HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/1992I F -a w,, Rt-
X__,
• "4e—. POPV i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
RichardN. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the -Board
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Gary C. Wheeler
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Chairman Eggert req.the addn of Item 13 A.2,
Comm'r. Wheeler's letter of resignation
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 5/5/92
B. Regular Meeting of 5/12/92
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Release of County Assessment Lien
(memorandum dated June 29, 1992 )
B. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated June 25, 1992 )
C. Stolle Development Corp.'s Request for Extension
of the Lindsey Lanes S/D, Ph. 2, Preliminary Plat
Approval _
(memorandum dated June 29, 1992 )
D. David Marine's Request for an Extension of Site
Plan Approval for a Contractor Trades Building
(memorandum dated June 29, 1992 )
MOK
rL
jL . 92
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
E. Final Plat Approval for the Savannah Oaks S/D,
Units I and II
( memorandum dated June 29, 1992 )
F. Request for Streetlight at Indian River Blvd. /
37th Street ( Barber Avenue)
( memorandum dated June 25, 1992 )
C. Additional R -O -W Purchases / 1st St. S.W. /
Mallory Killam Parcel
( memorandum dated June 24, 1992 )
--- H. Additional R -O -W Purchase / 33rd St. between 56th
Ave. 6 66th Ave. / Frank Danforth Richardson
( memorandum dated June 24, 1992 )
I • Additional R -O -W Purchases / 26th St. (A. K.A.
Walker Ave.) Adamson, 2 parcels
( memorandum dated June 22, 1992 )
J. Additional R -O -W Purchases / 1st St. S.W. /
Benjamin Emerson Parcel
(memorandum dated June 16, 1992)
K. Additional R -O -W Purchase / 33rd St. between 58th
Ave. 6 66th Ave. / Fletcher
(memorandum dated June 15, 1992)
L. "6th Ave. Improvements at 20th Pi. - Twin Parks
Project No. 9122 Contract
._ .( memorandum dated June 16, 1992 )
M. Request for Floodplain Cut 6 Fill Balance Waiver
for Krovocheck Wetland Resources Permit
( memorandum dated June 30, 1992 )
N • Semi -Annual Bond Review
( memorandum dated June 24, 1992 )
O. Budget Amendment 037
(memorandum dated June 30, 1992)
P. North County Office Space - New Lease
( memorandum ,dated June 25, 1992 )
Q. Bid 92-99 / King's Highway Water Main Project
( memorandum dated .June 23, 1992 )
R. Filing of Housing Authority's Audits In Commission
Office
(memorandum dated June 24, 1992 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Manatee Protection Plan
(backup under separate cover)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. - * PUBLIC HEARINGS
Courtside S/D - 38th Sq., S.W. Water Service
Project - Resolution III
( memorandum dated June 23, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
_ - A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Request to Approve Environmentally Significant
Lands Bond Referendum
(memorandum dated July 1, 1992)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
I. False Fire Alarm Service Charges - Chapter
.301, IRC Code --
( memorandum dated June 22, 1992 )
2. Authorization -to Purchase Equipment/Services
i
for Vero Beach Police Dept. 8 1. R. C. Sheriff's
Dept. E911 Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAP) From 911 Surcharge Funds - B. A. 036
( memorandum dated June 19, 1992 )
-3. Authorization to Surplus and Dispose of Scott
Air Packs
(memorandum dated June 23, 1992)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Escambla Housing Mortgage Program
(memorandum dated July 1, 1992)
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
I. Request for Authorization to Sign Contract;
Issuance of Notice to Proceed - Barber Ave.
(37th Street) Widening 8 : Drain a Improvements
(memorandum dated July 1, 1992)
2. R -O -W Acquisition Along 4th St. West of 27th
Ave. for Sidewalk
( memorandum dated June 29, IM)
3. County Road 512 - Environmental Assessment
(memorandum dated June 25, 1992)
4. Paving of Willow Street
( letter dated October 15, 1991)
UL 199 fwjc
r �
JUL 07 1997 {o K
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS k4"Ald.) :
H. UTILITIES
I. Professional Land Survey Services - Water
Line Replacement Projects
(memorandum dated June 16, 1992)
2. Water Expansion Plan, Phase I, Contract No. 2
( memorandum . dated June 18, 1992 )
3. Landfill Regional Lift Station 8 Associated
Gravity Sewer Construction
(memorandum dated June 16, 1992)
4. West. Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Regional Force Main
( memorandum dated June 10, 1992 )
S. Petition for Water Service in Shady Oaks S/D
East of 43rd Ave., South of Oslo Road
( memorandum dated June 18, 1992 )
6. Glendale Terrace - 24th Ave. Water Service
Project - Final Assessment Roll 6 Res. #4
( memorandum dated June 17, 1992 )
7. 50th Court - Old Sugar Mill Estates Water
Service - Final Assessment Roll 8 Res. #4
(memorandum dated June 18, 1992)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. CONFAISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Appointment to Indian River County Professional
Services Advisory Committee
( letter dated June 15, 1992 )
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. . COMINIISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. - NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 5/5/92
-- - 2. Landfill Segment I - Emergency Repair
(memorandum dated June 26, 1992 )
3. Acceptance of Proposal From Camp Dresser 6
McKee
(memorandum dated June 19, 1992 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO. MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
JK
JUL 071992
Tuesday, July 7, 1992
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, July 7, 1992, at
9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman; Vice Chairman, Richard N. -Bird, Gary C.
Wheeler, and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler, led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
Commissioner Bird was temporarily delayed and entered the
chamber during the discussion of Consent Item M.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAIEMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition of the Item 13.A.2.,
Commissioner Wheeler's letter of resignation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed), added
the above item to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 5, 1992. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board (4-0, Commissioner
Bird being temporarily delayed), approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 5, 1992 as
written.
BOOK 00 11A11E
JUL 071992
JUL 071992
��f;
o J FAt
.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 12, 1992. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May
12, 1992 as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Eggert requested removal of Item M, to be addressed
by Attorney Michael O'Haire, and Commissioner Bowman requested the
removal of Item P.
A. Release of County Assessment Lien
The Board reviewed memo from Nancy Mossali, County Attorney's
office, dated June 29, 1992:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Board of County Commissioners
Nancy H. Mossali - County Attorney's Office
June 29, 1992
RELEASE OF COUNTY ASSESSMENT LIEN
I have. prepared the following routine release of assessment lien forms
in connection with paving and drainage improvements at 1st Place
between 27th Avenue and 24th Avenue (Project No. 8909), and request
that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute same:
(1) Tax I.D. No . 14-33-39-00001-0130-00003.0
IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2-25 W 3 A OF N
10.51 A of TR 13, LESS RD R/WS & ALSO LESS RD
R/W FOR 27TH AVE & IST PL as IN O.R. BK 811,
PP 922
In the name of: FAITH UNITED FELLOWSHIP INC.
(2) Tax I.D. No. 14-33-39-00001-0130-00003.1
IND RIV FARMS CO SUB PBS 2-25 E 2.25 A OF W
5:25AofN10.51AOFTR13LESS RDR,/W (O.R.
BK 699, PP 1156)
In the name of: FAITH UNITED FELLOWSHIP INC.
Back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute
releases of liens as listed in staff's memo.
SAID RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
B. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, County
Attorney's office, dated June 25, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: June 25, 1992
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 7/7/92
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The following lien -related documents are prepared in proper form for
the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign them:
1. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
CITRUS GARDENS WATER PROJECT in the name of:
HILL/RINKER
2. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extension
Liens in the names of :
JONES
STREETER
PORTER
SALMON/CHANEY
3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
12TH STREET WATER PROJECT in the name of:
CUNNINGHAM
4. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
ANITA PARK WATER PROJECT in the name of:
VANDERVEER _
5. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
8TH STREET WATER PROJECT in the name of:
DODSON
3
JUL 071992
a L 07 1992,
6. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from
NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT in the names of:
PANGBURN
LEGUE
HOBART LANDING JOINT VENTURE
KLINGER /MASTEN
C & L ENTERPRISES
ARVARY
Additional back-up information is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being ' temporarily delayed),
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the
releases and satisfactions of liens as listed in
staff's memo.
SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
C. Stolle Development Corporation's Request for Extension of the
Lindsey Lanes Subdivision Phase 2 Preliminary Plan Approval
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Planner
Christopher Rison dated June 29, 1992:
TO: .James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea inq, ICP
Community Develop nt Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison CVP
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 29, 1992
SUBJECT: Stolle Development Corporation's Request for Extension of
the Lindsey Lanes Subdivision, Phase 2, Preliminary Plat
Approval
SD -90-09-017
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 7, 1992.
4
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On December 13, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
a preliminary plat application submitted by Mosby and Associates,
Inc., on behalf of the Stolle Development Corporation, for the
Lindsey Lanes Subdivision phases I and II. Phase I has been
constructed and received final plat approval. Phase II, a 77 lot
single-family residential subdivision located immediately south of
the Lindsey Lanes Subdivision Phase I, has not yet received final
plat approval.
John Hett, on behalf of the Stolle Development Corporation, has
requested that an 18 month preliminary plat extension be granted.
Due to financial conditions, the applicant has been unable to
construct the second and final phase of the approved preliminary
plat project. The original preliminary plat approval for the
project formally expired on June 13, 1992; however, the request for
preliminary plat extension was received prior to expiration of the
approved preliminary plat; therefore, the request may be acted upon
by the Board of County Commissioners.
Stolle Development Corporation is requesting a preliminary plat
approval extension pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision
and Plats Ordinance, Chapter 913 of the County's land development
regulations. Pursuant to the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, the
Board of County Commissioners =-'s 7r:rt, or grant ::ith conditions,
the requested 18 month preliminary plat extension.
ANALYSIS: -
All county departments have now reviewed the extension request. No
department objects to the proposed extension. In staff's opinion,
no modification to the preliminary plat is required since the
existing, approved preliminary plat application would substantially
conform to current LDRs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Stolle Development Corporation's request for a one (1) time,
eighteen (18) month extension of the Lindsey Lanes Subdivision,
Phase 21 preliminary plat. The new preliminary plat expiration
date will be December 13, 1993.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
approved a one-time 18 -month extension of a
preliminary plat for Lindsey Lanes Subdivision,
Phase 2, as requested by Stolle Development
Corporation with a new expiration date of December
13, 1993, as recommended by staff.
D. David Marine's Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval
for a Contractor Trades Building
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Planner
Christopher Rison dated June 29, 1992:
5
J U L 07 1992 BOOK 86
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keati , AI
Community Development irector
THROUGH: Stan Bolin�ICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 29, 1992
SUBJECT: David Marine's Request for an Extension of Site Plan
Approval for a Contractor Trades Building
SP -MA -91-05-028
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 7, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On June 27, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally
approved a major site plan application submitted by McQueen and
Associates, Inc., on behalf of David Marine. Approval was given to
convert a single-family residence located at 665 4th Street into a
contractor trades building.
David Marine has requested that a site plan extension be granted.
Due to right-of-way acquisition negotiations and business
conditions, Mr. Marine has been unable to commence construction of
the approved site plan project. The original site plan approval
for the project formally expired on June 27, 1992; however, the
request for site plan extension was received prior to expiration of
the approved site plan.
David Marine is requesting a full one (1) year extension of the
approved site plan. As this request for site plan extension was
received prior to expiration of the approved site plan, the Board
may grant, or grant with additional conditions, such site plan
extensions, pursuant to the site plan ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
All reviewing county departments have now reviewed the extension
request. No departments object to approval of the extension
request. In staff's opinion, no modifications to the site plan are
rem'iired as the current subject site plan: application :could
substantially conform to current requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of David Marine's request for a one (1)
year extension of the conditionally approved site plan. The new
site plan expiration date is June 27, 1993.
N.
s ® �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
approved David Marine's request for an extension of
the conditionally approved site plan with a new
expiration date of June 27, 1993, as recommended by
staff.
E. Final Plat Approval - Savannah Oaks Subdivision Units I and II
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Plannpr
Christopher Rison dated June 29, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert . R ati g, 4TXP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison Wp
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 29, 1992
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE
UNITS I AND II
UNIT I: SD -91-09-011
UNIT II: SD -88-07-009
SAVANNAH OARS SUBDIVISION,
#91070030-008
#92040046-001
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 7, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Savannah Oaks Subdivision, Unit I. is a proposed 7 lot
residential subdivision of a 3.34 acre parcel of land. The
Savannah Oaks Subdivision, Unit II is a proposed 7 lot residential
subdivision of a 4.1 acre parcel of land. The two units are
contiguous and are located in the 850 block of Buckinghammock
Trail, north of the Buckinghammock Trail Subdivision. The subject
properties are zoned RS -31 Single -Family Residential (up to 3 units
pe acre) and have an L-1, Low Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units
per acre) land use designation. The proposed density for Unit I is
2.1 units/acre, and the proposed density for Unit II is 1.7
units/acre with a combined density of 1.9 units/acre for both
units.
7
JUL 0 71992
" 3 U L 0719,E
1i00K ,
On November 15, 1990s, and October 10, 1991, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the Savannah Oaks
Subdivision, Units I and II. The developers, Tom Schlitt and Mark
Fetzer, Inc., obtained Land Development Permits for the
subdivisions and have completed construction of the subdivisions.
The developers are now requesting final plat approval for Unit I
and Unit II and have submitted the following:
1. A plat in conformance with each of the two originally approved
preliminary plats;
2. An Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for the Completed
Required Subdivision Improvements;
3. A warranty/Maintenance Agreement to guarantee the performance
of the completed and publicly dedicated subdivision
improvements; and
4. A security agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the submitted Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement.
ANALYSIS
The required subdivision improvements have been completed by the
developers, -and the developers have obtained a Certificate of
Completion for Unit I,a�nd for Unit II from the Public Works
Department. The developers have submitted a Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement and posted suitable security, approved by the County
Attorney's Office, to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement.
With these documents, the developers have complied with the
appropriate requirements to obtain final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for both the Savannah Oaks Subdivision Unit I and
Savannah Oaks Subdivision Unit II and accept the
Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and accompanying posted security
instrument.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
final plat for the Savannah Oaks Subdivision Units I
and II, and accepted the Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement and accompanying posted security
instruments, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF WARRANTY, GUARANTY AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
8
F. Reauest for Streetliaht at Indian River Boulevard and 37th
Street (Barber Avenue)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated June 25, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Request for Streetlight at Indian River Boulevard
/37th Street (Barber Avenue)
REF. LETTER: Terry Thompson to Frank Pendleton, City
of Vero Beach dated April 9, 1992
DATE: June 25, 1992 FILE: irbiiilt.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
i, r
Staff requests a County funded streetlight be installed at the
intersection of 37th Sttreet(Barber Avenue) and Indian River
Boulevard. The City of Vero Beach is designing streetlighting
for the Boulevard and we have requested that this intersection be
included in the design. Indian River Boulevard North currently
ends by merging into 37th Street. For safety sake, a streetlight
needs to be installed to illuminate the temporary end of the
Boulevard.
At the current -time, the County funds 40± streetlights at roadway
intersections along collector roads, not including those along
major arterial corridors such as SR60, US1, or AIA and those in
streetlight districts.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Alternatives presented are:
Alternative No. 1
Deny the request.
Alternative No. 2
Approve the request for a County funded streetlight.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 2 is recommended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
approved a County -funded streetlight to be installed
at the intersection of 37th Street (Barber Avenue)
and Indian River Boulevard, as recommended by staff.
E
JUL 07 1992
�00K, 86, �,�'A�E
G. Additional Right -of -Way Purchases - 1st Street S W. Mallory
Killam Parcel
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated June 24, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer °—
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchases/ 1st Street SW /
Mallory Killam Parcel
DATE:
June 24, 1992 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County needs an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for
the petition paving project on 1st Street SW. The Board of County
Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-of-way
along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owners have signed a sale/purchase contract at the
lands' appraised value of $.40 per square foot or $4,007.52 for the
.23 acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and direct the
Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Sale and Purchase with Mallory Killam and Doris R.
Killam in the amount of $4,007.52, as recommended by
staff.
SAID CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
10
H. Additional Right -of -Way Purchase - 33rd Street Between 58th
Avenue and 66th Avenue - Frank Danforth Richardson
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated June 24, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase / 33rd Street between
58th Avenue and 66th Avenue / Frank Danforth Richardson
DATE:June
June 24, 1992QNSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County needs an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for
the petition paving project on 33rd Street. The Board of County
Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-of-way
along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owner has signed a sale/purchase contract at the
lands' appraised value of $3,354.00 or $.35 per square foot for the
.22 acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and direct the
Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Sale and Purchase with Frank Danforth Richardson in
the amount of $3,354.00, as recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
11
L_ JUL 07 192
CJ f'rt�t 4f�
r JUL 071992
BOOK E" 1 f'r ,�E 8 001
I. Additional Right -of -Way Purchases - 26th Street (Walker Avenue)
Adamson. 2 parcels
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated June 22, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E. ✓
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA T�:>�__V•
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchases / 26th Street' (A.K.A.
Walker Avenue) / Adamson, 2 parcels
DATE: June 22, 1992 -11WOMENTT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County needs an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for
the petition paving project on 26th Street. The Board of County
Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-of-way
along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owners have signed a sale/purchase contract for each
of the parcels at the land's appraised value of $.35 per square
foot as follows:
Parcel 1 .14 acre $2,135.00
Parcel 2 .17 acre $2,592.00
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board accept the contracts and direct the
Chairman to execute the contracts on the Board's behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Sale and Purchase with James R. Adamson and Lora H.
Adamson for two parcels, in the amounts of $2,135.00
and $2,592.00, as recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACTS FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
12
� � r
J. Additional Right -of -Way Purchases - 1st Street S.W. - Benjamin
Emerson Parcel
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated June 16, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator C`
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
and ✓'
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA �`^��
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchases/ 1st Street SW /
Benjamin Emerson Parcel
DATE: June 16, 1992 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County needs an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for
the petition paving project on 1st Street SW. The Board of County
Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-of-way
along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owners have signed a sale/purchase contract at the
lands' appraised value of $.40 per square foot or $4,181.76 for the
.24 acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and direct the
Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Sale and Purchase with Benjamin Emerson and Elaine
Emerson in the amount of $4,181.76, as recommended
by staff.
SAID CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
13
AUL 071992 MOK b 6 F.,,t
L
Fr
JUL 071992
e
K. Additional Right -of -Way Purchase - 33rd Street between 58th
Avenue and 66th Avenue - Fletcher
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated June 15, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA��
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase / 33rd Street between
58th Avenue and 66th Avenue / Fletcher
DATE: June 15, 1992 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County needs an additional 30 feet of right-of-way for
_ the petition paving project on 33rd Street. The Board of County _
Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-of-way
along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owners have. signed a sale/purchase contract at the
lands' appraised value of $2,156.00 or $.45 per square foot for the
.11 acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and direct the
Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Sale and Purchase with Robert W. Fletcher and
Patricia E. Fletcher in the amount of $2,156.00, as
recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
14
L. 6th Avenue Improvements at 20th Place - Twin Pairs Project No.
9122 Contract
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain dated
June 16, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer c.._._
SUBJECT: 6th Avenue Improvement at 20th Place - Twin Pairs
Project No. 9122 Contract
DATE: June 16, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
The Board on May 12, 1992, previously approved awarding a
negotiated Contract to Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., for
the intersection improvements at 6th Avenue and 20th Place,
amounting to $50,411.40. The contract documents are presented
herewith for execution by the Chairman for the Board of County
Commissioners. All contract procedures will be as on a bid
contract, including performance and payment bonds and insurance
provisions.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1- To direct the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to execute the contract on behalf of the Board of
County Commissioners.
Alternative No. 2 - To reject the request to execute the contracts.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 be approved by the Board of
County Commissioners, and that the Chairman be directed to execute
on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners the contract with
Ranger Construction Industries, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being temporarily delayed),
authorized the Chairman to execute the contract with
Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., in the amount
of $50,411.40, as recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
15
BOOK FF,i;
r JUL 07 J992 1
800K blD F JE
M. Reguest for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Krovocheck Wetland Resources Permit
The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer David Cox dated
June 30, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Directo
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.QRG
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
DATE:
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Krovocheck Wetland Resources Permit
Project No. 91050151
June 30, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
CONSENT„AGENDA
Peterson & Votapka, Inc., on behalf of Mr. Jack Krovocheck is
requesting a waiver of the floodplain cut and fill balance
requirements of Section 930.07(2)(d) of the Stormwater Management
and Flood Protection Ordinance. A County Wetlands Resource Permit
for filling 0.28 acres of wetlands/deepwater habitat was issued on
February 4, 1992 with the condition that a cut and fill waiver be
obtained prior to beginning construction.
Necessary permits have also been approved by S.J.R.W.M.D. and the
Army Corps of Engineers. The special flood hazard areas inundated
by the 100 year flood on this site area are in Zone AE with 5, 6
and 7 ft. N.G.V.D. base flood elevations. The ten year F.E.M.A.
flood elevation is 3.3 ft. The attached letter from Peterson &
Votapka indicates the total displacement of the floodplain below
elevation 4.0 ft for which a waiver is required is 865 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The proposed filling meets the waiver criteria provided in Section
930.07(2)(d)l. of being in an estuarine environment, and not
creating a material adverse impact on flood protection of other
lands in the estuarine environment. No other requirements of the
Stormwater Management and Flood Protection chapter need to be met
since the Wetlands Resources Permit is limited to placing fill,
dredging bottom lands, planting littoral zone vegetation, and
removal of nuisance exotic vegetation. An additional floodplain
cut and fill waiver may be needed at the time a Land Development
Permit Application -is made for construction of subdivision
improvements on the site.
16
Alternative No. 1 - Approve the cut and fill balance waiver
Yeiiuetst .
Alternative No. 2 - Deny the cut and fill waiver and require
excavation on other portions of the site to create a volume of
floodplain storage capacity equal to the 865 cubic yards to be
displaced by fill.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
Michael O'Haire, 575 Highway AlA, came before the Board in
opposition to the subject cut and fill balance waiver. He pointed
out that a waiver is not a right under the County's code of
ordinances. The ordinance requires an affirmative showing that it
will not adversely affect the floodplain. Mr. O'Haire reminded the
Board that the Indian River floodplain is the drainage basin for
everything east of the Florida East Coast right-of-way and west of
the lagoon at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, and what is proposed
is to fill not just the floodplain but also the waters of the
Indian River. The proposed 865 cubic yards of fill-in the 0.28 _
acre of wetlands/ deepwater habitat will cause displacement of water
in the Indian River. The ordinance requires that when someone
causes a displacement, he must compensate for it. There is no
compensation proposed here; this is simply a request for a waiver.
Mr. O'Haire contended that common sense indicates there will be an
effect on the floodplain.
Commissioner Scurlock asked staff whether we have technical
data to support a waiver.
Director Davis responded that when that waiver provision was
implemented into the code, staff determined that for the vast size
of the Indian River floodplain small amounts of fill added into
that area below elevation 4 do not raise the elevation of the river
simply by the fill being placed in the area. There are other
factors that affect the floodplain such as wind and tidal
conditions, and that is why the Indian River floodplain is not a
classic floodplain such as we have at the Sebastian River south
prong where that floodplain is less affected by some of the outside
effects of wind and tide. Todd Smith, the consultant for Mr.
Krovocheck, submitted calculations where the actual volume of fill
has been calculated which convinced staff that this is going to be
a very minimal impact on the floodplain.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that we have approved a number
of waivers and he wondered what would be the cumulative effect of
17
JUL 07 1992
JUL 07I ,'
a0OK
10 or 1000 or 10,000 small waivers. He felt that if we grant these
waivers in most cases, we may not need the ordinance.
Director Davis recounted that the Holland Law Center of
University of Florida, working with Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), developed the floodplain ordinance, and the language
of that ordinance was incorporated into our ordinance. It was
realized that the Indian River is a lagoon/estuary rather than the
classic narrow, less voluminous floodplain, and we allowed for
exemptions for small projects. Director Davis anticipated that if
a large project were proposed, staff would not recommend a waiver.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that many little waivers would add
up to a lot of displacement.
Director Davis explained that the alternative would be to not
allow any fill to be placed below elevation 4 along the Indian
River floodplain which would stifle even a single family home
development on a platted lot that is already created within that
area. He questioned whether we want to accomplish total
restriction.
Discussion ensued regarding the exemptions to the ordinance,
and Director Davis explained that St. Johns River Water Management
District does not apply their cut and fill balance within the
Indian River Lagoon. They did not recommend that we take it off
the books but rather look at it on a case by case basis, and that
was the recommendation staff made to this Board when the language
was put into the code.
There was further discussion and Director Davis explained the
process of recommending or denying waivers. After studying
calculations a determination is made to see what the effect of a
particular project will be on the overall Indian River floodplain.
Chairman Eggert asked, and Director Davis responded that there
were two larger projects which had to have minor cut and fill
balance waivers, but they were somewhat inland with a small amount
of river frontage.
Commissioner Bird felt that staff indicated they are handling
this proposed cut and fill project consistent with the way others
have been processed, and that is why they have made the
recommendation for waiver.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Chairman Eggert, to approve Mr. Krovocheck's request
for a cut and fill balance waiver, as recommended by
staff.
18
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about
the cumulative effect, and this concern was shared by Commissioner
Bowman. Director Davis assured the Board each request is studied
individually, taking into consideration the geographic area and the
effect on the floodplain, and if staff found that the height of the
water level would go up 1/10 or 2/10 of a foot, a waiver would be
denied. He also stated that staff keeps a file on floodplain
waivers and while the issue has been debated, we have been
consistent through the years. He commented that everyone is
looking forward to a computer model of the river, either through
the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) or the St.
Johns River Water Management District.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
N. Semi -Annual Bond Review
The Board reviewed memo from County Administrator Jim Chandler
dated June 24, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director, ar,�•.v
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manage
DATE: 24 June 1992
SUBJECT: Semi -Annual Bond Review
Please consider this item for the Board of County Commissioners'
July 7, 1992,tonseiigenda.
Background
Chapter 137.05, Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County
Commissioners to review the bonds of County officers twice
annually. The Board last reviewed the bonds on January 28, 1992.
Analysis
We have reviewed copies of the bond for each Commissioner and
Constitutional Officer and found them to be in keeping with
statutory requirements.
Recommendation
Following review, no further action is required of the Board.
19
BOOK 19 FA.E b O b
JUL 07192
Fr
J L 071992
BOOK 9 ,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the report of the Semi -Annual Bond Review from
staff.
O. Budget Amendment 037
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated June
30, 1992:
TO: Members of the Board
Of County Commissioners
DATE: June 30, 1992
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 037
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
- The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: -
1. On April 21, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners approved
funding for the purchase of an emergency generator and the cost
of engineering to upgrade Middle Seven School in Gifford to be
used for a shelter in the event of a disaster. The attached budget
amendment allocates the funding.
2. Court Reporting Services cost have been higher than anticipated
in the 1991/92 fiscal year due to the Haris and Reaves cases.
RECOMMENDATION,
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment 037..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 037 as follows:
20
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER: 037
FROM: Joseph A. Baird DATE: June 30, 1992
OMB Director
P. North County Office Space - New Lease
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated June 25, 1992:
DATE: JUNE 25, 1992
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVf6 S
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY OFFICE SPACE - NEW LEASE
BACKGROUND:
In August 1990, the Board authorized and executed a two year lease
with FNB Properties, Inc., for 2,875 square feet of office space at
the Sebastian Square Shopping Center. This space is occupied by
Veteran's Services, Clerk of the Court, Property Appraiser, and
Voter's Registration. The cost of space was at $7.00 per square foot
or $20,125.00 annually.
2,1
WOK:
Pfut C� I
JUL 071992
.JUL 07 1992
ANALYSIS:
On July 31, 1992, the present agreement will expire. Staff has
negotiated a new three year lease with a 3.6% increase or $7.25 per
square foot. We have also included in the new agreement a clause
which will allow us to cancel up 60 days notice.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the new lease agreement with FNB
Properties, Inc., at a annual cost of $20,843.75, and requests
authorization for the Board Chairman to execute the applicable
documents.
Commissioner Bowman questioned the increase in rent.
Director Dean explained that with the original 2 -year lease
there was an understanding that there would be an increase. The
proposed increase was higher than what is presently before the
Board, and after negotiations we agreed to a 3.6% increase over 3
years which is approximately 1.2% increase per year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the new lease
agreement with FNB Properties, Inc., at an annual
cost of $20,843.75, as recommended by staff.
SAID LEASE AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
0. Bid 92-99 - King's Highway Water Main Project
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated June 23, 1992:
22
DATE: JUNE 23, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Se s
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: 92-99/Ring's Highway Water Main Project
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
June
17,
1992
Specifications mailed to:
Ten
(10)
Vendors
Replies:
Two
(2)
Vendors
VENDOR BID TABULATION
Timothy Rose Enterprises $33,581.70
Vero Beach, F1
G.E. French Construction $40,108.00 _
Okeechobee, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $33,581.70
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $41,015.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities General Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Timothy Rose
Enterprises as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder
meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests the Board's approval of the attached
agreement, when all requirements are met and approved as to form
by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by.
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 92-99 to Timothy Rose Enterprises as the lowest,
most responsive and responsible bidder for the Kings
Highway Water Main Project and authorized the
Chairman to execute the agreement, as set out in
staff's recommendation.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
23
'JUL 0 71992
L-
JUL 07 1992 BOOK 66
R. Filing of Housing Authority's Audits in Commission Office
The Board reviewed memo from I.R.C. Housing Authority Director
Guy Decker dated June 24, 1992:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 24, 1992 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THROUGH: H. T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
SUBJECT: Filing of Housing Authority's
Audits in Commission's Office
FROM: Guy L. Decker, Jr: REFERENCES:
Executive Director
I.R.C. Housing Authority ,
It is recommended that the data presented be given formal considera-
tion by the County Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The State of Florida's Auditor General's Office has suggested the
Indian River County Housing Authority's recent annual Audits be filed in
the County Commission's Office. The Indian River County Housing Authority
is designated as a special taxing district and will be audited by the
Auditor General's Office annually. --
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This is the first year this audit will be conducted -and this Housing
Authority will be used as a pilot program for the other Housing Authori-
ties throughout the State of Florida.
RECOMMENDATION:
We respectfully request the County Commission to authorize its -
Chairman to approve the filing procedure so the Housing Authority is in
compliance with all audit regulations.
The County Finance Department is aware of this request and agrees,
with this action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the filing procedure for Housing Authority's Audits
of Financial Statements.
THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
24
Victory Park Apartments - Phase I
FmHA Project No. 569-000674-015
Indian River County, Florida
Financial Statements and Supplementary Date
Years Ended September 30, 1990 and 1989
Victory Park Apartments - Phase II
FmHA Project No. 569-000674-015
Indian River County, Florida
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Year Ended September 30, 1990
Indian River County Housing Authority
Financial Statements and Compliance Reports
Year Ended September 30, 1990
Victory Park Apartments - Phase I
FmHA Project No. 569-000674-015
Indian River County, Florida
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Years Ended September 30, 1991 and 1990
Victory Park Apartments - Phase II
FmHA Project No. 569-000674-015
Indian River County, Florida
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Years Ended September 30, 1991 and 1990
Indian River County Housing Authority
Financial Statements and Compliance Reports
Year Ended September 30, 1991
Indian River County Housing Authority
Financial Statements and Compliance Reports
Year Ended September 30,1989
Victory Park Apartments - Phase I
FmHA Project No. 569-000674-015
Indian River County, Florida
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Years Ended September 30, 1989 and 1988
Indian River County Housing Authority
Financial Statements
Year Ended September 30, 1988
Victory Park Apartments - Phase I
FmHA Project No. 569-000674-015
Indian River County, Florida
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Year Ended September 30, 1988
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN
Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois made the following
presentation with the aid of an enlarged colored map;
25
BOOK
FF,_ -7
JUL 071992
TO: Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
MANWAC Chairman
FROM: Roland DeBlois,�AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: June 16, 1992
SUBJECT: MANWAC Revised Recommendations;
State Manatee Protection Proposal
Following is a summary of the Marine Advisory/Narrows Watershed
Action Committee's (MANWAC) revised recommendations concerning the
FDNR manatee protection proposal, as approved by MANWAC at their
meeting.of June 15, 1992.1
1. Revise the seasonal recreation use areas so that the 35 m.p.h.
speed allowance time frame extends from April 15th to October
31st each year.
2. Eliminate all slow speed restrictions in the Intracoastal
Waterway channel (and adjacent 100' buffers), including the
elimination of seasonal slow speed within the channel of the
Jungle Trail narrows, EXCEPT FOR recommended slow speed under
bridges and between channel markers 137 and 143 (Riomar Cut).
Revise all areas proposed to be 30 m. p. h. maximum speed within
the Intracoastal Waterway channel (and adjacent 100' buffers)
to 35 m.p.h. maximum speed.
3. Revise the configuratic.. of the unregulated recreation
use area in the south portion of the county, east of channel
markers 153-156, so that the unregulated area is 300 yards
wide extending from the south tip of Prang Island to Porpoise
Point, whereby the eastern boundary of the 300 yard width is
the barrier island shoreline. Moreover, revise the
unregulated area to include a 100 yard wide access corridor
from the Intracoastal Waterway channel to "Martin Cove", along
the south side of the existing east -west powerline (near
channel marker 153).
4. Leave all residential canals (e.g., Vero Shores canals)
open to public access, even if at idle speeds.
5. [FDNR] dredge the shoals at the confluence of the south
fork of the St. Sebastian River, to an appropriate depth to
allow for safe passage of both manatees and boats.
6. Revise the areas proposed to be slow speed outside of and west
of the Intracoastal Waterway channel (and 100' buffers) to be
slow speed within 600' of the lagoon west shoreline, with the
remaining area (between the 600' west shoreline slow speed
buffer and the Intracoastal Waterway channel 100' buffer) to
be 20 m.p.h. maximum speed. This proposed revision does not
apply to recreation use areas and proposed idle speed areas.
26
7. Revise the areas proposed co be slow speed outside of and east
of the Intracoastal Waterway channel (and 100' buffers), from
the Wabasso Causeway to the south county line, to be slow
speed within 100' of the lagoon east (barrier island)
shoreline, with the remaining area (between the 100' east
shoreline slow speed buffer and the Intracoastal Waterway
channel 100' buffer) to be 20 m.p.h. maximum speed. This
proposed revision does not apply to recreation use areas and
proposed idle speed areas.
In addition to the above recommendations, although not included in
the motion that was unanimously approved, there appeared to be a
strong consensus among those at the MANWAC meeting that there is a
need for mandatory boater education requirements (and boating
registration)... with regard to manatee protection and boating safety.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
1 Underlined text represents changes/additions to MANWAC's
original recommendations of May 11, 1992.
Allen Edwards, 18 Tarpon Drive, member of Concerned Boaters of
Indian River County, came before the Board to make additional
recommendations to the State Manatee Protection Proposal. He felt
this undertaking has come a long way. It is not everything the
boaters want, it is not what the Manatee Club wants, so no one is
getting everything they want. He spoke of having a 2 -hour meeting
with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Environmental
Administrator Pat Rose, at which time the boaters listed several
items they felt were wrong with the recommendations. Mr. Edwards
advised that his group had no problem with anything north of
Wabasso Island. The first change they would like to see is at
Hobart Landing, which is about 5 miles from the Intracoastal
Waterway (ICW). They recommend that the marked channel should be
30 mph so that boaters can get to the ICW. The second suggestion
regards waterskiers, and Mr. Edwards felt the area between Hole in
the Wall Island and the Gifford Cut should be unregulated for
waterskiers year-round. He said it is outside the channel, it is
very deep water, and the powerline makes a normal identifiable
boundary, all of which makes it a fairly sheltered area for
waterskiers. Mr. Edwards suggested that the access to Johns Island
should be 30 mph because it is shallow and boats need to be able to
get up on a step, or up on a plane, to get over that shallow water.
His next point was regarding the area of the Barber Bridge. He
realized that the reason for a "No Wake" zone south of the bridge
was because of erosion to Memorial Island Park, but he thought that
zone should not be tied to the cause of the manatees. He suggested
that the City of Vero Beach could pass an ordinance to limit the
speed south of the Bridge. He felt a "No Wake" zone is not
27
JUL 07 1992
r
JUL 071992
nut
necessary north of the bridge because there is no development in
that area. Mr. Edwards agreed it is necessary to have the speed
restriction between the fenders of the bridges for safety reasons
and because there is deep water there and manatees will travel
through that as they travel up and down the coast. He felt there
is no reason for idle speed between the bridges on the west side of
the river because there is no grass there and no manatee habitat.
He suggested that particular area should be slow speed during the
manatee season. Mr. Edwards felt that the Moorings needs a
corridor of 30 mph to go from the shallows to the ICW, and he felt
that the area of Round Island has the same situation and needs a 30
mph corridor also.
Mr. Edwards was concerned that Indian River boaters would not
have a representative in Tallahassee during the hearings and
suggested we ask for a postponement of the hearing until September.
Commissioner Bird advised that the process involves the DNR
setting an agenda, and then presenting that agenda before the
Governor and the Cabinet, so any postponement would involve two
meetings.
Dean Leuthje, 6 Tarpon Drive, came before the Board to
contribute his perspective. He confirmed that no one has gotten
everything they want. In his opinion, the first plan basically was
slowing down 80 percent of the river. The current plan, from
November through April, slows down 60 to 70 percent of the river,
and during the summer months, 40 to 50 percent of the river will be
slowed down. He approved the modifications presented by Allen
Edwards and agreed that representatives of the boaters of Indian
River County should be there when this plan is presented to the
Governor and Cabinet.
Patty Thompson, staff biologist for Save the Manatee Club,
came before the Board to express the disappointment of her group
with MANWAC's recommendations. The members of Save the Manatee
Club believe that the plan is woefully inadequate to address the
future problems and needs for manatees in Indian River County.
They are concerned with the attitude that it can be fixed later
when it becomes a problem, and they ask how many manatees have to
die before it is considered a problem. Ms. Thompson stated that
Save the Manatee Club supports the DNR -proposed rule because the
MANWAC proposal has nothing for manatee protection. She urged the
Board to support DNR's current recommendation and get it on the
July 21 agenda. She hoped the Governor and Cabinet will adopt it
as scheduled, and she stated that her group will continue their
work until the rule can be readdressed.
28
Peter O'Brien, 156 44th Court, member of MANWAC, came before
the Board to address several points in MANWAC's recommendation. He
was concerned with seasonal restrictions on waterskiing and felt
that concentrating this activity to certain areas and certain times
of the year will cause an overcrowding problem. He stated that the
time frames recommended by MANWAC took into consideration data
regarding manatee sightings and currents in the river. He felt the
required signs at all these different slow speed zones in the ICW
would result in signage up and down the channel. He recommended a
35 mph maximum speed except for the bridge areas. With this
uniformity there could be one sign at the end of the county instead
of "all these different signs just cluttering the whole landscape.,,
He felt the access routes from Round Island, the Moorings and Johns
Island should remain at slow speed because the distances are not
that great and an extra 5 minutes would not hamper a boater's day
on the river. Additionally, Round Island will be adding a new boat
ramp which will increase the activity in that area and a slower
speed will be safer. He felt that boaters in Indian River County
are aware of manatees and have a good track record in that respect
and that MANWAC's recommendations are reasonable compromises which
are acceptable to everyone.
Commissioner Bird reported that his late arrival at today's
BCC meeting was because he was on the telephone with Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Environmental Director Pat Rose, going over
the recent suggestions by the Concerned Boater Committee. There
was to be a meeting in Tallahassee at 3:00 o'clock at which Mr.
Rose and his staff would finalize their recommendation and agenda
item to be presented to the Governor and Cabinet. Commissioner
Bird related Pat Rose's reactions to the various suggested changes.
Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Wheeler thought that their
most recent meetings with Pat Rose left the impression that the DNR
plan was acceptable and DNR did not care to see any new
suggestions.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to accept the modifications
in the MANWAC memorandum dated June 16 which DNR
have indicated are acceptable, but also authorize
Commissioner Bird to talk to Mr. Rose to get
whatever additional reasonable concessions were
suggested here today.
Pil
L-JUL 0' 7 192
J
r
JUL 071992
8m� 1 A
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird reported on his
conversation with Pat Rose as follows: Regarding Johns Island, Mr.
Rose could not visualize where we could create a channel coming out
of tha area, and he asked if we could FAX some additional
information or an enlargement of that area to define the route that
we would propose boats be allowed to take at the higher speed. Mr.
Rose reported that he and his staff anguished a long time over the
issue of opening up the Gifford Cut area year round. He said they
do show a lot of manatee activity around those islands and along
the fringe of those islands and they will look at it, but he seemed
pretty defensive about not opening up the area around that group of
islands north of Fritz Island. Regarding the area around Hole In
The Wall Island, Mr. Rose was quite defensive about that area. He
said that they studied that a lot, and because they were giving up
the narrows in the off season to the skiers, they felt they had to
keep that area on both sides of Hole In The Wall restricted in the
hope that the manatees would become accustomed to using the old
channel on both sides of Hole In The Wall in their north -south
migration and bypass the narrows. Regarding the area between the
bridges, Mr. Rose said he would take into consideration the
suggestion to keep a slow speed on both sides and keep the idle
I_ speed in the canals and the fingers. He agreed to look at the
areas of the Moorings and Round Island regarding the 30 mph
channels, but he wanted to see if the water was deep enough for the
manatee to avoid boats in those proposed higher speed channels.
Commissioner Bird did not feel that Pat Rose was warmly receptive
to
these
suggested changes.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird led discussion regarding our representation
at the meetings of DNR staff and the Governor. He felt we should
have legal help to move this process in the right direction and to
make the appointments with the aides and Cabinet members.
Commissioner Scurlock thought, and the Board members agreed,
that our in-house legal staff are capable of assisting Commissioner
Bird -and appropriate staff to represent our position at the meeting
in Tallahassee on July 21. Commissioner Scurlock felt that his
motion at a previous meeting was to authorize just that.
In further discussion, Chairman Eggert suggested that the
budget workshop, which is scheduled for July 22, begin at 1:00
p.m., rather than 9:00 a.m., to allow for delays staff's return
from Tallahassee. That change was approved by the Board.
30
Commissioner Bowman urged Indian River County to take the lead
in recommending boater education throughout the state. The Board
agreed, and Commissioner Wheeler noted that a movement to license
boat operators is gaining momentum.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:22 A. M. and
the Board reconvened at 10:35 A. M. with all members present.
PUBLIC HEARING
COURTSIDE SUBDIVISION (38TH SQUARE S.W.) WATER SERVICE PROJECT
RESOLUTION III
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter
In the 14 Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 6� nolo �G iG�n
t
NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Man
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of
PUBLIC HEARING ached for 9:05 A.M. on
Tuesday - July 7, 1992, to discuss a proposed
resolution relating to a SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
PROJECT in Indian River County for the installation
of WATER SERVICE IN COURTSIDE SUBD, 38th
SOUARE, SW, and providing for special assess-
ment liens to be made of record on the propertles
to be served.
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 testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal Is based. .
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -journal is a newspaper published at June?2,29, 1992 911588
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this a e day of
A. D. 19 ��
`(Business Manager)
(SEAL) a 1571711
1V h" Put+M state of Rol
flAy Cmimnission Expires Jima 29, IPI
31
GOOK 66 f'FtA Gn i
JUL 0r
ftiUL
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 23, 1992:
DATE: I JUNE 23, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA I
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF ITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COURTSIDE SUBDIVISION - 38TH SQUARE, S.W.
WATER SERVICE PROJECT - RESOLUTION III
PUBLIC HEARING
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -02 -DS
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution I (92-84) and Resolution II
(92-85). Resolution I contained the preliminary assessment roll
describing the project and cost. Resolution II set the date of the
public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been
notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution I
(92-84) was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on June 22,
1992. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.)
ANALYSIS
Design of the water distribution system is complete. An
informational meeting was held with the property owners on June 23,
1992. The cost per square foot is $0.10326421778, and the project
will serve 29 properties on 38th Square, S.W.. Approval of the
attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary
assessment.
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $64,365.00.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners
along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will
be through the use of impact fee funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms
the preliminary assessment on the subject project.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Sandy Brown, 430 38th Square S.W., came before the Board and
spoke in favor of the water project. She said she and her
neighbors have wanted this water service for some time and urged
the Board to approve this project.
W
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-95 confirming the special assessment
in connection with a waterline extension to
Courtside Subdivision (38th Square S.W.), as
recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION 92-95, WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
Public Hearing (Third Reso.) 6/18/92(legal)Vk/DC
RECORD VERIFIED
JEFFREY K. BARTON
CLERK CIRCUIT COURT
INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA
RESOLUTION NO. 9Z-
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH A WATERLINE EXTENSION TO
COURTSIDE SUBDIVISION (38TH SQUARE, SW); AND
PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO $E
MADE OF RECORD.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 92-84, adopted June 16, 1992,
determined to make special ass.�sments against certain properties to be
serviced a waterline extensioii of the County located in Courtside
t
Subdivision (38th Square, SW); and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said
special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are
to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published on June 22, 1992 , as
required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 92-85, on June 16, 1992, which set a time
and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to
be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be
heard as to any and all compl,_:nts as to said project and said special
assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 11-53,
Indian River County Code; and 33
�e , Ii �
MOK �
JUL 071992
JUL 07 1992
MOK rr1 Jt Vf..d 6S
WHEREAS, notice of the '.:pie and place of the .public. hearing was
published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Monday, June 22, 1992,
and once again on Monday, June 29, 1992 (twice one week apart; the
last being at least one week prior to the hearing) , as required by
Section 11-52, Indian River Cc arty Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owns._ of record were mailed notices at least
ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 11-52, Indian
River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday, July 7, 1992, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the special assessments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN
RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The special
assessments
shown
on the attached assessment roll are
hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in
full.
2. The County will
record the special assessments
and
this resolution,
which describes
the properties assessed and
the
amounts of the
special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute
prima facie evidence of the -v - lidity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Wheeler , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Scurlock ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon dec'-tred the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 7 day of july , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By el
Car
ha , K. Eggert
Chair an
34
0
r
REQUEST TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT LANDS BOND
Commissioner Bird announced a potential conflict of interest
and filed the necessary form with the Clerks office. He explained
that if the Commission votes to put this item on the referendum
ballot, and if it is approved, and if the money is allocated and
the lands are purchased under this acquisition plan, his company
has the listing on one of these pieces of property that has been
considered by the committee. Commissioner Bird pointed out that it
is a remote possibility that a sale will ever occur to benefit him
but because there is that potential, he would prefer not to vote on
this matter and not discuss it. He suggested that it would be a
mistake not to include some wording in the referendum question to
the effect that some compatible recreational use could be made of
some of these lands. He thought that wording would give it more
broad-based appeal.
Whereupon, Commissioner Bird left the chamber.
MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FORM 8B IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois made the following
presentation:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RM K,
Community Development*Director
DATE: July 1, 1992
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SIGNIFICANT LANDS BOND REFERENDUM
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of July 7, 1992.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Since its establishment in September 1990, the Indian River County
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) has met on a regular
basis to carry out the functions assigned to it by'Resolution No.
90-104 (amended by Resolution No. 92-58). Its accomplishments have
included: preparation and adoption of a Land Acquisition Guide;
compilation of a list of environmentally significant sites proposed
for acquisition; assessment, evaluation and prioritization of sites
proposed for acquisition; and preparation of several state land
acquisition applications.
35
!J U L 0 7 µLiC!W. (:ij
199,
JUL 1992 BOOK,
Besides those activities referenced above, Resolution No. 92-58
charges LAAC with the responsibility of developing funding
mechanisms for the acquisition of land. The resolution further
states that the committee should determine a date and amount for
any bond referendum that the committee might propose.
During the past several months, LAAC and county,staff have spent
considerable time addressing the issue of a proposed bond
referendum. Besides date and amount, the committee has also
considered the proposed millage rate and duration associated with
any proposed bond referendum. Foremost among the factors
considered by LAAC in determining the date, amount, duration, and
millage rate for a proposed bond referendum were two. These were:
need for funds and approvability of a referendum.
• NEED
LAAC used several indicators to determine how much money should be
generated by a bond referendum. With general agreement that no
referendum would produce sufficient funds to acquire all
environmentally significant properties that warrant protection, the
committee attempted to determine an appropriate amount.
In making its decision, the committee considered the estimated
value of those sites which it has presently targeted for
acquisition. Starting with approximately thirty properties; LMC
has narrowed the initial list to ten, assigned each of the ten
properties to one%of three groups, and then prioritized the groups
from A to C. Combined, the estimated value of the ten tracts -
totals almost $25 million.
While +$25 million is one estimate of need, another perspective
focusses on minimum need. According to the county's comprehensive
plan, the county must acquire at least 750 acres of uplands by the
year 2010. With + 5,000 acres represented by the ten properties on
LAAC's acquisition list, the upland requirement could be met with
acquisition of ..a limited number of properties for substantially -
less than $25 million.
However, besides general uplands, other types of ecological
communities also warrant protection through acquisition. These
include wetlands, upland/wetland mosaics, and areas supporting
endangered/threatened species. Recent efforts by the state and
regional agencies indicate that protection mandates for these
communities may increase in the future.
Complicating the need issue are several factors. First, it is
anticipated that available funds will be leveraged; that is, used
as matching monies for joint local and state/federal purchases.
Second, acquisition could involve less than fee simple purchase,
thereby reducing cost. Finally, the land acquisition program is
designed to be on-going, with additional properties evaluated and
the acquisition list revised and reprioritized each year.
• APPROVABILITY
The second major consideration of the committee was the probability
of passage of any proposed bond referendum. While various opinions
were considered by the committee regarding the prospect of passage
at various amounts, rates, or durations, little supporting evidence
was provided.
rrl
M M M
The committee, however, was
conducted in Indian Rive
According to that survey,
support a $32 million bond
20 years. While that poll
referendum, these figure
provided with the results of a survey
r County by the Nature Conservancy.
43 percent of the population would
issue to be paid by a 1/2 mill tax for
indicated that 40 percent opposed the
s may underestimate support and
overestimate opposition for two reasons. First, the referendum
question tested was poorly worded; second, no effort had been made
to inform county residents of the need for and the benefits of
environmentally significant land acquisition.
Finance Advisory Committee Recommendation
In the process of developing a bond referendum recommendation, LAAC
requested advice from the County Finance Advisory Committee.
Meeting twice, once in a joint meeting with LAAC and the other time
separately, the Finance Advisory Committee considered LAAC's
objectives and need for funds, as well as the probability -of the
referendum passing under various scenarios of amount, rate, and
duration. Based upon these criteria, the Finance Advisory
Committee made a recommendation to LAAC.
On a 4 to 3 vote at its meeting of June 10, 1992, the Finance
Advisory Committee recommended that LAAC approve a bond referendum
of $15 million to be paid by a 1/2 mill levy for _a period of
approximately ten years. The three dissenting votes represented a
preference for a lower bond amount and a shorter duration. To
support the minority position, Finance Advisory Committee member
John Morrison drafted a separate statement and presented it to
LAAC.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
At its meeting of June 24, 1992, LAAC considered various bond
referendum options. These included the Finance Committee
recommendation option; a "full funding" ($26 million) option; and
various other alternatives. Attached to this item is a set of bond
size projections, given various millage amounts, interest rates,
and time frames. These options were considered by the committee.
In general terms, the committee considered two options for the bond
referendum amount. One option was an amount adequate to meet
needs. While the advantage of such an option is full funding (with
respect to the present target list of ten sites), the disadvantage
is a lower probability of voter approval (in comparison to a lesser
referendum amount).
The other major option considered was a referendum amount of
substantially less than $26 million. Variations of this option
included a 1/2 mill for five years option, equalling approximately
$9.5 million (with the prospect of extending the bond authority for
another five year term); a 1/2 mill option for ten years (+$14
million) ; and a 1/4 mill option for thirty years (+$19 million).
Advocates for these alternatives felt that a lower amount, shorter
duration, or lower millage rate would enhance the prospects of the
referendum passing.
37
JUL ®71992
L_
FP'_
JUL 07 1992
On a 9 to 4 vote, LAAC approved and recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners that a general obligation bond referendum of
$26 million to be funded by an estimated 1/2 mill levy for
approximately fifteen years
The prevailing sentiment was
amount that is sufficient to
reasonable chance for pasc
lessening the amount, rate
otherwise inclined voters tc
be included on the November ballot.
that the referendum should be for an
meet land acquisition needs and has a
age. The majority also felt that
or duration would not entice many
support the referendum.
LAAC recommended by a vote of 12 to 1 that the specific referendum
language be as follows:
Shall Indian River County be authorized to acquire
environmentally significant land to protect water
quality, open spaces, and wildlife habitat, by issuing
general obligation bonds not to exceed $26 million to be
repaid in approximately 15 years by an annual ad valorem
tax not to exceed one-half mill?
Informational Brochure
In addition to its work on the referendum issue, LAAC has also
addressed the issue of informing the voters of the referendum and
the purposes of environmentally significant land acquisition. To
this end, the committee has prepared a draft brochure that can be
mailed to each registered voter household in the county, and
absentee voters. Estimated cost of printing (+9 cents per copy)
and mailing the brochure (+17 cents per copy) is +$10,300. This
could be funded by general fund contingency.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Indian River County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee and
staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners: approve a
November general obligation bond referendum for environmentally
significant land acquisition -of $26 -million to be repaid by an ad
valorem tax levy of an estimated 1/2 mill for approximately fifteen
years; approve the proposed bond wording as stated above; approve
the draft informational brochure; and authorize the expenditure of
funds to print and mail the brochure.
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @ .25 MIL
BOND
INTEREST
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
RATING
RATE
TERM
BONDS
GENERATED FROM
AD VALOREM TAXES
AVAILABLE BOND
FOR DEBTSERVICE ISSUE SIZA
A►
6%
5 YEAR
S1,342,358
$1,198,534
55,000,000
A
6.5%
7 YEAR
$1,342,358
$1,198534
56,675,000
A
6.85%
10 YEAR
$1,451,894
51,296,334
5910001000
A
7.006/0
12 YEAR
$1..570,369
$1,402,115
511,000,000
A
7.1095
15 YEAR
$1,633,183
51,458,199
513,000,000
A
7.25%
20 YEAR
S1,766,451
51'77,188
516,000,000
A :
7303'0
30 YEAR
51,837,109
51,613,000 .519,000,000
38
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @ 30 MIL
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @.35 MIL
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
BOND
INTEREST
TERM
GENERATED FROM
AVAILABLE
BOND
RATING
RATE
BOND
AD VALOREM TAXES
FOR DEBT SERVICE
ISSUE SIZE
A
6%
5 YEAR
Sl$48,874
SI,384,993
55,750,000
A
63%
7 YEAR
$1$48,874
51382,923
57,500,000
A
6.85%
10 YEAR
S1,742,273
51355,601
510300,000
A
7.00%
12 YEAR
51$11,963
51,617$24
S12$00000
A
7.10%
15 YEAR
S1,959$M
$1,749$39
515,500,000
A
7.25%
20YEAR
52,119,741
SIM626
S191000,000
A
7.30%
30 YEAR
S2,204,531
S1yZ AW
523,000,000
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @.35 MIL
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @.40 MIL
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
BOND
INTEREST
TERM
GENERATED FROM
AVAILABLE
BOND,
RATING
RATE
BOND
AD VALOREM TAXES
FOR DEBT SERVICE
ISSUE SIZE
A
6%
5 YEAR
S1,807,019
$1,613,410
56,500,000
A
6.5%
7YEAR
$1,807,019
51,613,410
58,700,000
A
6.85%
10 YEAR
52,034,651
S1$16,653
S12 000,000
A
7.00%
12 YEAR
52,113,957
51,887,462
515,000,000
A
7.10%
15 YEAR
52.286,456
$2,041,479
$17,500,000
A
7.25%
20 YEAR
52,473,031
S2,=,063
521300000 -
A
730%
30 YEAR
54571,952
52,245000
525000,000
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @.40 MIL
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @ .45 MIL
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
BOND
INTEREST
TERM
GENERATED FROM
AVAILABLE
BOND '
RATINO
RATE
BOND
AD VALOREM TAXES
FOR DEBT SERVICE
ISSUE SIZE
A
6%
5 YEAR
52065,165
$1,843,897
$7,250000
A
6.5%
7 YEAR
52065,165
$1,843,897
$10,000,000
A
6.85%
10 YEAR
S2,323,030
52,074,134
514,000,000
A
744
12 YEAR
S2,415,951
S2,157,099
S1710001000
A
7.10%
15 YEAR
52,613092
$2,333,118
$21,000,000
A
7.25%
20 YEAR
52$26321
52,5239501
S26000,000
A
7.30%
30 YEAR
52,939$74
52,570,854
S30,000,000
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE @ .45 MIL
39
BOOK �)'Y� F���ur:
JUL 199
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
BOND
INTEREST
TERM
GENERATED FROM
AVAILABLE
BOND'
RATING
RATE
BOND
AD VALOREMTAXES
FOR DEBT SERVICE
ISSUE SIZE
A
6%
5 YEAR
$2$73,310
$2074$84
$81500,000
A
6.5%
7YEAR
52$23$10
52074,384
$11,000,000
A
6.85%
10 YEAR
52,613,408
52$33,400
516,000,000
A
7.00%
12 YEAR
52,717,944
52,426,736
518,000,000
A
7.10%
15 YEAR
52.939,729
S2r624,758
522,000,000
A
7.25%
20 YEAR
53,179,611
52.838,938
5270WAM
A
7.30%
30 YEAR
S3,306,795
53032069
534,000,000
39
BOOK �)'Y� F���ur:
JUL 199
IAL ;b., 1992 7
VALUATIONS FOR LAAO
T A.9 -t,
Descri i on (Acresl
SIZE OF BOND ISSUE Q SO MIL
$ per_ Ac-rr.
BOND
INTEREST
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
$ Per tract _ number)
RATING
RATE
TERM
BOND
GENERATED FROM
AD VALOREM TAXES
AVAIIABLE
FOR DEBTSERVICE
BOND
ISSUE SIZE
A
6%
5 YEAR
$2,581,456
SZ W,871
591500,000
A
6.5%
7 YEAR
52,581,456
52,304,871
512,500,000
A
6.85%
10 YEAR
52,903,787
S2r59207
S17,5W,000
A
7.00%,
12 YEAR
S3.01%m
SZ696,373
521,000,000
A
7.10%
15 YEAR
53,266,365
S2,916,M
S26 000,000
A
7.25%
20 YEAR
53,532,901
53,154$76
532,000,000
A
I
7.30%
30 YEAR
53,674,217
53,235,082
5381000,000
VALUATIONS FOR LAAO
T A.9 -t,
Descri i on (Acresl
Ser Tract
p
$ per_ Ac-rr.
(Last column =
$ Per tract _ number)
A U-2
Sebastian River (1658)
- $3,225,000
$ 1,945
U-7/8
Archie Carr (35)
6.413,750
183,250
$ 9,638,750
B U-1
Winter Beach
Scrub (110)
1,738,070
15,801
U-6/24
N. Jungle Trail/
Korangy (132)
580,300
4,396
U-10/11
Prang Island (28)
144,620
5,165
U-12/13
Lost Tree Islands (273)
2,133.850
7,816
4,596,840
C U-3
Lowenstein/
Salama (127)
1,621,500
12,768
U-9
Padgett Branch (2500)
3,036,170
1,214
U-15
I.R. Blvd.
(S. Ext.) (170)
3,493,010
20,547
U-17
Round Island (78)
2,458,080
31,514
10.608,760
$24,844,350
40
� � r
11
1
1
i
LAAC SITS ACREAGE lATRIX
03/25/92
Plant Community
LAAC.Site ID
W.B.
Scrub
Coraci
Salam/Low.
Arch. Carr Padg. Brnch
Prang
LTV. Isl.
S. IR Blvd.
Round
N.J.T./
II-1
p-2
II g
U-7.8 U-9
U-10,11
U-12,13
U-15
Isl.
U-17
Korangy
Q-6,24
TOTAL,
Xeric Scrub
88
492
30
---
Coast./Trop.
—
--
300
910
`Sasmock --
7
23
8
10
--
8
--
56
Coastal Strand
_
- -
--
— --
Pine Flatwoods
—
10
-
12
13
25
46
750
Dry Prairie
—
806
---_
325
500.
----
Bardwd. Hassock
----'�
-
�_--
`-
----
825
----------
Freshwater wetly.
7
---
100
30
130
-- ---- ---
148
350
Estuarine Wetla.
__—
------
90
--
—
_� —
505
---------------------------------------
Improved Pasture
-
--- --
3
32
80
—
46
---____--
----
M369
__�---__-_--
645
500
--- -- -
_ __
Citrus Grove
-'
-----_�_
__—�_ _ __--
--------
---------------
1145_
Cleared/Barren --
-----------------
5
-----------
----
-----
10
-----------
—10_
Nuisance /Exotic
--------------------
_—_
—
_-----
_-- —��_--
Species
2
17
241
50
9
-------------
6
--
325
-----------------
-- ------
(predom.)
Other-------
-------------
--------
---
---- ------ --
---- ------------
------
------------------
TOTAL--------
_—-------
1151658
___--------------
127
--
35 2500
-
28
-------
273
-----------------------------
170
78
132
5111
------------_-----�------
--
---------------------
-----
u\rol\laac.acre
`Te
n�
11
1
1
JUL 0 19�'
�_,
BOOK 86
Mr. DeBlois pointed out that the suggested referendum brochure
has some phrases underlined and others blacked out. He explained
that the editing was done because our legal staff recommended we
retain county neutrality standards.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that in the meantime
a new Supreme Court of Florida ruling came into effect which states
that not only may county commissions take a stand on bond issues,
but they really should, because they have a duty to inform the
People. Under that ruling the original wording of the suggested
referendum brochure may be used.
Mr. DeBlois recommended that based on the County Attorney's
opinion, we should just ignore the blacked -out and underlined
phrases and use the committee's recommended language. He further
described it as a tri -fold brochure, using recycled paper, having
a glossy finish, with one photo of a natural area on the outside
fold. He gave the Chairman samples of other pamphlets which were
rejected by the committee. Mr. DeBlois reported the results of
research into the costs of the brochures. Using estimated figures
from the Office of Supervisor of Elections Office, there are
approximately 35,000 voter households. With additional,'brochures
for use in presentations and meetings, staff estimates a total of
40,000 brochures.
Commissioner Scurlock requested a separate discussion on the
brochure and requested the discussion be confined to the finances
and language of the referendum question.
Chairman Eggert advised that our current library bonds would
be retired July 12, 1994, and if this referendum were to be passed,
it could not get into a budget until fiscal year 1993-94. It is
possible to issue these bonds in 1993-94 with the debt beginning in
1994-95. She further reported that the library bond interest was
.3967 mill, and the proposed bond is up to .5 mill.
Commissioner Scurlock supported the recommended language of
$26 million, not to exceed .5 mill, because it affords enough
flexibility. However, he stressed we are not relying solely on
dollars because there are other mechanisms of acquiring property in
terms of planning issues; for example, conservation easements or
transfer of densities.
Chairman.Eggert pointed out that language to that effect was
included in the language of the brochure.
Commissioner Scurlock realized that but wanted to make his
point because we must be careful if we compare this issue to the
library issue. Another important point to express to the voters is
that this is a dynamic, fluid process and there are certain
properties listed which may have a change in rating, availability,
42
_ M M
M
or appraised value, any of which would change our estimated costs.
Commissioner Scurlock foresaw difficulty in selling this bond issue
to the public because of the tough economic times. He felt that
many people who ordinarily would support this type bond referendum
would not be able to support it now if they have difficulty
supporting their families. He stressed that these issues are not
really part of the recommendation but will have to be addressed,
and there is a need for a process of educating the public.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAO) and staff, with the approval of the Commission,
designed this brochure as an information sheet. It will be used by
everyone to publicize the referendum, including various clubs and
organizations, and everyone will work with the same information.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that the public understand
that the referendum does not mention a minimum amount. We are
going to issue general obligations not to exceed .5 mill, but
whether this bond referendum passes or not there is a Comprehensive
Land Use requirement for acquisition of property which will occur
either by bond issue or by the County Commission voting a millage
to go out and purchase land. He wanted the brochure to include
language to explain that we are going to raise enough money out of
this issue, if it is successful, to meet that requirement under the
Comp Plan.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that this referendum
is not to put a restriction on the power of the County. It is just
to authorize ad valorem tax. The County Commission has the full
power to spend less if it wants to, and this referendum should not
be a restriction on that. Even if the Board has this authority, we
do not have to spend any of it.
Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Scurlock agreed that we
should stress that point.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of state and
federal matching funds for the purpose of purchasing property.
Commissioner Wheeler led discussion on quality of life. He
noted that many communities form homeowners associations for the
purpose of beautifying their neighborhoods. They realize that this
is an asset to Indian River County. Commissioner Wheeler also
pointed out that the voters will have the opportunity to voice
their approval or objection.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that if the bond referendum
fails, the requirement to fund acquisition of property remains.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed that we as taxpayers are going to
pay for it whether in a general obligation bond or general millage
rate, but he felt the proposal is comprehensive and is a good plan.
43
WWI
Lk00K. bb Fhtr3{.
J U L 07 1992
P
Commissioner Bowman noted that if this does not pass, we will
be spending the money faster and in larger amounts. With this bond
issue, the people who are not here yet are also going to pay for
this.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Herndon Williams, member of the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee, wanted to clarify that we will not spend $26 million
either through a referendum or through millage. There is no other
requirement except one that the Commission lays on itself to buy
five thousand acres. The requirement of the Comp Plan is 750 acres
and that does not cost $26 million, and in fairness to the voters,
they ought to know this.
Commissioner Wheeler did not think the brochure or the
referendum question indicates that we will spend $26 million. We
will spend whatever is necessary and we do not imply otherwise.
Bill Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, stated that he could not
support this plan. He was concerned with this bond issue coming at
a time when the economy is so bad. He criticized the comment that
this expense will be paid for in the future, because we are paying
now for expenditures that have been made in the past. He gave
examples of land acquired by the County that cannot be used, and
urged the Commission to appropriate the money for the minimum
amount and not go out for $26 million. He realized that one
argument is that interest rates are low, but he felt that even
though we may have to pay a higher price at some future time, we
may be better able to afford it then. Mr. Koolage was opposed to
the bond issue and promised to do all he can -to see that it is
defeated if it goes to a referendum.
Commissioner Wheeler respected Mr. Koolage's opinion, but
explained that this issue will go to the voters.
Mr. Koolage objected to the publicity notices which will be
sent out.
John Orcutt, 425 12th Place S.E., urged the Board to proceed
with the referendum. He felt it is very important to show voters
the advantages and disadvantages of acquiring these properties.
One obvious disadvantage is the cost, but he felt it is an
investment in our quality of life and green space. He saw quality
of life as a selling point to attract businesses to our county. He
pointed out that there are not a lot of buyers in the real estate
market now, interest rates are down, and we should be taking
advantage of that situation. He reported that in 15 other counties
people voted for this type referendum because they want to protect
their homes and their communities and their quality of life. He
44
M M
® r �
encouraged the Board to approve the proposed referendum question in
the simplified form, asking for .5 mill, $26 million, and less than
15 years.
Toni Robinson, 1491 Treasure Cove Lane, wanted to include the
word "recreation" in the referendum, although sometimes that word
could be misleading.
Discussion ensued, and Commissioner Bowman thought "passive
recreation" might be more appropriate, but Attorney Vitunac advised
that if we add the word "passive," that restriction could cause
trouble in the future.
Ms. Robinson suggested "recreation" be defined so that it
would not be confused with "ballfield:"
Chairman Eggert confirmed that the general feeling was that
the word "recreation" should be left out of the language of the
referendum question.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to approve the wording as
recommended by LAAO, but to stress that our goal is
to acquire these properties with a minimum reliance
on taxation.
Under discussion, it was clarified that the motion was only
for the language in the referendum question and not for the
brochure.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird abstaining).
County Attorney Charles Vitunac clarified that he will present
a bond resolution to the Board in about two weeks.
Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the brochure format
and type of paper to be used. She announced that a committee of
Talmadge Rogers, Pat Brown, Dick Baker and Roland DeBlois put
together the sample brochure.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, to accept the format and
text of the sample brochure as prepared and
presented.
45
JUL 07 1992
[JUL Floor,
3J P,1,� 63
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler reluctantly supported
a mailing of these brochures, but would not support a brochure that
advocated the referendum. He thought that if we spend tax dollars,
we should divide it pro and con.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER WITHDREW HIS SECOND TO THE MOTION and the
Motion died for lack of a second.
Discussion ensued regarding the quality of paper, the specific
photograph that would be used, and costs. Mr. DeBlois presented
the following figures:
TO: Commissioner Carolyn Eggert
LAAC Chairman
FROM: Roland DeBloisT AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: July 7, 1992
SUBJECTS 1AuW Acquisition Informational Beachura
costs Istinates
Please the tonswing cost esti t --tfir tM pc►
,. ng ed land
a��t�ti. � i�tfsl2lti.
e.
voter hauseholds ana 4-j, voters; the
li fft— aiscellaneous
presentatierm and huts.
807jeud Glow led/
One photo army4 Pro P to So Photo
Estimated cost of brochure:
each:
10.34 cents
8 cents
3 cents
40,000:
$3,868
$3,235.5
$1,200
3rd class
bulk mailing (including
labeling
and
sorting):
each:
15.50 cats
15.80 its
15.50 cents
35,000:
$5,425
$5,425
$5,425
Absentee voters lot class mailing:
each: 29 cants 29 cents 29 cents
3,000: $870 $870 $870
4O2ALt $",M3 X9,530.8 $7,495
46
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board approved (3-1,
Commissioner Wheeler voting in opposition and
Commissioner Bird abstaining) the sample
informational brochure as presented by the
subcommittee of LAAC, with the addition of the words
"state and federal matching funds" in the second
paragraph, and the refined sample be presented to
the Board.
Mr. DeBlois stated that the subcommittee preferred the
brochure be printed on glossy paper. There was an additional
charge of $2,500 for glossy finish.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board (3-1, Commissioner
Wheeler voting in opposition and Commissioner Bird
abstaining) approved glossy finish paper be used for
the brochures.
FALSE FIRE ALARM SERVICE CHARGES_- CHAPTER 301, IRC CODE
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated June 22, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, C my Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, irector
Emergency Services
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: False Fire Alarm Service Charges - Chapter 301, IRC Code
It is respectfully requested that the Information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On December 13, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance No. 88-47, which adopted a False Fire Alarm Ordinance and
established a service charge for excessive false fire alarms. The
ordinance provided for an alarm user to be charged $25.00 for the
first false alarm in excess of three false alarms in any six-month
period, $50.00 for the second false alarm in excess of three in any
six-month period, and $100.00 for the third and each successive
additional false alarm in excess of three in any six-month period.
47
JUL 0 7 1992 BOOK.
L.- -
JUL 07 192
On May 14, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners revisited the
Ahlse Fire Alarm Ordinance and increased the service charges to
,4100.00 for the first false alarm in excess of three alarms; $200.00
for the second -false alarm in excess of three; and $300.00 for the
third and each successive additional false alarm in excess of three
in any six-month period.
During the period from July 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991, there
were 88 false fire alarms which resulted in service charges. The
amount of $16,900 was billed/invoiced to the eleven (11) agencies or
individuals for the false fire alarm charges. As of June 22, 1992,
only three agencies have paid the service charges billed to them or
a total of $800. A balance of $16,100 remains outstanding and a
second billing notice was sent May 1, 1992, to each agency or
individual which has not paid.
The problem being encountered by staff is timely payment of the
invoices sent out in February, 1992. A second billing term is coming
to a close on June 30, 1992, for which the excessive false fire
alarms will be subject to the increased charges. As of May 30, 1992,
there are 137 billable false fire alarms with another thirty days to
go on the billing cycle. The fire prevention staff is working with
the agencies or individuals to preclude any additional increases in
the number of false fire alarms that is currently being experienced.
Staff felt it would be appropriate to bring the matter to the
attention of the Board for review prior to aggressively seeking
payment of the charges through other processes provided by the
existing ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Some of the agencies have raised the issue of exemptions since they
are non-profit organizations. Two other entities are tax revenue
supported to some degree and a possible exemption has also been
raised by one of these agencies. It seems the common agreement among
the agencies who have contacted staff is that the service charges are
excessive and unfair. Staff feels that the costs associated with
false fire alarms equally impacts all the taxpayers and all entities,
whether private, charitable, non-profit, or tax supported.
A recently passed state law should provide some relief in terms of
the -number of false fire alarms that are occurring. The law requires
that every fire alarm panel be tagged as having been inspected and
certified by a licensed electrical contractor or fire alarm
contractor. Absent this certification, the fire prevention inspector
will report it as a fire code safety violation which must be quickly
corrected. Since some alarm systems have not been checked for
defects in years, staff feels this law will really be beneficial and
reduce the number of false alarms.
Action is being taken by some -of the larger institutions in the
County to correct problems. One has recently employed a full time
licensed fire alarm contractor to handle the facility fire alarm
system. This is required due to the fact the facility has over 3,000
fire alarm devices. With this large number of devices, some
malfunctions are always going to occur. When some facilities have
this large a number of devices, it seems to be somewhat unfair
because they are placed in the same category as a homeowner who has
only a single device system. Possibly some modification of the
existing ordinance which would include a fee structure for different
facilities in terms of the number of fire alarm devices would be
appropriate.
48
Another problem the Fire Inspectors have noticed in a few facilities
that is attributed to the new fee structure of $100, $200, and $300
is that fire alarm systems are completely turned off or either
rendered inoperable with rubber gloves or other means. This is of
real concern and the potential for loss of life increases when this
occurs. This is a total reverse of the intended effect of the false
fire alarm ordinance.
However, staff is compelled to follow the ordinance as established.
Absent action by the Board to the contrary, staff will proceed to
turn the matte= over to the County Attorney for collection efforts
through a court of competent jurisdiction or the Code Enforcement
Board.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to pursue collection of the existing charges
utilizing the court or Code Enforcement Board only as a last resort.
Staff also recommends the Board authorize staff to review the
existing false fire alarm ordinance and determine if a more equitable
method of charging for alarms can be developed for consideration by
the Board.
Commissioner Bowman asked the nature of these false alarms,
and Director Wright responded that the causes are varied, from
malfunction to dust in the devices to vibrations which set them
off. He confirmed that the intent of the ordinance was to cut down _
on the number of false alarms by charging a fine and attempting to
get people into compliance.
County Administrator Jim Chandler reported that in the first
6 months of last year there were 88 false alarms; in the first 5
months of this year there were 137, and we are seeing repeat
offenders.
Director Wright was concerned that because of the high
charges, some people have covered their devices with latex gloves,
have taken the batteries out of them and used other means to
prevent the alarms from going off, which is undesirable. Larger
institutions have made efforts to correct their problem by hiring
technicians and putting their systems on a computer, which is
expensive, and which is also undesirable. He questioned whether we
need to modify the ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that Director Wright was
requesting direction from the Board on collection of these fines.
He felt we do not have the ability to waive the f ines that have
been levied.
Commissioner Bird stated that when this ordinance was
discussed, he was not in favor of the $100, $200, and $300 fines
and suggested that the ordinance should be reviewed.
49
'JUL 07 19
GOOF
J U L ®71992 cAuaK 6'b
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board (4-1, Commissioner
Bird voting in opposition) directed staff to pursue
the collection of the existing fines, utilizing the
court or code enforcement board as the last resort,
and authorized staff to initiate a review of the
existing ordinance.
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT/SERVICES FOR VERO BEACH POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT E911 PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING
POINTS (PSAP) FROM 911 SURCHARGE FUNDS - BUDGET AMENDMENT 036
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated June 19, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim -Chandler, ounty Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright ; Director
Emergency Services
DATE: June 19, 1992
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Equipment/Services for Vero
Beach Police Department and Indian River County Sheriff's
Department E911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP)
From 911 Surcharge Funds - BUDGET AMENDMENT 036
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Sheriff's Department and the -Vero Beach
Police Department E911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) have
requested that the following equipment be approved for purchase this
fiscal year from existing funds remaining in the 911 surcharge
account in lieu of next budget year.
ITEM/SERVICE AGENCY
Interface Program VBPD
between CAD and E911
equipment
E911 Console Simulator, VBPD
radio simulator, and
foot switch
E_
$26,000
$13,555
Relocate Monitors into VBPD $ 5,595
Consoles
SUBTOTAL
50
$45,150
r
� � s
Relocate Fire and IRCSO $ 31120
EMS Consoles
Recording Indicator IRCSO $ 845
Protective Covering IRCSO $ 3,500
For Color Monitors
and installation
SUBTOTAL $ 71465
Ir O=AFID TOTAL $52j,615
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Purchase of the requested equipment and services from existing funds
in this fiscal year will reduce expenses for next fiscal year to
largely operating costs. Staff does not anticipate additional
capital equipment expenditures next fiscal year unless certain
equipment fails or an event such as a direct bolt of lighting is
experienced.
RECO14MENDATION
Staff recommends Board approval of the capital equipment or services
requested by the two agencies as well as the attached budget
amendment appropriating the funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
purchase of the capital equipment and services as
set out in staff's memo, and approved Budget
Amendment 036, as recommended by staff.
To: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bai
OMB Director
911 SURCHARGE
911 SURCHARGE
I
I
I
I
X120 -133-519-
I
I
I
51
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 036
DATE: June 19 1992
ROOK l.+°ti f'A"t 64
AUTHORI2ATION TO SURPLUS AND DISPOSE OF SCOTT AIR PACKS
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated June 23, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, C unty Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: June 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Authorization to Surplus and
Dispose of Scott Air Packs
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Fire Service Division of the Department of Emergency Services no
longer uses Scott Back Packs and none in our inventory are operable.
The fire service has used only MSA equipment for a substantial period
of time in daily fire combat and suppression operations.
There are currently eighteen (18) back packs and sixty (60) tanks in
inventory. The equipment is old and it is estimated that the entire
inventory has a value of $1,000 or less. Staff does not feel the
expense of $15:00 per tank for hydrostatic test and additional costs
associated with certification of the mask/regulators would be an
appropriate expenditure since the equipment is not used by the fire
service.
Approval is being sought to dispose of the Scott Air Packs in the
following manner:
1. Transfer the following equipment to Indian River Community
College for use in the Fire Academy Training Program:
Two (2) Back Packs #5830560, 5830589
Two (2) Tanks #178243, 235592
2. Transfer the following equipment to the State of Florida,
Department of Natural Resources, for use in the water
treatment facilities at the Sebastian Inlet State Park:
Three (3) Back Packs #77802755, 635141 77802742
Six (6) Tanks #T-31442, T-314331 T-22021,
T-93322, T-12533, T-3748
3. Transfer the following equipment to the South Venice Fire
Department and they will in turn transfer to the Indian
River County Department of Emergency Services ten (10)
composite MSA tanks:
52
M M s
Thirteen (13) Back Packs #87-11-0172, 68-90-0202,
48-90-0295, 68-60-0052, 48-20-0702, 1125, 1127, 53241
80-978, 68-90-0073, 63515, 2366, 81382
Fifty -Two (52) Tanks #T-110221, T-936621 T-314431
100679, T-93520, 101324, T-124156, 86262, T-50226, T-
1607110, T-117020, T-9847, T-100731 T-225707, T-132362,
86207, 178242, T-5329, 179076, T-116828, 98061 179081,
T-100900, 879011 T-225818, 101329, T-124352, T-36181 T-
9749, T-933211 T-4893, T-120192, 177427, T-126391 T-
90189, D-128994, T-112681 T-249828., T-2256971 T-5545,
179071, 32175DG, T-961961 T-2390871 101160, 7608, T-
116129, T-2549661 87899, 85234, T-3419, T-225694
Approval of this request will remove all Scott Air Packs from the
inventory of the Department while receiving ten (10) MSA composite
tanks from the South Venice Fire Department with a value of
approximately $3,000. This figure is based on the fact that MSA
tanks cost $400 new and used ones sell for $300.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has a concern if the property should be advertised for sale to
the general public regarding potential liability. Each of the
agencies referenced above has agreed to sign a release of liability
as it relates to the Scott Air Packs. If the staff recommendation is
approved by the Board, the County Attorney will prepare the necessary
legal documents to secure the release of liability. _
Staff recommends the Board declare the Scott Air Packs as surplus and
authorize the equipment to be transferred as referenced above
contingent upon the receipt of the necessary release of liability.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously declared
the Scott Air Packs surplus and authorized the
equipment to be transferred, as set out in staff's
memo.
ESCAMBIA HOUSING MORTGAGE PROGRAM
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated July
1, 1992:
53
L_ JUL 07,99z
BOOK
JUL 0 71992
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: July 1, 1992
SUBJECT: ESCAMBiA HOUSING MORTGAGE PROGRAM
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BOOK F'���
William R. Hough and Company are requesting that we wave our Industrial Revenue Bond
fees in order to participate in the Escambia Housing Mortgage Program. Last year when
we participated, we were the only county that requested any fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously waived
the fee because this program is for affordable
housing and not a normal industrial revenue bond for
the private sector.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN CONTRACT: ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO
PROCEED - BARBER AVENUE (37TH STREET) WIDENING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated July 1, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request for Authorization to Sign Contract;
Issuance of Notice to Proceed -
Barber Avenue (37th Street)
Widening and Drainage Improvements
DATE: July 1, 1992 FILE: barbrcon.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 26, 1992 the Board approved staff's recommendation of
H.F. Lenz Company: for the project listed above. A short form
contract has been prepared for signature by the Chairman.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to sign the
contract and that the Public Works Department be authorized to
issue a Notice to Proceed. Funding to be from Transportation
Fund as needed.
54
�J
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the contract and the Public
Works Department to issue a Notice to Proceed, as
recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION ALONG 4TH STREET WEST OF 27TH AVENUE FOR
SIDEWALK
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated June 29, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition along 4th Street West of
27th Avenue for Sidewalk
REF.LETTER: J.W. Davis to Mr. & Mrs. Forrest P. Showalter
dated Mar. 23, 1992
DATE: June 29, 1992 FILE: 4sidewalk.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mr. and Mrs. Forrest Showalter of Miami, Florida have agreed to
sell to the County a parcel of land 10' by 329.84 feet along 4th
Street just west of Citrus Elementary School. This right-of-way
is needed to complete a section of sidewalk along 4th Street.
The Showalters have agreed to sell the land for -$2,000, which
equates to approximately $0.61/s.f. Staff has been trying to
acquire this right-of-way since Jan.; 1992.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
This right-of-way is needed to provide for a 5' wide sidewalk
along the north side of 4th Street. The alternatives are as
follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the right-of-way acquisition at a cost of $2,000.
Alternative No. 2
Not approve the purchase and not proceed with the sidewalk
construction.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended. Funding to be from Secondary
Road Trust Fund ($200,000 budgeted in FY 91/92 budget).
55
{JU
_I
JUL 07 12Esoo� F„,t U
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
acquisition of right-of-way at a cost of $2,000 from
Mr. and Mrs. Forrest P. Showalter, as recommended by
staff.
COUNTY ROAD 512 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Roger Cain dated
June 25, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administratfolm
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.
Public Works Direc
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E�
CountyEngineer
SUBJECT: County Road 512, Environmental Assessment
DATE: June 25, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff has determined that in order to do an adequate environmental
assessment of the construction of County Road 512 and its affect on
habitat that a consultant needs to be retained to provide
professional services directed toward providing reports and
consultation to aid the County in obtaining permits and approvals
for this construction. Reviewing agencies such as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Department, which are routinely sent copies of all
Corps of Engineer Dredge & Fill Permits, require adequate analysis
and feasible mitigation for all ecological consequences of the
projects reviewed.
This contract amount of $5,000.00 is less than that required to go
through the Consultant Competitive Negotiation procedure, therefore
the Board can approve this contract without advertising. B.K.I. is
recommended by other engineering firms which have used their
services and has done the same kind of work as contemplated on our
project. The qualifications of the Members of the firm are listed
in the back-up material.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the contract with B.K.I. and authorize
the Chairman to execute the contract on behalf
of the Board of County Commissioners.
Alternative 2: Not approve the contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative 1 with funding coming from the County
Road 512 Account No. 101-153-541-067.13
56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the contract
with B.R.I., Inc., for professional services; as
recommended by staff.
SAID CONTRACT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PAVING OF WILLOW STREET
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that some months ago
the residents of the area south of Fellsmere along Willow Street,
which is 130th Street, complained about the road condition. Staff
researched the situation and found we have a limited right-of-way
varying from 30 and 40 feet along Willow Street. Part of Willow
Street is within the incorporated area of City of Sebastian and the
southerly section is in the unincorporated area. At the Board's
direction, staff sent a letter to every property owner along Willow
Street requesting that they donate 25 feet of right-of-way to the
County to construct the roadside swale system and drainage system,
after which we could improve the road. One property owner was
willing to donate 25 feet of right-of-way and the other owners did
not respond or they indicated they would not donate the right-of-
way. One of the alternatives is to pursue an aggressive right-of-
way acquisition program, which means hundreds of appraisals and
establishment of funding sources. There are people who use that
road to go to the 5 -acre tracts south as well as the streets that
branch off of Willow Street, so the benefitted area would be a
sizeable area. Berry Groves is a citrus grove operation whose
trucks use that road and they have indicated a willingness to
discuss some options. In addition, the City of Fellsmere is
involved. It would be a monumental task to assess that entire area
because there are hundreds of owners, with some platted
subdivisions.
Commissioner Bowman suggested publicity and a public hearing.
County Administrator Jim Chandler suggested we should go back
and look at and identify the areas that we think should be included
and talk to the City of Fellsmere as to what their position may be.
All Board members agreed with Mr. Chandler's recommendation.
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY SERVICES - WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 16, 1992:
57
4�J r i
'JUL 0 7 19192'
JUL 67 1992
DATE: JUNE 16, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT�J�
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM --_r�r/
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEY SERVICES
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -18 -DS
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services has prepared three separate
projects for the purpose of replacing existing galvanized water
lines with Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) as approved in the 1991-1992
budget. These lines are a continuing maintenance and low pressure
problem. Survey information is needed for the start of the
construction plans for in-house design of these three projects.
ANALYSIS
The bid proposal process to obtain survey data for the projects
generated three bid responses (attached). Masteller, Moler & Reed,
Inc., was the lowest bidder for surveying services for all three
water line replacement projects. The low bids for these professional
land surveying service projects, along with their respective site
locations, were as follows:
A. Project No. 1 - Pineview Park SID and Rivenbark SID $6,480.00
B. Project No. 2 - Cooks SID, Hidden Acres SID, and 5,880.00
Ixora Park SID
C. Project No. 3 - Vero Mall vicinity, Ridgewood SID, 4,960.00
South Side Park SID vicinity, and
Casa Rio SID vicinity
These projects are a part of a continuing effort by this Department
to replace galvanized water lines in Indian River County. Funding
for these projects will be from the Department's renewal and
replacement funds.
RECOMM=QATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and execute the three professional land
surveying proposals submitted by Masteller, Moler & Reed, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute three
contracts with Masteller, Moler & Reed, Inc., for
professional land surveying, for the projects and in
the amounts listed in staff's memo.
THREE CONTRACTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
58
WATER EXPANSION PLAN, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 2
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 18, 1992:
DATE: JUNE 18, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G PINT"
DIRLmm� •� 'I; I T Y S CES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: H. D. °DUKE" , P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER EXPANSION PLAN, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 2
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -02 -DS
BACKGROUND:
The subject project has been completed ahead of schedule and below
contract cost. The contractor, Tri -Sure Corporation of Auburndale,
Florida, is now requesting final payment.
Change Order No. 1 (attached) lists the changes, which reflect a
decrease of $16,565.00 in contract cost. Since the contractor has
already received $157,271.40, he is requesting a final payment of
$18,233.60, for a total contract cost of $175,505.00.
ANALYSIS:
On October 22, 1991, the Water Expansion Plan, Phase I, was approved
at a total estimated cost of $2,450,000.00. The subject Contract
No. 2 was awarded by the Board of County Commissioners on February
11, 1992, in the amount of $192,070.00. The engineering firms
estimate was $341,500.00.
Clearance from the Department of Environmental Regulation has been
received.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached change order and final pay request, in the amount of
$18,233.60, as payment in full.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Change Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request in the
amount of $18,233.60, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PV*
"JUL 0 7 1k.
J U L 07 1992
['COOK 81 c
LANDFILL REGIONAL LIFT STATION AND ASSOCIATED GRAVITY SEWER
CONSTRUCTION
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 16, 1992:
DATE: JUNE 16, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPIT NGINEER
BY: DEPAR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: LANDFILL REGIONAL LIFT STATION AND ASSOCIATED GRAVITY
SEWER CONSTRUCTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -90 -15 -CS
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the final payment to Owl and Associates,
completing the 82nd Avenue force main project to the entrance of the
landfill (see attached meeting minutes and agenda item). We are now
prepared to proceed with the first phase of the landfill collection
system; this includes the construction of a regional lift station
and the associated collection system.
ANALYSIS
The estimated construction cost for this project, including a 10%
contingency, is $121,000.00. The plans and specifications for this
project have been completed in-house, and the project is ready for
bid. The funding for this project will come from SWDD Account No. -
411 -217-534-066.51.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility
Services to proceed with this project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Department of Utility Services to
proceed with Project No. US -90 -15 -CS, as set out in
staff's memo.
60
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REGIONAL FORCE MAIN
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 10, 1992:
DATE: JUNE 10, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTG.-Ir
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. J49CAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR CTS GINEER
BY: DEPARTMEILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WR WWTp)
REGIONAL FORCE MAIN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -87 -07 -DC
BACKGROUND
On November 27; 1990, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Addendum No. 2 to Work Authorization No. 11
with Masteller and Moler, Inc. (see attached agenda item and
minutes). This -Work Authorization included the design of a 24 -inch
diameter force main from the WR WWTP south to 4th Street, east on
4th Street to 82nd Avenue, including a large canal crossing design.
As a result of permitting interaction with the Indian River Farms
Water Management District, we have been instructed to combine
several of our proposed canal crossings into one. After meeting
with the engineers of the affected projects, we determined that the
least expensive and most desirable modification was to relocate and
expand the crossing designed by Masteller and Moler, Inc. For a
detailed description of services, please see "Project Description"
on the attached Addendum No. 2.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Addendum No. 2 reflects additional surveying, design
and permitting, and does not include any additional inspection. The
proposed cost for these additional engineering services is
$4,200.00, which the Utilities staff feels is justified.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization with Masteller and Moler, Inc., in the amount of
$4,200.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Work Authorization with Masteller & Moler, Inc.,
in the amount of $4,200.00, as recommended by staff.
ENGINEERING WORK AUTHORIZATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
61
I
JUL 0 71992
JUL 071992
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN SHADY OARS SUBDIVISION EAST OF 43RD
AVENUE, SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 18, 1992:
DATE:
JUNE 18, 1992
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PI I
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY E VICES
PREPARED
JAMES D. CHASTAIN��
AND STAFFED
MANAGER OF ASSES_.$ PROJECTS
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN SHADY OAKS S/D
EAST OF 43RD AVENUE, SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -19 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension for Shady Oaks
Subdivision to supply potable water to its residents. We are now
coming to the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin
design of the above project. (See attached petition and plat map.)
ANALYSIS
The subdivision contains 50 lots. The 31 property owners signing the
petition represent 62% of the properties to be served. Thirteen
petitioners (26%) own properties 1/2 acre or less, and 18 of the
petitioners (36%) own properties in excess of 1/2 acre.
There are twenty-two (44%) of the lots in this project that are
substandard or "undersized," according to Indian River County's
Comprehensive Plan. The County Public Health Unit, Division of
Environmental Health, requires that new lots utilizing well and septic
systems be a minimum of 1/2 acre. If served by a public water system,
the lot may be reduced to 1/4 acre in size. Lots not meeting these
minimum standards are called "undersized lots.,,
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners
along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will be
through the use of impact fee funds. Design services will be provided
by the Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of
the above -listed project, in order that they may proceed with the
design engineering work in preparation for the special assessment
project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the Department of Utility Services to
proceed with Project No. UW -92 -19 -DS, as recommended
by staff.
62
GLENDALE TERRACE (24TH AVENUE) WATER SERVICE PROJECT - FINAL
ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION IV
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 17, 1992:
DATE: JUNE 17, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT�OR,;
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY bERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS WTY
ROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OFERVICES
SUBJECT: GLENDALE TERRACE - 24TH AVENUE WATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -24 -DS
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO. 4
BACKGROUND
On January 7, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Resolution III, No. 92-3, for the preliminary assessment roll on the
above -referenced project. The construction of the project has been
completed. We- are now ready to begin customer connections and
request the Board of County_ Commissioners' approval of the final
assessment roll (see attached minutes and Resolution No. 3).
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project cost of
$29,241.00, which equated to $0.09534818505 per square, foot of
property owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution 4 and
the accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $29,034.14,
which equates to a cost of $0.0946736621 per square foot of
property.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution No.
4.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-96 certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of a waterline extension in Glendale
Terrace (24th Avenue) and other such constructions
necessitated by such project, as recommended by
staff.
RESOLUTION 92-96, WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
63
'JUL 07 199'2 MOK 60F .,,G
JUL 07
As Built (Final Reso. )
6/ 18/92 (legal) Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 96
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER, COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN
GLENDALE TERRACE (24TH AVENUE), AND OTHER
SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE, AND DATE- FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT
PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of -Indian River
County determined that the improvements for the property located
within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, January 7, 1992, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed
appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 92-3, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 92-3,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 92-3 is modified as follows: The completion agta,
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
64
2. Payments
bearing interest at the rate of
9-3/4$ per annum
may be
made in
ten annual installments, the
first to be made
twelve
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
92-3 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." _
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall
stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens
against the property against which such assessments are made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
92-3, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian
River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its
validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 1_ day of 7u1 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By /'--1
K.
Clhdfi-=n IMP
65
rM 7 192
F'1 '0J
Fr-
JUL
JUL ®71992
� >
[BOOK F'„�� C�
50TH COURT - OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES WATER SERVICE
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 18, 1992:
DATE: JUNE 18, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR /�
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT //d i'�/�/! ”
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY 9ERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSE PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 50TH COURT - OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -24 -DS
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO. 4
BACKGROUND
On September 3,
1991, the Board of County
Commissioners
approved
Resolution No. 3
(91-98) for the preliminary
assessment roll
on the
above -referenced
project (see attached Minutes
and Resolution
-
No. 3).
The construction
of the project has been completed.
We are now ready
to begin customer connections and request
Commissioners'
the Board of
County
approval of the final assessment
roll.
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project cost of
$36,777.00, which equated to + $0.1016 per square foot of property
owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution No. 4 and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $34,305.81, which
equates to a cost of $0.09477266699.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of The Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution No. 4.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-97, certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of a waterline extension in Old Sugar
Mill Estates ( 50th Court), and other such
construction necessitated by such project, as
recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION 92-97, WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED,
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
66
As Built ( Final Reso . )
6/18/92(legal)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_E_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN
OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES (BOTH COURT), AND
OTHER SUCH CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY
SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL
COMPLETION DATE, -AND DATE FOR PAYMENT
WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that the improvements for the property located
within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 3, 1991, the Board held a
public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be
assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held- the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-98, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 91-98,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
as follows:
1. Resolution No.
91-98 is
modified as follows: The
completion date
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 9-3/4$ per annum may be
made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
67
OOK
Ft��
JUL 0 7 199 U
r-7
JUL 071 e
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
91-98 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A. "
4. The assessments, as
shown on the attached Exhibit
"A,"
shall
stand confirmed and
remain legal, valid, and binding
first
liens
against the property
against which such assessments
are
made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
91-98, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian
River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its
validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bowman P and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Scurlock ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman : Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye -
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 7 day of July , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Caroly,h EgJZJZ
APPOINTMENT To INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Chairman Eggert explained that there is an opening on the
Professional Services Advisory Committee for a traffic person and
they have not been able to find a lay person to fill that vacancy.
Jeff Meyers is a banker who regularly has attended and participated
in the meetings and Chairman Peter Robinson would like to include
Mr. Meyers on the committee.
68
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously appointed
Jeff Meyers to the Professional Services Advisory
Committee.
RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER WHEELER
Chairman Eggert announced that Commissioner Gary Wheeler
submitted a letter to Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson
resigning from the County Commission effective July 13, 1992.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the Governor has
the right and the responsibility to appoint a replacement between
July 13 and November 10.
Commissioner Wheeler hoped that if there is a clear winner on
September 1, the Governor would appoint that person for the
interim.
Chairman Eggert asked whether the Board would be in favor of
writing to the Governor, based on the outcome of the September 1
election and if there were no further opposition, asking him to
appoint that individual.
Commissioner Bowman and Commissioner Bird approved.
Commissioner Scurlock felt he would like some time to think about
it.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Eggert announced that immediately upon adjournment
the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
ATTEST
J. R. Barton, Clerk
69
Q I'"0'02,
Carol R. Egger, , hairman