HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/18/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA = :
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman ( Dist. 2) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. (Dist. 3) -
District 4: Vacant Jeffrey K. Barton,* Clerk to the Board
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
A. Ch.Eggert req!d addition of 13.A.1, re: Legislative Delegation,
and 13.A.2, District IV Seat on the Board.
B. Com.Bowman req'd addition of 13.B. re:the post -census survey.
C. Adm.Chandler req'd addition of ll.B.3. re: chemical spill at 4th St.
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation Designating August 22, 1992 as
Homeless Animals Day
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Special Meeting - 6/29/92
B. Regular Meeting - 7/7/92
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Bid 92-117 / Crew Cab Dump Body
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
B. Bid 92-114 / Cargo Van
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
C. Bid 92-116 / Yard Dump Truck with Hoist
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 039
(memorandum dated August 6, 1992 )
E. Pelican Lane Property Owners Association
( memorandum dated August 12, 1992 )
F. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
AUG
1-81992 PooK 1J
,, pr,
" 1 BOOK 1-.[;,
9:05 a. m.
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
G. Cancelling Taxes on R/W Acquisition
( memorandum dated August 6, 1992 )
H. Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
Recommendation for Bond Issue
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
I. Access Easements to Dependable Dodge
and Home 8 Patio, Inc.
( memorandum dated August 7, 1992 )
J. Proposed Ordinance Entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF I.R.C. FLA., CREATING
THE WALKER'S GLEN STREET LIGHTING DIS-
TRICT UNIT TWO
( memorandum dated August 6, 1992 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Quality Fruit Packers' Request for
Special Exception Use Approval to
Expand an Existing Packing House
( memorandum dated August 10, 1992 )
2. Glendale Lakes Water Service Project -
Res. III
( memorandum dated July 28, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Conceptual Approval of the Revised
Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP )
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1. Approval of Biomedical Equipment
Services Agreement with Physio -Control
(memorandum dated July 29, 1992)
2. Approval of Emergency Services Dis-
trict Mutual Aid Agreement with the
Town of I.R. Shores S Billing Rates
for Fire 6 EMS Assistance Exclusive
of Mutual Aid
( memorandum dated August 11, 1992 )
s � �
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.)
C. -GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. /OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Full time Resident Inspection Services
for Indian River Blvd. Phase IV
( memorandum dated August 12, 1992 )
2. Amendment to FIND Grant Agreement for
Round Island Park Improvements
(memorandum dated August 12, 1992)
3. License Agreement Between FEC Railway
and Indian River County for Installa-
tion of Interconnect Conduit at US 1
and Highland Drive RR Crossing
(Memorandum dated August 10, 1992)
H. UTILITIES
1. Purchase Agreement with Helen Hanson
Properties, Inc. / Land Acquisition for
Roseland Elevated Storage Tank
( memorandum dated August 7, 1992 )
2. 12th Street Water Distribution System
Final Pay Request & Change Order No. 2
(memorandum dated July 21, 1992)
3. Developer's Agreement with Indian Beach
Associates for the Olde Oak Park S/D
( memorandum dated August 5, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. ' CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
AUG 18 1992 moK 6 e' �:, L
FYi
BOOK 1 f:,,E ►dt y
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR
i
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 7/7/92
2. Petition Hearing / SWDD Assessment Fees
( memorandum dated August 11, 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.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
Tuesday, August 18, 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, August 18, 1992,
at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Carolyn R. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; 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.
Reverend Peter LaBarre, Retired, Trinity Episcopal Church, led
the invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition of Item 13.A.1.,
regarding the Legislative Delegation Meeting and Item 13.A.2., the
District IV seat on the Board.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of Item 13.B.
regarding the post enumeration survey to adjust the census figures.
County Administrator Jim Chandler requested the addition of
Item 11.B.3., regarding the chemical spill at 4th Street.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the
above items to the Agenda.
PROCLAMATION
Chairman Eggert read aloud the following Proclamation
designating August 22, 1992 as Homeless Animals' Day in Indian
River County, Florida.
BOOK 11.0 j.
r4,
` v
P R O C L A M A T I ON
DESIGNATING AUGUST 22, 1992 AS
HOMELESS ANIMALS' DAY
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, each year in public and private, animal shelters
across the United States some ten to seventeen million dogs and
cats are killed; and
WHEREAS, the only reason these aiiimals'.lives are taken is
that there are too few responsible people to adopt them; and
WHEREAS, the animal shelter personnel, or the "dark angels,"
who perform the mass killing of dogs and cats know this crisis
can readily be solved, by preventing the births of these millions
of homeless animals by spaying and neutering; and
WHEREAS, the "killing solution" to the dog and cat
overpopulation is one with which we regrettably live; and
WHEREAS, dogs and cats are dependent upon humans for
responsible and humane care:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that August 22,
1992 be designated as
HOMELESS ANIMALS DAY
in Indian River County. The Board urges all citizens who accept
the responsibility for the care of dogs and cats to also accept
the responsibility for having them spayed or neutered to stop the
continuous killing of animals born to be homeless.
Dated this 18 day of August, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Carol y K. Egger Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 29, 1992. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 29, 1992,
as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 1992. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 1992
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Eggert requested that Item H be removed for
discussion.
A. Bid 92-117 - Crew Cab Dump Body
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated August 11, 1992 and memo from General Services
Director Sonny Dean dated August 17, 1992:
DATE: August 11, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
DeRa-ftment of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: 92-117/Crew Cab Dump Body
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: August 5, 1992
Advertisement Dates: July 13, 1992
Specifications Mailed To: Nineteen (19) Vendors
Replies: Seven (7) Vendors
BID TABULATION: TOTAL LUMP SUM
Broward Truck and Equipment $31,720.00
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
3
AUG I
�n U G
Atlantic Ford $31,932.00
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl
Mike Shad Ford $33,285.34
Jacksonville, FL
Heintzelmen Ford $34,456.00
Orlando, FL
Nichols Truck Body $35,880.00
Jacksonville, FL
Hull Chevrolet $399839.00
Jacksonville, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $31,720.00
SOURCE OY FUNDS! Road and Bridge - Automotive—
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $349000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
�N 6' �NeJI e
Staff recommends that all bids be rejected and award the
trucks to the new State Contract vendor, Gator Ford Truck
Sales. At the time of letting the bids, the State
Contract was not available due to a bid protest. Since
then, State Contract has made an award and the -identical
trucks are less money than the lowest bid received.
LOWEST BID SUBMITTED:
STATE CONTRACT:
August 17, 1992
$31,720.00 (BROWARD TRUCK)
$319606.51 (GATOR FORD)
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THRU: James E. Chandler f�
County Administrator
FROM: H.T.• "Sonny" Dean, Directo
Department of General Services
SUBJECT: Amended Agenda Item - IRC Bid 92-117 Crew Cab Dump Body
Truck
Road and Bridge Division
The original agenda item indicates only one truck was bid. There
were three (3) trucks on the bid at a price of $31,606.51 for a
total of $94,819.53. The total budgeted amount is $102,000 for the
three pieces of equipment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously rejected
all bids and awarded Bid #92-117 for the Crew Cab
Dump Body to the State Contract vendor, Gator Ford
Truck Sales, for three (3) trucks, in the total
amount of $94,819.53, as recommended by staff.
4
B. Bid 92-114 - Cargo Van
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated August 11, 1992:
DATE: August 11, 1992
t
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
�67—
SUBJECT: Bid #92-114/ Cargo Van
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertisement Dates:
Specifications Mailed To:
Replies:
BID TABULATION:
Hull Chevrolet
Jacksonville, FL
Ft. Pierce Toyota
Ft. Pierce, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Bond Funds
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
RECOMMENDATION:
August 5, 1992
July 10, 1992
Twelve (12) Vendors
Two (2) Vendors
TOTAL LUMP SUM
$12,584.50
$13,960.00
$12,584.50
$14,000.00
Staff recommencs that the bid be awarded to Hull
Chevrolet, Jacksonville, F1. As the lowest, most
responsive, responsible bidder meeting specifications as
set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
NOTE: This vehicle was not available on state
contract because the production cut off date
was prior to receipt of requistion by Purchasing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#92-114 for the Cargo Van to Hull Chevrolet of
Jacksonville in the amount of $12,584.50, as
recommended by staff.
61
A U 6
C. Bid 92-116 - Yard Dump Truck with Hoist
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated August 11, 1992:
DATE: August 11, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
Jo
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: 92-116/ 6 Yard Dump Truck with Hoist
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertisement Dates:
Specifications Mailed To:
Replies:
BID TABULATION:
Atlantic Ford Sales
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Mike Shad Ford
Jacksonville, FL
Bartow Ford
Bartow, FL
Nichols Truck Body
Jacksonville, FL
Hull Chevrolet
Jacksonville, FL
Broward Truck
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Heintzelmen Ford
Orlando, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
August 5, 1992
July 13, 1992
Eighteen (18) Vendors
Seven (7) Vendors
TOTAL LUMP SUM
$29,832.00
$30,746.34
$31,016.00
$32,036.00
$32,811.00
$34,165.00
$35,204.00
$29,832.00
.SOURCE OP FUNDS: Petition Paving - Automotive
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
6
$38,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that all bids be rejected and award the
trucks to the new State Contract vendor, Gator Ford Truck
Sales. At the time of letting the bids, the State
contract was/`not available due to a bid protest. Since
then State Contract has made an award and the identical
trucks are less money than the lowest bid received.
LOWEST BID SUBMITTED: $29,832.00 (ATLANTIC FORD)
STATE CONTRACT PRICE: $29,202.97 (GATOR FORD)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously rejected
all bids and awarded Bid #92-116 for the 6 -Yard Dump
Truck with Hoist to the State Contract vendor, Gator
Ford Truck Sales, in the amount of $29,202.97, as
recommended by staff.
D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 039
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
August 6, 1992:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 6, 1992
SUBJECT: NUSCEL ANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 039
C014SENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. On June 23, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners approved a
request from the Sheriff to purchase special equipment in the
amount of $15,000. This is to allocate the funding.
2. At the budget workshop on July 22, 1992, the Sheriff offered to fund
the purchase of radar units from the Confiscated Property account.
This is to allocate the funding in the amount of $12,008.
3. Indian River County, acting as Project Sponsor's on behalf of the
Environmental Learning Center regarding FIND project agreement
IR -90-7, received a check for $35,924.40. Indian River County in
turn issued a check to ELC for the same amount.
4. The Board of County Commissioners approved paying the Mosquito
Control District $4,000.00 for spraying Fellsmere and Vero Lake
Estates.
7
AUG 19-92
5. The City of Vero Beach did not receive reimbursement from the
1990/91 Tourist Tax budget until the 1991/92 fiscal year. The
attached entry moves the $127,000 from the 1990/91 year to the
1991/92.
6. The roofs at the Fellsmere fire station and fire station # 3 need to
be replaced. This is to allocate the funding.
7. A change in Chapter 27 of the Florida State Statutues requires
counties to pay more expenses affiliated with the Public Defender
and State Attorney's office. Based on the change in the law the
State Attorney's office is requesting $16,671 and the Public Defender
$10,341.22. The attached entry transfers funds from General Fund
Contingency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment 039.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 039 as follows:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Entry
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 039
DATE: August 6. 1992
1. ' REVEWES
'SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT !
!Cash Forward 1112-000-389-040.001$ 15.000!$ 0
!EXPENSES
'SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
!Sheriff Law Enforcement '112-600-586 099.04'5 15,0001$ 0
2. 4R E8 i !
'
SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Cash Forward ! 1 7 2-nnn-iRG-ndn nn :&
SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
-- •�+. ac .a M1 auCill. 11L—OVV—AL1-066.49' 12 008' 0
1
3. 'REVERUES
'GENERAL FUND
!Other Physical Environment 1001-000-334-039.00 $ 35,9251S 0
1
11
!EXPENSES
'GENERAL FUND !
;Environmental Learning Center 1001-110-572-088.85!$ 35.92515 0
_ 8
s � �
'REVENUES !
'GENERAL FUND
i
!Reserve for Contingency
--1001-199-581-099.91
'EXPENSES
'
'GENERAL FUND
!
!I.R. Mos_cruito Control Board
1001-106-562-088.6811
1
5. 'REVENUES
i
! '
'TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND
i
'Cash Forward
'119-000-389-040.00'
1
'EXPENSES
i '
'TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND
! i
!City of Vero Beach
-&..-119-144-572-088.111
6. 'REVENUES
i '
'SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
4.
i
Reserve Contingencies
'114-120-522-099.91
i
'EXPENSES
i !
!SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
i 4.
i
,Roofinct
!114-120-522-041.21!
'REVENUES
! !
'NORTH COUNTY FIRE
! i
'Cash Forward
i
'
'115-104-581-099.92'
'EXPENSES
1
'NORTH COUNTY FIRE
,
IRoofinQ
1115-104-522-041.211-
7. 'EXPENSES
'GENERAL FUND
,
'State Attorney
i
'
,001-903 516 088.38!
i'Public Defender
'001-904-516-088.39' '
'Reserve Contin encies
i
'001-199-581-099.91'
_Explanation:
See attached agenda item dated August
6, 1992.
Budget Amendment: 039
Page 1 of 1
E. Pelican Lane Property Owners' Association
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
August 12, 1992:
9
199
6ODK
s
AUG 1 !
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJECT: Pelican Lane Property Owners Association -
.CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird�p
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Pelican Lane Property Owners Association has requested the
installation of one (1) light at the Pelican Lane Subdivision/
SRAlA entrance. The City of Vero Beach Engineering Department
has determined that one (1) 27,500 lumen H.P. S. streetlight will
be required.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the request for a streetlight, contingent upon completion of the
following procedure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Staff would bill Pelican Lane Property Owners Association
$144 in advance for the cost of one streetlight for a full
year.
Staff would draft a standard single streetlight agreement
between Pelican Lane Property Owners Association and Indian
River County.
Staff would add one (1) streetlight to the Master
Streetlight Agreement between Indian River County and the
City of Vero Beach.
By approval of this agenda item, the Board would authorize
the Chairman to sign the agreement between Indian River
County and Pelican Lane Property Owners Association.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the request from Pelican Lane Property Owners
Association for a streetlight contingent upon
completion of the procedures as set out in staffs
memo.
10
L�
F. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated August
11, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: August 11, 1992
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 8/25/92
'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
NORTH BEACH A -1-A WATER PROJECT in the name of:
GERMANA
2. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
ANITA PARK WATER PROJECT in the names of:
ELIA
CROCKETT
ESSLINGER
JACQUES (2)
3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
CITRUS GARDENS WATER PROJECT in the name of:
McCLURE
4. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
HEDDEN PLACE WATER PROJECT in the names of:
SMITH/WILDE
5. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
INDIAN RIVER BLVD. SEWER PROJECT in the name of:
SCHLITT
6. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
PHASE I WATER PROJECT in the names of:
MARTISE DIPASQUA
HARRIS CICCOLELLA
ROY
7. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of:
WAGNER
it
AUG I a 19.?
nn n , 'j", meq,
8. Release of Special Assessment Liens from
12TH STREET WATER PROJECT in the names of:
PERRY CAPPELLO
BONDOS NORMAN
KELLY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and -authorized the Chairman to execute -Ti -leases of
liens as listed above, as recommended by staff.
SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
G. Canceling Taxes on Right -of -Way Acquisition
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated August 6, 1992:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G�j -
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: August 6, 1992
_ RE: CANCELLING TAXES ON R/W ACQUISITION
In connection with a road improvement within the county, we have
acquired some land for right-of-way purposes. Pursuant to section
196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is allowed
to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property
acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done by
resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the
Tax Collector.
REQUESTED ACTION: Request Board authorize Chairman to sign and
forward a certified copy of the attached resolution cancelling certain
taxes upon lands the County recently acquired for right of way to the
Tax Collector.
12
ON MOTION by Commissioner 'Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the ,Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-145, canceling certain taxes upon
publicly owned lands, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_L45_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
196.29, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of
County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all
Hens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by -the county or the -
state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any
agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United
States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or
other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
s
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution,
proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered,
and directed to make DroDer entries upon the reenrdc to nnnmmniich c„nh
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
Hens for taxes delinquent or current against the following described lands,
which were acquired for right-of-way from Union Oil Co. of California dba
Unocal, are hereby cancelled pursuant to the authority of section 196.28,
F. S.
See attached Warranty Deed describing lands,
reeorded in O.R. Book --925, Page 2116, Public Y
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner _Srurl ork ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner _Bird , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
District 4 Commission Seat Vacant
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18 day of _August , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
13 By *�
Carolyn' . Egger�,hairman
U
p��, � F. 9 ��aI
AU6 II 8 1992 — F r
BOOK
H. Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Recommendation for Bond
Issue
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated August 11, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
RA�
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: August 11, 1992 _
RE: LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION FOR BOND ISSUE
At the request of the LAAC Committee I have prepared the attached
bond resolution which calls for a referendum to be held November 3,
1992, on the question whether Indian River County should be
authorized to issue $26,000,000 in general obligation bonds to acquire
environmentally significant lands.
The resolution has been reviewed by Chuck Sieck, our bond counsel,
and it was his suggestion that the language as approved by the LAAC
Committee be modified slightly as follows:
1) The words limiting the term of the bonds to "approximately 15
years" were changed to "not 'to exceed 20 years" because the
extra years might be important in structuring the bond to
keep below 1/2 mill annual debt service.
2) The language concerning the 1/2 mill maximum tax levy to
support the bonds had to be changed to say 1/2 mill "at
issuance" to cover the unlikely but possible situation where
the County's taxable values would decrease to such an extent
that the millage rate would have to exceed 1/2 mill to cover
the bond debt. Without this provision Mr. Sieck felt that the
bonds would not be general obligation bonds and thus would
be difficult to sell. In the most likely event, when the bonds
are structured in the year of issuance so that the first debt
service payment would be 1/2 mill or less, the millage rate
necessary to service the bonds in the future would decrease
each year as the tax value of the County rises.
The attached resolution is in proper form for adoption by the Board
and if adopted would call for a bond referendum to be held November
3, 1992.
Commissioner Bird announced that his real estate office
represents a land owner whose land is being considered as a
possible purchase if the Land Acquisition issue is passed;
therefore,he declared a conflict of interest and left the Chamber.
14
MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FORM 8B
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the recommendation of
the bond counsel to change the term of the bonds from 15 years to
20 years, as well as a change concerning the 1/2 mill. Chairman
Eggert read the suggested wording as follows:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Bond Referendum
Environmental/Natural Lands Acquisition
November 3, 1992
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 EXCEEDING
$26,000,000 TO BE REPAID IN NOT -TO -EXCEED 20 YEARS
AND STRUCTURED SO THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE THE
RATE NECESSARY TO FUND THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL PAYMENTS
ON THE BONDS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/2 MILL.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that the County's
bond counsel, Chuck Sieck of Rhoads & Sinon, recommended changes in
the ballot form. The language, "structured so that at the time of
issuance the rate necessary to fund the maximum annual payments on
the bonds shall not exceed 1/2 mill," is necessary because we
cannot limit the.millage to 1/2 mill forever. It depends on the
tax value in the County. The inclusion of "not -to -exceed 20 years"
would satisfy our bond counsel and would protect the County in the
unlikely event that our tax values decreased.
Chairman Eggert emphasized that the majority of the members of
the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee felt 15 years seemed a more
appropriate lenge-of time.- Sher was not sure whether -it makes a
lot of difference.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that the language in the
ballot form may be confusing. We are validating $26 million,
changing the limit of the bond from 15 to 20 years and talking
about 1/2 mill. He felt that this is going to be a difficult issue
to present to the voters because the economy is not strong, and any
uncertainty in the language may cause individuals who normally
would support the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land to
vote against it. Although $26 million is what we wish to validate,
we must have the flexibility to issue these bonds in series with
structuring to avoid the need to exceed 1/2 mill. It should be
clearly stated that we will use the mechanisms of our Comp Plan,
F4i
1992 BOOK � d� �a.'�,t•.���
AUG ;1, Irq,'I?-
BOOK �i�" FA(E o =y
�jU
l
such as developers agreements and conservation easements, to
protect environmentally sensitive lands, which means we will not
need to spend $26 million, and that we can acquire what we need to
acquire for less. That is our goal. Commissioner Scurlock felt
the recommended change in the language of the ballot form could be
confusing to voters who are not familiar with the mechanism of
issuing bonds.
Chairman Eggert agreed that the changes are confusing and
preferred to keep the original language of the ballot form.
OMB Director Joe Baird stated that the bond counsel advised
that we cannot use the word "approximately," which was suggested
when we thought the length of the bond possibly'could go 16 or 17
years. We must use the phrase "not to exceed" in the resolution.
Director Baird stated that our bond counsel cited cases in other
counties where the tax rolls devalued and he felt the "not to
exceed 20 years" would protect the County if our growth did not
meet expectations. It also would make our document viable in the
bond market.
Chairman Eggert recalled that the library bond did not have
that language, and Attorney Vitunac explained that the library bond
was limited to 1/2 mill and the length was 30 years but OMB
Director Baird structured it, with the Board's approval, at
payments for 5 years instead of 30 years.
John Orcutt, member of the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
(LAAC), stated that it is not the intent of the LAAO Board to go
out and issue $26 million worth of bonds. However, we must have
some money available in order to get state matching funds. Mr.
Orcutt cited the example of state money that is going toward Archie
Carr purchases in Brevard County because they have matching funds.
He suggested that we should stay with the term of 15 years and
perhaps reduce the amount to $22 or $23 million.
OMB Director Baird felt we could keep the figure of $26
million with the understanding that if we could not issue bonds for
1/2 mill, we would not pursue it.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed we should only issue debt that we
can service.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the language of the
resolution is more complete than the language in the bond
referendum form, and the resolution says we are obligated to issue
one or more series; we do not have to issue $26 million at once.
Commissioner Scurlock thought that it is important to inform
the public that if the economy gets worse, the Board will have the
discretion not to issue additional debt and will keep things under
control. This will not be a carte blanche for $26 million.
16
M M
Chairman Eggert added that there will be public hearings
before bonds are issued.
Bill Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, thought that the wisest
thing the Board could do would be to take this item off the agenda.
He had grave doubts about having a pool of money with no control
over how wisely it will be spent. He felt that property will be
purchased just because money is available, and urged further study
on the basis that taxpayers will have to buy it. Mr. Koolage
assured the Board he will oppose this issue because it is a pig in
a poke.
Robert Schoen, Vice Mayor of Indian River Shores and former
investment banker who earned his livelihood by issuing debt and who
is familiar with the bond market, felt the debate over this
language is inconsequential. These are merely technical changes
and have nothing to do with the substance of what the LAAC Board
has been dealing with for almost two years. It does not change
anything.
In response to Mr. Koolage's comments, Mr. Schoen reported
that a survey of the residents of Indian River Shores indicated
that 78% of them are in favor of spending taxpayers' money to
acquire environmentally sensitive land. There are strong feelings
in the community to proceed with this project and an effort is
under way to use private funds to sell this idea to the public.
Mr. Schoen stated that the Commission does not have to put itself
in the position to make the final decision but should allow the
citizens to decide whether they want to authorize the $26 million
bond issue.
Chairman Eggert thought that the ongoing discussion pointed
out the need to educate the voters, who will make the decision on
this issue.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that, as elected public
officials, the Beard has the responsibility to come- up with a
program that can be understood by the public.
Pat Brown, member of the LAAC Board for about a year, has
attended the meetings for approximately two years and wanted to
assure Mr. Koolage that a great deal of planning and study has gone
into the proposal. There is a manual that guides the action of the
LAAC Board which is very specific about the criteria to be followed
in selecting the lands that will be acquired. It is specific in
its overlay about the management of those lands subsequent to
acquisition, and there is a list that has evolved from the
application of the criteria to the initial list of lands. Ms.
Brown stressed that the committee is not homogenous, it is a cross
section of this county and there are many interests represented.
17
A UBOOKS
J
BOOK E
She was sure that the LAAC Board's final decision will hold up when
it is presented to the community because those same components of
the community are represented on the committee. Ms. Brown thought
it was unfortunate that all the work of the first entire year of
the committee was not presented in the newspaper in terms of
criteria. The newspaper reported that there was a plan to
prioritize the list, or that the list was not prioritized. Ms.
Brown stressed that the object of that first year's work was to
decide how the list would be prioritized, and the document which
was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners represents how we
propose to do that. Ms. Brown felt the entire community should
know more about the process; then they will ham more confidence
that this is not a pig -in -the -poke.
Commissioner Bowman asked what alternative language would be
appropriate to follow 1120 years."
Commissioner Scurlock thought that "not to exceed $26 million"
was appropriate because that does not say we are required to spend
that amount, but that it is potentially available. He felt that
retaining the length of 15 years would make the Board responsible
not to issue debt in excess of what the millage would support. He
felt the rest of the language was acceptable.
Commissioner Bowman mentioned the sums that Brevard and Martin
Counties received from the Preservation 2000 Fund and stressed the
importance of having something we can offer to the CARL committee
when it meets in December, because we are not getting our fair
share of the Preservation 2000 Fund.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0,
Commissioner Bird abstaining because of a conflict
of interest and District #4 Commission Seat Vacant)
adopted Resolution No. 92-146 authorizing the
issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Notes of
Indian River County, Florida as follows:
18
r
a
RESOLUTION NO. 92-146
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OR NOTES OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN ONE OR
MORE SERIES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED
$26s0009000 TO FINANCE THE COST OF ACQUIRING
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND TO
PROTECT WATER QUALITY, OPEN SPACES, AND
WILDLIFE HABITAT; CALLING FOR AND
PROVIDING FOR A BOND REFERENDUM OF THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE COUNTY
TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1992, ON THE
QUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS OR NOTES; AND PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN MATTERS WITH RESPECT THERETO
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION
This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 125.01, Florida Statutes,
Chapter 100, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS
Subject and pursuant to the provisions hereof, general obligation bonds
or notes (herein "bonds") of the County of Indian River, Florida (herein
"County") are authorized to be issued in one or more series in the aggregate
principal amount not -to -exceed twenty-six million dollars to finance the cost
of acquisition of environmentally significant land to protect water quality,
open spaces, and wildlife habitat; together with other purposes necessary,
appurtenant, or incidental thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the
bonds. Such bonds shall be payable from ad valorem taxes levied without
limitation as to rate or amount on all taxable property in the County and
shall be structured in such a manner that at the time of issuance the millage
rate required to make the maximum annual payments shall not exceed 1/2
mill. Such bonds shall bear interest at the rate or rates not exceeding the
maximum rate permitted by applicable law at the time of the sale of the
bonds, to be determined upon sale of the bonds. None of the bonds shall
be issued for a term longer than 15 years from their date of issuance.
19
AUG 1M2 BOOK
AUC
RESOLUTION NO. 92-146
SECTION 3. BOND REFERENDUM
A bond referendum of the qualified electors residing in the County is
hereby called to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, to determine
whether or not the issuance of such bonds in one or more series in an
aggregate principal amount not -to -exceed twenty-six million dollars shall be
approved by such qualified electors to finance the cost of acquisition of
environmentally significant land to protect water quaL130, open spaces, and
wildlife habitat, together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant, or
incidental thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the bonds.
All qualified electors residing in the County shall be entitled and
permitted to vote in such bond referendum. The places of voting and the
inspectors and clerks for the bond referendum shall be the same as those
places designated and those persons appointed by . the Supervisor of
Elections for the general election to be held in the County on the same date.
The polls will be open at the voting places form 7:00 a. m. until 7:00 p.m.
on said day.
SECTION 4. OFFICIAL BALLOT
County election equipment shall be used at such bond referendum and
the ballot to be used shall be in substantially the following form:
OFFICIAL BALLOT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Bond Referendum
Environmental/Natural Lands Acquisition
November 3, 1992
SHALL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO
ACQUIRE ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND TO
PROTECT WATER QUALITY, OPEN SPACES, AND WILD-
LIFE HABITAT, BY ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS NOT EXCEEDING $26, 000, 000 TO BE REPAID IN
NOT -TO -EXCEED 15 YEARS AND STRUCTURED SO
THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE THE RATE
NECESSARY TO FUND THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL
PAYMENTS ON THE BONDS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/2
MILL?
For the Bonds
Against the Bonds
20
- M M
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 146
SECTION 5. ABSENTEE VOTING
Absentee voting shall be permitted in such bond referendum.
SECTION 6. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
The Supervisor of Elections of the County is authorized and directed to
make all arrangements for the conducting of such bond referendum.
SECTION 7. REFERENDUM PROCEDURE
The bond referendum shall be held and conducted- in the manner
prescribed by general law for holding bond referenda.
SECTION 8. ELECTION RESULTS
If a majority of the votes cast at such bond referendum shall be for the
issuance of such bonds, the issuance of such bonds shall be approved and
then such bonds may be issued as hereafter provided by the County.
SECTION 9. NOTICE OF BOND REFERENDUM
This resolution shall be published in full by the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners as part of the notice of such bond referendum;
together with a caption in such form as he shall determine, in a newspaper
published in and of general circulation in the County, at least twice, once in
the fifth week and once in the third week prior to the week in which the
bond referendum is to be held, the first publication to be not less than
thirty days prior to the date of such bond referendum.
SECTION 10. VERABILITY = "
In the event that any word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph
hereof shall be held invalid by any court of any competent jurisdiction, such
holding shall not affect any other word, clause, phrase, sentence, or
paragraph hereof .
SECTION 11. REPEALING CLAUSE
All resolutions in conflict or inconsistent therewith hereby are repealed,
insofar as there is a conflict or inconsistency.
21
900K
6` 1� FN��E J.l 11
"
G=' BOOK 8'1' P.A lIA "Jil
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 146
SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
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 _fie'``
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Abstained
District #4 Commission Seat Vacant
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18 day of August , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Car?pkn K. Eyir
Chairman
(Commissioner Bird returned to the Chamber.)
I. Access Easements to Dependable Dodge and Home & Patio Inc.
The Board reviewed memo from Deputy County Attorney William G.
Collins II dated August 7, 1992:
W,
� � r
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: L4rC� William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
i'
DATE: August 7, 1992
SUBJECT: Access Easements to Dependable Dodge and Home & Patio,
Inc.
In the fall of 1991, the County was in the process of acquiring an access
strip 35' wide x 300' long between what was at that time The Clock
Restaurant and the Home & Patio, Inc. property. This strip of land was
subsequently acquired from the Estate of Grace LaCava. At the time this
matter was discussed by the Board, Mr. Mooney of Home & Patio, Inc.
appeared before the Board pointing out that they had utilized "14th Street"
as access for ingress/egress to his business for a number of years, and
wanted assurances that the County would continue to allow him that access.
I had recommended last fall that the County prepare non-exclusive
ingress/egress easements so that the businesses could legally access their
property. Such easements are attached for Board approval, reserving to the
County the right to control points of access to the ingress/egress strip from
the businesses and reserving the right to open up the access strip as a
through street in the event we are able to acquire necessary right-of-way
north of Southgate Mobile Home Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached ingress/egress access
easements for Dependable Dodge of Vero Beach, Inc. and Home & Patio, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute Grants of
Easements to Dependable Dodge of Vero Beach, Inc., a
Florida corporation, and to Home & Patio, Inc., a
Florida c rporation, as recommended by staff. ---
COPIES OF SAID EASEMENTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
J. Schedule Public Hearing to Consider Adopting an ORDINANCE OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA CREATING THE WALKER'S GLEN STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT UNIT TWO
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O"Brien dated August 6, 1992:
23
AUG 187 T92 BOOK
AUS ls_ rQ
BOOK d FIAAIu- E
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
foo
DATE: August 6, 1992
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CREATING THE WALKER'S GLEN STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT UNIT TWO.
A public hearing date of September 8, 1992 is suggested for the subject
ordinance.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously scheduled a
public hearing on September 8, 1992 to consider
adoption of an ordinance creating the Walker's Glen
Street Lighting District Unit Two, as recommended by
staff.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UALITY FRUXT PACKERS' REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL
TO EXPAND AN EXISTING PACKING HOUSE
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:
24
i
VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURNA a X �o�'L o - - ---- ------
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Flo
T
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA 4 a t h g T Subject Site
i
� l
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. w�io on oath i
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
/$
In the matter of t.Ut/-a/i% ' CHits
, I
in fife.RM�--10-- r .
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues ofQJYJ1W 02- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
dal e� tion hewing to consider the granting of spe-
approvel to expand an existing htdt
Pac6ity. T1x� sub p,°pe,ty
owner OuaRy Fruit Packers of Irnflan Rhea ,
located at 4425 U.S. Fpghway #1. Bea the above
map for the location.
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at A putdic heartrxt at which paw in Interest �
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
citizens snap 8*8n op�oda,rt�tty to be heard, wm
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been Indian ho by verthe mCounty.rd o1 Coun X19 iorars °f
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach• in said Indian River Coun- sion Chambers Of theO County
In the County "
CourHy Adrnhstratlon Bupd-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of t �e'��t deet 19840 25th Street Vero Beach, Flor.
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm Anyone who August h to a , at 985 ede
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this which may be made at q �jt;. wmernneed dets�
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper, sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is $
made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based. 1
Sworn to and subscribed be ore rge this day of A.D. 19 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
/� . Board of County Commisgb rs }.'+
�- x BY-sChairman
�+ " ' ' 1 , July 29, 1992' 920934 i
Usiness Manager)
J ,u/
{SEAL)
1*4my albq., ".t-" of r4xido
My Commiom r :'•as An* 29, 1M sol
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the
following memo dated August 10, 1992:
25
H 8 1992
6)r
r
Ui BOOK i d PAVE • �@.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Re ti , AI
Community Dei el pment ff.ector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison�"-
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: August 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Quality Fruit Packers' Request for Special Exception Use
Approval to Expand an Existing Packing House
SP -MA -92-09-037
#92020050-002
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 18, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Peterson and Votapka, Inc., on behalf of Quality Fruit Packers of
Indian River, has submitted a major site plan and special exception
use application to expand an existing packing house located at 4425
U.S. Highway #1. The subject site is located within the CH (Heavy
Commercial) zoning district. The CH zoning district requirements
and the requirements of Section 971 of the Land Development
Regulations require special exception use approval for the
expansion of packing houses located in the CH zoning district.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners. is to now consider the appropriateness of the
requested use for the subject site and surrounding area. Special
exception uses are those types of uses that would not generally be
appropriate throughout a particular zoning district. However, when
special exception uses are carefully controlled as to number, area,
location, and/or relationship to the vicinity, such uses would not
adversely impact the public health, safety, comfort, good order,
appearance, convenience, morals and general welfare and as such
would be compatible with permitted uses within the particular
zoning district. In granting any special exception, the Board may
prescribe appropriate special conditions and safeguards to ensure
that the use is compatible with surrounding uses in the district.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this request at its
regular meeting on August 13, 1992, At that time, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the special exception request. The Planning
and Zoning Commission also voted to approve the major site plan
associated with the project on the condition that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the special exception request.
26
W
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Property (Development Area):
3.37 acres or 146,797 sq.ft.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Zoning Classification:
Land Use Designation:
Building Area:
Existing:
CH, Heavy Commercial
Commercial/Industrial Node
23,176.4 sq.ft.
Proposed: Phase I 5,220.0 sq.ft.*
Phase II 1,140.0 scr. ft. *
TOTAL 29,536.4 sq.ft. or 20% of
the development area
*Phase I is an addition to the packing house; Phase II is an
addition to the degreening rooms.
Impervious Area:
Existing: 95,619.6 sq.ft.
Proposed: Phase I 6,569.8 sq.ft.
Phase II 0.0 sq.ft.
TOTAL: 102,189.4 sq.ft. or 69.6% of
the development area
Open Space:
Required: 29,359.4 or 20% of the development area
Provided: 44,607.6 or 30.4% of the development area
7. Traffic Circulation: The site will be accessed from Old Dixie
Highway via a single one-way drive and from U.S. Highway #1 by
a combination of one-way and two-way driveways. The designs
for the driveway connections have been approved by the Public
Works Department; however, it should be noted that the
applicant will be required to obtain a Florida Department of
Transportation Driveway Connection Permit for the U.S. Highway
#1 driveways prior to release of the site plan.
8. Off -Street Parking:
Automobile:
Required: 19,000 sq.ft.
(building area generating parking demand)
@ 1 space/500 sq.ft. 38 spaces
It should be noted that certain areas of packinghouse
facilities, such as wash -down areas and separate degreening
bins/rooms, are not assessed for parking since such areas are
not deemed to generate a parking demand under the county's
parking standards.
Provided: Standard size, paved 26
Standard size, non -paved ll*
Compact 0
Handicapped 2
TOTAL 38
27
AUG `- 8 M2 BOOK ti r' f-A6L...L
AUG j8 Iqn°
9.
h`) �_ � Fac
BOOK I f'�, �� 9 .
*LDR Section 954-05(45) allows for a maximum of 30% of the
required automobile parking spaces for a packinghouse to be
un -paved, stabilized parking spaces. The applicant has
elected to use this non -paving option for 11 parking spaces or
29% of the total number of spaces required.
Tractor Trailer/Truck:
Required: 19,000 sq.ft. 10 spaces
@ 1 space/2,000 sq.ft.
Provided: Standard 10 spaces
Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department, and Public Works
has indicated that a Type "A" Stormwater Permit will be
issued.
10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Land Development Regulations (LDR) Chapter 926, Landscape and
Buffer Requirements.
11. Utilities: The project will utilize public water and
wastewater service. Both the County Utilities Department and
the Environmental Health Department have approved utilizing
these services.
12. Required Improvements: Pursuant to LDR Section 911.10(6), the
applicant may be required to provide bikeways, sidewalks and
streetlights in relation to the project. The applicant must
provide for the following in relation to this project:
a. Bikeway: The applicant is not required to provide a
bikeway by the County's Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan.
b. Sidewalk: The applicant is required to provide 5' wide
public sidewalks along the project site's Old Dixie
Highway and U.S. Highway #1 frontages. The required
sidewalks have been depicted on the site plan, and are to
be provided as part of the project.
C. Streetlights: The applicant is required to provide
streetlighting. The applicant has agreed to provide
streetlighting which will illuminate the project's Old
Dixie Highway/driveway and U.S. Highway #1/driveway
intersections.
13. Thoroughfare Plan:
C Old Dixie Highway:
The County's Thoroughfare Plan designates Old Dixie Highway as
a collector roadway with a minimum required right-of-way width
Of 80'. Currently, a 66' wide right-of-way exists for Old
Dixie Highway. However, the Public Works Department has
elected not to purchase additional right-of-way for Old Dixie
Highway at this time. A small portion of a stormwater tract
has been proposed to be located within the 80' 'ultimate right-
of-way area. However, no other improvements have been
proposed to be located within the Old Dixie Highway ultimate
right-of-way area.
28
r
C U.S. Highway #1:
The County's Thoroughfare Plan designates U.S. Highway #1 as
an Urban Principal Arterial with a minimum required right-of-
way width of 160'. Currently, a 120' wide right-of-way exists
for U.S. Highway #1. However, the Public Works Department has
elected not to purchase additional right-of-way for U.S.
Highway #1 at this time. Some portions of driveway, parking,
stormwater, and landscaping improvements are proposed to be
located in the 160' ultimate right-of-way area. However, it
should be noted that the currently existing packing house is
located within the bounds of the ultimate right-of-way area
while the proposed building additions will be located outside
the bounds of the ultimate right-of-way area.
14. Environmental Issues: Since the subject site is less than
five acres in size, the applicant is not required to comply
with the county's upland preservation regulations. No other
special county environmental regulations apply to this
project.
15. Concurrency Management: Long -Range Planning staff indicates
that an Initial Concurrency Certificate will be issued for the
project prior to the Board of County Commissioner's
consideration of this item.
16. Specific Land Use Criteria: Fruit and vegetable packing
houses in the CH, Heavy Commercial Zoning District
[971.26(1)(d)]:
a. The internal circulation system shall be designed in such
a manner that it will not require trucks to back into the
facility from any public right-of-way;
b. Retail sale of fruit and vegetables shall be allowed only
when accessory to a packing house only with a CG
district;
c. No off-street parking or loading area shall be located
within fifty (50) feet of a property line abutting a
residentially designated property;
d. Type "C" screening and buffering shall be required along
all boundaries abutting a zoning district other the IL,
IG, or CH.
The proposed packing house facility expansion will comply with
all of the, listed specific land use criteria. A Type "C"
Buffer, depicted on the project's landscaping plan, will be
Provided al-org-the south property line where the -site abuts a
CG, General Commercial zoned strip center.
17. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning:
North: vacant/CH, Heavy Commercial;
Southwest: packing house/CH, Heavy Commercial
Southeast: strip center/CG, General Commercial
East: U.S. Highway #1; specialty contractors /CHI
Heavy Commercial
West: packing house/CH, Heavy Commercial; Old Dixie
Highway; FEC Railroad
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
special exception use approval for the packing house expansion.
29
AUG 1 , 1992 -
BOOK
AUG BOOK �rJ FA,,E
Subject Site
c
N
2
�LL
� Z
SCG
Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the availability of
right-of-way for possible future expansion of Old Dixie Highway.
Director Keating explained that normal County policy is to
require right-of-way from each side of an existing roadway.
However, with the railroad on one side, that requirement is
precluded in this situation. Where there is a right-of-way
deficiency, the Public Works Department evaluates the site, reviews
our Capital Improvements Plan, and looks at the improvements that
are programmed by the applicant to determine whether it would be an
efficient use of County traffic funds to purchase the right-of-way.
Public Works felt that it was not in the best interest of the
County to purchase the right-of-way at this time because we do not
require right-of-way dedication if we already have the minimum 60
feet. In this case we have 66 feet. Additionally, the applicant
30
M M i
is not putting. in any major improvements which would adversely
affect future widening of the roadway. In the potential right-of-
way there will be a portion of the stormwater tract as well as a
driveway.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the stormwater
management because this is a wet area.
County Engineer Roger Cain agreed there is a problem with
stormwater management, and he assured the Board that staff is
working on plans to try to rectify the situation. The packing
house project will improve the overall situation. It is not the
total answer, but it will improve the site so that there will be
less runoff from the property than is occurring now.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
special exception use approval for expansion of
Quality Fruit Packers' packing house, as recommended
by staff.
GLENDALE LAKES 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:
31
AUG I-�" �ooK �;V
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
I
C
in the matter of _ ®
PUBLIC HEARING. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WATER SERVICE - GLENDALE LAKES
SUBDIVISION stoners of Indian
The Board of County Commis�o�d•A5 A.M.otice of
River County. Florida. hereby on
to 9
PUBLIC HEARING scheduled �oosed
Tuesday, August 1S, 1992, F discus a pr M
ating to a SPECIAL ASSESS ENT
in the Court, was pub-
resoluti�
PROJECT in Indian River Cou%tyfor the Installation
of WATER SERVICE IN GLEN ALE LAKES SUI
ofhi th to 10th
n
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
DNISION (North
assetreet
ssment liens o betlm�
providing o sped to be served'
ofreco onCyt ro�A0�a1anyser decision which
'
Anymaypee made at this mee*q `gig need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
testimony and evidence upon which
which Includes
ug 4. 920494
1992
Julappeal Is based. y 28, Aug.
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, that
and 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
day of A.D. 19
(Busrness Managbr)
(SEAL)
*JMFY PWIC, S1 9 of Fkgft%
MY C1i<tuttir,Qicet Expiros hta j 29. 1991
eon
Assessment Projects Manager James Chastain made the following
presentation:
32
DATE: JULY 28, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
/DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST (I
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS S NT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF ITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: GLENDALE LAKES WATER SERVICE PROJECT RESOLUTION III
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -11 -DS
BACKGROUND
On July 21, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution I (92-106) and Resolution II
(92-107). 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
(92-106) was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on July 27,
1992. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.)
A letter has been received objecting to the assessment amount, a
copy of which is attached.
ANALYSIS
Design of the water distribution system is complete. An
informational meeting was held with the property owners on July 28,
1992. The project will serve 66 platted and 6 non -platted parcels.
With the exception of 5 platted lots slightly exceeding .50 acres,
the remaining 61 platted lots (92%,) in this project are substandard
or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive
Plan and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental
Health. New lots utilizing well and septic systems must be a
minimum of one-half acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum
standards are called "undersized lots." Approval of the attached
Resolution III wftl' 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 $176,219.75,
and this equates to a cost per square foot of $0.134863. 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 affir~s
the preliminary assessment on the subject project.
33
BOOK
d W2
AUG 8 IT)-?
LOtb tw GUN 1,AK 4AM.3
M �iw e"MyWNW& rsWS7
G�ENDALE :L.gjCFs,
BOOK I FACE
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
34
Fred T. Gallagher, owner of property on the north side of 10th
Street, made the following presentation:
July 27, 1992
Mr. James D. Chastain
Manager of Assessment Projects
Department of Utility Services
1840 25th Street"
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Preliminary Assessment - Glendale Lakes Subdivision
Water. -Service Project No. UW -92 -11 -DS
Dear Dan:*
I have just received your certified letter of July 21, 1992,
in reference to the above. Both myself and my two neighbors
were totally unaware that this project -*was planned, which I
understand was the result of a Petition from the property owners
in Glendale Lakes Subdivision. Neither myself nor my neighbors
were given an 'opportunity to express our wishes one way or
another concerning this project.
I was shocked .at the estimated preliminary assessment to be
levied against. my property in the amount of $11,749.26. I
believe that the manner in which this assessment has been cal-
culated is totally arbitrary, patently unfair and is actually
confiscatory. •.There is no way in which this project could
enhance the value of my property anywhere near this amount.
Under no stretch of the imagination will the benefits come
anywhere near this figure.
As I stated to' you earlier, of, the four -acre parcel that I
own, I am using approximately one-half of an acre for resi-
dential purposes and the balance is` a fenced horse pasture.
I note from the assessment formula that the parcel abutting
mine immediately to the east, being approximately 17 acres,
will be assessed only about $13,850.00, or on the basis of
2.36 acres, and that the" 18 -acre tract abutting that parcel
to the east will only be assessed $10,700.00, or on the basis
of a 1.83-acre*parcel. In comparison, my 4 -acre parcel is
being taxed as a 2 -acre parcel, or one-half of'its size, which
is completely unrealistic and patently unfair. Why wasn't
this 150 -foot depth approach used? The County's method is
using a depth qkv--at least- 225 -feet. By copy - of this letter
to both the Director of Utilities and the County Attorney,
I am requesting that my assessment be immediately reviewed
and adjusted so as to conform with the other -assessments for
this project.
I will be happy'to meet with the parties involved in this
project, but if an adjustment is not made and the matter is
adopted as currently proposed by the County following their
public hearing on August 18th, I will definitely challenge
this assessment and seek a judicial review. To that end, I
would appreciate being advised what administrative rights I
have as a taxpayer, so that I can exhaust all administrative
remedies that -are afforded.
Your prompt attention to this matter is respectfully requested.
Sincer y,
35
Fre T. Gallagher
A � " 1992 bOOK r PA�k 04� 1
; w 'Jq2
A114- I
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Gallagher wished to be left out
totally, or if he objected to the formula used in calculating his
assessment.
Mr. Gallagher preferred to be excluded because he was given no
notice, his property was not a substandard lot, and he was not part
of Glendale Lakes Subdivision. If he could not be excluded, he
asked the Commissioners, sitting as the Equalizing Board, to make
an adjustment on the assessment to bring it in line with the
alleged benefits he would receive by having the water line in front
of his property.
Commissioner Bird asked, and Mr. -Gallagher confirmed that he
has a single-family home and the major portion --of the property is
fenced for horse pasture. He also stated that he has no plans to
subdivide his property.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto advised that Mr.
Gallagher would not agree to a restrictive clause in his deed which
would stand in perpetuity.
Mr. Gallagher responded that he would agree not to subdivide
but would never include language with "forever" in his deed. He
thought it is not logical to subdivide because of the way the
parcel is shaped.
Commissioner Bird asked whether the water line in front of Mr.
Gallagher's property could be eliminated from this project.
Director Pinto explained that we are always going to have
streets with one type of development on one side of the street and
another type on the other side. If Mr. Gallagher did not pay his
portion of the cost, it would not reduce the total cost of the
system, and his portion of the cost would be rolled over and
divided among the other users within the system. Director Pinto
-would not recommend excluding Mr. Gallagher unless his portion of
the cost would be paid for from general funds or elsewhere. He
further explained that while Mr. Gallagher has 3.9 acres, we are
assessing only 2 acres because of the unusual shape of his
property. If the assessment were based on zoning units, Mr.
Gallagher would be assessed $5,000 more than the calculation using
square footage. Director Pinto pointed out that if Mr. Gallagher
had a deed restriction that nothing can ever be built except that
one home, then he would receive the same benefit as the smaller
lots; but he refuses to do that.
Commissioner Bird asked whether we could design a system that
would satisfy the needs of the Glendale Lakes Subdivision, exclude
Mr. Gallagher and the other properties on that side of 10th Street,
and if Mr. Gallagher decides at some point in the future that he
36
wants to subdivide he would have to pay a premium at that time to
bring in water lines.
Director Pinto strongly recommended against designing systems
that would leave out certain streets or certain looped lines simply
because there happened to be an area that is not developed. He
felt that if an assessment is done fairly and everyone is charged
equitably, they all get the same benefit or potential benefit from
the project.
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether the master plan included
looped areas within the overall area that are small enough to allow
some flexibility.
Director Pinto advised that there is a larger assessment
project and Glendale Lakes Subdivision is a part of that larger
project. The property owners of Glendale Lakes Subdivision
petitioned for water as soon as possible and that is why this
portion of the system is being addressed now. Director Pinto
indicated the location of Mr. Gallagher's property on the enlarged
map and stated that the water line in front of this property must
be built. He suggested that if the Board did not want to charge
Mr. Gallagher, the Board should either pay for it or assess it to
the rest of the people, but that line could not be excluded from
the system.
Discussion ensued regarding the various methods used in
calculating the assessments.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the Commission, sitting
as the Equalizing. Board, could give relief only if Mr. Gallagher's
situation were unique, which perhaps could be the unusual shape of
his property. On the other hand, it could be subdivided since it
is grandfathered in.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac confirmed that he and Mr.
Gallagher had a discussion with Current Development Staff Planner
John McCoy and Bo=nd out that Mr: Gallagher could put3 units on
the front 2 acres of the property, excluding the back 2 acres.
Mr. Gallagher thought the assessment as calculated is
confiscatory and if he must be included in the assessment, he would
like it adjusted downward.
William A. Barman, representing his elderly mother, Elizabeth
A. Earman of 4550 8th Street, came before the Board and recounted
the history of the property ownership. He estimated that the
property is 58% in grove, 15% in home and lawn, and has lakes and
undevelopable area. He said that they would be willing to put in
writing that they would never subdivide and that if they ever sold
the property that writing would be attached to the sale of the
property. He stated that they have no desire for county water
37
AUG 18 N92 BOOK �'`
BOOK d FHGE
because they recently had their wells tested and they are free of
bacteria and pollutants. One of the wells is the source of water
for the large lake with outfall from that lake to the canal on 8th
Street. That outfall prevents stagnation in the canal, and when
the culvert needs replacement, the Earmans will probably do it at
their expense. Mr. Earman asked for time to discuss these matters
with staff and study the assessment to determine whether they need
legal counsel.
Director Pinto explained that when an assessment is
calculated, if there is undevelopable ground, and by eliminating
that undevelopable ground from the assessment area the density from
that undevelopable ground cannot be transferr'!W to a piece of
ground that can be developed, then we eliminate that undevelopable
ground from the assessment. However, if a piece of ground has a
lake on it and the owners go to Planning & Zoning and they say the
units from the undevelopable area can be transferred to the
developable piece of ground, then they get the full benefit and
will be assessed accordingly. Mr. Pinto was not familiar with all
of the Earman property, but he stated that if there is some portion
that has been put into a buffer that cannot ever be developed, then
that portion should be excluded from the assessment.
Mr. Earman stated that the lake is obviously undevelopable;
the lake along with the grove, which will be there for 25 years,
represent the major portion of the property. He added that they
have no problem with paying for water for the homestead because
they would like to have the water and would be glad to shut down
the well and use county water. They object to using the entire
parcel in calculating the assessment.
Discussion ensued regarding the Earman property, the lakes and
undevelopable areas, and Mr. Earman requested a delay of 30 days in
which time he could discuss the possibility of a deed restriction
with his mother and brother and sister, get assistance of legal
counsel, and have a conference with staff to see what effect that
would have on the property.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Director Pinto did not want to delay the project because the
petition from Glendale Lakes Subdivision was to get the project
moving faster than normal.
Chairman Eggert suggested deferring a decision to the Regular
Meeting on September 1, 1992.
38
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether the Board could approve
the assessment roll, with the exception of the Earman property and,
sitting as the Equalizing Board, make a determination at a later
time.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board could approve the
assessment roll subject to having a hearing on September 1. In the
meantime, if Mr. Earman changes his mind tomorrow, then it is done.
Commissioner Bird preferred to wait two weeks for approval on
the assessment roll because he wanted to think about Mr.
Gallagher's request also.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to delay approval of the
assessment roll until the September 1, 1992 Regular
Meeting to give Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Earman time to
react to some of the items that were brought up
today and to consider their options, and the Board
would address those matters at that time.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock felt, and Chairman
Eggert agreed that the only decision to be made is whether there is
unusable property, either because of a deed restriction or other
decision, in which case they would get a reduction in their
assessment.
Director Pinto pointed out that the only consequence would be
that their assessment might be decreased, in which case we would
have to increase everyone else's assessments. It is merely a
distribution of the total cost.
Commissioner Bird requested that staff recalculate the cost,
excluding the properties on the north side of 10th Street, and
report those figures at the September 1 meeting. --
Director Pinto pointed out that it would be a matter of
deleting $18,000 plus $11,000 from a total project of $126,000.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE REVISED GOALS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
OF THE OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (OEDP)
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
Rohani dated August 11, 1992:
39
AUG . �' BOOK dJ FADEw
FI
N/ �- � 6 -�.
BOOK fA.;,t v.�
T0: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIV SION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keatig, AI
Community Devel pmen irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani S''k -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: August 11, 1992
RE: CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE REVISED GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES OF THE OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (OEDP)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 18, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In 1984, Indian River County was contacted by the federal
government and informed that, because of its consistently higher
than average unemployment rate, the county was eligible for
assistance under the Economic Development Act. In order to qualify
for this assistance, Indian River County created an Overall
Economic Development Plan Committee, prepared an economic
development plan, and established a set of strategies for
implementing this plan. The Overall Economic Development Plan
(OEDP) was. originally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
in June of 1985.
On July 31, 1985, the Economic Development Administration (EDA)
designated Indian River County as a Title IV Redevelopment Area, a
designation which qualifies the county to apply for federal funds
for economic development projects. Subsequently, representatives
from the OEDP Committee along with selected members of the county's
Economic Development Committee were chosen to form the Economic
Development Council (EDC).
To maintain its redevelopment area designation, Indian River County
has had to prepare an OEDP progress report and submit this report
to EDA on an annual basis. The. county has done that each year
since the 1985 approval of its OEDP. To meet the current year
progress report requirement, the EDC has opted to readdress the
entire OEDP, instead of just submitting a progress report. The
EDC's decision to revise the OEDP was prompted by the availability
of more accurate data from the 1990 census, as well as perception
that the county's economic development strategies needed to be
revised.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
For the past several months, the EDC has met, reviewed existing
county economic development goals, objectives, and policies, and
developed a revised set of goals, objectives, and policies. These
goals, objectives and policies address the county's major economic
development issues and establish a long term economic development
strategy for the county. With policies ranging from marketing the
county's economic development potential to analyzing the
feasibility of providing economic incentives to attract industry,
this plan provides an economic development strategy for the county.
40
Throughout this process, the Economic Development Council has
reviewed and revised the goals, objectives and policies several
times. On June 23, 1992, the EDC approved the attached goals,
objectives, and policies with changes to Objective 1, Objective 2,
and Policy 3.1. Although the EDC has not yet reviewed revised
Objective 1, Objective 2, and Policy 3.1, the revisions made to
these objectives/policies reflect the EDC's direction.
At this time, staff is compiling the updated socio-economic data
and preparing the background and analysis section of the plan.
Once compiled, that information will be incorporated with the
goals, objectives and policies into a revised Overall Economic
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
consider the attached goals, objectives, and policies for
conceptual approval and provide direction to staff and the EDC for
additional revisions.
OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GOAL
It is the goal of Indian River County to have orderly and
diversified economic growth, to have a reduced unemployment rate,
to have in place the services and facilities necessary to
accommodate economic growth, and to have increased employment
opportunities in year round businesses so as to improve the quality
of life currently --enjoyed by county residents.
OBJECTIVE 1 LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
By January 1, 19961 the county will have an unemployment rate that
has decreased to among the middle third (1/3) of Florida counties
as published by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment
Security.
Policy 1.1: By 1993, the Indian River County Community Development
Department will analyze the county's social, physical and economic
assets; research industry specific locational criteria; assess
relative advantage_ and develop a specific economic development
plan that targets`&ppropriate industries and maximizes the county's
advantages.
Policy 1.2: By 1993, the Indian River County Community Development
Department will develop a specific plan to market the county's
economic development potential. Through research, the county will
identify the most effective and cost efficient way to inform
potential employers of the county.
Policy 1.3: The county shall provide staff support to the Indian
River County Chamber of Commerce and the Indian River County
Council of 100 in their recruitment of businesses considering
relocation. At least ten (10) of these businesses shall be
contacted by the Council of 100 per month, and a monthly written
report identifying results, problems, solutions and other pertinent
information shall be submitted to the Economic Development Council
(EDC).
41
BOOK E se
Policy 1.4: The county shall support the Indian River County
Chamber of Commerce in surveying all businesses having more than 10
employees to identify opportunities and problems associated with
their businesses, to identify businesses willing to expand, and to
identify businesses considering relocation. County support shall
involve staff support in surveying., data analysis, and report
preparation.
Policy 1.5: By 1993, the county will establish a process whereby
business owners with complaints or concerns can obtain assistance.
This will involve designating one individual or office to act as
facilitator.
Policy 1.6: By 1994, the county will develop an industrial
relocation source book consisting of planning, zoning, land use,
demographic,.- and other socio-economic information helpful to
businesses desiring to relocate.
Policy 1.7: The county, through the Council of 100, shall provide
information on Industrial Development Bonds to new industries and
assist new industries in obtaining funding by directing them to the
appropriate agency and by providing information needed for the bond
applications.
OBJECTIVE 2 DIVERSIFIED ECONOMIC GROWTH
By 1995, the county will have an'increase of 2 percentage points in
year round employment as compared to seasonal employment based on
the information published in the Florida Statistical'Abstract.
Policy 2.1: The county, through the Indian River County Chamber of
Commerce and the Indian River County Council of 100, shall recruit
businesses which provide year round employment opportunities. By
1994, the county shall establish a mechanism for providing
information to these businesses.
Policy 2.2: The county will, by 1995, initiate development of an
industrial park which will provide platted lots served by adequate
infrastructure. This will be a co -development effort between the
county an an industrial park developer.
Policy 2.3: By 1993, the county shall identify summer businesses
whose season could complement tourism and agricultural seasons.
The county, through the Indian River County Council of 100, shall
target these businesses for recruitment.
Policy 2.4: The Indian River County Council of 100 shall identify
areas of the country providing summer employment opportunities and
make this information available to agricultural related businesses
and employees.
OBJECTIVE 3 ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By 1994, the county will have policies and regulations in effect
which encourge economic development. By 2000, water and sewer
services will be available to all major commerical/industrial (C/I)
nodes within the county.
Policy 3.1: The county shall expand water and sewer facilities to
the following commercial/industrial nodes in the county according
to the needed demand.
a. Commercial/industrial nodes along State Road 60 as shown
below:
42
- ® M
b.
C.
d.
S.R. 60
East of I-95
West of I-95
Water and Sewer
Present
1995
Commercial/ Industrial nodes along U.S. #1 as shown below:
U.S. #1 Water Sewer
St. Lucie County line to Garden Grove GDU (P) GDU (P)
Garden Grove to 49th Street Present Present
49th Street to 73rd Street 1995-97 2000
73rd Street to 77th Street 1995-97 Present
77th Street to Roseland Rnad 100'7-00 n........-�
e
to
I-95 & County Road 512 Commercial/Industrial node, both
water and sewer by 1995
Oslo Road and 74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial node;
sewer by 1994, water by 2000
Policy 3.2: The county shall maintain a database consisting of
capacity and demand information for all concurrency related
services and facilities. The county will use this database to
program capital improvements to ensure that all services and
facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate projected growth
and development.
Policy 3.3: The county will, by 1993, do an analysis of the costs
and benefits of providing financial_ incentives for the attraction
of new or expansion of existing industries. Incentives to be
considered shall include but not be limited to: property tax
abatement; impact. fee subsidization; provision of low interest
u
acquisition/constrction loans; and direct payments. The analysis
shall identify the costs of the incentives and the funding source
of the incentives. The analysis shall also quantify the
anticipated benefits of the incentives, including increased jobs;
added tax revenue; increased fee revenue; and others. Based upon
this analysis, the Economic Development Council ;will make a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Policy 3.4: The county's Professional Services Advisory Committee
shall review and evaluate the county's land development regulations
on a regular basis and eliminate any unnecessary regulations which
hinder economic development.
Policy 3.5: The county shall on an annual basis review the
availability of land in commercial/ industrial nodes to ensure that
sufficient commercial/industrial lands with appropriate
infrastructure are available for future economic growth.
Policy 3.6: The county, through its Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations, shall maintain and/or improve the quality
of life by providing protection of environmental, cultural and
aesthetics features of the county, as these are important factors
to businesses considering relocation.
43
BOOK
=� � M92
�� e I
> BOOK 6 I PA,r� • J
Policy 3.7: The county, through the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee,
will increase the amount of affordable housing in the county to
accommodate an expanded labor force.
Policy 3.8: The county shall encourage private utility companies
to provide natural gas to the county, particularly to commercial
and industrial nodes.
OBJECTIVE 4 IMPROVED PRO -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTION
By 1995, the county will develop an enhanced reputation regarding
its support of economic development.
Policy 4.1: The Indian River County Council of_100 shall on an
annual basis -prepare and submit to the EDC for -approval a program
to promote the economic development opportunities in the county.
To the maximum extent feasible, the Board of County Commissioners
will provide financial support for the promotion effort.
Policy 4.2: The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and the
Council of 100 shall promote economic development opportunities in
the county through advertisements in the media; newspaper and
magazine articles about the county; and personal.contacts.
Policy 4.3: The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and the
Council of 100 shall act as a clearinghouse providing information
to businesses and industries interested in locating in Indian River
County.
Policy 4.4: The county and the Indian River County Chamber of
Commerce shall provide speakers to inform private citizens, service
organizations, and special interest groups, locally and nationally,
about the county's economic development positions and strategies.
OBJECTIVE 5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
By 1993, the county will have an established coordination mechanism
with municipalities, the school board, and other public and private
agencies to ensure that the adopted Overall Economic Development
Plan remains compatible with their objectives and to solicit their
support.
Policy 5.1: By 1993, the county shall contact each municipality in
the county and request that the municipality adopt and implement
economic development policies.
Policy 5.2: The county, through the Indian River County Council of
100, will coordinate with local governments within the county in
assisting economic development prospects in finding suitable site
locations.
Chairman Eggert advised that we are in the middle of
discussions of business incentives and will be implementing some of
the goals and objectives of the policies more specifically than we
have in the past.
Commissioner Bird felt that one of the concerns of the
business community is the permitting process and whether impact
fees are fair as to when they must be paid.
44
He addressed Policy
3.4 and observed that while the Professional Services Advisory
Committee has good people, we should urge staff to take the
initiative and not depend on the committee members exclusively
because staff deals with these policies on a regular basis. He
suggested the addition of "county staff" in that policy.
County Administrator Jim Chandler agreed that is one of the
aspects of the plan that have been recognized and are being
studied, and staff will be reporting on those points.
Community Development Director Bob Keating directed the
Board's attention to Policy 3.3 which concerns County participation
with the private sector; Policy 2.2 which concerns developing an
industrial park; and Policy 4.1 which involves providing funding
for promotional activities. Mr. Keating felt these are areas on
which the Board may want to focus.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the conceptual plan of the Revised Goals, Objectives
and Policies of the Overall Economic Development
Plan, as revised to include "the county staff" in
Policy 3.4.
APPROVAL OF BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PHYSIO -CONTROL
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated July 29, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Doug WrightlDDirector
Emergency Services
DATE: July 29,92
SUBJECT: Approval of Biomedical Equipment Services
Agreement with Physio -Control
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In October, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners authorized a
Biomedical Equipment Services Agreement with Physio -Control to
repair and maintain the Lifepac equipment on board the emergency
transport Advanced Life Support vehicles. The contract expires on
October 31, 1992, and staff requests the Board to authorize renewal
of the agreement.
45
P`�U0 18 1992
800K t 1-J" .�
The prior contract was for $13,428.00 during FY 91-92. The new
contract is for $13,548.00, or a $120.00 increase. The county has
10 monitors and defibrillators, ten battery support systems, seven
external pacemakers and three Lifepak 10's with external pacers.
A total of $14,000 was budgeted in FY 92-93 to fund the technical
Services Agreement with Physio -Control.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Physio -Control is the manufacturer of the lifepak series of cardiac
monitors and defibrillators. The sales and service force from
Physio -Control are direct manufacturer representatives. Physio -
Control Technical Services is the only company authorized repair
function in the State of Florida and is the single or sole source
for parts, repairs and/or maintenance on this equipment.
This critical patient care equipment is very technical in nature
and ALS must ensure that it is properly maintained and serviced by
factory trained personnel to reduce liability risk. It suffices to
say that any malfunction of the lifepak during life saving
techniques would jeopardize the assets of the county if litigation
should occur.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Biomedical Equipment Services
Agreement with Physio -Control in the amount of $13,548.00. Staff
also requests the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute the
Agreement on the basis of a single/sole source vender.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Biomedical Equipment Services Agreement with Physio -
Control as the single/sole source vendor in the
amount of $13,548.00, as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
ASSISTANCE EXCLUSIVE OF MUTUAL AID
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated August 11, 1992:
46
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, ounty Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright Director
Emergency Services
DATE: August 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of Emergency Services District Mutual Aid
Agreement with the Town of Indian River Shores and Billing
Rates for Fire and EMS Assistance Exclusive of Mutual Aid
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the meeting scheduled for August 18, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Prior to the Fire and EMS consolidation referendum in 1991, which
repealed the existing fire districts and created a new Emergency
Services District, the Town of Indian River Shores opted to retain
their existing public safety organization and not be a part of the
new District. Effective October 1, 1992, Indian River Shores will be
independent from the County in terms of providing fire and EMS
service to the residents of the Town, except for oversight by the EMS
Director authorized in that part of the Indian River County Code of
Laws and Ordinances relating to a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity for providing EMS Advanced Life Support Service.
A Mutual Aid Agreement and a recommended billing rate for fire and
EMS assistance to the Town from the District is now before the Board
for consideration. It should be noted that the District intends to
be a "good neighbor" to the Town and Indian River Shores in every
way, especially in terms of emergency services assistance should an
emergency or situation occur that exhausts their personnel and
equipment resources.
However, it should be clear that the Mutual Aid Agreement does not
include assistance in the form of an automatic second response from
the District without compensation. Nor would the District expect the
Town to provide a similar service without compensation since both
emergency providers are funded from different taxing entities.
Staff has met witb-t-he Town Manager and other officials of the Town
of Indian River Shores and mutual agreement was reached upon a fee
schedule for the use of personnel and equipment/apparatus upon
request, exclusive of mutual aid. The fee or billing charges
recommended for each type of equipment are as follows:
Aerial Ladder Combination Pumper
$1,200
Per
Hour
Fire Engine/Pumper
350
Per
Hour
Fire Rescue Patrol Boat
150
Per
Hour
EMS Ambulance
350
Per
Hour
Fire or EMS Command Vehicle
40
Per
Hour
Cancellations or refusals would be billed at the rate of actual time
enroute or involved in the assigned call pro rated on the hourly
rate. Quarterly billing is suggested and recommended.
The Town of Indian River Shores would bill the Emergency Services
District at the same rate if assistance is requested, exclusive of
mutual aid.
47
800K 6 ,
�
I. I
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has arrived at the above charges after significant time was
expended in determining a cost factor for a tactical second response
to the Town of Indian River Shores. All costs (direct, one time, and
indirect), as well as overhead were considered. They were not
arbitrarily applied and were equitably distributed across all
operational phases of the service. Cost calculations were determined
by utilizing available fire and EMS records pertaining to the
classifications of rolling stock, equipment, tools, fire service
appliances, operational costs, depreciation, maintenance expenses,
salaries and related expenses. The recommended schedule could be
justified at a greater hourly rate. However, staff chose a rate that
is reasonable and acceptable to both the Town and the District.
While it is the District policy to deploy a secondary attack force
that can aggressively advance standard fire stream handling and apply
elevated master streams to assist the first responding Indian River
Shores unit, the District would only provide a response level as
requested by the Town.
There are many phases of fire and EMS operations to which no cost
factor could be applied or determined, such as: experience in
leadership of fire and EMS officers; combat experience of fire and
EMS personnel, ongoing training and job enhancement programs; routine
maintenance and testing of apparatus; and level of formal training
for staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve the Mutual Aid Agreement with the
Town of Indian River Shores and authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreement. Staff also recommends approval of the fee structure when
the District fire and�EMS equipment/apparatus is requested by the
Town of Indian River Shores, exclusive of mutual aid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Mutual
Aid Agreement with the Town of Indian River Shores,
and approved the fee structure when the District
fire and EMS equipment/ apparatus is requested by the
Town of Indian River Shores, exclusive of mutual
aid, as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
CHEMICAL SPILL AT 4TH STREET WEST OF RINGS HIGHWAY
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright made the following
presentation:
48
TO: Jim Chandler
County Adr4nisprator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: August 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Chemical Spill - 4th Street West of Rings Highway
Since the Department of Emergency Services was notified of the
chemical spill on 4th Street West of Kings Highway on August 13,
1992, the following actions have been or are being taken:
August 13, 1992
1. Fill dirt has been used to dam the canal so the chemical cannot
be released into other ditches or canals. The Road and Bridge
Department supplied the dirt, trucks, and heavy equipment for
this work which was accomplished prior to 8:OOPM.
2. Risk Management was notified and arrived on scene to assist in
the assessment of possible damage.
3. The Sheriff's Office was contacted and asked to complete an
incident report for future use and possible prosecution if an
intentional spill is later determined.
4. Environmental Health was contacted and joined the Emergency
Services staff on scene.
August 14, 1992
1. The entire area was video taped by Emergency Services staff.
2. The area on both sides of the road was physically walked and
inspected in. an attempt to determine the origin of the chemical.
3. An additional load of fill dirt was requested and used to shore
up the existing dams in case the anticipated amount of rain
actually occurs over the weekend.
4. Risk Management revisited the site for additional photographs
for insurance claim purposes.
5. Emergency Services staff has obtained absorbent pads and booms
which will be used to place in the canal for the purpose of
retaining the chemical where it has concentrated. An emergency
purchase order was obtained to purchase the pads and booms from
Florida Spill Response Corporation in Cocoa for $2,860.
6. Emergency Services staff is in the process of placing "Do Not
Enter" tape around the canal using survey stakes in an effort to
preclude any children from entering or playing in the water
where the chemicals are located.
49
AUG `Id M92
J`-
f�QoK � � FA,;k ��e
AUS. -
BOOK N [A,t •�P
7. A local laboratory has been contacted to obtain a sample of the
chemical to determine the exact type of substance that is in the
water. Initially, two labs were contacted to get the best
price. The lab which was lesser in price, (Envirometrics -
Grace Treadway) could not provide less than a three working days
turn around on the test. Therefore, I felt it was in the best
interest of the County to utilize a local company, BioServices
(Jane Burton) who could provide a lab analysis and test by
Monday at the price of $1,820. It is broken down as $1,620 for
the lab test and $200 for shipping and handling. Envirometrics
quoted a price of $1,292 for test results within three working
days and $60 for sampling and shipping.
8. If the test is determined to be non -hazardous, I plan to make
every effort to utilize the landfill to dispa�e of the substance
and pads.
9. If the substance is hazardous, I anticipate the County will be
required to contract with a licensed contractor to clean up the
area and restore it as pristine which will be quite expensive.
My staff and I will make every effort to determine the source of the
substance and I will keep you advised of the activities as we proceed
to mitigate the situation.
Director Wright further reported that the analysis of the
material indicated that it is nonhazardous waste oil and therefore
can be disposed of at our landfill. He requested retroactive
approval of the action already taken and authorization to work with
staff at the landfill to dispose of the oil at that location.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the action already taken by Emergency Services, and
authorized staff to dispose of the oil at the
landfill, as recommended by staff.
FULL-TIME RESIDENT INSPECTION SERVICES FOR INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
PHASE IV
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated August 12, 1992:
All
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT:/Full Time Resident Inspection Services for
Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
REF. LETTER: Jillanne Harrington, Manpower, to Tom Bissillon
dated Aug 10, 1992
DATE: August 12, 1992 FILE: inspect.agn/p2
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 23, 1992, the Board approved an administrative fee of
$10,800 _ (18% of $60,000 salary for 18 months) as proposed by
"Treasure Coast Personnel" employment agency to administer the
payroll and related employment services for the Indian River
Boulevard Phase IV inspector, Bill Howard. Since that time, the
agency has gone out of business. The Personnel Division received
the same fee quotation of 18% from Manpower Temporary Services
which results in the same cost of $10,800 for the 18 month
period.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Accept the proposal by Manpower Temporary Services at a cost
of $10,800 for the 18 month period.
Alternative No. 2
Seek additional proposals.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the proposal by
Manpower Temporary Services to administer the payroll function of
the project period. Funding shall be from Fund 309 Indian River
Boulevard - North Project fund.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
accepted the proposal by Manpower Temporary Services
to administer the payroll function and related
employment services for the 18 -month period for Bill
Howard, inspector, on the construction of Indian
River Boulevard, Phase IV, at a cost of $10,800, as
recommended by staff.
51
HOOK
[!U 0, 18 19 97
P
BOOK r f'hGE •�.
AMENDMENT TO FIND GRAND AGREEMENT FOR ROUND ISLAND PARR
IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated August 12, 1992:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 8, 1992, Indian River County accepted a $130,000
Waterways Assistance Project Grant for Round-1-61and Park river
access improvements. Scheduled improvements include construction
of paved access road, parking, restroom building, additional boat
ramp and waterfront boardwalk with fishing docks.
The agreement requires that the project be completed on or before
September 1, 1992 unless the project period has been extended.
Staff requested that the FIND Board extend funding on the project
into the next fiscal year (FY1992-93) because of delays in
permitting.
The attached amendment extends the project completion deadline to
September 1, 1993.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
attached Project Agreement Amendment.
The County's match for construction will be funded by a $150,000
Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP) grant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Project
Agreement Amendment for Round Island Park
Improvements, as recommended by staff.
SAID PROJECT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY AND IRC FOR
INSTALLATION OF INTERCONNECT CONDUIT AT U.S. 1 AND HIGHLAND DRIVE
RAILROAD CROSSING
The Board reviewed memo from County Traffic Engineer Michael
Dudeck dated August 10, 1992:
52
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH:James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: / Michael S. Dudeck Jr., P.E.
Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: License Agreement Between FEC Railway and
Indian River County for Installation of
Interconnect Conduit at US 1 and Highland Drive
R.R. Crossing
RE: Letter from M.O. Bagley to Michael S. Dudeck
Dated August 5, 1992
DATE: August 10, 1992
In order to complete the Traffic Signal Installation for the
US 1 and Highland Drive Intersection, the Traffic
Engineering Division has to have a contractor jack and bore
a 6" rigid metal sleeve under the FEC Railroad tracks in the
railroad right-of-way.
The FEC Railway Company will accomplish the final
connections to provide the proper R.R. Pre-emption for the
Traffic Signals being installed.
Completion of this work will secure the electrical
connections for the pre-emption as well as future
interconnect provisions for including a future Old Dixie
Highway/Highland Drive Traffic Signal into our system.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The agreement is a standard- FEC License Agreement for
Signal Pro-emption Interconnect at an existing public
crossing. The County is obligated td:
1) Pay all costs of supervision, labor and material
incurred by FEC Railway.
2) Pay to upgrade and maintain the crossing as
necessary.
3) Pay an annual fee of $50.
RECOMMMATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recoraiiended that the Chairman be authorized to execute
the License Agreement on behalf of the County. Funding for
maintenance shall be from the budgeted Traffic Engineering
Accounts. Funding for installation will be from account
101-165-541-067.28.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the
FEC License Agreement for Signal Pre-emption
Interconnect, as recommended by staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
53
BOOK PA.; f e�`'I
AUG 1 N9
P BOOK
IPP`
! F'�l,E •�+°1e.9
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH HELEN HANSON PROPERTIES INC.& FOR LAND
ACQUISITION FOR ROSELAND ELEVATED STORAGE TANK
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 7, 1992:
DATE:/AUGUST 7, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI# 22VICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH HELEN HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
LAND ACQUISITION FOR ROSELAND ELEVATED STORAGE TANK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -07 -DS
BACKGROUND
On January 21, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners authorized the staff of the Department , of Utility
Services to select and conduct negotiations with property owners for
the purpose of acquiring land for the Roseland Elevated Storage Tank
site (Roseland Water Tower). (See attached agenda item.)
ANALYSIS
Four potential sites have been carefully studied and forwarded to
the County's Planning and Zoning Department for their review. The
selected site for the subject elevated storage tank is located
behind the Riverwalk Shopping Center. It was offered, and the price
was agreed to by both parties. The appraised value for the land is
$44,000.00 (see attached appraisal). The agreed-upon price for the
site is $44,000.00. (See draft Contract for Sale and Purchase).
The total cost, including closing cost, is estimated at $45,573.00.
The closing cost includes title insurance, deed stamps, recording
deed, and surveying; this is estimated to equal $1,573.00. The
purchase of the site shall be funded by the water impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
I
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners execute the agreement
with Helen Hanson Properties, Inc., when the signed agreement is
delivered by the seller to the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved purchase of the selected site for the
elevated storage tank at a total cost of $45,573.00,
as recommended by staff.
DEED AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON THIS PURCHASE
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
54
12TH STREET WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FINAL PAY REQUEST AND
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 21, 1992:
DATE:
LY 21, 1992
/ .
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTQ���_�-
eSERVICES
DIRECTOR OF UTIl
PREPARED
WILLIAM F. CA((IINN
AND STAFFED
CAPITAL CTS ENGINEER
BY:
DEPWTMN O TILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
12TH STREET WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -09 -DS
BACKGROUND
on August 13, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the award of the above-mentioned contract to
Boyce Company in the amount of $993,753.19 (see attached minutes and
agenda item). We now wish to make final payment to The Boyce
Company for this project, as well as approve Change Order No. 2 for
a final quantity adjustment.
ANALYSIS
In March of this year, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Change order No. 1, which extended the contract period by 31 days;
however, the contractor failed to complete the project within this
time frame. The contract ran over another 58 days, resulting in
liquidated damages of $17,400.00, which is reflected in the final
pay request. The construction cost of this project has also been
reduced by $70,340.15 through final quantity adjustment change order
(see Change Order No. 2, attached). The revised tbtal contract
amount is $906,013.04, which reflects the change order reduction of
$70,340.15, as well as liquidated damages of $17,400.00 (see
attached Change Order No. 2, Final `Pay Request and release of
liens). Also attached are copies of the maintenance bonds --one for
the entire project, along with two additional bonds to cover problem
service lines per the direction of the Public Works Department. We
are requesting approval of Change Order No. 2 and release of the
final payment to Boyce Company in the amount of $98,698';87.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 2 and final
payment to Boyce Company in the amount of.$98,698.87.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute Change Order
No. 2 and final payment request in the amount of
$98,698.87, as recommended by staff.
SAID CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
55
+'a BOOK
a
BOOK
/
PA, E 045
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH
INDIAN BEACH ASSOCIATES FOR THE
OLDE
OAR
PARR SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated August 5, 1992:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
AUGUST 5, 1992
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T
WILLcCAI
CES
AL CTS ENGINEER
OF UT-;LITY SERVICES
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN BEACH ASSOCIATES
FOR THE OLDE OAK PARK SUBDIVISION
The Indian Beach Associates are developing a 114 -unit subdivision,
depicted as Olde Oak Park on Exhibit A of the attached Developer's
Agreement. The developer is proposing to construct a regional lift
station (as identified in the Indian River County Wastewater Master
Plan dated February 1988) in conjunction with this project, and also
that the cost of this construction will be shared with the County
Utilities Department as outlined in County Ordinance No. 91-9,
Section 201.11. The total construction cost is estimated at
$75,074.00. Indian River County's portion of this cost would be
$58,632.79.
ANALYSIS
The construction of this lift station was first planned for in the
construction of the second phase of Tamara Gardens in 1988. Before
the completion of the Tamara Gardens Project, construction was
halted by the developer, and the agreement between the County and
developer was voided. Also, at this same time, Cambridge Park (see
Exhibit A for location) designed and constructed its wastewater
system to convey its sewage to this regional lift station, along
with the other surrounding areas. Due to the existing development
and wastewater system designs in the surrounding areas, the ongoing
update of the Wastewater Master Plan will not eliminate the
necessity of this lift station.
The total design flow of the lift station is 156,500 GPD, of that
flow 34,200 GPD will be generated by Olde Oak Park, or 21.9% of the
total flow. The County's (or surrounding area flow) is 122,300 GPD,
or 78.1% (see Exhibit A of the attached agreement). For additional
details, please see the attached agreement. The funding for this
project will be from the Indian River County Utilities Department
impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's
Agreement with Indian Beach Associates, as attached.
56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Developer's Agreement with Indian Beach Associates,
as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING
Chairman Eggert announced that the Legislative Delegation
would meet in November, and if any Board member has a subject that
should be addressed, it should be relayed to the Chairman or the
County Attorney by August 28.
COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT IV SEAT
Chairman Eggert recounted that the Board discussed asking the
Governor to appoint the winner of the District IV race to the
vacant seat to serve out the balance of Gary Wheeler's term. She
asked whether the Board would authorize her to write a letter to
the Governor requesting the appointment of John Tippin. All the
Board members indicated agreement.
1991 POST ENUMERATION SURVEY FIGURES TO ADJUST THE 1990 CENSUS
CALCULATIONS
Commissioner. Bowman reported that Representative Jim Bacchus
is urging the use of Post -Enumeration Survey Figures, which would
give our state 347,000 additional population. This would increase
our funding from Medicare and government grant monies.
Commissioner Bowman urged the Board to support this movement.
ON MOTIONT--by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED- by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved that letters should be written to the
Director of the Census Bureau urging that they use
the 1991 Post -Enumeration Survey Figures instead of
the original 1990 census figures.
57
BOOK 11 f'A�t:•�e
U0 R,X 92
A -P ) � q 9 2
r
BOOK d';
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.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:48 o'clock A. M.
ATTEST:
J. arton, Clerk CarolynEggert, airman
Y . -
58