identified in the FDEP-approved Biological Monitoring Plan. This task will consist of two elements, field surveys along pre-established transects and ground truthing and interpretation of aerial imagery. Transect monitoring will include the survey of a total of 23 previously established permanent cross-shore transects (R-21, R-22, R-24, R-25, R-26, R-28.5, R-30.5, R-32, R-34, R-36, R-38, R-40, R-42, R-44,R-48,R-50, R-52, R-54, R-56, R-60.5, Ref. R-63, and Ref. R-65), with the collection of video, still photographs, and repetitive in situ quadrat data. The field surveys will also include the mapping of the nearshore edge of hardbottom along the length of the Project Area from R-20 through R-57 (approximately 36,000 ft). Nearshore transect surveys and nearshore hardbottom edge mapping are projected to be performed at a rate of 1.5 fixed transects surveyed per day or about 6,000 feet of hardbottom edge mapped per day, including limited time potentially lost due to local inclement weather events (thunderstorms and rough seas) which may occur during the summer survey period. CSA will digitize current aerial images obtained from the County to produce GIS- based nearshore habitat maps (ESRI shape files). It is the responsibility of the County to coordinate with the appropriate contractor to ensure that quality aerial imagery is provided. To the extent practical, the collection of aerial imagery will be timed to correspond with a period of good water clarity and allow for concurrent in situ diver ground-truthing for habitat verification. CSA will perform ground-truth verification of the aerial photography via bounce dives and/or cross-shore video transects. Geo-referenced field positions will be included in copies of the ground-truthing photography and/or transect video record provided to EAI,the County, and FDEP. CSA will use the ground-truthing to verify interpretation of the aerials used to produce the GIS-based habitat map. 9) Post-Construction UMAM Analysis of Hardbottom Impacts. CSA will assess post-construction hardbottom impacts (physical burial) associated with the Sector 101 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 5 Exhibit A—2013 Scope of Work 3 Project. Using results of the field surveys and aerial imagery interpretation, CSA will conduct a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) analysis, pursuant to Chapter 62-345, F.A.C. The UMAM analysis will include qualitative descriptions of impacted communities and associated ecological functions, and quantitative estimates of the extent of impacts. CSA will confer with FDEP staff during the UMAM analysis to ensure concurrence on the extent of impacts, or absence thereof, attributable to the Sector 3 Project. The UMAM spreadsheets, in addition to supporting documentation, will be provided in hard copy and digital format to the COUNTY for review prior to submittal to FDEP. 10) Data management. All data collected during the project will be incorporated into an Access database or Excel spreadsheets maintained by EAI and/or CSA. Appropriate QA measures will be implemented to ensure that data are completely and accurately transferred from field data sheets to these electronic databases. 11) Reporting. Unless otherwise specified below, all reports will be delivered in a format (hard and/or electronic) and in such quantities as requested by the County. a) Lighting Survey: Field data sheets identifying all problematic exterior light sources within the Sector 3 Project Area and providing recommendations for remedial measures will be submitted to the County. b) Scarp Monitoring: The location of any scarp that persists for two consecutive weekly surveys will be reported to the County by phone or electronically. Results of surveys conducted each month, including locations, heights, and lengths will tabulated each month for inclusion in the Nesting Beach Sea Turtle Monitoring reports. c) Nesting Beach Sea Turtle Monitoring: EAI will submit (electronically) monthly reports of all nesting beach monitoring activities to the County, including dates and times of monitoring, names of monitoring personnel, numbers of sea turtle nests and false crawls, by species, and numbers of nests marked and fated within each phase of the Project Area. Upon completion of all field monitoring activities, an Excel spreadsheet tabulating sea turtle monitoring results, as required by FDEP Special Condition No. 29, will be prepared and submitted to the County and FWC. Upon conclusion of data analyses for the 2013 nesting season, a draft interpretive report, including an assessment of project impacts, if any, will be submitted to the County. This assessment will be based on statistical and other comparisons of nesting and reproductive success between treatment and control areas. EAI will meet with the COUNTY to review and identify any changes warranted in the interpretive report. After such changes are made by EAI, a final draft of the report will be submitted to the County. 102 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 6 Exhibit A-2013 Scope of Work �- d) In-water Sea Turtle Monitoring: Data collected during in-water monitoring will be tabulated and transmitted to the County at the conclusion of each quarterly survey effort. At the conclusion of each year (four quarters) of surveying, data will be analyzed and marine turtle abundance will be compared between the.pre-construction baseline and the current year's data for each individual transect and for the sites as a whole (all transects combined) for both the Treatment and Control sites. Data for green and loggerhead turtles will be analyzed and presented separately. This annual report will present methods, results and conclusions of the monitoring effort. e) Hardbottom Monitoring: Following completion of the field survey effort CSA will analyze the transect and quadrat data per FDEP Biological Monitoring Plan requirements and prepare a draft summary report. Data deliverables, including all digital video transects and frame-grabbed images from all transects, PointCount files and associated data, Excel spreadsheets of PointCount data, Excel spreadsheets of in situ quadrat data, and GIS shapefiles of habitat maps developed from ground truthing and interpretation of aerial imagery will be delivered to FDEP on CD or portable hard drive. The draft summary report will include appropriate graphics/tables, statistical analyses of the collected data, comparisons to previous years' survey data, and an assessment of project-related impacts, if any,to hardbottom communities. A separate UMAM report will be provided to include a comparison with statistical analyses of the pre- and post-construction hardbottom exposure including net loss/gain of hardbottom, sand volume and distribution changes, and an assessment of hardbottom impacts attributable to the Project, natural processes, and other effects including recent "treasure-salvage" operations, as observed on monitoring transects or along the landward edge of hardbottom. The draft summary and UMAM reports will be provided to the County for distribution to a 3`d party for impartial review and comment. CSA and EAI will then meet with the County and 3`d party reviewer to identify and discuss any needed changes to the draft summary and UMAM reports. After such changes are made by CSA, EAI will forward the summary report to FDEP in partial fulfillment of permit conditions. All reports will be submitted to the County in accordance with Exhibit C. 103 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT B ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES,INC. P.O. BOX 405 JENSEN BEACH,FLORIDA 34958 FEIN: 65-0468575 COST PROPOSAL—April 2,2013 PROJECT NAME: Indian River County Sector 3 Sea Turtle Monitoring- 2013 (PROJECT 13-339) CLIENT: Mr. James D. Gray, Jr. Coastal Engineer Indian River County Public Works 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Phone: (772)226-1344 * Email: j raygirc ov.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Daily sea turtle monitoring and related permit-compliance monitoring along approximately 9.1 miles of beach from R-19 south to R-68 in Indian River County, Florida, as described in EAI's Scope of Work dated July 6, 2010. PROJECT DURATION: April 2013 —February 2014. COSTS: All services will be provided at fixed cost(lump sum), as itemized below. TASK DESCRIPTION CHARGE 1 Mobilization—Completed under subcontract to Atkins $0.00 Pre-nesting season nighttime lighting evaluations— 2 Com feted under subcontract to Atkins $0.00 Escarpment monitoring (April —September 2013; March 3 2013 monitoringcompleted under subcontract to Atkins) $4,098.00 Post-construction sea turtle monitoring and crawl 4 documentation, including data management and QA (April — $85,799.00 September 2013; March 2013 monitoring completed under subcontract to Atkins) 5 Nest marking, monitoring, and reproductive success $19,215.00 evaluation 6 In-water monitoring, including final summary report $11,405.00 104 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 2 Exhibit B—2013 Cost Proposal TASK DESCRIPTION CHARGE Nearshore hardbottom surveys (monitoring under optimum $147,486.00 conditions) 7 Nearshore hardbottom summary report $86,336.00 Aerial imagery interpretation, ground truthing, and habitat $25,480.00 ma in Sub-total nearshore hardbottom monitoring &mapping $259,302.00 (Sub-contracted service 8 UMAM analysis, including report (Sub-contracted service) $7,376.00 9 Final interpretive report to client assessing project effects on $4,672.00 nestin.g and reproductive success 10 1 FDEP permit-re uired sea turtle monitoring data spreadsheet $3,290.00 11 1 Project management $4,838.00 TOTAL COST $399,995.00 105 EXHIBIT C ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES,INC. P.O.BOX 405 JENSEN BEACH,FLORIDA 34958 PROJECT SCHEDULE Deliverables. The following work products will be provided to Indian River County in accordance with the schedules specified below: Deliverable Content Delivery Date Lighting Survey Report of all exterior lights visible from the beach along with April 15,2013 recommendations for remedial action Dates and times of monitoring,names of monitoring personnel, The last day of each month Monthly Data numbers of sea turtle emergences by species,results of escarpment following delivery of services ,,,M Summaries monitoring,and numbers of nests marked and evaluated for (e.g.,March report due no later reproductive success than April 30) Quarterly In-water Sea Within 30 days of completion Turtle Monitoring Tabulated data summaries and maps depicting sighting locations of each quarterly survey FDEP Sea Turtle All nesting survey data and reproductive success data summarized in an Monitoring Data Excel spreadsheet December 31,2013 Spreadsheet Sea Turtle Nesting Final interpretive report including assessment of project effects on February 28,2014 Beach Year-end Report nesting and reproductive success In-water Sea Turtle Final interpretive report including assessment of project effects on sea Within 60 days of completion Monitoring Annual turtle utilization of nearshore hardbottom habitat of the final quarterly survey Report 106 Indian River County Sector 3 Beach and Dune Restoration Project Page 2 Exhibit C—2013 Project Schedule Deliverable Content Delivery Date Frame-grabbed images from all transects,PointCount files and Within 60 days of completion associated data,Excel spreadsheets of PointCount data,Excel of field survey activities Hardbottom Field spreadsheets of in situ quadrat data,and GIS sha efiles of habitat maps Monitoring Analysis of transect,quadrat,and nearshore hardbottom edge data, Within 90 days of completion including appropriate graphics/tables,interpretation of aerial imagery, of field survey activities statistical analyses,and assessments of project-related impacts Statistical analyses of pre-and post-construction hardbottom exposure Within 90 days of completion UMAM Analysis including net loss/gain of hardbottom,sand volume and distribution of field survey activities changes .r- 107 BCC AGENDA April 9, 2013 ITEM 14.1)(1) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 12, 2013 SUBJECT: Reversal, in part, of Relief Canals FROM: Commissioner Bob Solari Would like to see if Commissioners would like to go forward with the preliminary planning for the possible reversal of the flow of a portion of the water from the IRFWCD Relief Canals to an area to the west and to authorize staff to start making the appropriate grant applications. Thank you. 108 D. I. A C-Y Rediversion Project An Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project Indian River County Lagoon Symposium March 26, 2013 ST.JOHNS RIVER Hector Herrera, P.E. a Project Location iO •A- 1 R Why do we need the C-1 Rediversion Project? Basin Divide Prior to Interbasin Diversion k } Jr i►► 1 a���n��rwuuu��pun�nrmn��xP l) t I to?-A-2 Basin Divide with Interbasin Diversion jetilao � 1� if lot 1u �i 1 ti Storm Discharge Effect on INDIAN RIVER LAGOON ..,F Drastically lowers --estuarine,salinity, . , , e ard shell clams and other sWI fish) tnic water reduces light ration in the water umn (effects propagation of sea grasses) Stormwater carries sus ended olds n trients. MA IRL (degrades water quality in.the lagoon) �. fog-q- 3 Previous C-1 Rediversion Project y t R F }_....._ p•w...-� i Ai•i Wali l t :. .............. • ...,..;,._ }... C-1 Rediversion Project Phase 1 _ .r. ..... - -- �: i off- q- 4 C-1 Rediversion Project Phase I Predicted diversion:diversion: 72% IRL, 28% SJR • Significant benefits to the IRL can be realized by implementing an interim phase of the C-1 Rediversion Project (Phase 1) • Designed to capture the volume from storms up to the mean annual storm (2.3 yr event) • Requires changing the way MS-I is operated • Requires improvement of local drainage infrastructure at one location (Hurley Blvd&C-19) Estimated cost: $7.5M ST.JOHNS RIVE WATER AtANAGEIT DISTRICT C-1 Rediversion Project Phase 1 MS-1 Operation • Old operation schedule: — Maintain an upstream elevation of 4.0' msl during wet season — Maintain an upstream elevation of 8.0' msl during dry season • Revised operation schedule: — Limit discharge below an upstream elevation of 10.0' msl year round — Make appropriate discharges to maintain minimum flows ST,JOHNS RIVER DISTRICT � o8 'A— 5 Hurley Blvd Culvert Improvement a • Constructed by the City of Palm Bay funded by SJRWMD • Project cost-$500,000 • Completed in September 2009 SL WMA Pump Station 1 y 3 k 10' - q- g SL WMA Pump Station 2 F r&• 9 �' 1 .� PKC R jy S Al IN Jv �� io ri'i`4 f F SL WMA Outfall Structure S-262 71 n amt m � C� 1t r «,x r iog• A- 7 New MS-1 Structure 11 IJ? C-Y Rediversion Project Final Plan l f ._. r -71 l ... • 111 I.• Q�r L X08• A-8 C-1 Rediversion Project Final Plan (C-10 Diversion) • Predicted diversion: 57% IRL, 43% SJR • Requires construction of. - 1,300 ac.Reservoir and pump station in the G1 Det. Area - Spillway at G 1 Ret. Area to trap stormwater at peak stage • Pump stations directly diverts stormwater from 12,677 acres (C-9R, C-10, C-16 & C-38 basins) before going to C-1 • No additional improvements to local drainage infrastructure needed • Estimated cost: $11.2M Schedule for Implementation of Final Plan Modeling and Design to be completed in- house in FY 2013 • Construction in FY 2014 — FY 2015 (subject to funding availability) iO3-A-9 X08 •A•10 1 1 • V F '' �• Today (April 9 BCC Meeting) I would like to make a motion to direct the County Administrator to have staff begin to access the feasibility of reversing the relief canals in part. This would include having staff plan a path forward to reverse the waters of the relief canals, begin developing a better understanding of the canal system in the basin and begin developing the questions and other items necessary in the planning process as well as to begin submitting all grants felt to be reasonable to do the planning for the reversal of the waters in the canals.. If, and at this point all I am saying is if, the County is to take the lead for TMDL remediation in Indian River, then I believe we need to know what other jurisdictions have planned to date, so I would like us to direct the County Administrator to send out letters requesting what plans the relevant jurisdictions presently have for TMDL remediation. Finally, not for a decision today, I would like to add to FDEP's long term goal. In fifteen years, not only should the seagrasses be flourishing but all the citizens of and visitors to Indian River County or any of its municipalities ought to be able to swim in a healthy Lagoon. Thank you ,oa B • 14, 4,J L Statement in support of proposal to conduct research on Reversal of water flow in the South, Main and North Relief Canals Board of County Commissioners April 9, 2013 Indian River Neighborhood Association The Indian River Neighborhood Association supports Commissioner Bob Solari's proposal to advance the planning for a possible reversal of the flow of the water flowing through the South, Main and North Relief Canals, through applications for grants. A return of water flow to its natural direction, prior to the early 20th century dredging, could produce several benefits for this County. The principal one, in the context of current concerns about a loss of water quality in the Indian River Lagoon, is the extent to which this redirection would prevent both polluting nutrients from entering the Lagoon and an excess of fresh water. Another major benefit for the County would be the possibility for retaining storm water as a drinking water resource. With climate change and increasing droughts throughout the nation, capturing rainwater will become a necessity. The potential to use rainwater as a major drinking water resource is particularly strong in this county which has records demonstrating its ranking among the nation's highest in average rainfall. Yet, in our county, during the wet season, millions of gallons of fresh water flow directly into an estuarine mix of salt and fresh water that renders good, clean rain useless as a drinking water resource. Continuing the drainage canals' current flow is a wasteful anachronism in the 21 st century. The Lagoon is too valuable to be continuously threatened by polluting solvents and solids; and the need for drinking water too great to allow storm water to be wasted.. It is time to launch research on this approach to restoring the Lagoon's water quality and to finding a new drinking water resource to meet this County's projected population growth. Reversal of the Relief Canals A Concept Indian River Lagoon Symposium March 26,2013 Indian River County { Elevation (in Meters) s'-'- eet.ner�nru 12 6..7 2 3 J B 3-4 C73t3'' i c !o8• C 1 4/17/2013 Comparison of Melbourne-Tillman C-1 Canal and Indian River Farms Control District Relief Canals C-1 Relief Canals Basin/Acres 64,000 50,624 Water to Lagoon 88,000,000 96,000,000 Average/Day MGD MGD After Phase 1 65,000,000 After Phase 2 38,000,000 North Relief/Acres 10,820 Main Relief/Acres 24,480 South Relief/Acres 15,324 3 TN TN TP TP Nutrient Source Category (Ibs/yr) Percent of (Ibs/yr) Percent of Load Load Indian River County* Urban(Commercial&Roads) 71409 8.8% 14340.0 10.1% Low Density Housing 43567 5.4% 5354.8 3.8% Medium Density Housing 62523 7.7% 8617.2 6.1% High Density Housing 52406 6.5% 12411.2 8.7% Agriculture 401162 49.7% 89538.1 62.9% Natural Lands 115568 14.3% 10538.7 7.4% Wastewater 7340 0.9% 232.0 0.2% Atmospheric Deposition 53545 6.6% 1217.5 0.9% Loading total 807,521 N/A 142,249.4 N/A Source:Central Indian River Lagoon Basin Management Action Plan Fact Sheet for Indian River County Draft 2/11/2013 4 108.C• 2 4/17/2013 TMDL Required Reductions - FDEP Nutrients Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus » WIRL 22% 44% Banana River Lagoon 40% 62% 51% 47% Central IRL Lagoon TMDL adopted by FDEP 2009 15 Year Basin Management Action Plan(EMAP) Implementation Period Divided into three 5 Year Assessment Periods s Removal of Nitrogen Cost per Pound of Nitrogen Total N Project Reduction Capital Cost (lbs/yr) of Facility Egret Marsh 2,494 $5,200,000 Spoonbill Marsh 1,686 $3,300,000 PC Main 2018 $5,200,000 Total: 6,198 $13,700,000 Cost to Remove $2,210 1 pound N Source:Central Indian River Lagoon Basin Management Action Plan Fact Sheet for Indian River County and Indian River County 6 ��g'C 3 4/17/2013 Uses of Rediversion Area TMDL Remediation Stormwater Control Alternative Water Supply Recreation Wildlife Habitat Possible Sources of Funding For Rediversion Area Rediversion Bond TMDL Impact Fee Alternative Water Supply Stormwater Credit Stormwater Redevelopement Recreation Impact Fees State and Federal Sources 8 108•C. 4 4/17/2013 PATH FORWARD April 9th BCC meeting - Determine Board Interest Engage IRFWCD and SID Deploy Killroys Develop Engineering Questions and Concerns Communicate to Community Apply for Planning Grants Relief Canal Partners Indian River County Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Department of Environmental Protection IRL National Estuary Program St. Johns River Water Management District Sebastian River Improvement District I Indian River Farms Water Control District Indian River County City of Vero Beach Florida Department of Transportation District 4 ,o 10� C• 5 4/17/2013 Guessing the Cost of TMDL Remediation If total Pounds of nitrogen 807521 And if required reduction is 51% Required pounds nitrogen reduction 411836 If$2,210 per pound reduced, cost: $910,156,919 If$1,100 per pound reduced, cost: $453,019,281 My guess today, $650 per pound: $267,693,212 I I�Illi 'rl O d ��'j� Illil � Ilil�i 4�'i -f/ 3. d\ �o C' 6 DISTRICT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA 11 AS MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable District Board of Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator FROM: John King, Director Department of Emere cy ervices DATE: March 14, 2013 SUBJECT: Emergency Services District Update: Continued Discussion It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the District Board of Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On February 5,2013,staff presented an update on the consolidation of the Fire and EMS Divisions, including a detailed history and financial analysis. The reorganization strategy had a well-defined mission to transition to a dual-certified workforce to enhance the timely delivery of fire-rescue services. The data presented supports the conclusion that consolidation has proven to be an effective and efficient use of resources. Going forward, however,the affects of the economic downturn and efforts to minimize the tax burden to county residents to a level of deficit funding causes concern for the near-term needs of the department. The next challenge for the department includes implementing a funded strategic plan that provides a five-year pathway for employee development, analyzing data for new service locations, and accelerating the capital replacement program. Employee Development Indian River County Fire-Rescue is beginning a phased transfer of leadership as 46 members of the department have entered DROP. Examining this issue further reveals eight(8)fire-rescue officers will retire within the next 12 months and three(3) additional officers will retire over the following 12 months. Furthermore,two (2) key members of the Training Division will also retire in 2014. Fire-rescue departments are para-military structures that have a single entry level into the organization. All uniform members start as firefighter/paramedics and must pass examinations for promotion.This arrangement has its merits,but it also has its drawbacks. Among the drawbacks are the possibilities that employees who promote similarly through the ranks retire about the same time. 109 On the other hand, the merit of highly structured organization is the'employee's perspective that �..- meeting or exceeding prescribed performance measures are requisite to qualifying for promotion. This transitional issue is not unique to Indian River County,nor is it the first time a group of senior staff from this department retired within a year of each other.With many of the near-term vacancies coming from within the shift managers and station officers ranks, it is reasonable to suggest the department have challenges ahead. However,staff does not view this as an unmanageable concern, as the department affords qualified employees to work out-of-rank(OOR)in a higher classification when a temporary vacancy exists.Rather, it is staff's perspective this organizational transition is an opportunity for motivated and capable employees to receive promotions. The Board is aware all 3 Shift Battalion Chiefs will retire over the next 5 months (attached please find organizational charts depicting the projected retirement dates for the next 24 months). While employees have temporarily worked OOR,the department is losing several senior and experienced officer positions. Several points can be made about this transfer of leadership. First, this is not to suggest additional job-specific training opportunities are not warranted.Secondly,the experience of the retiring supervisors has helped-the district delay necessary staffing improvements,but span-of- control issues must be addressed during this strategic transition. The success of this organizational transition relies heavily on the three following issues: 1. A strong Training Division with a comprehensive training program. Recognizing two (2) highly qualified and experienced training officers are retiring next summer and staffing shortages has not afforded others to work OOR in the Training Division,staff recommends promoting their replacements early so there is a temporary staffing overlap within this division. 2. Staff also recommends a temporary overlap of staff for the Shift Battalion Chief positions. 3. At the appropriate time, create north and south battalion chief positions, as outlined the consultant's Consolidation Plan, to manage daily emergency activities;this is particularly necessary when many of the skilled positions within the department are being staffed with recently promoted and/or OOR employees with limited practical experience in these ranks. Another key difficulty with employee development has been declining training funds due to the current economic conditions. Throughout the consolidation process, management has held the position that employees must pay for their second certification to become dual-certified.Through in- house training programs, employees are assisted in maintaining and enhancing their baseline skill levels. As previously discussed before the Board,fire-rescue duties also include water/dive rescue,airport firefighting, elevated and confined-space rescue, and hazardous materials response; each has corresponding workplace safety requirements. Over the years,we have minimized these budgetary expenses by using Field Training Instructors(FTIs);but,within the next few years,some FTIs will retire and others will promote to positions that do not allow them to continue as FTIs. So the department must now create training opportunities to develop replacement FTIs. At present, the training budget includes: 110 Item A roved Bud et Amount TargetSafety Software (web- $24,885 based training program for partial CEUs and recordkeeping for the Insurance Services Office reviews) Tuition/Re istration Fees $9,492 Travel Reimbursement $4,750 Total $39,127 New Service Locations Within the county's FY-2013/18 Capital Improvement Element, staff recommends the opening of two (2) new fire-rescue stations. The justification for these new service locations is based on an analysis of demand for services (Calls for Service) and previous Insurance Services Office (ISO) reviews. The District has twelve (12) stations, and the CFS data reveals an average travel time,the time interval from when a unit is en route to an event until they arrive at the scene,of 5:33 minutes, which exceeds the recommended travel time of less than 4 minutes for the first arriving unit. Generally speaking, there are three variables that influence response times. Two variables are, departing the station quicker and vehicle speed. It is the department's goal of obtaining a 1 minute turnout time, and department policies limit vehicle operators to 10 mph over the posted speed for safety reasons. So, the only other substantive factor to reducing response times is to have service locations physically closer to areas requiring daily fire-rescue services. Staff has conducted experiments to estimate point-to-point travel distances and determined that 4 minutes of travel time equates to about 2.5 road miles in residential areas, less in downtown commercial areas. One way to evaluate the need for additional stations is to consider the interaction among the following factors: travel times; the number of CFS; the frequency with which they occur; and, recommendations by ISO. Insight gained from understanding the quantitative approach to our deployment process is the first step in assessing the need. FY-2011/12 Calls By Assigned Station Zones E=� Primary Station Total CFS in Total Emergency % Of Calls % Of Calls Zone Vehicle Handled By The Handled By Responses First-Due Engine Engine :and/orand/or AmbulancOut- Ambulance in- of-Zone Units Zone Units Station 1 4245 8790 53 47 Station 2 1614 4019 71 29 Station 3 3102 4556 38 62 Station 4 3523 4351 70 30 111 Station 5 777 2409 69 31 Station 6 554 1258 93 7 �..- 26 Station 7 3338 3812 74 Station 8 2357 2962 72 28 Station 9 1685 1678 60 40 Station 10 1094 1510 81 19 Station 11 754 1463 90 10 Station 12 3312 2168 ALS Engine only ALS En ine only Total 26,355 38,976 While the total CFS and vehicle responses represent crew workloads, the frequency at which CFS occur are better analyzed by the two columns on the right. Column 4 identifies when the first-due engine or ambulance,as appropriate to the CFS,was available.If an out-of-zone unit from anywhere within the district was dispatched to backfill the first-due unit's duties,they were calculated in the column 5. At the February 5th Commission Meeting, staff described the need for a fire-rescue station at 4`h Street and 43`d Avenue and a second station near 26th Street and 66th Avenue. Moreover, staff described the shortfalls of not building new service locations in the south county area for nearly 30 years.The matrix above reveals the number and frequency of CFSs causes a daily cascading effect of backfill responses,particularly in Stations 1,3,4 and 7. Our deployment policies and practices send the closest available unit,but it is reasonable to support the conclusion additional and closer response units are necessary. Staff also suggests additional service locations and staff will reduce the department's travel times from the current 5:33 minute for any first unit to arrive. Over time,similar patterns of backfilling must be addressed along the CR 512 corridor. A review of CFS reports produced the follow data: CFS by day of week reveals emergency events are essentially evenly balanced. In the past, Sundays and Wednesday were often slower; this is no longer the case. Calls By Day Of Week* Sunda 13.2 % Monda 14.7 % Tuesda 14.6 % Wednesday 13.9 Thursda 13.9 Frida 15.2%%% Saturda 14.4 % *With respect to peak demand periods,the busier hours of service during a 24 hour shift are 6 a.m. through 1 a.m. A decade ago,the busier hours of service were from about 7 a.m.to 9 p.m. It should also be noted that CFS between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. are usually a high priority emergency. 112 The age profile of all emergency events requiring a patient care report: 4.. A e Count Percent <1 104 0.5 1 to 4 299 1.5 5 to 14 484 2.4 15 to 54 5,904 29.2 55 to 64 2,436 12.0 65 to 74 2,466 12.2 75 to 84 4,226 20.9 85 or greater 4,309 21.3 Total 20,228 100.00 Emergency medical transports to area hospitals: Transports To Hospitals Total ALS BLS 14,346 10,904 3,442 Capital Replacement Program "- Staff outlined the urgent need to accelerate the replacement of rolling stock and capital equipment at the last meeting. The Board will recall, staff froze the replacement of all non-Operations management positions, reduced the size of the Fire Prevention Bureau and substantially reduced nearly all capital purchases in order to maintain staffing levels within the Operations Division over the last 6 years. The latent impacts of the capital delays must be addressed in the near-term. At a minimum,the department should budget annually for the following replacement equipment in order to return the fleet to the targeted replacement schedule. Capital Equipment Cost Amount Total Ambulance $225,000 2 $450,000 Engine $450,000 1 $450,000 Cardiac Monitors, $100,000 Various amounts $100,000 Extrication - Equipment, Radios, Protective Breathing Apparatus, Stretchers, etc. Total $1,000,000 113 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive strategic plan is attached. FUNDING: At the February 5th meeting, staff presented a comprehensive financial analysis and recommendations for future funding needs. Another revenue source that should be revisited is the use of One-Cent Sales Tax funds. As you recall,the Board made a decision to eliminate the District from One-Cent Sales Tax funds when the four (4) municipalities within the District refused to contribute a portion of their proceeds for fire-rescue services. As directed,the County Administrator wrote a letter to each City Manager requesting their participation,which was eventually denied. Staff recommends the Board reconsider their decision regarding the apportioning of One-Cent Sales Tax revenues. RECOMMENDATION: Accept staff report as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Goals and Objectives Attachment 2: Staffing chart APPROVED FOR AGENDA Indian River County Approved Date FOR: April 09 2013 Administrator y/5 Legal BY: Budget Joseph A. Baird Risk Management County Administrator Department cf.g.i3 114 Indian River County Fire-Rescue Five-year Strategic Plan While it is commonly known that retirements will occur over the next 5 years, it is staff's perspective this organizational transition is an opportunity for motivated and capable employees to receive promotions. Key to this transition is an enhanced initiative to employee development, particularly for those seeking to work out of rank; and, ultimately, promotion to an officer position. The purpose of this strategic plan is to specify the minimum criteria addressing the effectiveness and efficiency of the fire suppression operations, emergency medical services, and special operations delivery in protecting the community and the safety and health of the employees. Goal 1: Evaluate and implement a comprehensive officer development program Goal 2: Enhance the base level skills of dual-certified responders Goal 3: Increase training opportunities to operate non-specialized emergency vehicles Goal 4: Increase training opportunities to operate specialized vehicles Goal 5: Improve Special Operations training Goal 6: Assure the department is prepared to respond to all-hazard events Goal 7: Improve CFS data collection Goal 8: Renovate and construct fire-rescue stations Goal 9: Accelerate the capital replacement program Goal 10: Improve workforce performance GOAL 1 Evaluate and implement a comprehensive officer development program Objective Measures Strategies Timeline 1.1: Enhance the # of employees state- Conduct a 0 to 12 months;then officer development certified as Fire department-wide on-going program Officer I needs assessment #of employees state- Conduct an analysis certified as Fire of employees seeking Investigator I promotion to officer # of employees state- Conduct an analysis certified as Fire of existing Field Inspector I Training Instructors (FTIs) Contract with state- certified instructors to provide more Fire 115 Officer courses in- house Determine and obtain needed equipment 1.2: Improve All employees Create a mechanism Ori-going recordkeeping of to improve employees' recordkeeping for job certifications related off-site training employees completed without department assistance GOAL 2 Enhance the base level skills of dual-certified responders Objective Measures Strategies Timeline 2.1: Qualify all % of paramedics Require non-Solo On-going paramedics as Solo qualified as Solo paramedics to timely status complete an assessment workbook Candidates must demonstrative proficiency to their shift FTI to be eligible for final examination Examination by the Medical Director Remedial program for proficiency failures 2.2: Expand # of EMS providers FTIs provide On-going emergency medical with expanded skills advances courses: training PEPP, AMLS, etc # of EMS providers retaining expanded All employees must skill certifications participate in a modified Mass Casualty Incident exercise 116 Determine and obtain needed equipment 2.3: Expand the # of firefighter Require all firefighter On-going wildland firefighting certified employees certified employees training with expanded to complete S-130 wildland firefighter and S-190 training skills modules # of firefighters with To the extent Forestry "Red Cards" possible, all employees must # of firefighters participate in retaining Forestry controlled wildland "Red Cards" fire burns on government-owned conservation lands Determine and obtain needed equipment GOAL 3 Increase training opportunities to operate non-specialized emergency vehicles ,. Objective Measures Strategies Timeline 3.1: Ensure entry % of 1-year Conduct a 0 to 12 months; then level personnel are employees qualified department-wide on-going qualified to operate to drive/operate an needs assessment an ambulance ambulance Demonstrate operational proficiency 3.2: Ensure entry % of 1-year Conduct a 0 to 12 months; then level personnel are employees qualified department-wide on-going qualified to operate a to drive/operate a needs assessment brush truck brush truck Demonstrate operational proficiency 3.3: Ensure entry % of 1-year Conduct a 0 to 12 months; on- level personnel are employees qualified department-wide going qualified to operate to operate other needs assessment non-specialized vehicles vehicles Demonstrate operational 117 F_ proficiency GOAL 4 Increase training opportunities to operate specialized vehicles Objective Measures Strategies Timeline 4.1: Ensure all % of 0 to 2-year Conduct a 0 to 12 months; then personnel are familiar employees who department-wide on-going with specialized received a needs assessment vehicles familiarization program on each Create a sign-off specialized unit process 4.2: Qualify aerial % of eligible Conduct an annual On-going truck operators employees seeking department-wide qualification needs assessment Demonstrate operational proficiency 4.3: Qualify Aircraft % of eligible Conduct an annual On-going Rescue Firefighting employees seeking department-wide ,Now (ARFF) truck qualification needs assessment operators Demonstrate operational proficiency 4.4: Qualify marine- % of eligible Conduct an annual On-going rescue craft operators employees seeking department-wide qualification needs assessment Demonstrate operational proficiency 4.5: Qualify other % of eligible Conduct an annual On-going vehicle operators: employees seeking department-wide towing units, water qualification needs assessment tanker, etc. Demonstrate operational proficiency 118 GOAL 5 Improve Special Operations training Objectives Measures Strategies Timeline 5.1: Qualify HazMat % of employees at Conduct an annual 0 to 12 months; then technicians Operations Level department-wide on-going assessment % of employees at Technician Level Require Special Operations FTIs to % of employees maintain proficiency retaining levels on their shift certification. To the extent possible, all employees must participate in a modified HazMat exercise annually Determine and obtain needed equipment 5.2: Qualify Rescue % of employees Conduct an annual 0 to 12 months; then Divers and Marine trained to department department-wide on-going Firefighters standards assessment % of employees Require Special retaining Operations FTIs to certification. maintain proficiency levels on their shift To the extent possible, all employees must participate in a modified marine exercise annually Determine and obtain needed equipment 5.3: Qualify ARFF % of employees Conduct an annual 0 to 12 months; then responders trained to department department-wide on-going standards assessment % of employees Require Special 119 retaining Operations FTIs to certification. maintain proficiency levels on their shift To the extent possible, all employees must participate in a modified aviation/airport exercise annually Determine and obtain needed equipment 5A Qualify %of employees at Conduct an annual 0 to 12 months; then Technical Rescue Operations Level department-wide on-going (high-angle and assessment confined space) % of employees at technicians Technician Level Require Special Operations FTIs to %of employees maintain proficiency retaining certification levels on their shift To the extent - possible, all employees must participate in a modified exercise annually Determine and obtain needed equipment 5.5: Qualify # of employees with Conduct a 0 to 12 months, then prospective FTIs state-certified department-wide on-going Instructor I, II, or III assessment % of employees Review opportunities retaining certification for certified Instructors to assist department FTIs 5.6: Qualify # of employees with Conduct a 0 to 12 months; then prospective Burn state-certified Burn department-wide on-going Bosses Boss qualifications needs assessment # of employees Conduct an analysis retaining certification of employees seeking 120 certification 5.7: Monthly training % of employees Utilize training 0 to 12 months; then from FTIs interacting with each opportunities on on-going FTI monthly Saturdays and Sunday GOAL 6 Assure the department is prepared to respond to all-hazard events Objectives Measures Strategies Timeline 6.l: Ensure all %of employees Conduct a 0 to 36 months employees are knowledgeable of department-wide knowledgeable of disaster SOPs needs assessment department and regional disaster % of officers Engage the plans knowledgeable of Emergency field command post Management staff assignments with training opportunities % of officers with NIMS training Provide ICS 300 and 400 training .., opportunities for NIMS certification 6.2: Ensure all %of employees FTIs will provide 0 to 24 months employees are knowledgeable of shift training modules familiar with regional disaster emergency communications communications practices and policies interoperable communications networks 6.3: Ensure all %of employees Compare current 0 to 36 months employees are knowledgeable of standards with familiar with CBRNE CBRNE detection regional and state protocols, roles and and notification protocols responsibilities procedures 6.4: Ensure officers % of officers FTIs will provide 0 to 36 months are knowledgeable proficient with IAPB shift training modules with the development of and updating Incident Action Plans (IAPB) 6.5: Ensure all % of employees FTIs will provide On-going 121 employees are knowledgeable of shift training modules familiar with Nuclear host county fire- Power Plant rescue responsibilities emergencies GOAL 7 Improve CFS data collection Objectives Measures Strategies Timeline 7.1: Maintain state Maintain defined and Station officers will On-going and federal standards accepted reporting ensure compliance of for data collection standards reports. FTIs will and reporting of assist with on-going incident level data 100% compliance training with mandatory data collections requirements 7.2: Increase specific 100% compliance QA/QI monthly 0 to 24 months; then data fields on incident sampling of CFS on-going reports for analysis of reports effectiveness and efficiency Senior officer review and approval of CFS reports for significant events 7.3: Compare our # of CFS/1,000 Formulize a rating 0 to 36 months CFS data with similar population schedule for sized communities comparisons Encourage regional participation GOAL 8 Renovate and construct fire-rescue stations Objectives Measures Strategies Timeline 8.1: Renovate Station Phased renovation Temporarily relocate 0 to 24 months 1 all non-essential equipment to the Receiving/Storage/Di stribution building at the EOC 4 month renovation period 122 Maintain Operations Division staff at Station 1 during renovation 8.2: Move Med 5 to % improvement in Revise dispatch 12 to 24 months Station 12 response times to practices high demand zones State-permit Eng 5 as ALS 8.3: Construct Station Cost savings 10 month 0 to 24 months 13 (former DOF site) construction period Seek supplemental funding Determine and obtain needed equipment Select personnel 8.4: Construct Station Cost savings 10 month 36 to 60 months 14 (former Jaycee construction period site) Seek supplemental funding Temporarily move ALS Eng 7 and Med 7 to this site Determine and obtain needed equipment 8.5: Renovate Station Phased renovation 4 month renovation 36 to 60 months 7 period Move ALS Eng 7 back to this site after renovation Select personnel for ALS Eng 14 8.6: Upgrade 4 BLS Phased upgrades Utilize state grants 0 to 60 months Engines to ALS and/or impact fees to permitted purchase necessary 123 equipment GOAL 9 Accelerate the capital replacement program Objectives Measures Strategies Timeline 9.1: Replace % of time out of Purchase 2 Annually ambulances service due to replacement units mechanical failures Utilize state contracts Age and condition and cooperative agreements 9.2: Replace fire % of time out of Purchase 1 Annually engines service due to replacement unit mechanical failures Utilize state contracts Age and condition and cooperative agreements 9.3: Replace capital % of time out of Utilize state contracts Annually equipment, including service due to and cooperative cardiac monitors, equipment failures agreements extrication equipment, safety Age and condition gear, etc. GOAL 10 Improve workforce performance Objectives Measures Strategies Timeline 10.1: Improve turnout 80 second turnout Average turnout time On-going time time for fire and by station and shift special operations; 60 second turnout Average turnout time time for EMS by station officer response 10.2: Improve # of injuries Workplace safety On-going workplace safety committee pursuant practices # of worker's to F.S. 633 compensation claims Gap analysis of Measure training workplace training effectiveness needs Revise fitness for duty standards 124 10.3: Identify training Measure average time Survey data 0 to 12 months; then opportunities for to trauma alert on-going �-- treatment of trauma, patients Identify benchmarks cardiac arrest, stroke and pediatric patients % of endotracheal Data analysis for intubation placements training needs % of STEMIs identified in the field 10.4: Identify fire Measure time to Survey data 0 to 12 months; then losses to improved initial fire attack on-going properties Identify benchmarks Measure time to establish water Data analysis for supply training needs Measure time to establish RIT (safety team) 125 1 f Indian River County Department of Emergency Services Fire Rescue Division - Impending Retirement Detail March 2013—March 2015 FIRE CHIEF John King March 1, 2013—February 28, 201 "A"Shift "B"Shift "C"Shift "D"Shift Station 7 r Lietuenant Chatam 3/31/13 I Fire Marshal BC Wells BC Freeman 7/31/13 8/31/13 Dale Justice 6/1/14 BC Dietz I Station 6 6/30/13 Station 4 Training BC Lieutenant S.Smith Lieutenant Lightle I Rodney Johnston 1/31/14 12/31/13 6/30/14 Station 3 Engineer Selph 9/30/13 Station 3 Station 11 Training Captain Engineer Casserly ( Lieutenant Rogers ( Greg Budde 8/31/14 Station 11 1/31/14 11/30/14 Lieutenant Baggaley i 1/31/14 r I Station 1 Station 6 I Lieutenant Turner Engineer Ln — 2/28/14 — J Station 6 Station 12 Lieutenant Ashley Firefighter Lane 12/31/14 March 1, 2014—March 31, 2015 6/30/14 Station 3 Lieutenant K.Wallace 11/30/14 Page 1 Na 9) 5: A. 3 . INDIAN OUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FIRE-RESCUE DIVISION APRIL 9, 2013 [I , Emergency Serwces Dstn�t Up��t� ContIriued.DISCuon: Indian River County Department of Emergency Services Fire Rescue Division-Impending Retirement Detail Sta[lon ti Stilson 11 1•'.1 1 4n E:^• :cep S:rtion 6 ISG • A• 1 Indian River County Department of Emergency Services Fire Rescue Division—Impending Retirement Detail 14 `-9r F-, ................... EKt I Indian River County Department of Emergency Services Fire Rescue Division—Impending Retirement Detail 6,DO, 1 2 11 FxM1tay"C" ,11 FA T—Ul j 1d ona A-1 I Indian River County Department of Emergency Services Fire Rescue Division-Impending Retirement Detail May 31,2015-February 28,2018 r---------I ;4, r---rM7717=11 P,Irl„ ”, .F is to ......... 1 31:11 r—77�—..—j 12�1 11 Ef H rt H P tl r: V I t i q F:, 1� i�� ............. .... . ...... $294,706 $277,256 $277,932 $266,267 $4,860 $3,259 $214 $874 $5,386 $4,990 $5,450 $4,134 f 2.�b i n! -ii re i A4$.qfOt t 1. Assumptions.Training Officers include Fro Tra &s fetv.Ba Pin of the EM&FOU d ProtectionC .Trainin A SW Q tgIrl'i and . ayt...Y Training no-,; I b Ait h .Training Battalion Cfiiaji�mjnthlyswa an. _eney,cost8�4drijUji" t salary - 'Pre.Oa p. e two Flre Training Officers W$17,510'.'��J,,,,rojec e, dbehe' it­costs yan 2% whaletravel antuition.cos S are:estimated 0:1 �4 enf! ase 3°IA per year . The De'' rt pursuing USAOMblah6. pf. In for future fire#i titer pq_.Mq.n_1§�P.urs i gyppq ;5ep My gra .............. R A — Ef�f I y $267,856 $273,213 $278,677 $284,251 $4,750 $7,500 $7,725 $7,957 $9,492 $22,500 $23,175 $23,870 E Assumptions Training Officers include Fire Training&Safety Battalion Chief,Fire Protection'Training&Safety Captain,and 50%of the EMS Quality Assurance&' Training Battalion Chef, Monthly',salary and beriefit costs for the. Fire Training Officers is$17,519 Protectedaaaary and benefit costs are calculated to increase 2%per year,whiie travel and tuition costs are esfimated to increase 3%;peryear ;', The Departmen#is pursuing various Homeland Security grants for future firefighter training . > i f i `v f., I ... f ... ..`.,.. ..__ _ _......._. ,z ,...... _. E 1 3 J I� c i2.n3. Ve ..•.':A Y ttA[.... _ a I .Y a )lyic i '�JllJ f Y 3-Nnt-_t I is ti S i 17 ( r ♦t t z't e:l fll 1 f,f vl f�Ez zf t f n(t i ,I. ..,os f s.`" �.; - "Y� d;l,• � � X1;:::1 ;' ) .,1,� ':IP�a�i 1 -� 4245 8790 53 47 1614 4019 71 29 3102 4556 38 62 3523 4351 70 30 777 2409 69 31 554 1258 93 7 3338 3812 74 26 2357 2962 72 28 N3 ) 1685 1678 60 40 1094 1510 81 19 754 1463 90 10 3312 2168 ALS Engine ALS Engine only only CURRENT STATION LOCATIONS p, t s:F { h 3 sin. n� � s 45 451,:. "S o-, `��T.A N t SCTN•'�' C S Yt " s 11 T a�. A. 5 CURRENT AND PROPOSED STATION LOCATIONS =ti v"�rV tr t H1H =3Y3e f .F 1J�. 1 ravel nseo sr L 7 14 r � S 4 _ i is R v F I+T' y66 k~ Z vF r � r F..: Sundry 13.20% o Monday 1470°,0 Tuesdc.}y 14.60°io Wednescicry 1 3.90°0 Calls by Day of Week. Thursday 13.90% Fricloy 15.2040 Saturday 14.40°10 Age Profile of all Emergency Events Requiring a Patient Care RePort 104 299 484 5,904 2,436 2,466 4,226 ,r 4,309 f !_ Transports_to hospitals ; BLS 3,442 ALS' 10,904 , ab.A. � GOALS ....... .......... .._... .. ........ IRC'Fire Rescue Five' YearStrategic Plan Goal 1 Evaluate and implement a comprehensive officer development program. Goal 2 Enhance the base level skills of dual-certified responders. Goal 3 Increase training opportunities to operate non-specialized emergency vehicles. Goal 4 Increase training opportunities to operate specialized vehicles. Goal 5 Improve Special Operations training Goal 6 Assure the department is prepared to respond to all-hazard events. Goal 7 Improve CFS data collection Goal 8 Renovate and construct fire-rescue stations Goal 9 Accelerate the capital replacement program Goal 10 Improve workforce performance I Questlons, Comments; etc '� � �L-A-8