HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/2018 (2)0Vtyt",
-
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2018 - 9:00 AM
Commission Chambers
Indian River County Administration Complex
180127th Street, Building A
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388
www.ircgov.com
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman, District 4 Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Bob Solari, Vice Chairman, District 5 Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
Susan Adams, District 1 Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Joseph E. Flescher, District 2
Tim Zorc, District 3
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
2.B. INVOCATION
Pastor Jimmie Hill, Salt of the Earth Ministry
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / EMERGENCY ITEMS
5. PROCLAMATIONS and PRESENTATIONS
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6.A. Regular Meeting of December 5, 2017
6.13. Regular Meeting of December 12, 2017
7. INFORMATION ITEMS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS NOT REOUIRING
BOARD ACTION
7.A. Florida Public Service Commission Order No. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI, In re: Fuel
and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause with Generating Performance
Incentive Factor, pis on file for review in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
January 16, 2018 Page 1 of 4
8.A. Checks and Electronic Payments December 29, 2017 to January 4, 2018
8.B. Emergency Services Director Position Posting and Vacation Compensation
Consideration
8.C. Vero Beach Air Show
8.D. Mediated Settlement: William Hall
8.E. Award of Bid 2017062 - Spoonbill Marsh Vertical Turbine Pump
8.F. D.R. Horton Inc.'s Request for Release of a Portion of a Utility Easement at 7645
20th Street (Parcel B, Pointe West East Village Phase I PD)
8.G. FDOT Amendment Number One to Small County Outreach Program (SCOP)
Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01 and Resolution Authorizing the Chairman's
Signature for Reconstructing 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 57th Street
8.11. Work Order No. 4, REI Engineers, Inc. - Design and Replacement of Sebastian
Corners Roof
8.I. Amendment No. 9 to the Civil Engineering and Land Surveying Agreement for
Intersection Improvements at SR -60 and 43rd Avenue and the Widening of 43rd
Avenue from 18th Street to 26th Street with Arcadis US, Inc.
8.1 North Sebastian Phase 1 Septic to Sewer Approval of Cost Share Funding
Agreement - Amendment No. 1
9. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
10. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
10.C.1. Public Notice of Public Hearing Scheduled for January 23, 2018 to Consider
Codifying the Code of Indian River County - LEGISLATIVE
11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS
11.A. Indian River Medical Center Potential Financial Impact on County
12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
12.A.1. Consideration of Two "Early" Recommendations from the Development Review
and Permit Process Advisory Committee: Changes to LDR Chapters 910, 913,
914, 952, and 971; and Payment Timing Option for Certain Fire Construction
Plan Review Fees
January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4
B. Emergency Services
C. General Services
12.C.1. Fair Associations Request to Amend the Agreement for Use of the Indian River
County Fairgrounds
1. Human Services
2. Sandridge Golf Club
3. Recreation
D. Human Resources
E. Office of Management and Budget
F. Public Works
G. Utilities Services
12.G.1. West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer - Status and Update
13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS
B.A. Remainder Interest in the Event of Sale of Indian River Memorial Hospital
14. COMMISSIONERS MATTERS
A. Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
B. Commissioner Bob Solari, Vice Chairman
C. Commissioner Susan Adams
D. Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher
E. Commissioner Tim Zorc
15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
15.A.1. Approval of Minutes Meeting of November 14, 2017
15.A.2. Approval of Minutes Meeting of December 5, 2017
15.A.3. Affiliation Agreement between Health Career Institute, LLC and Indian River
County Emergency Services District
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
15.13.1. Approval of Minutes Meeting of December 5, 2017
15.13.2. CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 12 to CDM Smith, Inc. for the 2018 Annual
Financial Reports
January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4
15.B.3. CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 13 to CDM Smith, Inc. for Engineering Services
with the 2018 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
C. Environmental Control Board
16. ADJOURNMENT
Except for those matters specifically exempted under the State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Board shall
provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Board of any action on the agenda,
including those matters on the Consent Agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any proposition which
the Board is to take action which was either not on the Board agenda or distributed to the public prior to the
commencement of the meeting.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at (772) 226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Anyone who needs special accommodation with a hearing aid for this meeting may contact the Board of
County Commission Office at 772-226-1490 at least 20 hours in advance of the meeting.
The full agenda is available on line at the Indian River County Website at www.ircgov.com The full agenda is
also available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, the Indian River County Main Library,
and the North County Library.
Commission Meetings are broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 27
Rebroadcasts continuously with the following proposed schedule:
Tuesday at 6:00p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 a.m.,
Wednesday at 9:00 a. m. until 5:00 p. m.,
Thursday at 1:00 p.m. through Friday Morning,
and Saturday at 12: 00 Noon to 5:00 p.m.
January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4
'FILED 1/8/2018
DOCUMENT NO. 00180-2018
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Fuel and purchased power cost recovery DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
clause with generating performance incentive ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
factor. ISSUED: January 8, 2018
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
JULIE I. BROWN, Chairman
ART GRAHAM
RONALD A. BRISE
DONALD J. POLMANN
GARY F. CLARK
FINAL ORDER APPROVING EXPENDITURES AND TRUE -UP AMOUNTS FOR FUEL
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS; GPIF TARGETS, RANGES, AND REWARDS; AND
PROJECTED EXPENDITURES AND TRUE -UP AMOUNTS FOR CAPACITY COST
. RECOVERY FACTOR
APPEARANCES:
MATTHEW BERNIER, ESQUIRE, 106 East College Avenue, Tallahassee,
Florida 32301-7740; and DIANNE M. TRIPLETT, ESQUIRE, 299 First Avenue
North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
On behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF)
JOHN T. BUTLER, WILL COX, WADE LITCHFIELD, and MARIA J.
MONCADA, ESQUIRES, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe
Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)
BETH KEATING, ESQUIRE, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., 215 South
Monroe St., Suite 601, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC)
JEFFREY A. STONE, ESQUIRE, One Energy Place, Pensacola, Florida 32520-
0780; and RUSSELL A. BADDERS, and STEVEN R. GRIFFIN, ESQUIRES,
Beggs & Lane, Post Office Box 12950, Pensacola, Florida 32591-2950
On behalf of Gulf Power Company (Gulf)
JAMES D. BEASLEY, and J. JEFFRY WAHLEN, ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen,
Post Office Box 391, Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of Tampa Electric Company (TECO
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 2
J.R. KELLY, CHARLES REHWINKEL, PATRICIA A. CHRISTENSEN, and
ERIK SAYLER, ESQUIRES, Office of Public Counsel, c/o The Florida
Legislature, 111 West Madison Street, Room 812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
1400
On behalf of the Citizens of the State of Florida (OPC)
JON C. MOYLE, JR. and KAREN PUTNAL, ESQUIRES, Moyle Law Firm, PA,
The Perkins House, 118 North Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of the Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG)
ROBERT SCHEFFEL WRIGHT and JOHN T. LAVIA, III, ESQUIRES,
Gardner, Bist, Bowden, Bush, Dee, LaVia & Wright, P.A., 1300 Thomaswood
Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32308
On behalf of the Florida Retail Federation (FRF)
SUZANNE BROWNLESS, and DANIJELA JANJIC, ESQUIRES, Florida Public
Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0850
On behalf of the Florida Public Service Commission (Staff)
MARY ANNE HELTON, ESQUIRE, Deputy General Counsel, Florida Public
Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0850
Advisor to the Florida Public Service Commission
KEITH HETRICK, ESQUIRE, General Counsel, Florida Public Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Florida Public Service Commission General Counsel
BY THE COMMISSION:
As part of the continuing fuel and purchased power adjustment and generating performance
incentive clause proceedings, an administrative hearing was held on October 25-27, 2017, in this
docket. White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate -White Springs (PCS
Phosphate) was excused from attendance at the final hearing.
At the hearing, we voted to approve stipulated issues 1B, 213-2I, 2Q, 2R, 3A, 6-11, 13A,
16-22, 23A, 24A -24D and 27-36 as set forth in Attachment A. We also approved Issues 1A, 2A,
4A and 5A, hedging issues contested by FRF, OPC and FIPUG, by bench decision as set forth in
Attachment B. As a result of our bench decisions on these issues, we have approved all issues
associated with TECO, FPUC, Gulf, and DEF. Testimony was taken on the remaining FPL
issues, Issues 2J -2P, which address FPL's solar generation (SoBRA) projects. FIPUG and FPL
filed briefs on the SoBRA issues on November 13, 2017. On November 16, 2017, FPL filed an
Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to New Issue Raised in FIPUG's Post Hearing
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 3
Brief with its response attached. The new issue addressed jurisdictional recovery arguments for
the SoBRA projects.
We have jurisdiction over this subject matter pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 366,
Florida Statutes (F.S.), including Sections 366.04, 366.05, and 366.06, F.S.
SoBRA PROJECT RECOVERY JURISDICTION
For the first time in its post hearing brief FIPUG argued that we lack jurisdiction to allow
recovery in this docket of 2017 and 2018 solar base rate adjustment charges citing the Florida
Supreme Court decisions Citizens v. Graham (Woodford), 191 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 2016) and
Citizens v. Graham (FPUQ, 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). FPL filed its Unopposed Motion for
Leave to File Response to New Issue Raised in FIPUG's Post Hearing Brief (Motion) on
November 16, 2017, with its response to the jurisdictional issue attached. FIPUG does not object
to granting this Motion. The other parties to this docket, having taken no position on the SoBRA
issues, Issues 2J through 2P, did not file briefs or take a position on the Motion or the underlying
jurisdictional issue. Because no party has objected to FPL's request to file a written response to
FIPUG's jurisdictional argument, and due process requires that FPL be given reasonable notice
and a fair opportunity to be heard on this issue before a decision is made, we hereby grant FPL's
Motion and address the jurisdictional issue below.
FIPUG characterizes the recovery of SoBRA charges as FPL's effort to again use the fuel
clause to recover predictable capital costs contrary to the purpose of the fuel clause which is to
address the volatility of fuel prices between base rate cases. FIPUG points out that while the
Legislature has created a clause for nuclear and environmental costs, it has not provided us with
express, or implied, authority for a solar energy capital cost recovery clause. FIPUG
acknowledges that the process for SoBRA cost recovery being followed here is included in
FPL's 2016 Stipulation and Settlement (2016 Agreement), to which it did not object. However,
FIPUG counters that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties or by our
approval of a rate case settlement agreement.
FPL counters that FIPUG's reliance on the Woodford and FPUC decisions is misplaced
for one simple reason: the capital and return on investment costs for the SoBRA projects are not
being recovered through the 2017 and 2018 fuel cost recovery factors. These costs are instead
being recovered through increases in FPL's base rate charge, beginning on the commercial
operation date of each SoBRA project. In fact, the fuel factors to be implemented from January
1 to March 1, 2018, have been stipulated to by the parties and previously approved by us. These
fuel factors cannot change no matter what our final decision on the SoBRA issues.
FPL notes that this cost recovery mechanism is similar to the generation rate base
adjustment (GBRA) mechanism found in FPL's 2013 Settlement Agreement to which FIPUG
was a signatory. The use of a GBRA mechanism for base rate adjustments in years beyond a test
year was approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Citizens v. Public Service Commission, 146
So. 3d 1143, 1157 n.7 (Fla. 2014). Further, between 2013 and 2016, three separate generation
projects (Cape Canaveral, Riviera Beach and Port Everglades) utilized the GBRA process in the
fuel clause without objection by FIPUG.
1 Citizens v. Florida Public Service Commission, 146 So. 3d 1143, 1154 (Fla. 2014).
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 4
Finally, FPL argues that filing for SoBRA recovery in the fuel docket is simply an
administratively efficient process utilizing an existing docket with a known filing schedule to
adjust its base rates for previously approved capital projects. This eliminates finding and
scheduling separate hearing dates each year as SoBRA projects come on line and synchronizes
each SoBRA rate base increase with the associated reduction in fuel costs resulting from the
projects' commercial operation. Based on these facts, FPL concludes that no jurisdictional issue
actually exists and that we have the authority to approve SoBRA charges in this docket.
Anal
There is one point on which we and all parties agree: that we derive our authority to act
solely from the Legislature. United Telephone Company of Florida v. Public Service
Commission, 496 So. 2d 116, 118 (Fla. 1986). In Woodford, FPL sought to recover through the
fuel factor the capital, operation and maintenance, and return on investment costs for wells
drilled in the Woodford Shale Gas Region in Oklahoma, The Court identified our authority as
the ability to "regulate and supervise each public utility with respect to its rates and service and
to prescribe a rate structure for all electric utilities." Woodford, 191 So. 3d at 900. An "electric
utility" is defined as a municipal or investor-owned utility or a rural electric cooperative that
"owns, maintains, or operates an electric generation, transmission, or distribution system within
the state." Section 366.02(2), F.S.
Based on this definition, the Court found that the exploration, drilling and production of
natural gas did "not constitute generating, transmitting, or distributing electricity in Florida as the
meaning of those terms are plainly understood" and "falls outside the purview of an electric
utility as defined by the Legislature." Woodford, 191 So. 3d at 901. Further, the Court found
that the Woodford project was not a physical hedge of fuel costs which had previously been
determined by the Court to be within our regulatory authority. Id. Having determined that the
Woodford project was neither an electric utility activity contemplated by the Legislature nor a
physical hedge, the Court found that we had exceeded our authority in approving the project
costs through the fuel clause. Woodford, 191 So. 3d at 902.
In FPUC. the Court found that we exceeded our authority by allowing the recovery
through the fuel factor of capital and return on capital investment costs associated with the
construction of a transmission line connecting FPUC's electric system on Amelia Island with
that of FPL. The Court focused on the historical purpose of the fuel clause as a means of
"adjusting for volatile costs associated with fuel" finding that a transmission line failed to meet
this test. FPUC, 213 So. 3d at 718. The Court also relied heavily upon the terms of FPUC's rate
case stipulation and settlement agreement, which specifically stated that FPUC could not seek
recovery through the fuel clause of costs that had "traditionally and historically" been recovered
through base rates and used "investment in and maintenance of transmission assets" as an
example of such an expense. FPUC, 213 So. 3d at 708-10. Since no discussion of these
settlement agreement terms was included in our final order, the Court found that we had "failed
to perform its duty to explain its reasoning" and reversed our decision. FPUC, 213 So. 3d at
710-11.
Both the Woodford and FPUC decisions discuss what types of costs are appropriately
recovered through the fuel clause factor: fuel, purchased power and volatile fuel -related costs.
The FPUC decision does not address our inherent authority to allow the recovery of the FPL
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 5
transmission line. Further, if the reasoning in Woodford is applied to the FPUC facts, the Court
would find the recovery of transmission lines through base rates appropriate since transmission is
specifically listed as an activity engaged in by electric utilities. Section 366.02(2), F.S.
Likewise, applying the reasoning of Woodford to the facts here, there is no question that
we have the authority to allow recovery of the costs associated with solar generation projects.
As with transmission, generation is listed specifically as an activity engaged in by electric
utilities in Section 366.02(2), F.S. It is important to note that FIPUG is not arguing that FPL
does not have the right to recover the solar project costs; it is arguing that solar project costs
can't be recovered through fuel clause factors. Presumably, FIPUG would not object to FPL
filing a separate docket seeking cost recovery for the 2017 and 2018 solar projects using an
increase in base rates to do so. Indeed, FIPUG has agreed to such a mechanism to recover solar
project capital costs as a signatory to Tampa Electric Company's 2017 Amended and Restated
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.2
Since FPL is not requesting recovery through the fuel adjustment clause factor, but is
requesting recovery of costs for its solar projects through increases in base rates, FIPUG's
complaint does not raise a jurisdictional question at all. Recovery of these costs through base
rates is clearly appropriate under both the Woodford and FPUC decisions. We agree with FPL
that placement of this issue in the fuel clause docket was purely administrative. We also agree
with FPL that to the extent possible, an increase in base rates associated with the solar projects
coming on line should be timed to coincide with any fuel savings which result from that solar
generation. Litigating the cost effectiveness issues associated with the solar projects, Issues 2J -
2P, in this docket cost-effectively accomplishes this goal.
When dissected and examined closely, FIPUG's issue boils down to insisting that rate
base cost recovery for the solar projects be filed in a separate docket. FIPUG has not alleged that
it did not have adequate notice of the solar project issues, or that it has been harmed in any way
by the inclusion of those issues in this docket. Nor could it. FPL filed direct testimony of four
witnesses on this point,3 Commission staff conducted extensive discovery on this issue,4 FIPUG
cross examined FPL witnesses Enjamio and Brannen on this topic at hearing, and FIPUG filed a
post hearing brief. Conducting these activities under a separate docket number does not change
their nature or provide FIPUG any additional due process rights.
Based on the above, we find that we have the authority to approve the recovery of FPL's
2017 and 2018 solar projects through base rates in this fuel clause docket.
SoBRA PROJECT RECOVERY
Overview
FPL proposes to construct and operate 596 MW of solar generation by 2018 pursuant to
its 2016 Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2016 Agreement). FPL contends that the costs
for the 2017 and 2018 projects are reasonable and fall below the $1,750 per kWac cost cap as
required by the 2016 Agreement. To ensure reasonable capital costs, FPL completed a
2 Document No. 07947-2017 at % 6(f).
3Tiffany Cohen, Liz Fuentes, Juan Enjamio and William Brannen.
4EXH 84, 86, 87 and 89.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 6
competitive bidding process for the equipment to be installed and the work to be performed.
Further, FPL argues that updated efficient designs and reduced interconnection costs lowered the
anticipated costs for the 2017 and 2018 projects.
FPL employed two resource plans for the proposed solar generation: a No Solar Plan and
2017-2018 Solar Plan. Based on the assumptions made in each plan, FPL calculates that there is
an estimated cumulative present value revenue requirement (CPVRR) savings of $38.6 million.
FPL asserts that updates to tax law in August 2017 provided a reduction in costs, in the form of
reduced property taxes, for three of the four 2018 solar project sites. FPL calculates that the
efficient designs, reduced interconnection costs, and reduced property taxes raise the estimated
CPVRR savings under the 2017-2018 Solar Plan to $106 million. It is FPL's position that the
2017 and 2018 projects are cost effective under the 2016 Agreement if the system CPVRR is
lower with the solar projects than without them as is the case.
FIPUG argues that the solar projects are not needed to meet the Commission's 15 percent
reserve margin or FPL's 20 percent reserve margin. FIPUG contends that FPL's efforts to prove
that the SoBRA projects are cost effective are only supported by hearsay evidence. FIPUG adds
that FPL customers will lose $127.3 million if fuel prices remain low and no carbon tax is
imposed in the future. FIPUG further asserts that the future cost of natural gas and the future
cost of carbon resulting from a carbon tax used by FPL in its cost effectiveness analysis is
uncorroborated.
Anal
A. 2017 Project Description
FPL is proposing to construct and operate four PV centers with a total nameplate capacity
of 298 MWa, (74.5 MWa, each) with an in-service date of December 31, 2017. Construction of
the 2017 solar generation projects began on October 21, 2016. The proposed solar generation
projects are Fixed -Tilt Systems with an average projected first year net capacity factor of 26.6
percent. There are no upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure required as part of the
construction of the 2017 solar generation projects.
The four proposed sites for the 2017 solar project construction are Coral Farms, Horizon,
Wildflower, and Indian River. The Wildflower site is already included in FPL's rate base;
therefore, Wildflower land costs are not included in the analysis. All other parcels are new
purchases. Not all of the land in the seven newly purchased sites is being used for the 2017 and
2018 solar projects although FPL states that some of this land will be used for future projects.
To develop a better understanding of the ratio of land that could be used for future development,
a more detailed breakdown of each site was requested from FPL. This breakdown included four
categories: total acreage, acreage used by the projects (Site Acreage), non -usable land, and
residual land. Residual land consists of property that could possibly be used in future solar
developments on the site, and for sites with adequate amounts of residual land, FPL will consider
leasing land to parties for farming or cattle grazing activities. The range of acreages of each site
is illustrated in Table I below:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 7
Table 1
Land Usage
Site Name
Total
(acres)
Acreage Site
acres
Acreage Non -Usable
Land (acres)
Residual Land
(acres)
Coral Farms
587
541
0
46
Horizon
1316
552
178
587
Wildflower
721
466
12
244
Indian River
697
389
1 56
252
Source: EXH 87-88
B. 2018 Project Description
FPL is proposing to construct and operate four PV centers with a total nameplate capacity
of 298 MWa, (74.5 MWac each) for an in-service date of March 1, 2018. Construction of the
2018 solar generation projects began on October 21, 2016. The proposed solar generation
projects are Fixed -Tilt Systems with an average projected first year net capacity factor of 26.6
percent. There are no upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure required as part of the
construction of the 2018 solar generation projects.
The four proposed sites for the 2018 solar project construction are Loggerhead, Barefoot
Bay, Hammock, and Blue Cypress. All parcels are new purchases. Not all of the land purchased
is being used for construction of the solar projects at the four sites. To develop a better
understanding of the ratio of land that could be used for future development, a more detailed
breakdown of each site was requested from FPL. This breakdown included four categories: total
acreage, acreage used by the projects (Site Acreage), non -usable land, and residual land.
Residual land consists of property that could possibly be used in future solar developments on
the site, and for sites with adequate amounts of residual land, FPL will consider leasing land to
parties for farming or cattle grazing activities. The range of acreages of each site is illustrated in
Table 2 below:
Table 2
Land Usage
Site Name
Total Acreage
acres
Site Acreage
acres
Non -Usable
Land acres
Usable Land
acres
Loggerhead
564
425
27
112
Barefoot Bay
462
384
52
25
Hammock
957
407
375
176
Blue Cypress
424
418
0
6
Source: EXH 87-88
C. Standard for Approval
The SoBRA projects for 2017 and 2018 for which FPL is seeking approval and cost
recovery are part of its 2016 Agreement approved by Order No. PSC-16-0560-AS-El.5 The
2016 Agreement allows FPL to construct up to 300 MW per calendar year of solar capacity
50rder No. PSC -16 -0560 -AS -EI, issued on December 15, 2016, in Docket No. 20160021 -EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 2018000 1 -EI
PAGE 8
during the period 2017-2021 and to recover through base rates the incremental annualized base
revenue requirement for those facilities for the first 12 months of operation commencing when
the facilities are placed into service.6 There are several conditions that must be met for recovery
in this case. First, FPL must request recovery for these projects during the term of the 2016
Agreement, or prior to December 31, 2020. Second, the cost of the components, engineering,
and construction for any solar project is capped at $1,750 per kilowatt alternating current (kWa,).
Third, for projects less than 75 MW (as are all of the projects proposed in this case): 1) the
request for base rate recovery must be filed in the Fuel Clause docket as part of its final true -up
filing; and 2) the issues are "limited to the cost effectiveness of each such project (i.e., will the
project lower the projected system CPVRR as compared to each CPVRR without the solar
project) and the amount of revenue requirements and appropriate percentage in base rates needed
to collect the estimated revenue requirements." 7 If the project meets these requirements, the
terms of the 2016 Agreement have been met. Therefore, we find that FIPUG's argument based
on reliability criteria is irrelevant.
D. 2017 and 2018 Solar Project Cost Effectiveness Anal
The in-service date for the 2017 projects is December 31, 2017. The in-service date for
the 2018 projects is March 1, 2018. Because of the minor timing difference between the in-
service dates, we find that it is appropriate to evaluate both 2017 and 2018 projects together for
cost effectiveness. In addition, both the 2017 and 2018 solar generation projects were
cumulatively evaluated in the initial filing of the docket.
FPL developed two resource plans to form the basis of the cost effectiveness analysis that
it performed. These two resource plans are called the No Solar Plan and 2017-2018 Solar Plan.
The No Solar Plan assumes that resource needs will be met by combined cycle units and short
term purchase power agreements (PPAs) through the year 2030. The 2017-2018 Solar Plan takes
into account the eight solar projects, which initially defers the 2025 combined cycle (cc) unit.
The Okeechobee CC Unit is currently under construction. The resource plan filed in regards to
FPL's initial filing is shown in Table 3 below:
Table 3
Initial Resource Plan
Year
No Solar Resource Plan
2017-2018 Solar Resource Plan
2017
298 MW Solar
2018
298 MW Solar
2019
Okeechobee 3x1 CC Unit
Okeechobee 3x1 CC Unit
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
1 -Year 33 MW PPA
2025
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
1 -Year 119 MW PPA
2026
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
62016 Agreement at ¶ 10(a).
2016 Agreement at 110(c).
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 9
2027
No Solar Resource Plan
2017-2018 Solar Resource Plan
2028
1 -Year 20 MW PPA
298 MW Solar
2029
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
1 -Year 287 MW PPA
2030
Okeechobee 3x1 CC Unit;
1 -Year 155 MW PPA
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
2031
Turkey Point 6
Turkey Point 6
2032
Turkey Point 7
Turkey Point 7
2033
Equalizing 599 MW CC
Equalizing 291 MW CC
Source: EXH 84
FPL filed its 2017 Ten Year Site Plan in April 2017, which included for the first time the
Dania Beach Clean Energy Center. In August 2017, FPL filed revised testimony that updated its
evaluation of the 2017 and 2018 solar projects. Table 4 below is based on a new resource plan
incorporating both the FPL's revised filing and the addition of the Dania Beach Clean Energy
Center.
Table 4
Revised Resource Plan
Year
No Solar Resource Plan
2017-2018 Solar Resource Plan
2017
298 MW Solar
2018
1 -Year 958 MW PPA
298 MW Solar;
1 -Year 636 MW PPA
2019
Okeechobee 3x1 CC Unit;
1 -Year 155 MW PPA
Okeechobee 3x1 CC Unit
2020
1 -Year 182 MW PPA
2021
1 -Year 263 MW PPA
2022
Dania Beach CC
Dania Beach CC
2023
2024
1 -Year 44 MW PPA
2025
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
1 -Year 149 MW PPA
2026
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
2027
2028
1 -Year 93 MW PPA
2029
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
1 -Year 363 MW PPA
2030
1 Greenfield 3x1 CC Unit
2031
Turkey Point 6
Turkey Point 6
2032
Turkey Point 7
Turkey Point 7
2033
Equalizing 574 MW CC
Equalizing 266 MW CC
Source: EXH 87
The revised resource plan shows that the addition of the 2017 and 2018 solar projects
should reduce FPL's need for purchased power agreements.
In completing the analysis, FPL considered multiple components to determine cost
effectiveness: solar revenue requirements, avoided generation costs, and avoided system costs.
For the proposed solar facilities, the revenue requirements included fixed operation and
maintenance (O&M), equipment, installation, land cost, and transmission interconnection cost.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 10
The avoided generation cost component considered avoided generation capital, avoided fixed
O&M, avoided transmission interconnection, avoided capital replacement, incremental gas
transport, and short-term purchases. The avoided system cost component considers the factors of
fuel savings, avoided variable O&M, and emission cost savings. FPL's CPVRR analysis
assumed that each project had an actual life of 33 years, with the analysis ending in 2050.
The emission cost savings consideration did not incorporate CO2 pricing until 2028. FPL
witness Enjamio identified ICF's CO2 emission's cost forecast as a major assumption in FPL's
economic analysis of its proposed solar PV generation projects. The CO2 cost projections used
in FPL's cost-effectiveness analyses are based on ICF's CO2 emission cost forecast dated
December 2016. ICF is a consulting firm with extensive experience in forecasting the cost of air
emissions and is recognized as one of the industry leaders in this field. FPL has used ICF's CO2
emission cost forecasts in many of its filings, including the recently approved 2017 Ten Year
Site Plan. No intervenor offered testimony rebutting FPL's CO2 emission cost forecast or
provided any alternative emission cost forecast. For these reasons, we find that the CO2 cost
projections FPL used in this docket are reasonable and appropriate.
1. CPVRR Analysis - Initial Filing
We reviewed FPL's original CPVRR for the 2017 and 2018 solar generation projects that
produced a savings of $38.6 million for the base fuel and environmental forecasts. This
calculation included the previously mentioned CO2 pricing in 2028. FPL's CPVRR analysis in
support of its 2017-2018 Solar Plan included assumptions related to future fuel prices. The
Company employed its standard fuel forecasting methodology to produce its long-term fuel price
forecast. No alternative base fuel forecast was provided to us for the purposes of evaluing the
Company's 2017-2018 Solar Plan. We find that the forecasted fuel prices used in the
Company's CPVRR analysis associated with its current proposal are reasonable. FPL provided a
CPVRR analysis with both fuel and environmental compliance sensitivities. In FPL's analysis, a
Low, Medium, and High Fuel Forecast and ENV I, ENV II, and ENV III compliance costs were
considered. ENV I assumes an annual $0/ton cost for CO2 pricing and low environmental
compliance costs, ENV II assumes a most likely cost, and ENV III assumes high environmental
compliance costs. The range of savings is illustrated in Table 5 below:
Table 5
Initial CPVRR Filing
Source: EXH 84
2. CPVRR Analysis - Revised Filing
FPL witness Enjamio filed revised testimony August 2, 2017, providing an updated
economic analysis to reflect a change in cost effectiveness and cost assumptions for the 2017-
Environmental Compliance
Cost Forecast
Fuel Cost Forecast
ENV I
ENV II
ENV III
High ($63.5) ($136.4)
($291)
Medium $35 ($38.6)
($195.8)
Low 1 $127.3 1 $53.6
$103.1
Source: EXH 84
2. CPVRR Analysis - Revised Filing
FPL witness Enjamio filed revised testimony August 2, 2017, providing an updated
economic analysis to reflect a change in cost effectiveness and cost assumptions for the 2017-
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 11
2018 solar projects. Specifically, FPL cited changes in tax law effective as of July 1, 2017, that
allowed an exemption from property taxes for qualifying solar installations which applied to
three of the planned 2018 solar generation project sites, and resulted in a $34 million CPVRR
reduction. This testimony resulted in a revised $106 million CPVRR base case scenario.
The terms of the 2016 agreement also require FPL to adhere to a $1,750 per kWac cost
cap for any solar project. This cost cap includes the cost of the components, engineering, and
construction for each site. In the initial filing, the 2017 and 2018 solar generation projects had a
total anticipated capital cost of $435 million and $457 million, respectively. The 2017 projects
were projected to fall under the cost cap with an average cost of $1,461per kWa, and a $1,534
per kWa, average cost for the 2018 projects. In witness Brannen's revised testimony of August 2,
2017, the completion of design competitive solicitations for the construction of the
interconnection facilities for the 2017 solar construction projects reduced the projected
construction cost by $16 Million. Witness Brannen stated that these same factors also reduced
the projected construction cost by $14 million for the 2018 solar construction projects. For the
2017 projects, the new construction cost was a $419 million total with a revised average $1,405
per kWa, cost. The new cost per kWac is $56 per kWa, less than the initially filed cost and $345
per kWac less than the $1,750 per kWac cost cap. For the 2018 projects, the new construction cost
was a $443 million total with a revised average $1,485 per kWac cost. The new cost per kWac is
$49 per kWac less than the initially filed cost and $265 per kWa, less than the $1,750 per kWac
cost cap. Having reviewed the cost cap assumptions discussed above we find them to be
reasonable.
FPL's revised testimony from August 2017 did not include the planned Dania Beach
Clean Energy Center. As such, an updated CPVRR evaluation was requested that included the
planned Dania Beach Clean Energy Center and updated fuel and environmental compliance
sensitivities evaluations. The result of this updated sensitivity analysis is illustrated in Table 6
below:
Table 6
Revised CPVRR Analysis
Source: EXH 87
Table 6 above shows that in seven of the nine scenarios, the 2017 and 2018 solar projects
are cost effective. Notably the base fuel case (medium), ENV I scenario contains no cost for
CO2, but is also cost effective. When comparing the change in savings on a CPVRR basis
between the initial filing and the revised analysis, there is a substantial increase in savings for all
forecasted scenarios. In all forecsted scenarios, avoided fuel costs was the major driving force in
producing overall savings for the projects. This fact manifested in even the "worst" case
scenario of Low Fuel Cost, ENV I, where there are projected fuel savings in every forecasted
year. The first cumulative benefit occurs in 2025. This benefit seems to be driven by the
Environmental Compliance Cost Forecast
Fuel Cost Forecast
ENV I
ENV II
ENV III
High ($119) ($195
$348
Medium ($24) ($96
($249
Low $76 $6
($147).
Source: EXH 87
Table 6 above shows that in seven of the nine scenarios, the 2017 and 2018 solar projects
are cost effective. Notably the base fuel case (medium), ENV I scenario contains no cost for
CO2, but is also cost effective. When comparing the change in savings on a CPVRR basis
between the initial filing and the revised analysis, there is a substantial increase in savings for all
forecasted scenarios. In all forecsted scenarios, avoided fuel costs was the major driving force in
producing overall savings for the projects. This fact manifested in even the "worst" case
scenario of Low Fuel Cost, ENV I, where there are projected fuel savings in every forecasted
year. The first cumulative benefit occurs in 2025. This benefit seems to be driven by the
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 12
avoided capital that would be required for the Greenfield 3x1 Combined Cycle Unit. For the
reasons discussed above, we find that FPL's CPVRR assumptions are reasonable.
FIPUG questions the validity of CO2 emission cost forecasts. However, FPL performed
CO2 emission and natural gas price sensitivities analyses, including zero carbon tax scenarios, to
support its petition. Results of such sensitivity analyses show that the 2017 and 2018 solar
projects are cost-effective in seven out of nine fuel and CO2 sensitivity scenarios, including
scenarios that assume zero CO2 cost. The CPVRR and construction cost analyses were
performed in a consistent manner and no party presented substantial evidence disputing either
the input assumptions or the analyses.
Based on the evidence contained in the record, we find that FPL's proposed 2017 and
2018 solar projects are projected to produce savings under multiple scenarios. FPL has also met
the terms of 2016 Agreement in regards to keeping construction cost under the $1,750 per kW,,,
cost cap. Therefore, we find that the terms and conditions of the 2016 Agreement have been met
and that the 2017 and 2018 solar projects are cost effective.
E. 2017 SoBRA Revenue Requirement
Witness Fuentes testified that the annualized jurisdictional revenue requirement for the
first 12 months of operations related to the 2017 SoBRA projects is $60,523,000. Witness
Fuentes further stated that the $60,523,000 revenue requirement was calculated by following the
methodologies approved by the Commission for FPL's generation base rate adjustments (GBRA)
for Turkey Point Unit 5 and West County Energy Center Units 1 and 2 in Order No. PSC -05-
0902 -S -EI,$ West County Energy Center Unit 3 in Order No. PSC-11-0089-S-EI,9 and the
modernization projects at Canaveral, Riviera Beach, and Port Everglades in Order No. PSC-13-
0023-S-EI.10 Witness Fuentes also testified that the same methodology was used with the
recently approved 2019 Okeechobee, Limited Scope Adjustment (Okeechobee LSA). The
jurisdictional annualized revenue requirement calculation for the 2017 SoBRA projects used
several inputs, including the most current estimated capital expenditures presented by FPL
witness Brannen.
FIPUG did not sponsor a witness to address this issue, and waived cross-examination of
FPL witness Fuentes. In its brief, FIPUG only presented arguments about FPL's reserve margin,
the overall cost effectiveness of the 2017 SoBRA projects, and the appropriate cost recovery
mechanism for these projects, but did not specifically address this issue.
Having reviewed the testimony, exhibits, and calculations used by FPL witness Fuentes
for determining the amount of revenue requirement associated with the 2017 SoBRA projects,
we find them to be reasonable and set the jurisdictional annualized revenue requirements
associated with the 2017 SoBRA projects at $60,523,000.
$Order No. PSC -05 -0902 -S -EI, issued September 14, 2005, in Docket No. 20050045 -EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company, and in Docket No. 20050188 -EI, In re: 2005 comprehensive
depreciation study by Florida Power & Light Company.
90rder No. PSC- 11 -0089 -S -EI, issued February 1, 2011, in Docket No. 20080677 -EI, In re: Petition for increase in
rates by Florida Power & Light Company, and in Docket No. 20090130-E1, In re: 2009 depreciation and
dismantlement study by Florida Power & Light Company.
100rder No. PSC -13 -0023 -S -EI, issued January 14, 2013, in Docket No. 20120015 -EI, In re: Petition for increase in
rates by Florida Power & Light Company.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 13
F. 2017 Base Rate Percentage Increase
The SoBRA factors are incremental cost recovery factors that will be applied to base rate
charges in order for the Company to collect the revenue necessary to recover the costs associated
with building and operating the 2017 SoBRA projects. Witness Cohen testified that the SoBRA
factors are based on the ratio of the Company's jurisdictional revenue requirements for each
Project (by year) and the forecasted retail base revenue from electricity sales for the first twelve
months of each rate year, beginning January 1, 2018 for the 2017 Project and March 1, 2018 for
the 2018 Project. Witness Cohen also presented an exhibit to demonstrate the inputs and
calculations performed to determine the resulting incremental cost recovery factor of 0.937
percent for the 2017 SoBRA projects.
FPL asserted in its brief that even when all of the SoBRA projects are reflected in
customer bills, FPL's typical residential bills will remain below national and statewide averages.
Table 7 below reflects the base rate changes and fuel cost recovery changes that will occur for
typical monthly residential bills for customers using 1,000 kWh of electricity. Column 3 in
Table 7 reflects a typical bill before the application of incremental cost recovery factors for any
SoBRA projects. Column 4 in Table 6 reflects a typical bill for a residential customer using
1,000 kWh of electricity when the incremental cost recovery factor of 0.937 percent for the 2017
SoBRA projects is applied, and Column 5 reflects atypical bill for a residential customer using
1,000 kWh of electricity when all of the projects are implemented.' �
Table 7
FPL Typical 1,000 -kWh Residential Customer Bill Comparison For 2018
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Approved in
Proposed
Proposed
the 2016
for the
for the 2017
Bill Components
Present
Settlement
2017
SoBRA
& 2018
SoBRA
(2017)
Agreement
Projects
Projects
(Jan, 2018)
(Jan &
(March,
Feb, 2018)
2018
Base Rate Charges
$63.49
$65.88
$66.49
$67.10
Fuel Cost Recovery
$24.91
$23.35
$23.17
$22.97
Other Charges
IL4,15
$13.11
JLL12
9.68
TOTAL
102.55
102.34
S102. 812225_
Source: (EXH 51, Exhibit TCC -5, Page 1 of 5)
"The estimates shown in Column 4 reflect the application of the incremental cost recovery factor of 0.937 percent
for the Horizon, Wildflower, Indian River, and Coral Farms solar generation facilities (2017 SoBRA projects). The
estimates shown in Column 5 reflect the data in Column 4 plus the application of the incremental cost recovery
factor presented in Issue 20 for the Loggerhead, Barefoot Bay, Hammock, and Blue Cypress solar generation
facilities (2018 SoBRA projects). The data presented in Table 7 was prepared based on an exhibit FPL witness
Cohen filed on March 1, 2017. That exhibit and this data do not reflect any storm -related charges attributable to
named storms that impacted FPL's service territory in the 2017 hurricane season.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 14
FIPUG did not sponsor a witness to address this issue, waived cross-examination of FPL
witness Cohen, and did not specifically address this issue in its brief.
Having reviewed the testimony, exhibits, and calculations used by FPL witness Cohen for
determining the appropriate incremental cost recovery factor associated with the 2017 SoBRA
projects we fmd that the appropriate base rate percentage increase (SoBRA Factor) for the 2017
SoBRA projects is 0.937 percent.
G. 2018 SoBRA Revenue Requirement
Witness Fuentes testified that the annualized jurisdictional revenue requirement for the
first 12 months of operations related to the 2018 SoBRA projects is $59,890,000. Witness
Fuentes further stated that the revenue requirement was calculated by following the
methodologies approved by this Commission for FPL's generation base rate adjustments
(GBRA) for Turkey Point Unit 5 and West County Energy Center Units 1 and 2 in Order No.
PSC-05-0902-S-EI,12 West County Energy Center Unit 3 in Order No. PSC-11-0089-S-EI,13 and
the modernization projects at Canaveral, Riviera Beach, and Port Everglades in Order No. PSC-
13-0023-S-EI.14 Witness Fuentes also testified that the same methodology was used with the
recently approved 2019 Okeechobee Limited Scope Adjustment (Okeechobee LSA). The
jurisdictional annualized revenue requirement calculation for the 2018 SoBRA projects used
several inputs, including the most current estimated capital expenditures presented by FPL
witness Brannen.
FIPUG did not sponsor a witness to address this issue, and waived cross-examination of
FPL witness Fuentes. In its brief, FIPUG only presented arguments about FPL's reserve margin,
the overall cost effectiveness of the 2018 SoBRA projects, and the appropriate cost recovery
mechanism for these projects, but did not specifically address this issue.
Having reviewed the testimony, exhibits, and calculations used by FPL witness Fuentes
for determining the amount of revenue requirement associated with the 2018 SoBRA projects we
find them to be reasonable and set the jurisdictional annualized revenue requirement associated
with the 2018 SoBRA projects at $59,890,000.
H. 2018 Base Rate Percentage Increase
Similar to the 2017 recovery factors, the 2018 SoBRA factors are incremental cost
recovery factors that will be applied to base rate charges in order for the Company to collect the
revenue necessary to recover the costs associated with building and operating the 2018 SoBRA
projects. The SoBRA recovery factors are based on the ratio of the Company's jurisdictional
revenue requirements for each Project (by year) and the forecasted retail base revenue from
electricity sales for the first twelve months of each rate year, beginning January 1, 2018 for the
12 Order No. PSC -05 -0902 -S -EI, issued September 14, 2005, in Docket No. 20050045 -EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company, and in Docket No. 20050188 -EI, In re: 2005 comprehensive
depreciation study by Florida Power & Light Company.
13 Order No. PSC -11 -0089 -S -EI, issued February 1, 2011, in Docket No. 20080677 -EI, In re: Petition for increase in
rates by Florida Power & Light Company, and in Docket No. 20090130 -EI, In re: 2009 depreciation and
dismantlement study by Florida Power & Light Company.
14 Order No. PSC -13 -0023 -S -EI, issued January 14, 2013, in Docket No. 20120015 -EI, In re: Petition for increase in
rates by Florida Power & Light Company,.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 15
2017 Project and March 1, 2018 for the 2018 Project. Exhibit 7 demonstrates the inputs and
calculations performed by witness Cohen to determine the resulting incremental cost recovery
factor of 0.919 percent for the 2018 SoBRA projects.
FIPUG did not sponsor a witness to address this issue, waived cross-examination of FPL
witness Cohen, and did not specifically address this issue in its brief.
Having reviewed the testimony, exhibits, and calculations used by FPL witness Cohen for
determining the appropriate incremental cost recovery factor associated with the 2018 SoBRA
projects, we find that the appropriate base rate percentage increase (SoBRA Factor) for the 2018
SoBRA projects is 0.919 percent.
1. SoBRA tariffs for 2017 and 2018 projects
FPL witness Cohen sponsored exhibits that summarize the tariff changes for all SoBRA
projects. The 2017 SoBRA projects are scheduled to enter commercial service by December 31,
2017, and the 2018 SoBRA projects by March 1, 2018. It is FPL's intention to submit revised
tariff sheets reflecting the Commission -approved charges if the SoBRA and the associated
charges are approved for both the 2017 and 2018 solar projects. FPL further requests that the
2017 and 2018 project tariff sheets become effective on or after the date that each set of projects
is placed into service upon written notice to the Commission.
FIPUG did not sponsor a witness to address this issue, waived cross-examination of FPL
witness Cohen. In its brief, FIPUG argued that the SoBRA projects were not needed and,
therefore, the tariffs should not be approved.
Based on our approval of the 2017 and 2018 SoBRA projects, we hereby approve tariffs
sheets which reflect our decisions with an effective date on or after the date that the 2017 and
2018 SoBRA projects are placed into service upon written notice being filed with the Clerk.
Further, we direct our staff to verify that the tariffs are consistent with our decision.
OTHER MATTERS
Per stipulation of the parties, the new fuel adjustment and capacity factors shall become
effective beginning with the first billing cycle for January 2018 through the last billing cycle for
December 2018. The first billing cycle may start before January 1, 2018, and the last cycle may
be read after December 31, 2018, so that each customer is billed for twelve months regardless of
when the recovery factors became effective. The new factors shall continue in effect until
modified by us.
We hereby approve revised tariffs reflecting the fuel adjustment factors and capacity cost
recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this proceeding. We direct staff to verify that
the revised tariffs are consistent with our decision.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that the findings set forth in the
body of, and Attachments A and B to, this Order are hereby approved. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Public Utilities Company,
Gulf Power Company, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, and Tampa Electric Company are hereby
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 16
authorized to apply the fuel cost recovery factors set forth herein during the period January 2018
through December 2018. It is further
ORDERED that the estimated true -up amounts contained in the fuel cost recovery factors
approved herein are hereby authorized subject to final true -up and further subject to proof of the
reasonableness and prudence of the expenditures upon which the amounts are based. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Public Utilities Company,
Gulf Power Company, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, and Tampa Electric Company are hereby
authorized to apply the capacity cost recovery factors set forth herein during the period January
2018 through December 2018. It is further
ORDERED that the estimated true -up amounts contained in the capacity cost recovery
factors approved herein are hereby authorized subject to final true -up and further subject to proof
of the reasonableness and prudence of the expenditures upon which the amounts are based. It is
further
ORDERED that the revised tariffs reflecting the fuel adjustment factors and capacity cost
recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this proceeding are hereby approved and we
direct Commission staff to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with our decision. It is
further
ORDERED that while the Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause with
Generating Performance Incentive Factor docket is assigned a separate docket number each year
for administrative convenience, it is a continuing docket and shall remain open.
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 8th day of Janualy, 2018.
CARLOTTA S. STAUFFER
Commission Clerk
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies furnished: A copy of this document is
provided to the parties of record at the time of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.
SBr
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 17
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and
time limits that apply. This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.
Any party adversely affected by the Commission's final action in this matter may request:
1) reconsideration of the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration with the Office of
Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, within
fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this order in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.060, Florida
Administrative Code; or 2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of an
electric, gas or telephone utility or the First District Court of Appeal in the case of a water and/or
wastewater utility by filing a notice of appeal with the Office of Commission Clerk, and filing a
copy of the notice of appeal and the filing fee with the appropriate court. This filing must be
completed within thirty (30) days after the issuance of this order, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice of appeal must be in the form specified in Rule
9.900(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 18
APPROVED TYPE 2 STIPULATIONS 15
ISSUE 113: What adjustments, if any are needed to account for replacement power costs
associated with the February 2017 outage at the Bartow generating plant?
STIPULATION:
Duke Energy Florida and the parties stipulate that Duke has not included the
approximately $10,973,639 in retail replacement power associated with the
unplanned Bartow outage in developing rates for 2018. These costs will remain in the
over/under account to be considered in Docket 20180001 -EI for recovery in 2019
rates subject to normal intervenor challenge and Commission reasonableness and
prudence review and approval.
ISSUE 2B: What is the total gain in 2016 under the Incentive Mechanism approved in
Order No. PSC -13 -0023 -S -EI, and how is that gain to be shared between FPL
and customers?
STIPULATION:
The total gain in 2016 under the Incentive Mechanism approved in Order No.
PSC -13 -0023 -S -EI, was $62,835,808. This amount exceeded the sharing
threshold of $46 million, and therefore the incremental gain above that amount
shall be shared between FPL and customers (60% and 40%, respectively), with
FPL retaining $10,101,485.
ISSUE 2C: What is the appropriate amount of Incremental Optimization Costs under
the Incentive Mechanism that FPL should be allowed to recover through the
fuel clause for Personnel, Software, and Hardware costs for the period
January 2016 through December 2016?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate amount of Incremental Optimization Costs under the Incentive
Mechanism that FPL shall be allowed to recover through the fuel clause for
Personnel, Software, and Hardware costs for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is $484,305.
ISSUE 21): What is the appropriate amount of Incremental Optimization Costs under
the Incentive Mechanism that FPL should be allowed to recover through the
fuel clause for variable power plant O&M costs incurred to generate output
for wholesale sales in excess of $514,000 megawatt -hours for the period
January 2016 through December 2016?
" A Type 2 Stipulation is one in which all parties either agree with, do not object to, or take no position on, the
stipulation presented.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 19
STIPULATION:
The appropriate amount of Incremental Optimization Costs under the Incentive
Mechanism that FPL shall be allowed to recover through the fuel clause for
variable power plant O&M costs incurred to generate output for wholesale sales
in excess of 514,000 megawatt -hours for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is $2,671,992.
ISSUE 2E: What is the appropriate amount of actual/estimated Incremental
Optimization Costs under the Incentive Mechanism approved by Order No.
PSC -16 -0560 -AS -EI that FPL may recover through the fuel clause for the
period January 2017 through December 2017?
STIPULATION:
For the period January 2017 through December 2017, FPL reported Incremental
Personnel, Software, and Hardware Costs of $701,442.
ISSUE 2F: What is the appropriate amount of actual/estimated variable power plant
O&M expenses under the revised Incentive Mechanism that FPL may
recover through the fuel clause for the period January 2017 through
December 2017?
STIPULATION:
For the period January 2017 through December 2017, FPL reported Variable
power plant O&M Attributable to Off -System Sales of $1,250,109, and also
Variable power plant O&M Avoided due to Economy Purchases of $(817,813).
The sum of these amounts is $432,296.
The appropriate amount of actual/estimated variable power plant O&M expenses
under the revised Incentive Mechanism that FPL may recover through the fuel
clause for the period January 2017 through December 2017 is $432,296.
ISSUE 2G: What is the appropriate amount of projected Incremental Optimization
Costs under the revised Incentive Mechanism that FPL may recover through
the fuel clause for the period January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate amount of projected Incremental Optimization Costs under the
revised Incentive Mechanism that FPL may recover through the fuel clause for the
period January 2018 through December 2018 is $484,870.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 20
ISSUE 211: What is the appropriate amount of projected variable power plant O&M
expenses under the revised Incentive Mechanism that FPL may recover
through the fuel clause for the period January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate amount of projected variable power plant O&M expenses under
the revised Incentive Mechanism that FPL may recover through the fuel clause for
the period January 2018 through December 2018 is $496,340.
ISSUE 2I: Have all Woodford -related costs been removed from FPL's requested true -
up and projected fuel costs?
STIPULATION:
Yes. FPL's final true -up calculations for 2016 reflect that $126,520 of Woodford -
related costs have been removed from FPL's requested true -up and projected fuel
costs for the period of January -December, 2016. There are no actual/estimated
Woodford -related costs for the period of January -December, 2017, and no
estimated Woodford -related costs for the period of January -December, 2018.
ISSUE 2Q: Has FPL properly reflected in the fuel and purchased power cost recovery
Clause the effects of the Indiantown Cogeneration L.P. (Indiantown) facility
transaction approved by the Commission in Docket No 160154 -EI?
STIPULATION:
Yes. In Schedule E1 -B (Line 4, Column 15), FPL reflected $3,164,987 in Rail Car
Lease amounts for the Actual/Estimated period of January -December, 2017 (of
this amount $1,288,762 is related to Indiantown). In Schedule E2 (Line 3, Column
15), FPL reflected $2,195,706 in Rail Car Lease amounts for the Estimated period
of January -December, 2018 (of this amount $1,123,366 is related to Indiantown).
ISSUE 2R: How should the effects on the 2018 Fuel and Capacity Clause factors of the
St. Johns River Power Park Transaction (SJRPP Transaction), approved by
the Commission on September 25, 2017, be addressed?
STIPULATION:
At the time that FPL made its 2018 Fuel and Capacity Clause projection filing,
this Commission was not expected to make a decision on the SJRPP Transaction
until after the hearing in this docket, so FPL did not reflect the impacts of that
transaction in the calculation of its 2018 Fuel or Capacity Clause
factors. However, on September 25, 2017 this Commission approved FPL's and
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 21
OPC's stipulation and settlement resolving all issues concerning the SJRPP
Transaction. The net impact of the SJRPP Transaction will be a reduction in
customer bills for 2018. At this point, FPL cannot prepare and file an updated
filing reflecting the SJRPP Transaction in time for parties to have a reasonable
opportunity to review it before the hearing scheduled in this docket on October
25-27, 2017. Therefore, FPL proposes to file a mid -course correction for the
impacts of the SJRPP Transaction by no later than November 17, 2017, to allow
ample time for Commission staff and parties to review and conduct discovery, if
any, before the mid -course correction is brought to this Commission for decision
at the February 6, 2018 Agenda Conference, with the intent that the revised Fuel
and Capacity factors go into effect on March 1, 2018.
ISSUE 3A: What amount should be refunded through the Fuel Clause to customers as a
result of the Florida Supreme Court's March 16, 2017 decision on the FPL
Interconnection Line project?
STIPULATION:
$221,415 shall be refunded through the Fuel Clause to customers as a result of the
Florida Supreme Court's March 16, 2017 decision on the FPL Interconnection
Line project. This amount includes all actual/estimated costs associated with the
FPL Interconnection Line project. Schedule E1 -b (Page 2 of 3 of Exhibit MC -1)
properly reflects the credit of $221,415 in purchased power costs for the FPL
Interconnection Line project for the period of January -December, 2017.
ISSUE 6: What are the appropriate actual benchmark levels for calendar year 2017 for
gains on non -separated wholesale energy sales eligible for a shareholder incentive?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate actual benchmark levels for calendar year 2017 for gains on non -
separated wholesale energy sales eligible for a shareholder incentive are as
follows:
DEF: $3,019,369.
FPL: Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement that was approved in Order No. PSC -
2016 -0560 -AS -EI, FPL revised its Incentive Mechanism program, which does not
rely upon the three-year average Shareholder Incentive Benchmark specified in
Order No. PSC -00 -1744 -PAA -EI. Setting the appropriate actual benchmark levels
for calendar year 2017 for gains on non -separated wholesale energy sales eligible
for a shareholder incentive is not applicable to FPL as part of its revised Incentive
Mechanism.
GULF: $872,163.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 2018000 1 -EI
PAGE 22
TECO: $1,493,095.
ISSUE 7: What are the appropriate estimated benchmark levels for calendar year 2018
for gains on non -separated wholesale energy sales eligible for a shareholder
incentive?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate estimated benchmark levels for calendar year 2018 for gains on
non -separated wholesale energy sales eligible for a shareholder incentive are as
follows:
DEF: $1,771,110.
FPL: Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement that was approved in Order No. PSC -
2016 -0560 -AS -EI, FPL revised its Incentive Mechanism program, which does not
rely upon the three-year average Shareholder Incentive Benchmark specified in
Order No. PSC -00 -1744 -PAA -EI. Setting the appropriate estimated benchmark
levels for calendar year 2018 for gains on non -separated wholesale energy sales
eligible for a shareholder incentive is not applicable to FPL as part of its revised
Incentive Mechanism.
GULF: $1,009,272
TECO: The appropriate estimated benchmark levels for calendar year 2018 for gains on
non -separated wholesale energy sales eligible for a shareholder incentive is
$881,855. However, on September 27, 2017, Docket Number 20170210 -EI was
opened to address the Tampa Electric Company Petition for Limited Proceeding
to Approve 2017 Amended and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
(2017 ARSSA Petition).
If the 2017 ARSSA Petition is approved, an optimization mechanism will replace
incentive program for non -separated wholesale energy sales.
ISSUE 8: What are the appropriate final fuel adjustment true -up amounts for the
period January 2016 through December 2016?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate final fuel adjustment true -up amounts for the period January 2016
through December 2016 are as follows:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 23
ATTACHMENT A
DEF: The final adjustment true -up amount for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is $58,893,512, under -recovery. The final true -up amount for the
period January 2016 through December 2016 is $85,111,174, under -recovery.
FPL: The final adjustment true -up amount for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is of $28,780,519, under -recovery. The final true -up amount for
the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $55,264,203, under -recovery.
FPUC: The final adjustment true -up amount for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is of $2,415,898, under -recovery. The final true up amount for
the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $3,705,790, under -recovery.
GULF: The final adjustment true -up amount for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is of $10,797,411, under -recovery. The final true up amount for
the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $16,586,321, over -recovery.
TECO: The final adjustment true -up amount for the period January 2016 through
December 2016 is of $21,571,557, under -recovery. The final true up amount for
the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $101,068,239, over -recovery.
ISSUE 9: What are the appropriate fuel adjustment actual/estimated true -up amounts
for the period January 2017 through December 2017?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate fuel adjustment actual/estimated true -up amounts for the period
January 2017 through December 2017 are as follows:
DEF: $136,610,259, under -recovery.
FPL: $45,572,897, over -recovery.
FPUC: $975,518, under -recovery.
GULF: $21,853,354, under -recovery.
TECO: $38,652,694, over -recovery.
ISSUE 10: What are the appropriate total fuel adjustment true -up amounts to be
collected/refunded from January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate total fuel adjustment true -up amounts to be collected/refunded
from January 2018 through December 2018 are as follows:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 24
ATTACHMENT A
DEF: On August 29, 2017, Docket Number 20170183 -EI was opened to address the
Duke Energy Florida, LLC Petition for Limited Proceeding to Approve 2017
Second Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2017
RRSSA Petition).
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is approved, the appropriate total fuel adjustment
true -up amount to be collected from January 2018 through December 2018 is
$97,751,887.
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is not approved, the appropriate total fuel adjustment
true -up amount to be collected from January 2018 through December 2018 is
$195,503,774.
FPL: 1$16,792,378, to be refunded (over -recovery).
FPUC: $3,391,416, to be collected (under -recovery).
Gulf: $32,650,765, to be collected (under -recovery).
TECO: $17,081,137, to be refunded (over -recovery).
ISSUE 11: What are the appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost
recovery amounts for the period January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts
for the period January 2018 through December 2018 are as follows:
DEF: $1,496,427,570.
FPL: $2,870,532,871, which excludes prior period true up amounts, revenue taxes, the
GPIF reward, and FPL's portion of gains from its Incentive Mechanism. The
replacement power costs and other related costs associated with the August 2016
and January 2017 unplanned outages at St. Lucie Unit I, lasting 27 and 7 days,
respectively, and the March 2017 unplanned outage at Turkey Point Unit 3 lasting
9 days are included in this amount. Parties reserve the right to challenge the
prudence of FPL's actions or inactions related to the cause of these outages and to
seek refunds of the corresponding replacement power costs and other related costs
in a subsequent Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause docket.
FPUC: $58,791,697.
GULF: $415,320,095, including prior period true up amounts and revenue taxes.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 25
TECO: $610,721,792, which is adjusted by the jurisdictional separation factor, excluding
the GPIF reward and the revenue tax factor, but including the prior period true up
amounts.
ISSUE 13A: What are the appropriate adjustments to FPL's 2017 GPIF targets/ranges to
reflect the effects of the Indiantown transaction approved by the Commission
in Docket No. 160154 -EI?
STIPULATION:
At the time that FPL set its GPIF targets and ranges for the January 2017 through
December 2017 period, this Commission had not yet approved the Indiantown
transaction identified in Docket No. 20160154 -EI. By Order No. PSC-2016-
0506-FOF-EI,16 this Commission approved the Indiantown transaction.
Thereafter, FPL recalculated the 2017 GPIF targets and ranges to reflect the
effects of the Indiantown transaction approved by this Commission.
The appropriate adjustment to FPL's GPIF targets/ranges for the period January
through December 2017, is that the weighted system ANOHR target should be
7,263 Btu/kWh, slightly lower than the prior weighted system ANOHR target of
7,275. The weighted system EAF target of 86.2% remains unchanged.
FPL's revised GPIF targets/ranges that reflect the effects of the Indiantown
transaction approved by the Commission are shown in Table 13A-1 below:
Table 13A-1
FPL's Revised GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January -December, 2017
Company
Plant/Unit
EAF
ANOHR
Target
Maximum
Target
Maximum
EAF
( % )
EAF Savings
( % ) ($0001s)
ANOHR
BTU/KWH
ANOHR Savings
BTU/KWH ($000's)
Canaveral
79.4
82.4 1,132
6,661
6,742 2,566
Manatee 3
70.9
72.9 480
6,962
7,142 4,011
Ft. Myers 2
92.4
94.9 921
7,301
7,512 8,452
FPL
Martin 8
72.9
75.4 537
6,977
7,090 2,529
St. Lucie 1
93.6
96.6 5,184
10,401
10,509 576
St. Lucie 2
83.7
86.7 3,765
10,278
10,372 427
Turkey
Point 3
85.1
88.1 3,830
11,106
11,286 730
16 Order No. PSC-16-0506-FOF, issued November 2, 2016, in Docket No. 160154 -EI, In re: Petition for approval of
a purchase and sale agreement between Florida Power & Light Company and Calypso Energy Holdings, LLC, for
the ownership of the Indiantown Cogeneration LP and related power purchase aereement.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 26
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary, Pages 6-7 of 34 (Exhibit CRR -3)
ISSUE 16: What is the appropriate generation performance incentive factor (GPIF)
reward or penalty for performance achieved during the period January 2016
through December 2016 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the
GPIF?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate generation performance incentive factor (GPIF) reward or
penalty for performance achieved during the period January 2016 through
December 2016 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the GPIF is as
follows:
DEF $2,793,216 reward.
FPL $9,656,036 reward.
GULF $2,043,225 penalty.
TECO $47,392 reward.
EAF
ANOHR
Target
Maximum
Target
Maximum
Company
Plant/Unit
EAF
EAF
Savings
ANOHR
ANOHR
Savings
(%)
(%)
($000's)
BTU/KWH
BTU/KWH
($000's)
Turkey
85.4
88.4
4,062
11,019
11,168
590
Point 4
Turkey
78.3
80.3
560
7,136
7,218
1,632
Point 5
West
89.5
92
791
6,951
7,137
6,225
County 1
West
93
95.5
862
6,911
7,049
4,874
County 2
West
76.1
78.6
830
6,980
7,121
3,975
County 3
Total
22,954
36,587
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary, Pages 6-7 of 34 (Exhibit CRR -3)
ISSUE 16: What is the appropriate generation performance incentive factor (GPIF)
reward or penalty for performance achieved during the period January 2016
through December 2016 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the
GPIF?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate generation performance incentive factor (GPIF) reward or
penalty for performance achieved during the period January 2016 through
December 2016 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the GPIF is as
follows:
DEF $2,793,216 reward.
FPL $9,656,036 reward.
GULF $2,043,225 penalty.
TECO $47,392 reward.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 27
ISSUE 17: What should the GPIF targets/ranges be for the period January 2018
through December 2018 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the GPIF?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate GPIF targets/ranges be for the period January 2018 through
December 2018 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the GPIF are
shown in Tables 17-1 through 17-4 below:
DEF: See Table 17-1 below:
FPL: See Table 17-2 below:
Gulf: See Table 17-3 below:
TECO: See Table 17-4 below:
Table 17-1
DEF GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January -December, 2018
Company
Plant/Unit
EAF
ANOHR
Target
Maximum
Target
Maximum
EAF
(%)
EAF
(%)
Savings
($000's)
ANOHR
BTU/KWH
ANOHR
BTU/KWH
Savings
($000's)
Bartow 4
90.20
93.82
2,025
7,916
8,600
12,851
Crystal
River 4
87.06
89.54
1,497
10,112
10,537
5,439
Crystal
River 5
92.30
94.76
1,524
9,905
10,383
6,665
DEF
Hines 1
92.36
93.25
252
7,314
7,797
4,759
Hines 2
68.97
80.88
5,452
7,357
7,706
1,948
Hines 3
87.04
88.43
515
7,285
7,708
4,074
Hines 4
83.25
87.98
2,711
7,066
7,346
2,679
Total
13,976
38,415
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary, Page 4 of 76 (Exhibit MJJ-1P)
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 2018000 1 -EI
PAGE 28
Table 17-2
FPL GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January -December, 2018
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary, Pages 6-7 of 34 (Exhibit CRR -2)
Table 17-3
GULF 2018 GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January -December, 2018
Company
Plant/Unit
EAF
ANOHR
Target
Maximum
Target
Maximum
ANOHR
BTU/KWH
ANOHR Savings
BTU/KWH ($000's)
Company
Plant/Unit
EAF
EAF
Savings
ANOHR
ANOHR
Savings
Crist 7
(%)
(%)
($000's)
BTU/KWH
BTU/KWH
($000's)
Canaveral
86.4
89.4
1,373
6,637
6,744
2,708
GULF
Manatee 3
92.9
94.9
517
6,939
7,118
2,967
Ft. Myers 2
85.9
88.4
578
7,240
7,356
2,583
Martin 8
80.5
83.0
657
7,006
7,163
2,743
Riveria 5
85.4
87.9
1,351
6,601
6,679
2,074
St. Lucie 1
85.0
88.0
3,916
10,441
10,545
481
St. Lucie 2
85.1
88.1
3,241
10,303
10,385
357
Turkey
821
85.1
3,119
11,044
11,235
718
FPL
Point 3
Turkey
93.6
96.6
3,597
10,970
11,177
863
Point 4
West
79.1
82.1
1,297
6,974
7,104
3,038
County 1
West
89.3
91.8
1,252
6,885
6,992
2,745
Count 2
West
80.4
82.9
1,075
6,974
7,078
2,397
Count 3
Total
21,973
1
1
23,674
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary, Pages 6-7 of 34 (Exhibit CRR -2)
Table 17-3
GULF 2018 GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January -December, 2018
Company
Plant/Unit
Target
EAF
(%)
EAF
Maximum
EAF Savings
(%) ($000's)
ANOHR
Target
Maximum
ANOHR
BTU/KWH
ANOHR Savings
BTU/KWH ($000's)
Scherer 3
97.2
98.1
12
10,495
10,810
2,089
Crist 7
82.1
83.4
3
10,503
10,818
500
Daniell
82.2
84.5
0
12,205
12,571
65
GULF
Daniel
90.7
92.9
1
12,429
12,802
147
Smith 3
93.2
93.7
83
6,932
7,140
3,095
Total
99
5,896
Source: GPIF Unit Performance Summary, Page 41 of 64 (Exhibit CLN-2, Schedule 3)
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 29
ATTACHMENT A
Table 17-4
TECO 2018 GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January -December, 2018
GPIF Targets / Ranges for the
period January 2018 throw h December 2018
Target
EAF
(%)
Maximum
Target
Maximum
EAF Savings
(%) ($000's)
ANOHR
BTU/KWH
ANOHR Savings
BTU/KWH ($000's)
Big Bend 2 61.5
68.2 615.6
11,320
11,798 778.3
Big Bend 3 66.7
72.4 1,079.4
10,619
10,987 1,448.4
Big Bend 4 78.7
82.0 1,473.1
10,448
10,830 2,146.5
Polk 1 74.4
77.0 211.9
9,978
10,312 1,028.0
TECO
Polk 2 83.2
85.7 1,408.9
7,382
7,936 13,242.8
Bayside 1 82.5
83.8 770.2
7,489
7,619 1,359.6
Bayside 2 1 77.3
79.1 1,505.7
7,676
7,905 2,106.5
Total 7,064.8
22,110.1
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary, Page 4 of 40 (Exhibit BSB -2, Document 1)
ISSUE 18: What are the appropriate projected net fuel and purchased power cost
recovery and Generating Performance Incentive amounts to be included in
the recovery factor for the period January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts
for the period January 2018 through December 2018 are as follows:
DEF: On August 29, 2017,
Duke Energy Florida,
Second Revised and
RRSSA Petition).
Docket Number 20170183 -EI was opened to address the
LLC Petition for Limited Proceeding to Approve 2017
Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2017
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is approved, the appropriate projected net fuel and
purchased power cost recovery and Generating Performance Incentive amounts to
be included in the recovery factor for the period January 2018 through December
2018 is $1,598,120,482.
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is not approved, the appropriate projected net fuel
and purchased power cost recovery and Generating Performance Incentive
amounts to be included in the recovery factor for the period January 2018 through
December 2018 is $1,695,942,751.
FPL: The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts
for the period January 2018 through December 2018 is $2,874,984,279, including
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 30
prior period true -ups, revenue taxes, FPL's portion of Incentive Mechanism gains,
and the GPIF reward.
FPUC: The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts
for the period January 2018 through December 2018 is $62,183,113, which
includes prior period true up amounts.
GULF: The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts
for the period January 2018 through December 2018 is $413,276,870, including
prior period true up amounts and revenue taxes.
TECO: The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts
for the period January 2018 through December 2018 is $627,802,929, which is
adjusted by the jurisdictional separation factor. The amount is $611,208,904 when
the GPIF reward or penalty, the revenue tax factor, and the prior period true up
amounts are applied.
ISSUE 19: What is the appropriate revenue tax factor to be applied in calculating each
investor-owned electric utility's levelized fuel factor for the projection period
January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate revenue tax factor to be applied in calculating each investor-
owned electric utility's levelized fuel factor for the projection period January
2018 through December 2018 is 1.00072.
ISSUE 20: What are the appropriate levelized fuel cost recovery factors for the period
January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate levelized fuel cost recovery factors for the period January 2018
through December 2018 are as follows:
DEF: On August 29, 2017, Docket Number 20170183 -EI was opened to address the
Duke Energy Florida, LLC Petition for Limited Proceeding to Approve 2017
Second Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2017
RRSSA Petition).
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is approved, the appropriate levelized fuel cost
recovery factors for the period January 2018 through December 2018 is 4.127
cents per kWh (adjusted for jurisdictional losses).
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 2018000 1 -EI
PAGE 31
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is not approved, the appropriate levelized fuel cost
recovery factors for the period January 2018 through December 2018 is 4.380
cents per kWh (adjusted for jurisdictional losses).
FPL: For the period January and February, 2018 the appropriate levelized fuel cost
recovery factor is 2.650 cents per kWh. (adjusted for jurisdictional losses). For the
period March -December, 2018 the appropriate levelized fuel cost recovery factor
is 2.630 cents per kWh (adjusted for jurisdictional losses).
FPUC: The appropriate factor is 6.506¢ per kWh.
GULF: 3.789 cents/kWh.
TECO: The appropriate factor is 3.127 cents per kWh before any application of time of
use multipliers for on -peak or off-peak usage.
ISSUE 21: What are the appropriate fuel recovery line loss multipliers to be used in
calculating the fuel cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery
voltage level class?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate fuel recovery line loss multipliers to be used in calculating the
fuel cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery voltage level class
are shown below:
DEF: See Table 21-1 below:
Table 21-1
DEF Fuel Recovery Line Loss Multipliers
for the period January -December, 2018
Group
Delivery Voltage Level
Line Loss Multiplier
A.
Transmission
0.98
B.
Distribution Primary
0.99
C.
Distribution Secondary
1.00
D.
Lighting Service
1 1.00
Source: Menendez Aug. 24, 2017 & Sept. 1, 2017 Testimony, Pages 2-3.
FPL: The appropriate fuel recovery line loss multipliers to be used in calculating the
fuel cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery voltage level class
are provided in response to Issue No. 22.
FPUC: The appropriate fuel recovery line loss multiplier to be used in calculating the fuel
cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery voltage level class is
1.0000.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 32
GULF: The appropriate fuel recovery line loss multipliers to be used in calculating the
fuel cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery voltage level class
are provided in response to Issue No. 22.
TECO: See Table 21-2 below:
Table 21-2
TECO Fuel Recovery Line Loss Multipliers
for the period Januarv-December. 2018
Voltage Level
Line Loss Multiplier
-Delivery
Distribution Secondary
1.00
Distribution Primary
0.99
Transmission
0.98
Lighting Service
1.00
Source: Schedule E1 -D, Page 5 of 30 (Exhibit PAR -3, Document 2)
ISSUE 22: What are the appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate
class/delivery voltage level class adjusted for line losses?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage
level class adjusted for line losses are shown in Tables 22-1 through 22-11 below:
DEF: On August 29, 2017, Docket Number 20170183 -EI was opened to address the
Duke Energy Florida, LLC Petition for Limited Proceeding to Approve 2017
Second Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2017
RRSSA Petition).
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is approved, the appropriate fuel cost recovery factors
for each rate class/delivery voltage level class adjusted for line losses are shown
in Table 22-1 below, and if the 2017 RRSSA Petition is not approved, the
appropriate fuel cost recovery factors shown in Table 22-1A below:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 33
Table 22-1
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for DEF with approval of RRSSA Petition
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors For the Period January -December, 2018
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors
(cents/kWh)
Time of Use
Delivery
Line
First Second
Second
On -Peak Off -Peak
Voltage Level
Tier Tier
Levelized
Multiplier Multiplier
Levelized
1.236 0.890
1 Distribution Secondary
3.838 4.838
4.132
5.107 3.677
2 Distribution Primary
-- --
4.091
5.056 3.641
3 Transmission
-- --
4.049
5.005 3.604
4 Lighting Secondary
-- --
3.945
-- --
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 1 of 1 (Alternative Exhibit CAM -3, Part 2)
Table 22-1A
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for DEF without approval of RRSSA Petition
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors For the Period January -December, 2018
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors
(cents/kWh)
Time of Use
Delivery
Line
First
Second
On -Peak Off -Peak
Voltage Level
Levelized
Tier
Tier
Multiplier Multiplier
1.236 0.890
1 Distribution Secondary
4.091
5.091
4.385
5.420 3.903
2 Distribution Primary
--
--
4.341
5.365 3.863
3 Transmission
--
--
4.297
5.311 3.824
4 Lighting Secondary
--
--
4.186
-- --
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 1 of 1 (Exhibit CAM -3, Part 2)
FPL: The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage
level class adjusted for line losses for the period January 2018 through December
2018, are shown in Tables 22-2 through 22-5 below:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 34
Table 22-2
FPL Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January: Februa, 2018
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 1 of 2 (Appendix II of Exhibit RBD -5)
Table 22-3
FPL Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Fuel Recovery Factors - By Rate Group (Adjusted for Line Losses)
Factors
For the Period January 2018 through the day prior to the 2018 SoBRA in-service date (projected to be
February 28, 2018)
Group
Rate Schedule
Avg.
Factor
Loss
Multiplier
Fuel
Recovery
Factor
RS -1 first 1,000 kWh
2.650
1.00206
2.317
A
RS -1, all addl. kWh
2.650
1.00206
3.317
GS -1, SL -2, GSCU-1, WIES-1
2.650
1.00206
2.655
A-1
SL -1, OL -1, PL -1 17
2.553
1.00206
2.558
B
GSD -1
2.650
1.00202
2.655
C
GSLD-1, CS -1
2.650
1.00150
2.654
D
GSLD-2, CS -2, OS -2, MET
2.650
0.99635
2.640
E
GSLD-3, CS -3
2.650
0.97646
2.588
GST -1 On -Peak
3.156
1.00206
3.163
D
GST -1 Off Peak
2.438
1.00206
2.443
A
RTR-1 On -Peak
-
-
0.508
RTR-1 Off -Peak
-
-
0.212
GSDT-1, CILC-1 (G), HLFT-1 21-499 kW On Peak
3.156
1.00202
3.162
B
GSDT-1, CILC-1 (G), HLFT-1 21-499 kW) Off Peak
2.438
1.00202
2.443
GSDLT-1, CST -1, HLFT-2 (500-1,9999 kW) On Peak
3.156
1.00150
3.161
C
GSDLT-1, CST -1, HLFT-2 (500-1,9999 kW) Off Peak
2.438
1.00150
2.442
GSDLT-2, CST -2, HLFT-3 2,000+ kW On Peak
3.156
0.99672
3.146
D
GSDLT-2, CST -2, HLFT-3 2,000+ kW Off Peak
2.438
0.99672
2.430
GSDLT-3, CST -3, CILC-1(T), ISST-1 T) On Peak
3.156
0.97646
3.082
E
GSDLT-3, CST -3, CILC-1(T), ISST-1(T) Off Peak
2.438
0.97646
2.381
CILC-1(D), ISST- 1(D) On Peak
3.156
0.99627
3.144
F
CILC-1 D , ISST-1 Off Peak
2.438
0.99627
2.429
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 1 of 2 (Appendix II of Exhibit RBD -5)
Table 22-3
FPL Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Source: Schedule El -E, Page 2 of 2 (Appendix II of Exhibit RBD -5)
17 Weighted Average 16% On -Peak and 84% Off -Peak
Seasonal Demand Time of Use Rider SDTR Fuel Recovery
Factors
For the Period June -
September, 2018
Fuel
Group
Rate Schedule
Avg.
Loss
Recovery
Factor
Multiplier
Factor
GSD(T)-1 On -Peak
3.790
1.00202
3.798
B
GSD(T)-1 Off -Peak
2.507
1.00202
2.512
GSLD T -1 On -Peak
3.790
1.00150
3.796
C
GSLD(T)-1 Off -Peak
2.507
1.00150
2.511
GSLD T -2 On -Peak
3.790
0.99672
3.778
D
GSLD(T)-2 Off -Peak
2.507
0.99672
2.499
Source: Schedule El -E, Page 2 of 2 (Appendix II of Exhibit RBD -5)
17 Weighted Average 16% On -Peak and 84% Off -Peak
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 35
Table 22-4
FPL Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period March -December, 2018
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 1 of 2 (Appendix III of Exhibit RBD -6)
Table 22-5
FPL Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period March -December, 2018
Fuel Recovery Factors - By Rate Group (Adjusted for Line Losses
Factors
From the 2018 SoBRA in-service date(projected to be March 1,
2018 through December 2018-
Group
Rate Schedule
Avg.
Factor
Loss
Multiplier
Fuel
Recovery
Factor
RS -1 first 1,000 kWh
2.630
1.00206
2.297
A
RS -1, all addl. kWh
2.630
1.00206
3.297
Rate Schedule
GS -1, SL -2, GSCU-1, WIES-1
2.630
1.00206
2.635
A-1
SL -1, OL -1, PL -I"
2.534
1.00206
2.539
B
GSD -1
2.630
1.00202
2.635
C
GSLD-1, CS -1
2.630
1.00150
2.634
D
GSLD-2, CS -2, OS -2, MET
2.630
0.99635
2.620
E
GSLD-3, CS -3
2.630
0.97646
2.568
GSLD T -1 Off -Peak
GST -1 On -Peak
3.132
1.00206
3.138
GSLD(T)-2 On -Peak
GST -1 Off Peak
2.420
1.00206
2.425
A
RTR-1 On -Peak
-
-
0.503
RTR-1 Off -Peak
-
-
0.210
GSDT-1, CILC-1(G), HLFT-1 21-499 kW On Peak
3.132
1.00202
3.138
B
GSDT-1, CILC-1 (G), HLFT-1 21-499 kW Off Peak
2.420
1.00202
2.425
GSDLT-1, CST -1, HLFT-2 (500-1,9999 kW) On Peak
3.132
1.00150
3.137
C
GSDLT-1, CST -1, HLFT-2 500-1,9999 kW Off Peak
2.420
1.00150
2.424
GSDLT-2, CST -2, HLFT-3 2,000+ kW On Peak
3.132
0.99672
3.122
D
GSDLT-2, CST -2, HLFT-3 2,000+ kW) Off Peak
2.420
0.99672
2.412
GSDLT-3, CST -3, CILC-1 T , ISST-1 T On Peak
3.132
0.97646
3.058
E
GSDLT-3, CST -3, CILC-1(T), ISST-1(T) Off Peak
2.420
0.97646
2.363
CILC-1 (D), ISST-1 D On Peak
3.132
0.99627
3.120
F
CILC-1 D , ISST-1(D) Off Peak
2.420
0.99627
2.411
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 1 of 2 (Appendix III of Exhibit RBD -6)
Table 22-5
FPL Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period March -December, 2018
Source: Schedule El -E, Page 2 of 2 (Appendix III of Exhibit RBD -6)
18 Weighted Average 16% On -Peak and 84% Off -Peak
Seasonal Demand Time of Use Rider (SDTR) Fuel Recovery
Factors
For the Period June
- September, 2018
Fuel
Avg.
Loss
Group
Rate Schedule
Recovery
Factor
Multiplier
Factor
GSD T -1 On -Peak
3.761
1.00202
3.769
B
GSD T -1 Off -Peak
2.488
1.00202
2.493
GSLD(T)-1 On -Peak
3.761
1.00150
3.767
C
GSLD T -1 Off -Peak
2.488
1.00150
2.492
GSLD(T)-2 On -Peak
3.761
0.99672
3.749
D
GSLD T -2 Off -Peak
2.488
0.99672
2.480
Source: Schedule El -E, Page 2 of 2 (Appendix III of Exhibit RBD -6)
18 Weighted Average 16% On -Peak and 84% Off -Peak
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 36
FPUC: The appropriate levelized fuel adjustment and purchased power cost recovery
factors for the period January 2018 through December 2018 for the Consolidated
Electric Division, adjusted for line loss multipliers and including taxes, are shown
in Tables 22-6 through 22-8 below:
Table 22-6
FPUC Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Fuel Recovery Factors — By Rate Schedule
For the Period January through December, 2018
For the Period January through December, 2018
Rate Schedule and Allocation
Rate Schedule
Levelized Adjustment
cents/kWh
RS
9.666
GS
9.391
GSD
9.029
GSLD
8.769
LS
7.136
Source: Schedule E1, Page 3 of 3 (Exhibit MC -2)
Table 22-7
FPUC Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Step Rate Allocation For Residential Customers RS Rate Schedule
For the Period January through December, 2018
through December, 2018
Rate Schedule and Allocation
Levelized Adjustment
cents/kWh
RS Rate Schedule — Sales Allocation
9.666
RS Rate Schedule with less than 1,000 kWh/month
9.320
RS Rate Schedule with more than 1,000 kWh/month
10.570
Source: Schedule E1, Page 3 of 3 (Exhibit MC -2)
Table 22-8
FPUC Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Fuel Recovery Factors for Time Of Use — By Rate Schedule
For the Period Janua
through December, 2018
Rate Schedule
Levelized
Adjustment
On Peak cents/kWh
Levelized
Adjustment
Off Peak cents/kWh)
RS
17.720
5.420
GS
13.391
4.391
GSD
13.029
5.779
GSLD
14.769
5.769
Interni tible
7.269
8.769
Source: Schedule E1, Page 3 of 3 (Exhibit MC -2)
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 37
GULF: The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage
level class adjusted for line losses for the period January 2018 through December
2018, are shown in Tables 22-9 and 22-10 below:
Table 22-9
GULF Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Group
Standard Rate
Schedules
Fuel Recovery
Loss Multipliers
Fuel Cost recovery Factors
(cents/kWh)
A
RS,RSVP,
RSTOU,GS,GSD,
GSTOU,SBS,OSIII
1.00555
3.810
B
LP,SBS
0.99188
3.758
C
PX, RTP, SBS
0.97668
3.701
D
OSI/II
1.00560
3.776
Source: Schedule
E1 -E. Paae 8 of 41
(Exhibit CSB -6)
Table 22-10
GULF Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 8 of 41 (Exhibit CSB -6)
TECO: The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage
level class adjusted for line losses for the period January 2018 through December
2018, are shown in Table 22-11 below:
Time Of
Fuel
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors ¢/KWH
Recovery
Group
Use Rate
On -Peak
Off -Peak
Schedules*
Loss
Multipliers
A
GSDT
1.00555
4.391
3.570
B
LPT
0.99188
4.332
3.521
C
PXT
0.97668
4.265
3.467
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Page 8 of 41 (Exhibit CSB -6)
TECO: The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage
level class adjusted for line losses for the period January 2018 through December
2018, are shown in Table 22-11 below:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 3 8
Table 22-11
TECO Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Metering Voltage Level
Fuel Cost Recovery Factors cents per kWh
Levelized Fuel
Recovery Factor
First Tier
(Up to 1,000
kWh)
Second Tier
(Over 1,000
kWh)
STANDARD
Distribution Secondary (RS only)
2.818 3.818
Distribution Secondary 3.132
Distribution Primary 3.101
Transmission 3.069
Lighting Service 3.095
TIME OF USE
Distribution Secondary- On -Peak 3.330
Distribution Secondary- Off -Peak 3.047
Distribution Primary- On -Peak 3.297
Distribution Primary- Off -Peak 3.017
Transmission — On -Peak 3.263
Transmission — Off -Peak 2.986
Source: Schedule E1 -E, Document Number 2, Page 6 of 30 (Exhibit PAR -3)
ISSUE 23A: Has DEF included in the capacity cost recovery clause the nuclear cost
recovery amount ordered by the Commission in Docket No. 170009 -EI?
STIPULATION:
On August 15, 2017, this Commission authorized DEF to include the nuclear cost
recovery amount of $49,648,457 in the calculation of its capacity cost recovery
factors for the period January through December, 2018 and DEF has appropriately
included this amount. If this Commission does not approve the 2017 Settlement,
the Levy project will be addressed as set forth in Commission Order No. PSC -
2017 -0341 -PCO -EI, dated August 30, 2017.
ISSUE 24A: Has FPL included in the capacity cost recovery clause the nuclear cost
recovery amount ordered by the Commission in Docket No. 20170009 -EI?
STIPULATION:
Yes. FPL included the nuclear cost recovery amount of $7,305,202, over -
recovery, in the calculation of its capacity cost recovery factors for the period
January through December 2018. In the event that this Commission determines at
the October 17, 2017 Special Agenda Conference for Docket 20170009 -EI that a
different amount is applicable, FPL will reflect the impact of that different
amount in the mid -course correction for the SJRPP transaction as described in
Issue 2R. Notwithstanding Rule 25-6.0423(6)(c)4, Florida Administrative Code,
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 39
FPL shall file that mid -course correction by no later than November 17, 2017,
with the intent that the revised Fuel and Capacity factors go into effect on March
1, 2018. This stipulation is without prejudice as to the ultimate amount to be
recovered or refunded by FPL.
ISSUE 24B: Has FPL properly reflected in the capacity cost recovery clause the effects of
the Indiantown transaction approved by the Commission in Docket No.
160154 -EI?
STIPULATION:
Yes. In its 2017 CCR Actual/Estimated True -up filing (Exhibit RBD -4, Page 9 of
15), FPL reflected $89,421,413 in Total Recoverable Costs for the Indiantown
transaction for the Actual/Estimated period of January -December, 2017.
$50,166,667 of this amount is the Regulatory Asset related to the loss of the
Indiantown Purchase Power Agreement, and $39,254,746 is the amount for the
Total Return Requirements.
In its 2018 CCR Projection filing (Exhibit RBD -8, Appendix V, Page 14 of 29),
FPL reflected $84,768,867 in Total Recoverable Expenses for the Indiantown
transaction for the Estimated period of January -December, 2018. $50,166,667 of
this amount is the Regulatory Asset related to the loss of the Indiantown Purchase
Power Agreement, and $34,602,200 is the amount for the Total Return
Requirements.
ISSUE 24C: What are the appropriate Indiantown non -fuel base revenue requirements to
be recovered through the Capacity Clause pursuant to the Commission's
approval of the Indiantown transaction in Docket No. 160154 -EI for 2017
and 2018?
STIPULATION:
In its 2017 CCR Actual/Estimated True -up filing (Exhibit RBD -4, Page 11 of 15),
FPL reflected $13,626,163 in Revenue Requirement Allocation for the
Indiantown transaction for the period of January -December, 2017.
In its 2018 CCR Projection filing (Exhibit RBD -8, Appendix V, Page 18 of 29),
FPL reflected $4,022,504 in Revenue Requirement Allocation for the Indiantown
transaction for the period of January -December, 2018.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 40
SSUE 241): Is $5,155,918 the appropriate refund amount associated with the Port
Everglades Energy Center (PEEC) GBRA true -up?
STIPULATION:
Yes. The PEEC GBRA refund accrual is $5,099,063, and the cumulative interest
is $56,855. As stated in its 2018 CCR Projection filing (Exhibit RBD -8, Appendix
V, Page 1 of 29), the appropriate PEEC Generating Base Rate Adjustment
cumulative refund amount, including interest, is $5,155,918.
ISSUE 27: What are the appropriate final capacity cost recovery true -up amounts for
the period January 2016 through December 2016?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate final capacity cost recovery true -up amounts for the period
January 2016 through December 2016 are as follows:
DEF: The final capacity cost recovery adjustment true -up amount for the period January
2016 through December 2016 is $2,203,058, over -recovery. The final true -up
amount for the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $16,868,290,
over -recovery.
FPL: The final capacity cost recovery adjustment true -up amount for the period January
2016 through December 2016 is $7,586,581, over -recovery. The final true -up
amount for the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $17,227,490,
over -recovery.
GULF: The final capacity cost recovery adjustment true -up amount for the period January
2016 through December 2016 is $545,959, over -recovery. The final true -up
amount for the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $695,190, over -
recovery.
TECO: The final capacity cost recovery adjustment true -up amount for the period January
2016 through December 2016 is $4,411,715, under -recovery. The final true -up
amount for the period January 2016 through December 2016 is $7,397,775,
under -recovery.
ISSUE 28: What are the appropriate capacity cost recovery actual/estimated true -up
amounts for the period January 2017 through December 2017?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate capacity cost recovery actual/estimated true -up amounts for the
period January 2017 through December 2017 are as follows:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 2018000 1 -EI
PAGE 41
DEF: $7,324,397, under -recovery.
FPL: $6,649,359, under -recovery.
GULF: $3,698,545, under -recovery.
TECO: $1,648,777, over -recovery.
ATTACHMENT A
ISSUE 29: What are the appropriate total capacity cost recovery true -up amounts to be
collected/refunded during the period January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate total capacity cost recovery true -up amounts to be
collected/refunded during the period January 2018 through December 2018 are as
follows:
DEF: $5,121,339, under -recovery.
FPL: $937,222, over -recovery.
GULF: $3,152,586, under -recovery.
TECO: $2,762,938, under -recovery.
ISSUE 30: What are the appropriate projected total capacity cost recovery amounts for
the period January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate projected total capacity cost recovery amounts for the period
January 2018 through December 2018 are as follows:
DEF: Schedule E12 -A (Page 1 of 2 of Exhibit CAM -3, Part 3) reflects the total
projected purchased power capacity cost recovery amount for the period January
2018 through December 2018, excluding revenue taxes, is $404,721,485.
FPL: $289,174,210.
GULF: $75,738,532.
TECO: $8,131,950.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 42
ISSUE 31: What are the appropriate projected net purchased power capacity cost
recovery amounts to be included in the recovery factor for the period
January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
DEF: Schedule E12 -A (Page 1 of 2 of Exhibit CAM -3, Part 3) reflects the total
projected purchased power capacity cost recovery amount for the period January
2018 through December 2018, excluding nuclear cost recovery clause amounts
and adjusted for revenue taxes, is $410,137,911. The total projected ISIFI Costs
for the period January 2018 through December 2018, adjusted for revenue taxes,
is $9,315,359. The sum of these amounts is $419,453,270, which is the
appropriate projected net purchased power capacity cost recovery amounts to be
included in the recovery factor for the period January 2018 through December
2018.
FPL: $279,996,930, which includes all prior period true -up amounts, nuclear cost
recovery amounts, the Port Everglades Energy Center GBRA True -up, the
Indiantown non -fuel based revenue requirement, and revenue taxes.
GULF: $78,947,920, which includes all prior period true -up amounts and revenue taxes.
TECO: $10,902,732, which includes all prior period true -up amounts and revenue taxes.
ISSUE 32: What are the appropriate jurisdictional separation factors for capacity
revenues and costs to be included in the recovery factor for the period
January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate jurisdictional separation factors for capacity revenues and costs to
be included in the recovery factor for the period January 2018 through December
2018 are as follows:
DEF: Base — 92.885%, Intermediate — 72.703%, Peaking — 95.924%.
FPL: See Table 32-1 below:
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 43
Table 32-1
FPL Jurisdictional Separation Factors
for the Deriod Januarv-December. 2018
Demand
Separation Factor
Transmission
0.887974
System Average Production Demand Base & Solar)
0.956652
Contract Adjusted Demand — Intermediate
0.941431
Contract Adjusted Demand — Peaking
0.947386
Distribution
1.000000
Source: Exhibit RBD -8
GULF: The appropriate jurisdictional separation factors. are:
FPSC 97.18277%
FERC 2.81723%
TECO: The appropriate jurisdictional separation factor is 1.00.
ISSUE 33: What are the appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period
January 2018 through December 2018?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2018
through December 2018 are shown in Tables 33-1 through 33-6 below.
DEF: On August 29, 2017, Docket Number 20170183 -EI was opened the address the
Duke Energy Florida, LLC Petition for Limited Proceeding to Approve 2017
Second Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2017
RRSSA Petition).
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is approved, the appropriate capacity cost recovery
factors for the period January 2018 through December 2018 are shown in Table
33-1 below.
If the 2017 RRSSA Petition is not approved, the capacity cost recovery factors
beginning January 2018 will be the same as those listed in Table 33-1 pending the
outcome of the deferred Levy -portion of the 2017 NCRC hearing.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 44
Table 33-1
DEF Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
(with approval of RRSSA Petition)
Rate Class
2018 Capacity
Cost Recovery Factors
Cents / kWh
Dollars /
kW -month
Residential (RS -1, RST -1, RSL -1, RSL -2, RSS-1)
1.433
General Service Non -Demand (GS -1, GST -1)
At Secondary Voltage
1.117
At Primary Voltage
1.106
At Transmission Voltage
1.095
General Service (GS -2)
0.782
General Service Demand GSD -1, GSDT-1, SS -1
At Secondary Voltage
4.06
At Primary Voltage
4.02
At Transmission Voltage
3.98
Curtailable (CS 1, CST -1, CS -2, CST -2, CS -3, CST -3, SS -3
At Secondary Voltage
2.66
At Primary Voltage
2.63
At Transmission Voltage
2.61
Interruptible (IS -1, IST -1, IS -2. IST -2, SS -2
At Secondary Voltage
3.09
At Primary Voltage
3.06
At Transmission Voltage
3.03
Standby Monthly (SS -1, 2, 3)
At Secondary Voltage
0.393
At Primary Voltage
0.389
At Transmission Voltage
0.385
Standby Daily( S- 1, 2, 3
At Secondary Voltage
0.187
At Primary Voltage
0.185
At Transmission Voltage
0.183
Lighting (LS -1)
0.227
Source: Schedule E12 -E, Pages 3-4 of (Exhibit CAM -3, Part 3)
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 45
FPL: The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2018
through December 2018 are shown in Tables 33-2 through 33-4 below:
Table 33-2
FPL Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Rate Schedule
2018
Capacity
Cost Recovery
Factors
$/kW
Reservation
Demand
$/kWh Charge
(RDC)
$/kW19
Sum of Daily
Demand
Charge
(SDD)
$w20
RS1/RTRl
-
0.00277
-
-
GS 1/GST 1
-
0.00259
-
-
GSD1/GSDT1/HLFT1
0.83
-
-
-
OS2
-
0.00114
-
-
GSLD1/GSLDTI/CSI/CSTI/HLFT2
0.98
-
-
-
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3
0.92
-
-
-
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3
0.95
-
-
-
SST1T
-
-
$0.13
$0.06
SST1D1/SST1D2/SST1D3
-
-
$0.13
$0.06
CILC D/CILC G
1.05
-
-
-
CILC T
1.01
-
-
-
MET
1.03
-
-
-
OLl/SL1/SL1M/PL1
-
0.00021
-
-
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1
-
0.00180
-
-
Source: Page 20 of 29 (Appendix V of Exhibit RBD -8)
19RDC=((Total Capacity Costs )/(Projected Avg 12CP @gen)(.10)(demand loss expansion factor))/12 months
20SDD=((Total Capacity Costs )/(Projected Avg 12CP @gen)(21 on peak days)(demand loss expn. factor))/12
months
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 46
Table 33-3
FPL Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Rate Schedule
2018 Indiantown Capacity
Cost Reco, ery Factors
Reservation Sum of Daily
$/kW $/kWh Demand Demand
Charge Charge
(RDC) $/kW (SDD) $/kW
RS1/RTR1
-
0.00004
-
-
GS1/GST1
-
0.00004
-
-
GSDl/GSDT1/HLFT1
0.01
-
-
-
OS2
-
0.00003
-
-
GSLD1/GSLDTI/CSI/CST1/HLFT2
0.01
-
-
-
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3
0.01
-
-
-
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3
0.01
-
-
-
SST1T
-
-
-
-
SST1Dl/SST1D2/SST1D3
-
-
-
-
CILC D/CILC G
0.02
-
-
-
CILC T
0.02
-
-
-
MET
0.02
-
-
-
OLl/SLI/SL1M/PL1
-
0.00001
-
-
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1
1 0.00003
-
-
Source: Page 20 of 29 (Appendix V of Exhibit RBD -8)
Table 33-4
FPL Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Rate Schedule
2018 Total Ca aci
Cost Recovery Factors
$/kW $/kWh
Reservation
Demand
Charge
(RDC) $/kW
Sum of Daily
Demand
Charge
(SDD) $/kW
RSI/RTRI
- 0.00281
-
-
GS1/GSTI
- 0.00263
-
-
GSD1/GSDT1/HLFT1
0.84 -
-
-
OS2
- 0.00117
-
-
GSLDl/GSLDTI/CSI/CST1/HLFT2
0.99 -
-
-
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3
0.93 -
-
-
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3
0.96 -
-
-
SSTIT
- -
$0.13
$0.06
SST1D1/SST1D2/SST1D3
- -
$0.13
$0.06
CILC D/CILC G
1.07 -
-
-
CILC T
1.03 -
-
-
MET
1.05 -
-
-
OLl/SL1/SL1M/PL1
- 0.00022
-
-
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1
- 0.00183
-
-
Source: Page 20 of 29 (Appendix V of Exhibit RBD -8)
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 47
GULF: The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2018
through December 2018 are shown in Table 33-5 below:
Table 33-5
GULF Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Rate Class Capacity Cost Recovery Factor
Cents / kWh Dollars / kW -month
RS, RSVP, RSTOU 0.835
-
GS 0.762
GSD, GSDT, GSTOU 0.666
LP, LPT -
2.76
PX, PXT, RTP, SBS 0.560
-
OS-I/I1 0.164
OSIII 0.505
Source: Schedule CCE -2, Page 40 of 41 (Exhibit CSB -6)
TECO: The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2018
through December 2018 are shown in Table 33-6 below:
Table 33-6
TECO Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January -December, 2018
Rate Class and Metering Voltage Capacity Cost Recovery Factor
Cents / kWh Dollars / kW
RS Secondary 0.066
_
GS and CS Secondary 0.060
GSD, SBF Standard
Secondary
-
0.20
Prima
0.20
Transmission
0.20
GSD Optional
Secondary
0.047
_
Primary
0.047
IS, SBI
Prima
_
0.14
Transmission
0.14
LS 1 Secondary
0.016
-
Source: Document Number 1, Page 3 of 4 (Exhibit PAR -3)
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT A
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 48
ISSUE 34: What should be the effective date of the fuel adjustment factors and capacity
cost recovery factors for billing purposes?
STIPULATION:
The new factors shall be effective beginning with the first billing cycle for
January 2018 through the last billing cycle for December 2018. The first billing
cycle may start before January 1, 2018, and the last cycle may be read after
December 31, 2018, so that each customer is billed for twelve months regardless
of when the recovery factors became effective. The new factors shall continue in
effect until modified by this Commission.
ISSUE 35: Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the fuel adjustment
factors and capacity cost recovery factors determined to be appropriate in
this proceeding?
STIPULATION:
Yes. The Commission should approve revised tariffs reflecting the fuel
adjustment factors and capacity cost recovery factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding. The Commission should direct staff to verify that the revised
tariffs are consistent with the Commission's decision.
ISSUE 36: Should this docket be closed?
STIPULATION:
No. While a separate docket number is assigned each year for administrative
convenience this is a continuing docket and shall remain open.
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT B
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El
PAGE 49
HEDGING ISSUE STIPULATIONS
ISSUE IA: Should the Commission approve as prudent DEF's actions to mitigate the
volatility of natural gas, residual oil, and purchased power prices, as reported in
DEF's April 2017 and August 2017 hedging reports?
STIPULATION:
Yes. DEF's hedging activities for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31,
2017, are reported in April 2017 and August 2017 filings in Docket No.
20170001 -EI and resulted in hedging net expense of $53,819,249 ($53,953,024
expense for natural gas - $133,774 gain on oil). Upon review of these filings,
DEF has complied with its Risk Management Plan as approved by this
Commission and, therefore, its actions are found to be reasonable and prudent.
ISSUE 2A: Should the Commission approve as prudent FPL's actions to mitigate the
volatility of natural gas, residual oil, and purchased power prices, as reported in
FPL's April 2017 and August 2017 hedging reports?
STIPULATION:
Yes. FPL's hedging activities for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31,
2017, are reported in April 2017 and August 2017 filings in Docket No.
20170001 -EI and resulted in hedging net gain of $9,334,634. Upon review of
these filings, FPL has complied with its Risk Management Plan as approved by
this Commission and, therefore, its actions are found to be reasonable and
prudent.
ISSUE 4A: Should the Commission approve as prudent Gulf's actions to mitigate the
volatility of natural gas, residual oil, and purchased power prices, as reported in
Gulf's April 2017 and August 2017 hedging reports?
STIPULATION:
Yes. Gulf's hedging activities for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31,
2017, are reported in April 2017 and August 2017 filings in Docket No.
20170001 -EI and resulted in hedging net expense of $29,478,936. Upon review of
these filings, Gulf has complied with its Risk Management Plan as approved by
this Commission and, therefore, its actions are found to be reasonable and
prudent.
ISSUE 5A: Should the Commission approve as prudent TECO's actions to mitigate the
volatility of natural gas, residual oil, and purchased power prices, as reported in
TECO's April 2017 and August 2017 hedging reports?
ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI ATTACHMENT B
DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI
PAGE 50
STIPULATION:
Yes. TECO's hedging activities for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31,
2017, are reported in April 2017 and August 2017 filings in Docket No.
20170001 -EI and resulted in hedging net gain of $1,361,535. Upon review of
these filings, TECO has complied with its Risk Management Plan as approved by
this Commission and, therefore, its actions are found to be reasonable and
prudent.
JEFFREY R. SMITH, CPA, CGFO, CGMA
Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller
Finance Department
1801 27`h Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
TO:
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM:
ELISSA NAGY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU:
JEFFREY R. SMITH, COMPTROLLER
'WR
DATE: January 5, 2018
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CHECKS AND ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS
December 29, 2017 to January 4, 2018
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all checks and electronic payments issued
by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached lists of checks and electronic payments, issued by the
Comptroller's office, for the time period of December 29, 2017 to January 4, 2018.
1
CHECKS ISSUED
TRANS NBR
DATE
VENDOR
AMOUNT
362129
01/02/2018
ALL FLORIDA REALTY SERVICES INC
3,916.00
362130
01/02/2018
VERO BEACH EDGEWOOD PLACE LP
949.00
362131
01/02/2018
GRACES LANDING LTD
9,086.00
362132
01/0212018
LINDSEY GARDENS LTD
6,282.00
362133
01/02/2018
BRYAN D BLAIS
356.00
362134
01/02/2018
WILLIE C REAGAN
445.00
362135
01/02/2018
RIVER PARK ASSOCIATES LIMITED
14,111.00
362136
01/02/2018
RICHARD C THERIEN
444.00
362137
01/02/2018
CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XVI LTD
10,052.00
362138
01/02/2018
DAVID YORK
501.00
362139
01/02/2018
ST FRANCIS MANOR OF VERO BEACH
272.00
362140
01/02/2018
CITY OF VERO BEACH
37.00
362141
01/02/2018
TREASURE COAST HOMELESS SERVICES
831.00
362142
01/02/2018
VENETIAN APARTMENTS OF VERO BEACH
390.00
362143
01/02/2018
PINNACLE GROVE LTD
8.875.00
362144
01/02/2018
VERO CLUB PARTNERS LTD
91501.00
3621.45
01/02/2018
DAVID SPARKS
383:00
362146
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
370.00
362147
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
431.00
362148
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
551.00
362149
01/02/2018
CRAIG MERRILL
1,551.00
362150
01/02/2018
CHRISTINE SALTER
483.00
362151
01/022018
HAGGERTY FAMILY LTD
373.00
- 362152
01/022018
SUNQUEST INC
4,205.00
362153
01/02/2018
THE PALMS AT VERO BEACH
13,402.00
362154
01/02/2018
FELLSMERE COMM ENRICHMENT PROGRAM .INC
532.00
362155
01/02/2018
DAVID CONDON
632.00
362156
01/02/2018
HILARY MCIVOR
585.00
362157
01/02/2018
PAULA LANE
450.00
362158
01/02/2018
PELICAN ISLES LP
8,124.00
362159
01/02/2018
KATE TYSON LYONS
334.00
362160
01/02/2018
SUNCOAST REALTY & RENTAL MGMT LLC
4,467.00
362161
01/022018
OAK RIVER. PROPERTIES INC
248.00
362162
01/022018
SONRISE VILLAS LTD
2,404.00
362163
011022018
ADINA GOLDMAN
542.00
362164
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER RDA LP
4.574.00
362165
01/02/2018
RICHARD L DAVENPORT
494.00
362166
01/02/20.18
GEORGE THUYNS
565.00
362167
01/022018
LAZY 1 LLC
1,353.00
362168
01/02/2018
SYLVIA MCNEILL
7.19.00
362169
01/02/2018
SKOKIE HOLDINGS INC
704.00
362170
01/022018
ROGER WINSLOW
492.00
362171
01/02/2018
OSLO VALLEY PROPERTIES INC
185.00
362172
01/02/2018
SAID S MOOBARK
1,317.00
362173
01/02/2018
OSCEOLA COUNTY SECTION 8
764.73
362174
01/02/2018
L'INDSEY GARDENS 11 LTD
5,106.00
362175
01/02/2018
ANTHONY ARROYO
683.00
362176
01/022018
AHS HOLDINGS GROUP LLC
2,981.00
362177
01/022018
DANIEL CORY MARTIN
850.00
362178
01/02/2018
YVONNE KOUTSOFIOS
358.00
362179
01/02/2018
ALAN R TOKAR
613.00
362180
01/02/2018
VERO BEACH VILLAS I LLC
462.00
362181
01/02/2018
BRIAN E GALLAGHER
540.00
362182
01/022018
HOUSING AUTHORITY
766.73
362183
01/022018
STEPHANIE WATCHEK FOUNTAIN TRUST
243.00
362184
01/02/20.18
SCOT WILKE
501.00
362185
01/02/2018
J & K PALMER ENTERPRISES LLC
191.00
362186
01/02/2018
THEODORE BARTOSTEWICZ
505.00
2
TRANS NBR
DATE
VENDOR AMOUNT
362187
01/02/2018
FOUNDATION FOR AFFORDABLE RENTAL
21,000.00
362188
01/02/2018
RICHARD KUSSEROW
573.00
362189
01/02/2018
ARE JAY INVESTMENTS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Its
469.00
362190
01/02/2018
SONRISE VILLAS iI LLC
591.00
362191
01/02/2018
JOHN T STANLEY
785.00
362192
01/02/2018
CSMA SFR HOLDINGS Il -.LLC
686.00
362193
01/02/2018
WEDGEWOOD RENTALS LLC
1,698.00
362194
01/02/2018
ALMA LUCKETT
852.00
362195
01/02/2018
LIVE OAKS REALTY INC
570.00
362196
01/02/2018
IBIS GARDENS APTS LLC
475.00
362197
01/02/2018
MCLAUGHLIN PROPERTIES LLC
1,109.00
362198
01/02/2018
JOYCE BODANZA
552.00
362199
01/02/2018
MYRIAM MELENDEZ
438.00
362200
01/04/2018
PORT CONSOLIDATED INC
1,265.63
362201
01/04/2018
JORDAN MOWER INC
359.99
362202
01/04/2018
COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
1,131.90
362203
01/04/2018
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT INC
5,158.98
362204
01/04/2018
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC
428.75
362205
01/04/2018
THOMAS P WHITE
913.00
362206
01/04/2018
DELTA SUPPLY CO
12.61
362207
01/04/2018
E -Z BREW COFFEE & BOTTLE WATER SVC
2I.46
362208
01/04/2018
GRAINGER
3,040.00
362209
01/04/2018
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC
1,170.34
362210
01/04/2018
HACH CO
3,895.27
362211
01/04/2018
LFI FORT PIERCE INC
513.00
362212
01/04/2018
KSM ENGINEERING & TESTING INC
185.00
362213
01/04/2018
BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC
1,080.09
362214
01/04/2018
AMERICAN WATER CHEMICALS INC
15,992.75
362215
01/04/2018
CARTER ASSOCIATES INC
300.00
362216
01/04/2018
GOLF SPECIALTIES INC
5,800.00
362217
01/04/2018
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
9,854.21
362218
01/04/2018
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
410.21
362219
01/04/2018
MIDWEST TAPE LLC
428.82
362220
01/04/2018
MICROMARKETING LLC
219.90
362221
01/04/2018
PALM TRUCK CENTERS INC
209.85
362222
01/04/2018
TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES INC
20,054.04
362223
01/04/2018
PST SERVICES INC
37,705.86
362224
01/04/2018
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
4,611.43
362225
01/04/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
1,562.40
362226
01/04/2018
CITY OF VERO BEACH
5,491.45
362227
01/04/2018
INDIAN RIVERALL FAB INC
385.00
362228
01/04/2018
ACUSHNET COMPANY
4,771.86
362229
01/04/2018
GEAR FOR SPORTS INTL INC
123.45
362230
01/04/2018
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC
2,207.12
362231
01/04/2018
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DISTRICT
2,110.00
362232
01/04/2018
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
40.80
362233
01/04/2018
SOUTHEAST DESALTING ASSOCIATION
40.00
362234
01/0412018
CALLAWAY GOLF SALES COMPANY
811.21
362235
01/04/2018
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
5,475.08
362236
01/04/2018
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
20,266.00
362237
01/04/2018
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
1,927.85
362238
01/04/2018
TAYLOR MADE GOLF CO INC
2,272.07
362239
0.1/04/2018
STRUNK FUNERAL HOMES & CREMATORY
425.00
362240
01/04/2018
STRUNK FUNERAL HOMES & CREMATORY
425.00
362241
01/04/2018
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
300.00
362242
01/04/2018
BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOC OF FLORIDA
70.00
362243
01/04/2018
CHANNING BETE CO INC
764.50
362244
01/04/2018
UNITED 14EALTH CARE INS COMPANY
92.97
362245
01/04/2018
KENNETH JAMES BINGHAM JR
40.00
362246
01/04/2018
TERRY SOUTHARD
96.00
3
TRANS NRR
DATE
VENDOR
AMOUNT
362247
01/04/2018
PITNEY BOWES INC
208.37
362248
01/04/2018
ALAN C KAUFFMANN
160.00
362249
01/04/2018
JOHN BROWN & SONS INC
2,400.00
362250
01/04/2018
HUMANA
297.40
362251
01/04/2018
U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
1,024.19
362252
01/04/2018
VAN WAL INC
138.00
362253
01/04/2018
JOSEPH W VASQUEZ
60.00
362254
01/04/2018
BERARDI, JAMES & ELIZABETH
175.00
362255
01/04/2018
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND
486.45
362256
01/04/2018
MASTELLER & MOLER INC
5,375.00
362257
01/04/2018
NEW ENGLAND HISTORIC
200.00
362258
0.1/04/2018
TRI COUNTY WASTE REMOVAL
2,107.57
362259
01/04/2018
1 ST FIRE & SECURITY INC
144.00
362260
01/04/2018
JOHNNY SMITH
135.00
362261
01/04/2018
GLOBALSTAR USA
183.00
362262
01/04/2018
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
821.50
362263
01/04/2018
FARRAGHER, LIAM & CLARE
8.04
362264
01/04/2018
FLEETBOSS G P S INC.
269.55
362265
01/04/2018
HELPING ANIMALS LIVE -OVERCOME
37.00
362266
01/04/2018
WEST CONSTRUCTION INC
67,414.52
362267
01/04/2018
CREATIVE POWER SOLUTIONS INC
375.00
362268
01/04/2018
ATLANTIC COASTAL LAND TI'T'LE CO LLC
150.00
362269
01/04/2018
YOUR AQUA INSTRUCTOR LLC
40.00
362270
01/04/2018
BERMUDA SANDS APPAREL LLC
905.00
362271
01/04/2018
NATIONAL CINEMEDIA LLC
225.00
362272
01/04/2018
TOTAL ID SOLUTIONS INC
2,317.00
362273
01/04/2018
MOORE MOTORS INC
103.75
362274
01/04/2018
LOWES HOME CENTERS INC
4,475.19
362275
01/04/2018
ALADTEC INC
218.83
362276
01/04/2018
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INC
8,544.00
362277
01/04/2018
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INC
15,445.00
362278
01/04/2018
CARDINAL HEALTH 110 INC
2,410.22
362279
01/04/20.18
ALEX MIKLO
75.00
362280
01/0412018
BURNETT LIME CO INC
9,604.00
362281
01/04/2018
CARMEN LEWIS
63.50
362282
01/04/2018
SCADA SOLUTIONS LLC
1,790.00
362283
01/04/2018
SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT LLC
36,185.00
362284
01/04/2018
STEWART & STEVENSON FDDA.LLC
503.33
362285
01/0412018
RYAN HERCO PRODUCTS CORP
1,132.86
362286
01/04/2018
WADE WILSON
40.00
362287
01/04/2018
ARROW INTERNATIONAL
4,411.39
362288
01/04/2018
SKECHERS USA INC
234.28
362289
01/04/2018
CORNERSTONE FAMILY SERVICES OF WEST VIRGINIA
425.00
362290
01/04/2018
HAWKINS INC
2,211.25
362291
01/04/2018
PRESTIGE HEALTH CHOICE
79.07
362292
01/04/2018
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
463.34
362293
01/04/2018
JOSEPH DIZONNO
75.00
362294
01/04/2018
MOLINA HEALTHCARE MEDICAID
173.88
362295
01/04/2018
RED THE UNIFORM TAILOR
92.25
362296
01/04/2018
UNIFIRST CORPORATION
287.91
362297
01/04/2018
FASTCASE INC
1,890.00
362298
01/04/2018
OKESPORTS INC
771.40
362299
01/04/2018
SUNSHINE HEALTH PLAN MEDICAID
1,099.36
362300
01/04/2018
GUARDIAN ALARM OF FLORIDA LLC
438.00
362301
01/04/2018
EGP DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC
949.41
362302
01/04/2018
NORTH AMERICAN OFFICE SOLUTIONS INC
25.00
362303
01/04/2018
RUSSELL L OWEN III
40.00
362304
01/04/2018
ICON SUPPLY INC
9,784.35
362305
01/04/2018
ALL WEBBS ENTERPRISES INC
147,079.00
362306
01/04/2018
MAGELLAN COMPLETE MEDICAID
288.36
4
TRANS NBR
DATE
VENDOR
AMOUNT
362307
01/04/2018
MATHESON TRI -GAS INC
7,226.70
362308
01/04/2018
PEOPLE .READY INC
1,165.44
362309
01/04/2018
MEDICAL HOTSPOTS INC
90.00
362310
0.1/04/2018
MURIEL E HASSEL
225.00
362311
01/04/2018
EMILY GOUGE
40.00
362312
01/04/2018
SUZANNE BOYLL
441.88
362313
01/04/2018
MARISA ALEXANDER
32.00
362314
01/04/2018
KIMBERLY RICCIARDONE
270.00
362315
01/04/2018
BETH NOLAN
50.00
362316
01/04/2018
THOMAS R PILIERO
28.00
362317
01/04/2018
SALLY SWIDER
290.00
362318
01/04/2018
AMERIGROUP FLORIDA INC MDK
89.56
362319
01/04/2018
RICHARD J DILLON
555.00
362320
01/04/2018
GOVDIRECT INC
1,929.95
362321
01/04/2018
LISA LOMBARDO
213.02
362322
01/04/2018
DAVID WHEATLEY
213.02
362323
01/04/2018
JOHN WALCOTT
87.00
362324
01/04/2018
ANNE SHEPHERD
35.00
362325
01/04/2018
WOERNERAGRIBUSINESS LLC
233.00
362326
01/04/2018
BRYAN CANNON
40.00
362327
01/04/2018
INTERIO.RFLOORING SOLUTIONS INC
2,336.13
362328
01/04/20.18
LINDA CAGGIANO
58.74
362329
01/04/2018
ALICE PALMER
79.31
362330
01/04/2018
ARLAND BISHOP
90.93
362331
01/04/2018
BETTY HAMILTON
50.00
362332
01/04/2018
CAROLYN J DUBOSE
230.00
362333
01/04/2018
CLEAR HEALTH ALLIANCE MEDICAID
91.28
362334
01/04/2018
DAVID REED
51.16
362335
01/04/2018
DAWN M MUENTES
38.00
362336
01/04/2018
EDWARD SEDLMEYR
401.78
362337
01/04/2018
JANET M OLT
200.00
362338
01/04/2018
JOSEPH F TRUSTEY
100.55
362339
01/04/2018
KAREN J ILSLEY
94.87
362340
01/04/2018
LOGAN T LANHAM
96.16
362341
01/04/2018
MARY J HANNON
103.61
362342
01/04/2018
MILDRED BURNS
462.40
362343
01/04/2018
N BEULAH KING
189.04
362344
01/04/2018
PATRICIA A NEACH
92.53
362345
01/04/2018
PATRICIA COOK
468.40
362346
01/0412018
SYLVIA W RYSKA
74.20
362347
01/04/2018
VERNA M ERWIN
10.71
362348
01/04/2018
ST HELENS CATHOLIC SCHOOL
617.18
362349
01/04/2018
FOUR LAKES POA
150.00
362350
01/04/2018
FLORIDA PREMIER BASEBALL LEAGUE
3,500.00
362351
01/0412018
ICAHN'ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LP
83,087.46
362352
01/04/2018
SHANNON SIMS
188.21
Grand Total:
768,524.05
5
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS - VISA CARD
TRANS. N:BR
DATE
VENDOR
AMOUNT
1012594
01/02/2018
AT&T
2,157.92
1012595
01/02/2018
OFFICE DEPOT BSD CUSTOMER SVC
805.64
1012596
01/02/2018
COMCAST
168.39
1012597
01/0212018
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
447.90
1012598
0.1/02/2018
MIKES GARAGE & WRECKER SERVICE INC
165.00
1012599
01/02/2018
GALLS LLC
1,790.76
1012600
01/02/2018
MEEKS PLUMBING INC
106.50
1012601
01/02/2018
NEWM.ANS POLITER SYSTEMS
269.25
1012602
01/02/2018
GLOBAL GOLF SALES INC
210.20
1012603
01/02/2018
SHRIEVE CHEMICAL CO
2,405.67
1012604
01/02/2018
MIDWEST MOTOR SUPPLY CO
333.20
1012605
01/02/2018
RECHTIEN INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS
114.95
1012606
01/02/2018
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY INC
2,676.72
1012607
01/02/2018
METRO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES .INC
414.95
1012608
01/02/2018
L&LDISTRIBUTORS
1,220.85
1012609
01/02/2018
WRIGHT FASTENER COMPANY LLC
613.00
1012610
01/02/2018
XYLEM WATER SOLUTION USA INC
589.50
1012611
01/02/2018
IMAGENET CONSULTING LLC
209.00
Grand Total:
14,699.40
6
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS - WIRE & ACH
TRANS NBR
DATE
VENDOR
AMOUNT
5638
12/29/2017
IRC FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOC
7,350.00
5639
12/29/2017
REGIONS BANK
129,919.92
5640
12/29/2017
NATIONWIDE SOLUTIONS RETIREMENT INC
81,147.73
5641
12/29/2017
C E R SIGNATURE CLEANING
15,410.00
5642
01/02/2018
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE CO
1,000.00
5643
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
864,881.77
5644
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF
3,799,931.31
5645
01/02/2018
FL SDU
5,439.10
5646
01/02/2018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
89,137.84
5647
01/02/2018
IRS -PAYROLL TAXES
458,098.99
5648
01/02/2018
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
84,440.41
5649
01/03/2018
I R C HEALTH INSURANCE - TRUST
603,937.56
5650
01/03/2018
FL RETIREMENT SYSTEM
884,816.65
P -CARD
01/03/2018
TD BANK, N.A.
271282.83
5651
01/04/2018
BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA INC
35,844.00
5652
01/04/2018
BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA INC
17,636.64
5653
01/04/2018
CHARD SNYDER & ASSOCIATES INC
278.40
5654
01/04/2018
WEST HEALTH ADVOCATE SOLUTIONS INC
1,148.40
5655
01/04/2018
MUTUAL OF OMAHA
16,977.00
Grand Total:
7,124,678.55
7
1�(�
Office of the
z INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
LORt9
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Jason E. Brown
County Administrator
DATE: January 8, 2018
SUBJECT: Emergency Services Director Position Posting
Vacation Compensation Consideration
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
John King, Indian River County Emergency Services Director, will retire on April 30, 2018. In
light of Chief King's upcoming retirement, the position has recently been posted on the County's
job listings website. We are advertising the position with the Florida Fire Chief's Association,
the Florida Emergency Preparedness Association, and other outlets. It is my plan to fill the
Emergency Services Director position as soon as possible, and prior to Chief King's April 30th
retirement. The expected overlap is not expected to be more than two months, and the total cost
including all associated benefits will not exceed $30,000. A budget amendment will be
processed when the specific start date and salary have been determined.
Due to work responsibilities, Chief King has been unable to take the necessary vacation required
to comply with Administrative Policy Manual Number AM -502.1 (7) prior to his retirement. As
a result, he will lose a substantial amount of earned vacation leave because his vacation leave
accrual balance exceeds the maximum amount allowed to be paid in lieu of taking the vacation.
In the past, the Board of County Commission has granted exceptions to this policy when special
conditions exist. As a result of our County experiencing two hurricanes in the last two years,
Chief King has been required to be at work to handle emergency operations and has been unable
to take his accrued vacation, resulting in a considerable balance. Because the situation has been
beyond his control, I do not want Chief King to have to forfeit all of this earned benefit.
I hereby request authorization to pay Chief King, Emergency Services Director, for 20 days of
the accrued vacation leave balance which exceeds the maximum specified in the Indian River
County Administrative Policy. The total cost for this exception to the policy is $12,724.55
(breakdown attached).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commission authorize an overlap of up to two months
for the Emergency Services Director position at a cost not to exceed $30,000.00. Staff also
recommends that a special exception be made to Administrative Policy Manual Number AM -
502.1 (7) and authorize payment for 20 additional days of accrued vacation leave balance
exceeding the maximum vacation leave allowed to be paid.
Attachments: Vacation Leave Policy
Benefit Budget Worksheet
9
POLICY:
It is the policy of the County to grant annual vacations with pay to permanent full-time and permanent
part-time employees in accordance with the guidelines established below.
COMMENT:
1. Full-time employees hired prior to October 1, 2011, will accrue paid vacation leave based on
the number of hours in their work week according to the following schedule:
ACCRUALRATES
Days Per 37.5 Hour Week 40.0 Hour Week
Service Year Hrs/Yr Hrs/Mo Hrs/Yr Hrs/Mo
1
SECTION
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE DATE
ADMINISTRATIVE
Personnel
AM -502.1
10-01-11
POLICY
yrs to 5
yrs 12 months
11
SUBJECT
PAGE
MANUAL
7.34
Vacation Leave
1 OF 2
It is the policy of the County to grant annual vacations with pay to permanent full-time and permanent
part-time employees in accordance with the guidelines established below.
COMMENT:
1. Full-time employees hired prior to October 1, 2011, will accrue paid vacation leave based on
the number of hours in their work week according to the following schedule:
ACCRUALRATES
Days Per 37.5 Hour Week 40.0 Hour Week
Service Year Hrs/Yr Hrs/Mo Hrs/Yr Hrs/Mo
1
yr to 4
yrs 12 months
10
75.0
6.25 I
80.0
6.67
5
yrs to 5
yrs 12 months
11
82.5
6.88
88.0
7.34
6
yrs to 6
yrs 12 months
12
90.0
7.50 i
96.0
8.00
7
yrs to 7
yrs 12 months
13
97.5
8.13
104.0
8.67
$
yrs to 8
yrs 12 months
14
105.0
8.75 i
112:0
9.34
9
yrs to 9
yrs 12 months
15
112.5
9.38 '
120.0
10.00
10
yrs to 10
yrs 12 months
16
120.0
10.00 i
128.0
10.67
11
yrs to 11
yrs 12 months
17
127.5
10.63 ;
136.0
11.34
12
yrs to 12
yrs 12 months
18
135°.0
11.25 E
144.0
12.00
13
yrs to 13
yrs 12 months
19
142.5
11.88
152.0
12.67
14
yrs max accrual rate)
20
150.0
12.50
160.0
13.34
Full-time employees hired on or after October 1, 2011, will accrue paid vacation leave based
on the number of hours in their work week according to the following schedule:
ACCRUALRATES
Days Per 37.5 Hour Week 40.0 Hour Week
Service Year Hrs/Yr Hrs/Mo Hrs/Yr Hrs/Mo
1
yr to
4
yrs 12 months
10
75.0
6.25
80.0
6.67
5
yrs to
5
yrs 12 months
11
82.5
6.88
88.0
7.34
6
yrs to
6
yrs 12 months
12
90.0
7.50
96.0
8.00
7
yrs to
7
yrs 12 months
13
97.5
8.13
104.0
8.67
8
yrs to
8
yrs 12 months
14
105.0
8.75
112.0
9.34
9
yrs max rate
15
1 112.5 1
9.38
120.0
10.00
10
2. Part-time employees are entitled to vacation accrual on a pro -rata basis. Part-time employees
hired on or after June 22, 2001, and temporary employees shall accrue no vacation leave.
3. New employees may use vacation after completing their new hire probation. No employee
may use vacation leave in advance of it being accrued. Accrued vacation is credited at the end of
each month, and is shown on the payroll prelist for the pay period ending on or after the first of the
following month.
4. Authorized vacation hours shall be counted as time worked for the purpose of computing
overtime pay eligibility.
5. Employees hired prior to October 1, 2011, will earn vacation monthly, in hourly increments,
and may carry over unused vacation from year to year up to a maximum of 75 days. Any vacation
time accrued over 75 days during the calendar year must be used by December 31 of that calendar
year. On January 1 vacation balances exceeding 75 days will be rolled back to the 75 -day
maximum. Employees hired on or after October 1, 2011, will earn vacation monthly, in hourly
increments, and may carry over unused vacation from year to year up to a maximum of 30 days.
Any vacation time accrued over 30 days during the calendar year must be used by December 31 of
that calendar year. On January 1 vacation balances exceeding 30 days will be rolled back to the 30 -
day maximum.
6. Vacation leave may be taken after approval by the division head. Employees are encouraged
to take their vacation in increments of five working days or more. It may be charged in increments as
small as one hour.
7. Employees shall not be paid for earned vacation leave in lieu of taking the leave, except upon
termination of employment. In no event will an employee be paid for more than 75 days (if hired
prior to October 1, 2011) or 30 days (if hired on or after October 1, 2011) of vacation leave upon
termination of employment. Earned vacation leave for employees who die while in County
employment shall be paid to the same beneficiary as is designated for the life insurance benefit.
8. When a County observed holiday falls within an authorized vacation leave period, that time
shall be charged as holiday pay, and vacation leave will not be charged.
9. Vacation leave will always be paid at the employee's pay level at the time the vacation is
used.
JOSEPH A. BAIRD DATE
11
SECTION
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE DATE
ADMINISTRATIVE
Personnel
AM -502.1
10-01-11
POLICY
SUBJECT
PAGE
MANUAL
Vacation Leave
2 OF 2
2. Part-time employees are entitled to vacation accrual on a pro -rata basis. Part-time employees
hired on or after June 22, 2001, and temporary employees shall accrue no vacation leave.
3. New employees may use vacation after completing their new hire probation. No employee
may use vacation leave in advance of it being accrued. Accrued vacation is credited at the end of
each month, and is shown on the payroll prelist for the pay period ending on or after the first of the
following month.
4. Authorized vacation hours shall be counted as time worked for the purpose of computing
overtime pay eligibility.
5. Employees hired prior to October 1, 2011, will earn vacation monthly, in hourly increments,
and may carry over unused vacation from year to year up to a maximum of 75 days. Any vacation
time accrued over 75 days during the calendar year must be used by December 31 of that calendar
year. On January 1 vacation balances exceeding 75 days will be rolled back to the 75 -day
maximum. Employees hired on or after October 1, 2011, will earn vacation monthly, in hourly
increments, and may carry over unused vacation from year to year up to a maximum of 30 days.
Any vacation time accrued over 30 days during the calendar year must be used by December 31 of
that calendar year. On January 1 vacation balances exceeding 30 days will be rolled back to the 30 -
day maximum.
6. Vacation leave may be taken after approval by the division head. Employees are encouraged
to take their vacation in increments of five working days or more. It may be charged in increments as
small as one hour.
7. Employees shall not be paid for earned vacation leave in lieu of taking the leave, except upon
termination of employment. In no event will an employee be paid for more than 75 days (if hired
prior to October 1, 2011) or 30 days (if hired on or after October 1, 2011) of vacation leave upon
termination of employment. Earned vacation leave for employees who die while in County
employment shall be paid to the same beneficiary as is designated for the life insurance benefit.
8. When a County observed holiday falls within an authorized vacation leave period, that time
shall be charged as holiday pay, and vacation leave will not be charged.
9. Vacation leave will always be paid at the employee's pay level at the time the vacation is
used.
JOSEPH A. BAIRD DATE
11
Grand Total $12,724.55
12
BENEFIT BUDGET WORKSHEET
John King Vacation
Payout 20 days
SALARY
Annual Wages
$10,510.55
Social Security % Rate
6.20%
$651.65
SS/Med Matching % Rate
1.45%
$152.40
Retirement
Employees
7.91%
Elected Officials
45.44%
Special Risk
23.10%
Senior Mgmt
22.70%
DROP Participants
13.26%
$1,393.70
Health Ins
Mess cnan ov oi-
weekly hrs not
eligible)
Dependent Coverage -per month
$875
Single Plan -per month
$635
Choose Dependent or Single- Delete coverage not used
Life Ins
Round up salary to 1000 (11,001 to 12,000)
$ 29,000
tress cnan ou oi-
weekly hrs not
-
eligible)
Divide salary by 1,000 equals
29
Multiply results in item 21 x .198 x number of
months position funded
Workers Comp
Find rate by Department (range: .00218-.0882)
0.0015
Enter Dept / Division name in this field.
_
$15.77
OPEB
Regular Retirement
1241
Special Risk Retirement
2343
Choose Regular or Special Risk -delete one not used
$2,214.00
Total Benefit Package:
Gross Wages:
$12,724.55
Total Operating
Grand Total $12,724.55
12
U�
N"ER c
4s� °ate Office of the
z INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Jason E. Brown
County Administrator
DATE: January 8, 2018
SUBJECT: Vero Beach Air Show
DESCRIPTION:
The Blue Angels are returning to Vero Beach for the Vero Beach Air Show being held at the
Vero Beach Regional Airport on April 21s' and 22nd, 2018. A request has been made to allow
Air Show volunteers to park and. ride from the Administration Complex April 20th through April
22nd In addition, it is requested that Building A be open to volunteers for the use of the
restrooms and to be out of any inclement weather on both days between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
This is similar to what the Board approved for the previous Air Show scheduled for June of
2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends authorizing the use of the County Administration Complex Parking Lots and
Building A for the April 2018 Vero Beach Air Show volunteers park and ride transportation
services.
13
NOW
Indian River County, Florida
Memorandum
TO: Jason Brown, County Administrator
THROUGH: Michael Smykowski, Director, OMB
FROM: Beth Martin, Risk Manager
DATE: January 4, 2018
SUBJECT: Mediated Settlement: William Hall
Description
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider the following mediated
workers' compensation settlement Consent Agenda item at their January 16, 2018 regular
meeting.
Background
On January 4, 2018 the County Administrator reviewed the $75,000.00 settlement of
recently retired former Deputy Sheriff William Hall's August 2, 2007 workers'
compensation claim and recommends approval of the settlement.
The proposed $75,000.00 includes his attorney's fees and costs, and precludes Mr. Hall
from using the County's group health insurance to pay any future costs associated with
his work injury.
Funding
Payment will be made from the Self Insurance Fund.
Staff Recommendation
In keeping with administrative policy, staff requests the Board approve the settlement in
the amount of $75,000.00, and authorize the County Administrator to execute any
documents necessary to effectuate the settlement, after review and approval by the
County Attorney.
If additional information is needed, please contact Beth Martin, Risk Manager, at
Extension 1287.
Approved for Agenda
January 16, 2018
14
CONSENT AGENDA
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY O"L�
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PURCHASING DIVISION
DATE: January 5, 2018
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Mike Smykowski, Budget Director
FROM: Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Bid 2017062 —Spoonbill Marsh Vertical Turbine Pump
BACKGROUND:
The Spoonbill Marsh Facility is used to treat Reverse Osmosis (R/0) concentrate under an FDEP
permit. The treatment process includes the pumping of water from the Indian River into the
facility to dilute the concentrate. One of the three pumps at the facility has failed and requires
replacement. On behalf of the Indian River County Department of Utilities Services (IRCDUS),
sealed bids were solicited for a vertical turbine pump, to be installed by County staff.
BID RESULTS:
Bid Opening Date: August 22, 2017
Advertising Date: July 24, 2017
Demandstar Broadcast to: 228 Subscribers
Specifications/Plans Downloaded by: 22 Vendors
Replies: 3 Vendors
Bidder's Name
Total Bid Price
Barney's Pumps
$49,500.00
Agricultural Services International
$51,329.30
Great Southern Pum
$53,342.00
ANALYSIS:
IRCDUS has recommended award of the bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Barney's
Pumps.
15
CONSENT AGENDA
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Funds are available in the Utilities Engineering - Renewal and Replacement — Spoonbill Marsh
Pump account in the Operating fund. Operating funds are generated from water and sewer sales.
Account Number
Account Description
Available
Utilities General &
47123536-044699-13522
Engineering/R&R/Spoonbill Marsh
$49,500.00
Pump
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board award Bid 2017062 to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder,
Barney's Pumps and authorize the Purchasing Division to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of
$49,500.00 for the purchase of the pump.
16
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jason E. Brown
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Stan Boling, AICP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Buck
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 1/3/2018
RE: D.R. Horton Inc.'s Request for Release of a Portion of a Utility Easement at 7645 20th
Street (Parcel B, Pointe West East Village Phase 1 PD)
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following information at its
regular meeting of January 16, 2018.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by D.R. Horton Inc., owner of an undeveloped parcel (Parcel B of Pointe
West East Village Phase 1 PD) at 7645 20th Street, for release of the east 30 feet of a 60 -foot wide utility
easement on the parcel (see attached maps). The purpose of this partial release of easement request is to
accommodate platting and development of lots on Parcel B as a part of Phase 2A of Pointe West East
Village PD.
ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by AT&T; Florida Power & Light Corporation; Comcast Cable Services;
the Indian River County Utilities Department; the County Road & Bridge and Engineering Divisions; and
the County Surveyor. None of the utility providers or reviewing agencies expressed an objection to the
requested partial release of the utility easement. Therefore, it is staff's position that the requested partial
easement release would have no adverse impact to utilities being supplied to the subject property or to
other properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, approve release of the east
30 feet of the 60 -foot wide utility easement as described in the resolution.
17
D.R. HORTON INC.
Release of Easement
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map(s) depicting the easement portion proposed for release
2. Proposed County Resolution Releasing Easement
ease.bccmemo
proj./appl. no. 99070081/80258
18
so
10' PRIVATE ACCESS UTILITY
50' PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY
I�
Lot 189 Lot 190
P.
Lot 191 PA 3CEL�k , P.C. RADIAL
1` ! LINE
� RE
P
E Q�VP SOUTH R/W LINE
Line Table
NT or BEGINNING Legal Description and Sketch
POINT
L3
Ll
30.00'
t� STT
L2
_ '
for an Utility Easement Abandonment
SE
50.00'
N89' 53' 32'E
L4
PARCEL M
N20' 42'28'W
Point West East Village Site
V11"tE DRIW
PA2Z M 59
Section 7, Township 33, South, Range 39 East
NORM LINE PER
PA 27, PQ 90
I
Indian River County, Florida
�9
Skeet 2 of 2
o
60' UTILITY EASEMENT Not Valid Without All Sheets
_'jQ Li
4 W
5
ORD 2166, PG f983
HATCHED AREA
w w o r;
TO Of ABANDONED
a �O
Ca
CO
o �
cV
12
Q
iE
► d
Z
o a
(�
x
m
W
N
PARCEL 8
o
POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1, PD
�4
PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 59
50' PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY
I�
Lot 189 Lot 190
P.
Lot 191 PA 3CEL�k , P.C. RADIAL
1` ! LINE
� RE
P
E Q�VP SOUTH R/W LINE
Curve Table
Curve # Length Radius Delta Chord CHB
Cl 7.19' 20.00' 020-36-00- 7.19' SIO -2428-E
C2 8.99' 25.00' 020:36'00" 8.99' 1 N1024.28'W
NE
8
0 f PARO��
u� v
50
SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Drawn by: Checkedbyl Filename I Date I Scale Drawing Name
"This is NOT a Boundar Survey" CJG DT 7036.PLT 09/21/2017 1"=100' 17036PLATLEGAL
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND
Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc. THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA
LICENS RVEYOR AND MAPPER.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS #464400
1655 27th Street, Suite 2 Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone: (772) 564-8050 Fax: (772) 794-0647 AVID TAYLOR P.L.S. M43
AA .MAM
Line Table
Line I
Length
Direction
Ll
30.00'
N89' 53' 327E
L2
28.40'
S69' 17' 32`W
L3
50.00'
N89' 53' 32'E
L4
8.80'
N20' 42'28'W
Curve Table
Curve # Length Radius Delta Chord CHB
Cl 7.19' 20.00' 020-36-00- 7.19' SIO -2428-E
C2 8.99' 25.00' 020:36'00" 8.99' 1 N1024.28'W
NE
8
0 f PARO��
u� v
50
SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Drawn by: Checkedbyl Filename I Date I Scale Drawing Name
"This is NOT a Boundar Survey" CJG DT 7036.PLT 09/21/2017 1"=100' 17036PLATLEGAL
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND
Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc. THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA
LICENS RVEYOR AND MAPPER.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS #464400
1655 27th Street, Suite 2 Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone: (772) 564-8050 Fax: (772) 794-0647 AVID TAYLOR P.L.S. M43
AA .MAM
POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE, P H A S E 1 SOUTH PD
GRAPHIC SCALE PLAT BOOK
BEINC A REPLA'T OF PARCEL A OF THE PLAT OF POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1 PD Q
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PACE 59, PUBLIC RECORDS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PAGE I1
LYING IN SECTION 7, TObAN'SHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 312011 oo
DOCKET NO. 191D5-
fI
Lot �147n'
_...
I
I r]i
I5A
143 I
ti
x< n now n„rw Lau+rr oe vnuaxr ro
' I' • �
,ro , I ,
PLS,
Lor Iza
rno
ruA,ssn
Lot 23
1
-•
r
(.a_s_PmrRloiTb
Lot 142 I
I Lot ,59
]RAGA 'G-$' ,=
I
r I �. _ I I 31![
SOT , ( Ib I r
!)
r6T
> ._
LER
I Lel 191
J
1!
I
Lot 118
MB9SJJ22 Tim' 1
I
eNfo3
Qae N.
1 lot 1I7
•'
_
:�' -
; z
_I
}w rxU
r:f I
uc
Lot 118
rvm
raag
... Y
!_.._..-____._. �• zl� I
irw 1
of MaNx nrs, r•sr I
�
<��__
rs J1�'� �_
3i: b i
C
,I
}� g t..oLur+.r
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
> r
"nl
o
sve--'_•�,Na
s»oc6'26'E +eatla
PGB}T OF BEGINNING
I S a .I
' n
r
�.
r 'Sty
,n � O
R
reo
!
I
I I
�a � 1 is UOUT
Lot 157 1
S1K I SLE
4 _
Sld
aVC 1 .Y
--A, oY o U.G/
OaB NPo. Po fn
..j
_ --.-_ _.
. _ .M. m
_ - �" '_ _ _
,. UTN LAtiE a?pf09
wvr a mI
naaSz.rf•r a.v'a' a I19r%
_.� .. _ _ ._ Ai
uVra m t
EI
u5+'sz']x2 Jso0.n' RJl 5"F flNo^r"aa
._ •— - Po� k NO. lti CLfwxOOJ'
caro + 'aro'
fi Uwrcrn:trrx) I
atx PB w0 M rn I. I ql m
�ro
_ 5}
w[YT Usr
I wt 2 c'vrc Si ro I
x693 ' 'E Bm00'
}t{)
C eT9r61
if.
ata
'aL:S'4J9D9
fI
Lot �147n'
F �_ ^
1
Lot 154
�
�
ti
�
� .� �
PLS,
Lor Iza
ruA,ssn
Lot 23
I
tat tl0 I
Lot 127
I `
Lot 142 I
I Lot ,59
TRACT 5
TieQ ee 19e3
,o,
9td9.'2
C e}Nb.ST
I
I Lel 191
J
N'n. 'rG iOfT-
I
Lot 118
MB9SJJ22 Tim' 1
I
eNfo3
Qae N.
1 lot 1I7
25"}5
I I
_I
}w rxU
ren n5a vc
Lot 121
b 23
Lot 118
Let 143
Lot }58 1
Col 29
I
1 Lot 2. I
I
I
(—
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
I�
,�I
I
1
j
yl PARCEL
M,rye
nae zrea w, ,sat I
_
9
N0. LB 4644
PHONE 772-564-8050
a��
Lot 123
I
Lot 144 `
Lot 157 1
�I�
0'
i
, PARCEL 'A' I
fawn
II
)t mttAa
es u vc ss
I
r---- J
lot 112W
,
I Lot 23 1
is b
w tl
w[YT Usr
I wt 2 c'vrc Si ro I
yt >
}t{)
s
t"
Lot 113 1)
I Lot 12!
Let f4s I
I w• uE
a/ nr o9 teN
I
I-
b
"
I y
Y
iy
Lot 156
TRACT C-6'
I 1
N
�I
I
1 I
✓a
N'
R
wR axa�5Ef43W1
ro Ti. ro 59
Let 26
I 1
L_ _.J
Lot I1. I
I_
I Let ,13
-kw'�
Let 1.6 I
l Lot 133 J
I
C
R
[—
`gt
"''GALOWUNE
'� _ -
_ BC}NG,rLOWJ-4NE
l
I Lot 27
fI
Lot �147n'
Lot 154
LotI.9W'
ti
�iur
VI
Lor Iza
153
ii.
I
Lot 115
1
Col 119
I `
I Lott 152
Lot 28
TieQ ee 19e3
1
_
I
I Lel 191
J
THIS /NSTRUATCNr IYAS PREPARED
BY OAWD TA"R FOR
I
Lot 118
,
MAST£LLER, MIXER R TAKOP. INC.
(
I
I
V
ren n5a vc
Lot 121
'va]
"'
1655 27TH STREET, SUITE 2
1•ERO BEACH, FL.
1
Col 29
I
»' Ts'
s4
,
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
1
Lot 117
N0. LB 4644
PHONE 772-564-8050
- nea "•
L.
11
ne3 I `
I Lor 120
lya
FAX 772P794-0647
I
,
__
— m
ORIGINAL PREPARA RON DATE.
Lot JO
voxrz wrsr usr
vtu:f wu5[ t ro
T
Lot ",I
-
fI
Lot �147n'
Lot 154
LotI.9W'
ti
�iur
VI
Lot
153
Col 119
I `
I Lott 152
TieQ ee 19e3
1
Let 150
I
I Lel 191
J
r— — — -i - — — 7 I.
W i ILoI 1113 Lot 184 Lor les �R I Lot 168 �f 167 Lot Iw Lot 189 Lot 1901
Z
—
'7 g� Lol 193 Lot 162 lot I91 ACT
jut 197 Lol ,98 WYe'E 7.1o'
Lef I93 Lot 191
AI
GENERAL NOTES ( Lot 3, 'a Ed ST )'ILL4GP, SQG4RE' B --moi/
SEE SkEEr 4 DC 6 FOR GENERAL NOTES
T-1 A I
aoAvn W" u3I
Lot JZ ro�Ti ' 9 nn Let 4e
Lot 34 Lot 35 Let 36 Lot J7 Lot 38 Lot J9 Lot 40 I Lot 41 Lot 42 Lot 43 I Lot N Lot 43 Lot 46 �R I
REVISIONS DATE 1 I I I I I Lot Al
oA Oa Ln!!::Al "/./'S
On ,5 Lot 33
af6,~ CC4NEN,6 I2 ), 3 � _ — _ _ J L _._ _ _ _ J I L _ 389
aW CWNry COIAIENIS 0 , 14 �b —' 5114
TRACT
vwsel Jfila r� PhNK wtTr o
C-6 tPrf t ro P1°k
Ply N9e9
P. H.
1 I 4CMa
of
A
to
NPoD
a L-rn: R -,oar
955YYSai owltr4'
n.rW W'00•
3]C42'I8i Soon'
!gym I
I
PI 1�'n 41.1o•
cw m
�, NfoT
PARCEL
) u r
+aua vxASE t ro
ro T}. J'G s4
Lor 19
w 591� TRACT
raHrr w[er fA]I
NLL4ef RfAr[ t Po
Po if.Po34
SHEET 2 OF 8
Attachment 210
1 I 4CMa
of
A
to
NPoD
a L-rn: R -,oar
955YYSai owltr4'
n.rW W'00•
3]C42'I8i Soon'
!gym I
I
PI 1�'n 41.1o•
cw m
�, NfoT
PARCEL
) u r
+aua vxASE t ro
ro T}. J'G s4
Lor 19
w 591� TRACT
raHrr w[er fA]I
NLL4ef RfAr[ t Po
Po if.Po34
SHEET 2 OF 8
Attachment 210
POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE, P H A S E 1 SOUTH PD
�� BEING A REPLAT OF PARCEL A OF THE PLAT OF POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1 PD AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 59, PUBLIC
RECORDS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING 1N SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CURVE TABLE _
CURVC - OfLip LENDTl RADIUS CNORD 8RG CHORD
C! �9pg1.00'- 11.7, 1000
c•A .. 1
90p0�QSL'...,
b I It.
I 1 NAA'!]'Ja
GRAPHIC SCALE
I w rml 1
ABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL NOTES
SEE Si1EET 4 OF 8 (17R GENERAL MOTES.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPAREDBY DAN TA)tOg
FOR VASTELLER, MOLER k TAYLOR INC
' j { rb:
i rm I_ rra
I I>9 •7A s
r ,:. t t
9I...
—
� GALLERY LAVE _ _ r,6933't,-[
1.72-
ala'T
I el
FOUND
,NO RUILDW, PERMIT MILL BE ISSUED F! ^. OE+r.100.MSNT 4F ANY
REVISIONS OA
-CONCURRENCY
TCF Rxvµ
P6wrE REsr wrwu6c
PHA£ I. P0. FB 71, PG 59
DATE OF PRLPARA;K; 11/05/15
ELEVATION
TRACT IS OBTAINED. INDIAN OILTR COUNTY CCE`a NC7
PER COUNTY CONMERTS .2/21/15
NR
OA3
_ _. - _ - - - PARCEL.
_. •• w t
IZS993J12
.I
( SR909
PAN A
i
SNTIAN
PLAT BOOK ST. LUCIE COUNTY)
PAGE
A' ASS IT'
PARCH. JA PL9 AT999
Pcurf MSr EAaf IRI IL£
POW)£Ks, £81sT
}. Q'Q, ,,AMAD Ta. PG 56FO1
I V
IV -
8( i
t
k
PRM
POB
PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT
PON OF REONNING
u.. I, Iro, ,v :J. cc sp }:.�
S 1 5' UOLI Pf
PO
PSN
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
R/W
RIGHT OF WAY
P. A,U.kD,E PRNATE ACCESS UTILITY k DRNNAGE EASEMENT
LLE UTILITY EASEMENT
Eg W ✓
w{
� V'0W
' �
AOTI1lSffL IS'AlG'UC
' I IO'VM„Y
�S
I
u1WT"£ASE.IQNT
2]. I,- Sb
1 T66o6'I4T 1
10'
91E FiNMUNM (I
iW CN ELEV.2n.03'
N fo
PRM
- W N
_
I tSOP'�, �
I
.19" 17
E 81599667
Plf A]ROP
N900
I
'I
W i6
0.f AJPro
T69'.J'JIM Ild6'
Is
nAT9n9
t s u'
TRACT 5
�AM.xtrta
ME
RECREATION
i
k OPEN SPACE
I
�I
y
1966,
, I
b `I
I�xB
s,,:,r'r_
v
PARCEL '8'
'popl„�
r u.
1
i ('
Pa 'r wSJ (As,
MMAOE PNAlE E PD
P6 aT. PG 59
TRACTS
I.—
1
N dL-Yf7ALOTYLANF, W6933'u'E uala'
N6931'JaT SAO(
�_
._AI
To
' MA7CHLINE SEE SHE(
CURVE TABLE _
CURVC - OfLip LENDTl RADIUS CNORD 8RG CHORD
C! �9pg1.00'- 11.7, 1000
c•A .. 1
90p0�QSL'...,
b I It.
I 1 NAA'!]'Ja
GRAPHIC SCALE
I w rml 1
ABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL NOTES
SEE Si1EET 4 OF 8 (17R GENERAL MOTES.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPAREDBY DAN TA)tOg
FOR VASTELLER, MOLER k TAYLOR INC
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1655 277H STREET, SUITE Z, V£RO BEACH, FL
CHORD
CER71F7CATE OF AU040RJZA TION NO. LB 4644
CONCRETE M.OYUMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
PHONE 772-564-6050 FAX 772-794-0647
DRNNAGE At UTILITY EASEMENT
ORIGINAL PREPARARON DATE 11/06/15
NOTE:
FOUND
,NO RUILDW, PERMIT MILL BE ISSUED F! ^. OE+r.100.MSNT 4F ANY
REVISIONS OA
-CONCURRENCY
IP
LOT OR TRACT UNLESS AND UNTIL AN INITIAL AND FINAL
CERTIFICATE FOR DE.'ELCPMENT OF ME LO7 CR
DATE OF PRLPARA;K; 11/05/15
ELEVATION
TRACT IS OBTAINED. INDIAN OILTR COUNTY CCE`a NC7
PER COUNTY CONMERTS .2/21/15
NR
OA3
GIIAP.ANICE THAT ADEQUATE CAPACITY KILL E115T AT ME FUE
KHEN AN APPLICANT CR APPOCANT'S SUCCESSOR .kOCiXS TO
PER COU"N CD'JAIENT! RI t, 6
PIAT BOOK RIVER COUNTY)
APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN A CONCURRENCY CERTirICATE.
CURVE TABLE _
CURVC - OfLip LENDTl RADIUS CNORD 8RG CHORD
C! �9pg1.00'- 11.7, 1000
c•A .. 1
90p0�QSL'...,
b I It.
I 1 NAA'!]'Ja
GRAPHIC SCALE
I w rml 1
ABBREVIATIONS
BM
RENCH MARK
CE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CN
CHORD
CM
O.E.
CONCRETE M.OYUMENT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
OkU.E
DRNNAGE At UTILITY EASEMENT
FCMA FEDERAL EMERGENCY WANAGEMEIIT ASSC.
I.R.F.W.GD. INOAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
TO
FOUND
0
IR
IDENTIFICATION
ROD
IP
:RON
RON PIPE
ELEV
ELEVATION
PLS
,AVD
SURVEYOR'S NUMBER
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM
NR
OA3
NON -RADIAL
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK
PB
PIAT BOOK RIVER COUNTY)
PBS
PG
SNTIAN
PLAT BOOK ST. LUCIE COUNTY)
PAGE
PC
POINT OF CURVA7URE
PCL
POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE
PCP
PERMANENT CONTROL. PONT
PRM
POB
PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT
PON OF REONNING
POC
POINT OF COMIINCEMENT
PO
PSN
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER
R/W
RIGHT OF WAY
P. A,U.kD,E PRNATE ACCESS UTILITY k DRNNAGE EASEMENT
LLE UTILITY EASEMENT
NO7Er
FRIDR TO RIE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE
BUILOCR/L0T OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE
SIDEWALK REQWREO ALONG HIS LOT'S STREET FRONTAGE. AS
DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED PROJECT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
Attachment l
nw
POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE, P H A S E 1 SOUTH PD PLAT BOOKzr7
BEING A REPLAT OF PARCEL A OF THE PLAT OF POINTE REST EAST VILLAGE PHASE I PD AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 59, PUBLIC �,
RECORDS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PAGE
_ MATCHUNE SEE SHEET 3 31 OI O
-----------------`-'---------------`----`--------------------------- --- - --`- '-----------------------------`
-r-- ------ - �r-`- DOCKET N0.
i I _.L --.--- _ TRACTS — — _ _I_ — � 1
{ NE93,1_]JT 17172'
BU.VGALOfV LANE
{ _ _ __ N89srui $10112' _ _—� _ _ - GENERAL NOTES
1 X WINATL -VIT OF WAY PARCEL 'S"
E 50.00' 60. — 65.00 6 Do'— `6O 5,172' �, �+ LACE AgAsT uPo 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE GRID BEARING OF N89'5232 E ALONG THE NORTH UNE PARCEL
4 u— PB 2x MSB A, POINTE REST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 7 PO
a I „"{ 2. NOTICE' NO CONSIFUCTIOT4 FREES OR SHRUBS VALL BE PLACED IN DRAINAGE ANO/OR UTILITY
5' UE, J 16' 0 E c �� `� a EASEMENTS K17V/CUT CGUNTY APPROVAL.
g ,n- J. NGTICEL THIS PLAT, AS RECORDED IN ITS GRAPHIC FORM, 15 RAE OFFICIAL DEPICTION OF THE
SUBDIVOED LANDS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND MI IN NO IRCUMSFANCES BE SUPPLANTED IN
AUTHORITY BY ANY OTHER GRAPHIC OR DIGITAL FCRM OF THE PLAT. THERE MAY BE
I- I N Lot 783 Lot 184 Lot ids Lot IEE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON TIS PLAT THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF W m T, w Lot T8B a Got 189 m Lot 190 ew. I THIS COUNTY.
c I Lot IBJ
c 60'ut 4. PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FF.
FLOOD ZONE X. AS PER EM.A. MAP #17061C0778 H, DATED
2-4 12-4-2012.
�I $ { c $ 150• „ I _$ - { _Pfi 19W S. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS OR RESERVABONS AFFECTING THE OWNERSHIP OR
I l��
USE
OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE FRED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1319,
— — J PAGES 950, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLCRIDA
ALL PRM'S, PCP'S AND LOT CORNERS HAVE BEEN SET PER FLORIDA STATUTES,
ME9'32'J- 5' I-GY9.5,e71')OT, M•I).34'
''I POS 60.00' "' 60.00' 6500' 60.00' E000' 6500' E000' Q0.72' Ali P•oM'.t3'4O• T NBIg,B: FOV TINE MAIN 7ENANCE (E.G MOYANG ETC) a<EASEMEN TS SHALT, BE THE
65.00' 6000' 65.00' 60.00 63.00 v 59.00 55.7! Y 1 Ou'1 N RESPONSIBILITY GF THE LOT/PROPERTY OWNERS AND NOT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
?o A (((I B. CLEVA BONS SHOWN HEPFON HAVE DEEM REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VER REAL DATUM.
-'T - — _ — ''�- PTs A:9oe IBB6 (N A VD.. 1988). THE £XISTMG CONTROL UTILIZED TO ESTABLISH SAID REFERENCE IS INDIAN
i Q 8— I4y RIVER G7UAl TY BENCHMARK NUMBER 122022. SITE BENCHMARKS ARE SHOWN ON SHEET 2 OF 6.
I — $ 8 y }' 9. ALL CURVILINEAR LOT LINES SHOW HEREON ARE RADIAL TO THE CURVE, UNLESS NOTED
10. NGIlCi: PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM PLANTING ANY CARIRBEAN FRUIT FLY AND
Q{ Lot 197 Lot 196 $ Lot 195 Lot 194 p Lot 19J 1T$` Lot 192 Lot 19TI tl I�\ 60' OT ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID (CITRUS GREENING) HOST PLANTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN AND ARE
LI '$ _I I Ma aRe 2134, REQUIRED TO REMOVE 5AME IF ANY EXISTS' CATTLEY GUAVA, COMMON GUAVA, LOCUAT, ROSE
2S. g g b q "'�'2•�ay' -�.-•M 1983 APPLE. ORANGE JASMINE, CHINESE BOX MANGE AND SURINAM CHERRY,
tf SSSCCC c� " � • • Cu To
MN 11. THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES AS SIIONN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE STATE
0
w' as.00' 30.0 ;, 6sOn -
_ _NUVW2T JIOOJ' GM�Nis'b�.
CL SD' PPoVAtE R.ONT
I 71.69' 1 ]1,69' 71.09' 71.69'
i I154 OF.
EWW
I N I Lot 43
{Z
7
Lot 44 It- Lot 45 It! Lot 46 It: Lot 47
TRACT '6-6'
1
LINE TABLE
LIFE ILENCMI BEARING
THIS IN EN ' P AR£D BY DA
FOR MASMIER, MOL£R JF TAYLOR INC.
1655 27TH STREET. SUITE 2, WRO BEACH, FL.
CER RFTCA7E OF ALI7HORIZA PON N0. LR 4644
PHONE 772-564-8050 FAX 772-794-0647
ORIGINAL PREPARATION DATE I (/06/15
7669' —d— —71A
1.11 MES) EAST
-A. PHASE L M
PK 22. PC 59
Ncyl�>�
1 �
{ TRACT 4 V.I
�AICAEAINA
A cool SPACE
LEND
P.R.V,-4•X4'A2A- CONCRETE MCNUMENT FdUYD
AND STAMPED 'PRN PLS 3109' UNLESS NJTED
OTHERWISE.
@)PC.P.aHAIL AND FAB STAMPED -PSM ,;5243- EEr
UNLESS NOTED.
OLOT CCRNERS TO DE MGNUMENr£D WITH A I/2' IPON
RCD. IB' LONG. AND CAP ST.1upED V- 4644"
LOT COF'NER3 TO BE MCNOUCH TEO III A 1' NAR
h TAB STAMPED "PSM 52.L3-.
1.12T 11,Io
PARCELS'
PINT[ AFS) Si
MLA4E R1ASE 11 M
n� M 22 TNT 59
Lot 49
TRACT 'C-6'
POINTE W .T EAST
V "1NfLM
NR 22. PO 31
NO TE:
NO rMX110 PERMIT KRL RE ISSUED FOR OELELOP.MENT OF ANY LOT
CR IRACT UNLESS AND UHT7L AN INITIAL AND FINAL CONCUPRENCY
(; R DEVELOP
ERRlR,'AYL' 1CMENT Cl THE LOT OR TRACT IS OBTAINED.
)VIDIAN RIVER COUNTY DCIS Nor GUARANTEE THAT ADEOUA TE
CA-ACITY HILL EXIST 4
7 THE TIME WHEN AN APrLfCANT OR.
APPLICANT'S SUCCESSI)p CHOOSES TO .,pPLY FOR AND OBTAIN A
CONCURRENCY CERTIFICATE.
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA EAST ZONE, NAD 1983, 2017 ADAISTMENT, AND
WERE DEVELOPED USING A TEAL TIME GL CFUL PORTIONING SYSTEM FROM THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY DENS (CATION PPOJEC,T AS FOLLOWS
CPS g47 N 1204761.25 E 024728.37
GPS 14S N 1202016.42 E 824719.94
�r
�11111111diN111�� •
NOTE:
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, ME
BUILDER110T OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE
SIDEWALK REQUIRED ALONG HIS LOT'S STREET FRONTAGE AS
DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED PRO -ECT PREGAITNARY PLAT AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
GRAPHIC SCALF.
(wmNl
ABBREVIATIONS
SEE SHEET J OF B FOR ABBREVIATIONS.SHEET 4 OF 8
Attachment2li
RESOLUTION NO. 2018 -
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
A PORTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT ON PARCEL B, POINTE WEST EAST
VILLAGE PHASE 1 PD
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a utility easement on Parcel B, Pointe West East
Village Phase 1 PD; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement, as described below, serves no public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida that:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DOES HEREBY RELEASE and abandon all right, title, and interest
that it may have in the following described easement portion:
See attached Exhibit A, Legal Description and Sketch
This partial release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960,
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Commissioner , and adopted on the
2018, by the following vote:
Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan
Vice -Chairman Bob Solari
Commissioner Susan Adams
Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher
Commissioner Tim Zore
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
, 2018.
day of
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
seconded by
day of
ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
Deputy Clerk
23
RESOLUTION NO. 2018 -
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
County Attorney
ease.bccdoc
proj/apl. no. 99070081/80258
Cc: Applicant:
DR HORTON, INC.
1430 CULVER DRIVE NE
PALM BAY, FL 32907
24
Exhibit A
Legal Description and Sketch
for an Utility Easement Abandonment
Point West East Village Site
Section 7, Township 33, South, Range 39 East
Indian River County, Florida
Sheet I of 2
Not Valid Without All Sheets
SURVEYORSNOTES
1) THE BEARING BASIS FOR THIS SKETCH IS THE EAST FIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF EAST VILLAGE DRIVE WHICH BEARS
N0006'28"W.
2) THIS SKETCH EXISTS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLUSTRATING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO WHICH IT IS
ATTACHED.
3) ALL DIMENSIONS ARE CALCULATED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
4) THIS SKETCH MEETS THE STANDARD PRACTICES FOR SURVEYING AS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
LEGEND
R/W RIGHT—OF—WAY
NO.
NO.
R
RADIUS
L
LENGTH
CH
CHORD DISTANCE
CB
CHORD BEARING
P.C.
POINT OF CURVATURE
P. T.
POINT OF TANGENCY
L
DELTA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF PARCEL B, POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1 PD AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 59 OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND BEING A PORTION OF A 60 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2166, PAGE 1983, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 3A OF SAID POINT WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1 PD; THENCE
NORTH 895332" EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE OF EAST VILLAGE DRIVE AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1 SOUTH PD AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 90
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND 7HE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH
89'53'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET- THENCE SOUTH 00'06'28" EAST AND PARALLEL WITH THE SAID EAST RIGHT
OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 552.45 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2036'13", FOR
AN ARC LENGTH OF 7.19 FEET, SAID CURVE IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 7.19 FEET THAT BEARS SOUTH 102428"
EAST, • THENCE SOUTH 69'17'32"WEST AND RADIAL TO THE LAST CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 28.40 FEET TO AN
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAID EAST RIGHT—OF—WAY UNE OF EAST VILLAGE DRIVE; THENCE NORTH 20 42'28"WEST ALONG
SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 8.80 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE; THENCE
CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00
FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2036'00", FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.99 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 00'06'28" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 552.45 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 16,937.50 SQUARE FEET OR 0.39 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Drawn by: Checked by File name Date Scale I Drawing Name
"This is NOT a Boundary Survev" I UG I DT I 7036.PLT 109/21/20171 N/A 17036PLATLEGALI
Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS #4644
1655 27th Street, Suite 2 Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone: (772) 564-8050 Fax: (772) 794-0647
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND
THE ORIGINA ISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA
UCENS S RVEYOR AND MA
14
�5
DAVID TAYLOR P.L.S. 5243
2500 fi
POINT OF L3
COMMENCEINENT
SE CORNER
PARCEL 3A
EAST W- AGE ME
SOUM LINE
27, PG 60
50' PRIVATE RIGHT Of WAY -T 11
Lot 189 I Lot 190
P.
Lot 191
3
c�
EN so
I Exhibit A
10' PRIVATE ACCESS, U77UTY
OF BEGINNING Legal Description and Sketch
for an Utility Easement Abandonment
Point West East Village Site
Section 7, Township 33, South, Range 39 East
Indian River County, Florida
Sheet 2 of 2
60' U77UTY EASEMENT Not Valid Without All Sheets
ORB 2166, PG 1983
HATCHED AREA
PARCEL B
POINTE WEST EAST VILLAGE PHASE 1, PD
PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 59
Curve Table
Curve I Length Radius Delta Chord CHB
RADIAL C1 7.19' 20.00' 02036'00' 7.19' S10124'281E
LINE
C2 8.99' 25.00' 02036'00' 8.99' 1Y1024'28'W
NE Of
v
R,/W LINE 500
' SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Drawn by: Checked byl File name ' Date I Scale 17036PLATLEGALI Drawing Name"This is NOT o Boundary Survev" CJG DT 7036.PLT 09/21/2017 1"=100'
Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS #4644
00 1655 27th Street, Suite 2 Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone: (772) 564-8050 Fax: (772) 794-0647
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND
THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA
LICENS RVEYOR AND MAPPER.
4 V,. . --
L4� 4,60�1
AVID TAYLOR P.L.S. 6243
Line Table
Line #
Length
Direction
L1
30.00'
N89' 53' 32-E
L2
28.40'
S69' 17' 32'W
L3
50.00'
N89' 53' 32E
L4
8.80'
N20. 42' 28'W
Curve Table
Curve I Length Radius Delta Chord CHB
RADIAL C1 7.19' 20.00' 02036'00' 7.19' S10124'281E
LINE
C2 8.99' 25.00' 02036'00' 8.99' 1Y1024'28'W
NE Of
v
R,/W LINE 500
' SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Drawn by: Checked byl File name ' Date I Scale 17036PLATLEGALI Drawing Name"This is NOT o Boundary Survev" CJG DT 7036.PLT 09/21/2017 1"=100'
Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS #4644
00 1655 27th Street, Suite 2 Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone: (772) 564-8050 Fax: (772) 794-0647
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND
THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA
LICENS RVEYOR AND MAPPER.
4 V,. . --
L4� 4,60�1
AVID TAYLOR P.L.S. 6243
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: James W. Ennis, P.E., PMP, County Engineer
SUBJECT: FDOT Amendment Number One to Small County Outreach Program (SCOP)
Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01 and Resolution Authorizing the Chairman's
Signature for Reconstructing 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 57th Street
DATE: January 2, 2018
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 18, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2016-110 and a Small
County Outreach Program (SCOP) Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the
reconstructing of 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 57th Street utilizing full depth reclamation, milling,
widening of existing asphalt and constructing a 3" thick asphalt road surface with an estimated total cost for
the project of $2,756,097.00. The FDOT SCOP grant amount approved was $2,067,073.00 and was executed
by the FDOT on October 28, 2016.
The scope of the project has been revised and the FDOT has requested Indian River County execute and
deliver to the FDOT Amendment Number One to SCOP Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01 to update
deliverables and extend the time frame, as well as a Resolution authorizing the Board of County
Commissioners to execute this Amendment Number One to SCOP Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01.
FUNDING
Funding for the County's cost share amount of $689,024.00 will be funded by Account Number 10921441-
053360-16008 Secondary Roads/FDOT SCOP Grant/58th Avenue Resurfacing (26th St — 57th St).
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve Amendment Number One to SCOP
Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01 and Resolution and authorize the chairman to execute the same.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Authorizing Resolution
2. Amendment Number One to SCOP Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR JANUARY 16 2018
F:\Public Works\ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS\1324 58th Ave Resurfacing (N. of 26th St to N. of 57th St)\1-Admin\Agenda items\BCC 27
Agenda Memo Amend 1 to Agreement with FDOT 1-16-2018.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2018 -
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN'S
EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO SMALL COUNTY OUTREACH PROGRAM
AGREEMENT FM NO. 434840-1-54-01 FOR RECONSTRUCTING OF 581h AVENUE FROM 26T" STREET
TO 57TH STREET.
WHEREAS, the reconstructing of 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 57th Street is an Indian River
County priority project; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is prepared to provide funds to
pay a portion of the cost for reconstructing 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 57th Street, as well as
reconstruction of existing shoulders to five feet, minor drainage improvements, utility adjustments,
signing and pavement markings under the Small County Outreach Program (SCOP); and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is responsible for paying 25
percent or more of the cost of the total project costs as its portion of the required local match.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to make, execute, and
deliver to the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Amendment Number One to Small
County Outreach Program Agreement FM No. 434840-1-54-01 for the aforementioned project.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner who moved its adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan
Vice -Chairman Bob Solari
Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher
Commissioner Susan Adams
Commissioner Tim Zorc
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed and adopted this day of
.2018.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY.
Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court
and Comptroller
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency
William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
F:\Public Works\ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTS\1324 58th Ave Resurfacing (N. of 26th St to N. of 57th St)\I-Admin\Agenda 28
items\Resolution Amend 1 to SCOP Agreement 1-19-2017.doc
DUNS No.: 80-939-7102
CSFA No.: 55.009
Contract No.: G-OG81
FM No: 434840-1-54-01
Vendor No: VF 596-000-679-003
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SMALL COUNTY OUTREACH PROGRAM (SCOP) AGREEMENT/
RURAL AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY (RAO)
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
THIS Amendment, made and entered into this day of 320 , by and
between the State of Florida Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Florida, hereinafter called the
DEPARTMENT, and Indian River County, 1801 27' Street, Bldg A, Vero Beach, Florid_ a 32960, hereinafter called the
RECIPIENT.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2016 the parties entered into a Small County Outreach Program Agreement,
hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, wherein the RECIPIENT agreed to provide certain improvements in connection
with Financial Management 434840-1-54-01 for Construction of 58' Avenue from North of 26' Street to North of 57'
Street in Indian River County and hereinafter referred to as the Project; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually agree that this Amendment is in their best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and representations herein, the parties
agree to amend that certain Small County Outreach Program Agreement dated October 28, 2016 as follows:
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are deemed incorporated herein.
2. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall begin upon the date of signature of the last party to sign this
Agreement ("Effective Date") and continue through December 31, 2019. Execution of this
Agreement by both parties shall be deemed a Notice to Proceed to the Recipient for work to begin on
the Project. Any work performed prior to the execution of this Agreement is not subject to
reimbursement. The estimated Project production schedule is a follows:
a. Design plans contract to begin on or before N/A/, and design plans to be completed by N/A.
b. Actual Construction shall begin no later than July 1, 2018, and be completed by December 31, 2019.
3. The Deliverables (Exhibit A) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with Exhibit A of
this Amendment, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The Scope of Services (Exhibit A) of the Agreement are unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.
29
1 of 2
All provisions, covenants, terms and conditions of the Agreement between the parties theretofore entered on
October 28, 2016, as originally set forth therein, which are not hereby expressly amended or modified and not in conflict
with terms hereof, are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain the same and be unaffected by these presents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this AMENDMENT is executed by the parties below for the purposes specified herein.
Authorization has been given to enter into and execute this Amendment by Resolution No.
hereto attached.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date(s) below.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(Name of RECIPIENT)
M.
TITLE: CHAIRMAN
Print Name: PETER D. O'BRYAN
Date:
ATTEST:
Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court & Comptroller
IM
, Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LIM
APPROVED AS TO FORM & LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Recipient's LEGAL REVIEW:
Print Name: WILLIAM K. DEBRAAL
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
TITLE: DIRECTOR OF TRANSP. DEVELOPMENT
Print Name: STACY L. MILLER, P.E,
Date:
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
LEGAL REVIEW:
30
2 of 2
Florida Statutes:
334.044(7)
Exhibit A
DELIVERABLES
FM# 434840-1-54-01
850-035-01
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
OGC — 02/15
Page 16 of 20
Pay Item No.
Description
Estimated Qty.
101-1
MOBILIZATION
1
102-1
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
1
104-1
EROSION AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
1
110-1-1
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
1
110-7-1
MAILBOX RELOCATION
45
120-1
EXCAVATION & EMBANKMENT
2000
120-1A
EXCAVATION OF EXISTING ASPHALT & BASE
784
120-2A
(RAP) MIXED IN ROADWAY BASE
6000
121-70
NON-EXVAVATABLE FLOWABLE FILL
80
160-4
TYPE B STABILIZATION 12" SHOULBER (LBR-40)
4045
283-70
RECLAIMED ASPHALT BASE COURSE (SHOULDER WIDENING)
6480
283-71
RECLAIMED ASPHALT BASE COURSE (FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION)
41473
285-709
OPTIONAL BASE, GROUP 9 (10" LIMEROCK) LBR100
2200
300-1
ASPHALT EMULSION TYPE CSS -1H — QUANTITY BASED ON 2.75 GAL/SY
131871
327-70-6
MILL EXISTING ASPHALT (1" AVG DEPTH)
4761
334-1-13
TYPE S.P. -12.5 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (2" THICK)
47953
337-7-82
TYPE F.C. - 9.5 APSHALTIC CONCRETE FRICTION COURSE TRAFFIC C (P.G. 76-
22) (1" THICK)
47953
337-7-83
TYPE F.C. - 9.5 APSHALTIC CONCRETE FRICTION COURSE TRAFFIC C (P.G. 76-
22) (1" THICK)
4761
425-1-553
INLETS, DT BOT, TYPE E, J BOT, <10'
2
425-5
MANHOLE ADJUSTMENT
4
425-6
VALUE BOX ADJUSTMENT
66
430-175-124
PIPE CULVER, OPT MATERIAL, ROUND, 24" CD
56
430-175-148
PIPE CULVER, OPT MATERIAL, ROUND, 48" CD
168
526-1-2
ARCHITECHURAL PAVERS
150
530-1
RIPRAP, SAND -CEMENT
45
570-1-2
PERFORMANCE TURF SOD (BAHIA)
18196
630-2-11
UNDERGROUND CONDUIT 2"
20
630-2-14
ABOVE GROUND CONDUIT 2"
30
660-4-11
VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM- VIDEO (F&I) (CABINET EQUIPMENT)
1
660-4-12
VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM- VIDEO (F&I) (ABOVE GROUND EQUIPMENT)
4
700-1-5
SINGLE SIGN POST (RELOCATE)
39
31
Pay Item No.
Description
Estimated Qty.
706-3
R.P.M. BI-DIRECTIONAL AMBER/AMBER
874
711-11-121
SOLID TRAFFIC STRIP (6"WHITE) THERMOPLASTIC
21143
711-11-123
SOLID TRAFFIC STRIP (12"WHITE) THERMOPLASTIC„
194
711-11-125
SOLID TRAFFIC STRIP (24"WHITE) THERMOPLASTIC
277
711-11-141
SKIP TRAFFIC STRIPE (6" WHITE 2'-4') THERMOPLASTIC
772
711-11-151
SKIP TRAFFIC STRIPE (6" WHITE 6'-10') THERMOPLASTIC
1629
711-11-170
TURN ARROWS, THERMOPLASTIC
12
711-4
BICYCLE LANE MARKING, THERMOPLASTIC
25
711-16-201
SOLID TRAFFIC STRIPE (DOUBLE 6" YELLOW) THERMOPLASTIC
9907
711-16-224
SOLID TRAFFIC STRIP (18" YELLOW) THERMOPLASTIC
299
711-16-231
SKIP TRAFFIC STRIPE (6" YELLOW 10'-30') THERMOPLASTIC
4190
CEI CLASSIFICATIONS
SR. PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
SR. INSPECTOR
INSPECTOR
INSPECTOR'S AIDE
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) MANAGER
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR LEVEL 1
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR LEVEL 2
ASPHALT PAVING TECHNICIAN LEVEL 1
ASPHALT PAVING TECHNICIAN LEVEL 2
32
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: Andy Sobczak, Infrastructure Project Manager-�K
SUBJECT: Work Order No. 4, REI Engineers, Inc. — Design and Replacement of Sebastian
Corners Roof
DATE: January 4, 2018
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In 2017, Indian River County purchased an existing commercial plaza, known as Sebastian Corners,
located at 1919 US 1 in Sebastian as the future location for the County's North County Offices.
Currently, Offices of the Indian River County Tax Collector, Veterans Services, Utilities and Clerk
of the Circuit Court occupy leased space at 11610 US 1 in Sebastian. Since the Sebastian Corners
roof has surpassed its useful lifespan, and is in need of numerous repairs, prior to relocation of the
North County Offices the roof needs to be replaced.
On April 18, 2014 the Board of County Commissioners approved a Professional Services Agreement
with REI Engineers, Inc. to perform roofing consultation services to include evaluations of existing
roofing conditions, design solutions for remedial work, design solutions for roof replacement,
preparation of design documents, and project management. On November 22, 2017 REI Engineers,
Inc. submitted a proposal for the design, assistance in bidding, and construction administration for
replacement of the roof at Sebastian Corners.
FUNDING
Funding for the project is included in the FY 17-18 CIE and budgeted in Optional Sales
Tax/Facilities Management/New Roof N. County Office Bldg. Sebastian Corners, Acct #31522019-
066510-17018.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the BCC approve the attached Work Order #4 for REI Engineers, Inc. to
design, assist in bidding, and perform construction administration services for the replacement of the
existing roof at Sebastian Corners, and authorize the Chairman to execute Work Order #4 in the
lump sum amount of $25,900.00.
33
C:\Usersyw iliams\AppData\LomrMeroso@\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Oullook\DA3K8007URC-1765 Sebastian Comers Roof Replacement W04 StaffReport.doc
Page Two
Work Order No. 4, REI Engineers, Inc.
BCC Consent Agenda 1/16/2018
DISTRIBUTION
Michael Smykowski, Budget Director
Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Work Order 44
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR JANUARY 16, 2018
34
C:\UsersljwilUmnMppData\LocalUcrosoRlWmdows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.OutlookWA3KB007\IItC-1765 Sebastian Comers Roof Replacement WO 4 Staff Report.doc
WORK ORDER NUMBER 4
Sebastian Corners Roof Replacement
IRC Project No. 1765
This Work Order Number is entered into as of this day of pursuant to that
certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Roof Consultation Services, dated April 18th, 2014, (referred to as
the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
("COUNTY") and REI Engineers, Inc. ("Consultant").
All services performed under this contract shall be supervised and certified by a licensed Professional
Engineer (PE) licensed with the State of Florida and staff employed directly with your firm.
Scope of Services:
Indian River County is requesting that REI Engineers, Inc., prepare construction drawings consisting of
roof plans and details; which depict the Scope of Work, assist in the bidding phase, and provide
construction administration services for the replacement of the roof at the Sebastien Corners, 1919 US
Highway 1, Sebastian, Florida 32958.
All work shall be performed in accordance with the attached Proposal dated November 22, 2017
(EXHIBIT "A") and shall comply with Standards enumerated in the Continuing Contract Agreement for
Professional Services, dated April 18, 2014.
Compensation:
The COUNTY agrees to pay, and REI Engineers, Inc., agrees to accept, $25,900.00 for services rendered
according to the Proposal dated November 22, 2017, identified in the attached EXHIBIT "A",
incorporated by reference herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above.
CONSULTANT:
REI Engineers, Inc
By: wiee
Mark Renninger
Title: Branch Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By:
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
BCC Approved Date:
Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved:
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney
35
REI ENGINEERS EXHIBIT "A"
V Fy
Fy
10150 Highland Manor Drive, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33610
PHONE 813.944.2137 FAx 813.419.7302
November 22, 2017
Indian River County
1801 27th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Attention: Andrew Sobczak
Infrastructure Project Manager
Reference: Proposal for Engineering Services
Sebastian Corners Retail LLC
Contract Documents and Construction Administration
REI Proposal No. P17TPA-031 Revision 1
Dear Mr. Sobczak:
In response to our recent discussions, we are pleased to submit this proposal for your consideration. The
roof areas outlined in this proposal include roof sections of the facility located at 1919 US Highway 1,
Sebastian, Florida 32958 (totaling approximately 22,000 square feet). The following is an outline of the
proposed services for Contract Documents and Construction Administration:
I. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
A. Conduct the site visit(s) to develop detailed Contract Documents for the subject building.
B. Extract roof samples to identify roof system composition and condition. Cored locations
to be repaired with compatible materials.
C. Perform the following engineering design calculations for all roof areas which will be
sealed by a Licensed Engineer:
I . Determine design wind loads in accordance with ASCE 7 as required by the current
edition of the State Building Code.
2. Primary and secondary (overflow) drainage for compliance with the current edition
of the State Plumbing Code.
3. Existing and proposed roof system R -Value for compliance with the current edition
of the State Energy Conservation Code.
4. Estimate existing and proposed roof system dead load unit weights to determine
load change and the need for a structural analysis. If a structural analysis is
required, REI will coordinate applicable work with a licensed Structural Engineer.
The cost for the structural analysis (if necessary) is not included in this proposal.
D. Prepare comprehensive scaled drawings for conditions present to ensure competitive bids
are received. All plans and details to be developed on Computer Aided Drafting
(AutoCAD).
ROOFING, WATERPROOFING AND BUILDING ENVELOPE ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
www.rcicngincers.com
AN EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY
36
I
REI Proposal No. P17TPA-031 Revision 1 EXHIBIT "A„ �
November 22, 2017
Page 2 3
E. Prepare technical specifications of the removal or other preparation of the existing roofing
system(s) and installation of the insulation, roof system(s) and sheet metal for the building.
F. Issue preliminary Contract Documents for Owner review. Upon acceptance, final Contract
Documents will be prepared and submitted.
G. Provide advertisement for bids to Owner for use in advertising in accordance with
applicable laws and/or submit names of three or more qualified Contractors to bid the
Contract Documents.
H. Hold one Pre -Bid Meeting for potential contractors to review the Contract Documents and
resolve any questions that may arise during the bid stage of the project.
Bids shall be analyzed and a recommendation made based on low bid, alternates,
contractor's past performance and Owner's budget restrictions. Submit a certified Bid
Tabulation and recommendation for award.
II. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
A. Complete Owner's recommended Form of Agreement between Owner and Contractor and
submit to Owner and Contractor for acceptance.
B. Issue "Notice to Proceed" with Date of Commencement and construction period
established.
C. Review and accept, as appropriate, shop drawings and submittals as required by the
Contract Documents. Return unacceptable submittals to contractor as required until
compliance with specifications is realized.
D. Hold a pre -construction meeting with the successful contractor to ensure a clear
understanding of the plans and specifications.
E. Perform quality assurance site visit once every five working days, Monday through Friday,
to verify work is in compliance with the Contract Documents. Photographs will be taken
as deemed necessary for documentation. REI cannot comment on work that takes place
and covered while REI is not onsite.
F. Prepare and submit reports from each quality assurance site visit relaying information
pertaining to weather, area worked, application methods, material types installed during
the site visit, and listing of non -conforming items requiring Contractor's correction.
G. Certify Contractor's monthly invoicing based on status of work performed as determined
from project site visits.
H. Route any change orders developed to address changes to the contract requirements.
Upon notification by the contractor that the job is substantially complete, a substantial
completion inspection will be conducted with REI, Owner, Contractor and Manufacturer
personnel. A punch list will be prepared to list any minor items that require further
treatment.
E\G�tJEERS
37
REI Proposal No. P17TPA-031 Revision 1
November 22, 2017
Page 3
EXHIBIT "A"
J. Upon notification by the contractor that the job is fully complete, a final inspection will be
conducted with REI, contractor and Owner personnel. A final inspection report will be
submitted upon verifying completion or if necessary, an additional punch list will be
prepared.
K. Upon completion of work, verify compliance of warranties and forward to Owner with
close out documents and final billing.
L. Conduct a 2 -year Contractor Warranty Inspection before the warranty expires to address
warranty issues with the Contractor and Manufacturer.
III. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
A. Low Slope Roof Section: Remove existing roof system down to the existing structural
deck and provide new PVC roof system along with sheet metal flashing and accessories to
provide a complete, watertight, 20 -year warrantable roof assembly. Roof system selected
will be submitted to Owner for approval.
B. Steep Slope Roof Section: Remove existing metal roof down to the substrate. Replace
damaged or contaminated substrate and provide new roof system along with sheet metal
flashing and accessories to provide a complete, watertight, 20 -year warrantable roof
assembly. Roof system selected will be submitted to Owner for approval.
IV. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSVENGINEERING FEES
A. Based on the anticipated scope of work for this project, the proposed engineering fees are:
Engineering Fees:
Contract Review Draft Documents............................................................... $6,100
Contract Final Draft Documents................................................................... $5,200
BiddingPhase.................................................................................................. $900
Construction Administration....................................................................... $12,400
CloseOut...................................................................................................... $1,300
Total............................................................................................................ $25,900
V. PROJECT SCHEDULE
A. Preliminary Contract Documents shall be completed within thirty (30) days of Notice to
Proceed. Final Contract Documents shall be completed and sealed within ten (10) days of
receipt of comments.
B. Construction Administration shall be performed during the estimated construction duration
and the project closeout process. This work is expected to take forty-five (45)
calendar days.
If this proposal meets with your approval, please notify us in writing. This proposal will remain firm for a
period of thirty (30) days. After that time, we reserve the right to review scheduled commitments and
prices.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Fei _2nV%
E".,.'NEERs 2hu
38
REI Proposal No, P17TPA-031 Revision 1
November 22, 2017
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
REI Engineers
Mark Renninger, PE, RRC,
Branch Manager
Z
J
Fe -i I
Ehr,:14EERS
EXHIBIT "A"
39
I
EXHIBIT "N'
Exhibit 2
p
I 40hrsJwk.
`0 R
�
d"', "titT.4iii, d
.
lt�� t time;w
ono-- if ft4ioo & olidos it-...doublcA�
Mn6d&.t�hni�ianc6w-foLsite ils& &&who=
2.
c
. . ... . . . ...........
R LLD JES
L. ................ '001e
a
2.
......... . : . .....
............
. ........... ...
.. . ....... t6--Testmg
...... ...
..
4: Inirared;Nloisture
!..-, .................
request:
km�vpon
C. 99NPRi9C00CUNEENTS
1. Lump sum. percentage or not-to-exceed'd .......... . ... ..... . .. ............ ..............
A ORM—M—AL
L Projects"66ijuvi WMU_Poffo O -WW'&
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0�
MEMORANDUM u
TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
THROUGH: Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., Public Works Director
James W. Ennis, P.E., PMP, County Engineer 0
FROM: William Johnson, P.E., Roadway Production Engineer
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 9 to the Civil Engineering and Land Surveying Agreement
for Intersection Improvements at SR -60 and 431d Avenue and the Widening
of 43rd Avenue from 18th Street to 26th Street with Arcadis US, Inc.
DATE: December 11, 2017
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Arcadis US, Inc. (fka Arcadis, G&M) is under original Agreement signed May 17, 2005 with Indian
River County to provide Civil Engineering and Land Surveying Services for improvements to the SR -
60/431d Avenue Intersection and the widening of 43rd Avenue from 18th Street to 26th Street. Final
Design process commencing September 19, 2006.
The purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to update Lighting design plans, plan revisions and updating
permitting reports for submittals to governmental agencies. The project construction is scheduled
to commence spring/summer 2018.
The total negotiated lump sum for Amendment No. 9 is $23,710.00.
FUNDING
Funding is available from Optional Sales Tax/43rd Avenue & SR -60 — 18th Street to 26th Street -
Account No. 31521441-066510-06041 in the amount of $23,710.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve Amendment No. 9 for a lump sum
fee of $23,710.00 and requests the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to
execute Amendment No. 9 on their behalf.
ATTACHMENTS
Amendment No. 9 with Arcadis US, Inc.
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR JANUARY 16, 2018
41
F:\PublicWorks\ENGMERING DIVISION PROJECTS\085343rd AVE 18th ST to 26th ST (Arcadis)\1-Admin\Agenda Items\Arcadis Proposal
12112017\IRC-0853 BCC Agenda Memo for Arcadis Amendment 49.docx
i
IMPROVEMENT OF THE INTERSECTION OF SR 60 & 43" AVENUE
PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES
AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING/LAND SURVEYING
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARCADIS US, Inc. (fka ARCADIS G&M, Inc.),
Inc. AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
This is an amendment to the existing Engineering Services Agreement (AGREEMENT) dated
May 17, 2005 between ARCADIS US, Inc. (ENGINEER) and Indian River County (COUNTY).
This amendment addresses changes in "Section I — Project Limits and Description", "Section III
- Scope of Services", and "Section V - Compensation".
Amendment Description
This Amendment includes the following:
"SECTION I - PROJECT LIMITS AND DESCRIPTION" is being modified to incorporate
the following:
Consultant services are required for the preparation of road design plans; bridge plans; permit
applications and utility relocations associated with the construction of SR 60 / 43rd Avenue
Intersection Improvements.
ARCADIS US, Inc., was contracted to design the widening of 43rd Avenue from 26th Street to
18`h Street. The COUNTY has requested that the lighting plans for the project be revised to
provide for the use of LED lighting fixtures. The St. Johns River Water Management District
(SJRWMD) permit for the project has expired. A permit application package will be assembled
and submitted to SJRWMD for their review and approval. It is anticipated that the drainage
system as previously approved by SJRWMD will be acceptable and that modifications to the
drainage system will not be required. In addition, miscellaneous plan revisions will be completed
to address the COUNTY's comments.
The work included in Amendment No. 9 is in accordance with the existing AGREEMENT dated
November 6, 2005 between ARCADIS US, Inc. (ENGINEER) and Indian River County
(COUNTY).
"SECTION III — SCOPE OF SERVICES" is being modified to incorporate the following:
30% and 60%, 90%, and 100% plans have been submitted to the COUNTY. Engineer will
prepare revised 100% plans.
Pagel of 5
G:\LNR Support\Proposals\WPB\2017\SR 60 & 43rd Avenue\SR60 - 43RD AVE AMENDMENT 9 12-8-17.doc
42
The Roadway set of plans shall consist of the following:
"SECTION IV - TIME FOR COMPLETION" is being modified to incorporate the following:
Project shall be completed as follows:
a. The time for completion of the 100% design drawings for the plan revisions
requested by the COUNTY shall be two (2) months from the date of execution
of this ADDENDUM.
Deliverables -The ENGINEER shall provide the COUNTY:
a. Three (3) 11" x 17" paper signed and sealed of the 100% plans. Also, a pdf
format set of the plans on a cd.
b. FINAL five (5) 24" x 36" paper signed and sealed "hardcopy", AutoCad
drawing file and PDF formats on CD.
c. Work Product shall be prepared and supplied in State Plane geometry (NAD83
2007 adjustment if applicable); digital versions are to be prepared and
submitted so that the COUNTY or other consultants can readily use it for the
design and analysis of the area, as defined. It shall contain all information
necessary for third -party surveyor to independently recreate and/or utilize the
survey work. It is acknowledged all final products become property of Indian
River COUNTY and will be available for use by the public at large.
"SECTION V — COMPENSATION" is being modified to incorporate the following:
Page 2 of 5
G:\LNR Support\Proposa1s\WPB\2017\SR 60 & 43rd Avenue\SR60 - 43RD AVE AMENDMENT 9 12-8-
17.doc
43
30%
60%
90%
100%
Cover Sheet
X
Typical Sections
X
Summary of Quantities and General Notes
X
Details
X
Plan and Profile Sheets (40 scale)
X
Cross Sections at 100 ft interval
X
Signage & Pavement Marking Plans (40 scale)
X
Intersection Plan & Details
X
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)
X
Computation Book
X
Construction Cost Estimate and Quantities
X
Lighting Plans
X
"SECTION IV - TIME FOR COMPLETION" is being modified to incorporate the following:
Project shall be completed as follows:
a. The time for completion of the 100% design drawings for the plan revisions
requested by the COUNTY shall be two (2) months from the date of execution
of this ADDENDUM.
Deliverables -The ENGINEER shall provide the COUNTY:
a. Three (3) 11" x 17" paper signed and sealed of the 100% plans. Also, a pdf
format set of the plans on a cd.
b. FINAL five (5) 24" x 36" paper signed and sealed "hardcopy", AutoCad
drawing file and PDF formats on CD.
c. Work Product shall be prepared and supplied in State Plane geometry (NAD83
2007 adjustment if applicable); digital versions are to be prepared and
submitted so that the COUNTY or other consultants can readily use it for the
design and analysis of the area, as defined. It shall contain all information
necessary for third -party surveyor to independently recreate and/or utilize the
survey work. It is acknowledged all final products become property of Indian
River COUNTY and will be available for use by the public at large.
"SECTION V — COMPENSATION" is being modified to incorporate the following:
Page 2 of 5
G:\LNR Support\Proposa1s\WPB\2017\SR 60 & 43rd Avenue\SR60 - 43RD AVE AMENDMENT 9 12-8-
17.doc
43
The COUNTY agrees to pay and the ENGINEER or agrees to accept for services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement fees in accordance with the following:
A. Professional Services Fee
1. The basic compensation mutually agreed upon by the ENGINEER and the
COUNTY follows:
The following is a summary of costs:
Charge Associated with New Total
This Amendment Compensation
Roadway Design
Geotechnical Services (Tierra)........................................................ $0.00 $35,487.50
Engineering............................................................................. $12,280.00 $354,577.03
(ARCADIS)
Signal Plans...................................................................................... $0.00 $31,488.41
(SIMMONS & WHITE Inc.)
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans ......................................... $0.00 $9,022.92
(ARCADIS)
Permitting......................................................................................... $0.00 $33,090.00
(ARCADIS)
Surveying
DesignSurvey................................................................................... $0.00 $65,003.60
(ARCADIS)
Right of Way Survey and Map ........................................... :............. $0.00 $20,386.40
(ARCADIS)
Structural Design
Structural Design for SR 60 over
Main Relief Canal bridge................................................................. $0.00 $76,060.00
(Bridge Design Associates, Inc.)
Structural Design for 43' Avenue over
Page 3 of 5
G:\LNR Support\Proposa1s\WPB\2017\SR 60 & 43rd Avenue\SR60 - 43RD AVE AMENDMENT 9 12-8-
17.doe
44
Main Relief Canal bridge................................................................ $0.00 $67,604.00
(Bridge Design Associates, Inc.)
Landscape & Lighting Plans
Landscape Architectural Services.................................................$0.00 $31,486.00
(Roy -Fisher Associates, Inc.)
Lighting Plans.......................................................................$11,430.00 $51,265.00
(RDCE, Inc.)
Public Involvement
Public Workshop Meeting.............................................................$0.00 $6,180.00
Contamination Screening Evaluation Report . .........................................$0.00 $9,750.00
Conceptual Commercial Area Improvement Plan ...................................$0.00 $11,700.00
TOTALLUMPSUMFEE................................................................$23,710.00 $803,100.86
ALLOWANCES
Sketch and Legal Descriptions...................................................... $0.00 $50,000.00
(ARCADIS)
Soft Dig for Utility Locations........................................................ $0.00 $20,000.00
Appraisal........................................................................................$0.00 $121,500.00
(Callaway & Price) (For 27 parcels)
Land Planner................................................................................. $0.00 $20,000.00
(Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Raymond & Sheehan) (Hourly not to
exceed at $175 001hour)
Market Analysis............................................................................. $0.00 $20,000.00
(Realmark Research) (Hourly not to exceed at $110.001hour)
Eminent Domain Business Damage Assessment ......................... $0.00 $40,000.00
(Gerson, Preston,Robinson & Company)(Hourly not to exceed
at $165.00/hour for Principal, $125001hour for Manager, and
$90.00/hour for Staf )
Page 4 of 5
G:\LNR Support\Proposa1s\WPB\2017\SR 60 & 43rd Avenue\SR60 - 43RD AVE AMENDMENT 9 12-8-
17.doc
45
Cure Plans...................................................................................... $0.00 $56,000.00
(ARCADIS) (Allowance for 14 parcels at $4,000.00 per parcel
Landscape plans for Cure Plans ................................................... $0.00 $16,800.00
(Roy -Fisher) (Allowance for 14 parcels @ $1,200.00 per parcel)
Boundwy Surveying ......................................................................$0.00 $10,000.00
TOTAL ALLOWANCES (Hourly Not To Exceed) ..................................... $0.00 $354,300.00
The AGREEMENT is hereby amended as specifically set forth here in. All other sections of the
AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein.
This Amendment No. 8 to the AGREEMENT regardless of where executed, shall be governed by
and constructed by the laws of the State of Florida.
In witness whereof the parties have executed this Amendment this day of _
)2017.
ARCADIS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1500 at a Boul vard, Suite 200
Boynton B arc , FL 3 11
By: By:
P.E.
WITNESSED BY:
County Attorney
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency
Jason Brown, County Administrator
Board of County Commissioners
Approved by BCC,
Attest:
Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court
By:
Deputy Clerk
Page 5 of 5
G:\LNR Support\Proposa1s\WPB\2017\SR 60 & 43rd Avenue\SR60 - 43RD AVE AMENDMENT 9 12-8-
17.doe
46
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
WMA
Date: January 5, 2018
To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
From: Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services
Prepared By: Arjuna Weragoda, P.E., Capital Projects Manager
Subject: North Sebastian Phase 1 Septic to Sewer Approval of Cost Share Funding Agreement -
Amendment No. 1
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
On October 4, 2016, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the FY 16/17 Cost -
Share Agreement between the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and Indian River County,
which is scheduled to expire June 30, 2018. On March 9, 2017, the project was advertised through Demandstar
and bids opened April 12, 2017. Since the subject project had an assessment component, those requirements such
as Resolution I (Providing) and Resolution II (Time and Place) had to be adopted with a final Resolution III (Public
Hearing) prior to issuing notice to proceed. On July 18, 2017, the BCC adopted Resolution III (2017-013), and notice
to proceed was issued August 10, 2017 to Timothy Rose Contracting, Inc.
ANALYSIS/ENGINEERING:
Since the issuance of notice to proceed, Indian River County experienced hurricane Irma in September 2017, and
Harvey that affected the Houston area in Texas late August 2017. These weather events had significant impact on
the manufacturing of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) piping. Given the delay of material delivery and other
factors, the Contractor requested additional days. The additional days requested were approved by SJRWMD.
Therefore, the subject Amendment No.1 is to reflect the expiration date change from June 30, 2018, to
September 30, 2018.
FINANCING/FUNDING:
The above changes to the contract were merely extending the contract time and had no impact on pricing.
Therefore, there is no change to the original approved budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Amendment No. 1 to the Cost Share Agreement between the St.
Johns River Water Management District and Indian River County, and requests the Indian River County Board
of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute the same on their behalf.
ATTACHMENT(s):
Amendment 1 to the Cost Share Agreement between the St. Johns River Water Management District
and Indian River County for North Sebastian Phase 1 Septic To Sewer Project.
Page 1 of 1
F:\Utilities\UTILITY- Engineering\Projects- Utility Construction Permits\IRC- North Sebastian S2S (M&M)\Admin\Agenda Items\Phase I\Agenda ��
North Sebastian Septic to Sewer Cost Share Funding -Amendment No.l.docx
AMENDMENT 1 TO THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FOR NORTH SEBASTIAN PHASE 1 SEPTIC TO SEWER PROJECT
THIS AMENDMENT is entered into by and between the GOVERNING BOARD of the ST. JOHNS
RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (the "District"), whose mailing address is 4049 Reid Street,
Palatka, Florida 32177-2571, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ("Recipient") whose address is 1801 27th
Street, Building A, Vero Beach, Florida 3290-3388, and is effective on the date the last party has executed
same.
PREMISES:
The parties entered into Agreement No. 28771 on October 20, 2016 to provide funding for the Recipient's
North Sebastian Phase 1 Septic to Sewer Project ("Agreement"). The parties desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, which are hereby made a part of this
amendment, the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties
hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
Paragraph 1(a) TERM; WITHDRAWAL OF OFFER: delete this paragraph and replace it with the
following paragraph:
(a) The term of this Agreement is from October 20, 2016 ("Effective Date") through September 30,
2018 ("Completion Date"). Recipient shall not commence the Project until any required submittals
are received and approved. Time is of the essence for every aspect of this Agreement, including any
time extensions. Any request for an extension of time beyond the Completion Date must be made in
writing before July 1, 2018. For projects whose District contribution exceeds $100,000, timely
requests to extend the Completion Date more than six months beyond the original Completion date
may only be approved by the District's Governing Board. Notwithstanding specific mention that
certain provisions survive termination or expiration of this Agreement, all provisions of this
Agreement that by their nature extend beyond the Completion Date, for example, delivery of a final
report, will remain in full force and effect after the Completion Date as necessary to affect
performance.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, including any subsequent amendments, are hereby
ratified and continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this amendment on the date set forth
below.
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LIM
Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Executive Director or Designee
Date:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman. Board of County Commissioners
Date:
Attest:
Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
Approved As to Form and Legal Sufficiency:
- 1 -
Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
48
PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS: 1/16/2018
l�� I
Office Of
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney
Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Dylan Reingold - County Attorney
DATE: January $,2018
ATTORNEY
RE: Public Notice of Public Hearing Scheduled for January 23, 2018 to
Consider Codifying the Code of Indian River County -
LEGISLATIVE
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday,
January 23, 2018, at 9:05 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to
consider amending Section 100.03 "Amendment or Repeal of Ordinances" of
Chapter 100 "General Provisions" of the Code of Indian River County ("the
Code"), codifying and publishing the ordinances up to and including Supplement
124 thereto, readopting the Code, designating the Code as the best evidence of the
current law of Indian River County, Florida, and providing for severability,
codification, and an effective date.
/nhm
49
NEER c
a' °oma Office of the
z INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ORI�A ' ADMINISTRATOR
\�
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Jason E. Brown
County Administrator
DATE: January 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Indian River Medical Center Potential Financial Impact on County
Background
On January 9, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners requested that staff provide a summary of the
potential financial impact of a sale or lease of the hospital to another partner would have on the County
organization. Additionally, the Board requested that staff provide information regarding indigent care
expenses funded by the Hospital District. Please find a brief summary and analysis below:
IRMC Potential Financial Impact on County
The County provides health insurance to County employees as well as the five (5) Constitutional
Officers' employees (e.g. Sheriff, Property Appraiser, etc.) through a self-insured health insurance
program. About 1,550 employees and retirees are covered under the plan. Last year, total expenditures
were about $18.5 million. Of that amount, approximately $1.5 million was paid to Indian River Medical
Center (IRMC).
In 2016, hospital officials provided information to County staff about the average reimbursement rates
for IRMC as well as some surrounding hospitals. County staff's understanding is that the amounts
represented average reimbursement rates reimbursed by private insurers for services per admitted
patient. Furthermore, staff's understanding is that this is the same information that was presented to the
Hospital District by the former hospital CFO, Greg Gardner. These rates were expressed as a percentage
of the rates paid by Medicare. The table below contains this information as well as a comparison of
rates among the local hospitals:
317
Table 1
Local Hospital Reimbursement Rates — 2016 (As provided by Hospital Staff)
Note: This information was provided by hospital staff. County staff does not make any representations about the accuracy of the data.
Additionally, staff's understanding is that these were averages of negotiated rates with private insurers per admitted patient. These rates
do not account for private pay, Medicare, Medicaid or indigent patients.
It is important to note that these are average rates reimbursed by private insurers. The County's network
provider, Florida Blue, could have reimbursement rates that are higher or lower than the average.
County staff does not have underlying data, therefore, the ability to analyze these rates is limited.
Assuming that the information is accurate, the data does point to significant differences in
reimbursement rates at different hospitals. This data indicates that the reimbursements provided to other
hospitals may be two or three times the amount reimbursed to IRMC per admitted patient
Since the initial data was provided, IRMC's negotiated reimbursement rates were increased by about
25% according to hospital staff. If the 25% increase is applied to the 2016 data, then the difference
between IRMC and the surrounding hospitals would decrease by 25% as shown in Table 2 below. It is
important to note, that this table assumes no change in the reimbursement rates of the other area
hospitals. Since the original data set, these rates could have increased or decreased.
Table 2
Local Hospital Reimbursement Rates — 2018 (Assumes 25% increase for IRMC, no change for
others)
Private Insurer
Reimbursement
Hospital Name
Rates (Average)
Indian River Medical Center
141%
Hospital A (located in Sebastian)
298%
Hospital B (located in St. Lucie
397%
County)
397%
Hospital C (located in St. Lucie
363%
County)
363%
Note: This information was provided by hospital staff. County staff does not make any representations about the accuracy of the data.
Additionally, staff's understanding is that these were averages of negotiated rates with private insurers per admitted patient. These rates
do not account for private pay, Medicare, Medicaid or indigent patients.
It is important to note that these are average rates reimbursed by private insurers. The County's network
provider, Florida Blue, could have reimbursement rates that are higher or lower than the average.
County staff does not have underlying data, therefore, the ability to analyze these rates is limited.
Assuming that the information is accurate, the data does point to significant differences in
reimbursement rates at different hospitals. This data indicates that the reimbursements provided to other
hospitals may be two or three times the amount reimbursed to IRMC per admitted patient
Since the initial data was provided, IRMC's negotiated reimbursement rates were increased by about
25% according to hospital staff. If the 25% increase is applied to the 2016 data, then the difference
between IRMC and the surrounding hospitals would decrease by 25% as shown in Table 2 below. It is
important to note, that this table assumes no change in the reimbursement rates of the other area
hospitals. Since the original data set, these rates could have increased or decreased.
Table 2
Local Hospital Reimbursement Rates — 2018 (Assumes 25% increase for IRMC, no change for
others)
Note: This information was provided by hospital staff. County staff does not make any representations about the accuracy of the data.
Additionally, staff's understanding is that these were averages of negotiated rates with private insurers per admitted patient. These rates
do not account for private pay, Medicare, Medicaid or indigent patients.
2
51
Private Insurer
Reimbursement
Hospital Name
Rates (Average)
Indian River Medical Center
166%
Hospital A (located in Sebastian)
298%
Hospital B (located in St. Lucie
County)
397%
Hospital C (located in St. Lucie
County)
363%
Note: This information was provided by hospital staff. County staff does not make any representations about the accuracy of the data.
Additionally, staff's understanding is that these were averages of negotiated rates with private insurers per admitted patient. These rates
do not account for private pay, Medicare, Medicaid or indigent patients.
2
51
After adjusting for the 25% increase in reimbursement rates to IRMC, the data suggest that some
surrounding hospital reimbursement rates could still be over double those of IRMC. Since the County is
self-insured, any change in expenses has a direct financial impact on the plan. If the Florida Blue
reimbursement rates show similar differences between hospitals, a sale or lease to a partner could result
in a significant financial impact to the County's health insurance fund if the partner's reimbursement
rate with Florida Blue is higher than the current rate with IRMC.
It is important to note here that one of the four finalists in the selection process does operate one of the
hospitals located in St. Lucie County shown in the table above. If the reimbursement rates for that
hospital or a similar rate were used at IRMC, the potential impact on the County's health insurance costs
could be significant. It is also necessary to point out that staff does not have data regarding the
reimbursement rates charged by the other three finalists. Those rates could be higher or lower than the
rates shown at the table above. In summary, staff does not currently have access to reliable data to
determine the amount of any financial impact. Based upon the current $1.5 million expenditure with
IRMC, though, any significant change in rates from those currently charged by IRMC could potentially
create a detrimental impact on the County's health plan.
Hospital District Indigent Care Expenses
The current fiscal year (2017/18) budget for the Indian River County Hospital District totals
$12,807,297 (see attached). This includes funding for indigent care at the Indian River Medical Center
as well as several other programs (e.g. State Health Department support, Visiting Nurse Association,
Mental Health Association, etc.). The budget is supported primarily by ad valorem taxes, plus rental and
interest income. The current year millage rate is 0.8894 mills, which provides about $13.6 million after
accounting for early pay discounts, commissions and uncollectible amounts. The current year budget
provides funding of $7,983,449 for indigent care at the hospital, with the remainder of the budget
expended for other healthcare related services as listed above.
Attachments: Preliminary Budget FY 2017-2018
Profit Loss Budget vs. Actual FY 2017-2018
Agenda Item January 16, 2018
52
Indian River County Hospital District
Preliminary Budget
Fiscal Year 2017 - 2018
Program F,xnenditures
201512016
2016/2017
201612017
2017/2018
Indian River:tledical Cerner
Approved
Approved
Projected
Proposed
Indigent Care-[lospttal
Budget
Budget
09130/17
Budget
Cash Balance Brought Forward
2„218,044
3,895,915
4,119,065
2,949,231
Less: Prior Year Reserves
200,000
Improvement & Betterment of GHC
30.000
30,000
30,000
60.000
Improvement & Betterment of HSB
85,000
85,000
85,000
148 ;x00
Contingency Reserve
1,106,000
1,500,000
174,429
1,500,000
Reserve Fund - Indigent care cont
851,076
196,421
48,209
200,000
Health Needs Assessment Reserve
100,000
250,000
75,000
100,000
Partnership Process Reserve
49.120
49,120
51,210
1,000,000
Total Prior Year Reserves
2.072,076
2,061,421
115,000
2,905,000
Net Cash Balance Brought Forward
145,968
1,834,494
4,004,065
44,231
Revenues
25,000
25,000
25,000
26.250
Taxes: MillagePer$1,000 = 0,8894
30,000
18,000
13,300
16,000
Ad Valorem Tax
1 4.313,-;74
12,850,895
12 X00.000
14,496,066
Interest Income
9,250
11,600
15.500
I5.000
Rental Income -HSB
238.000
279.600
''41,800
246,000
Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources
14,560,824
13,142,095
13,157300
14,757,066
Program F,xnenditures
Indian River:tledical Cerner
Indigent Care-[lospttal
6,767,000
5,763.036
5,763,036
6,358,449
Indigent Care Variance
460,000
We Care assistance
200,000
Partners Program
1.3 77,000
1,325.000
1,325,000
1,325,000
Incentive
100,000
55,000
100,000
OF - Psvchiarric OP Clinic
260,000
218,420
174,429
236,620
Patient Care Charges
11000
69,300
48,209
87,500
Community Psychiatry
100,000
100,000
75,000
100,000
SaboxoneMeds/Labs
49.120
49,120
51,210
49,120
Menial Health Association
390,000
325,000
361,125
378,750
Walk-in Center
335,000
282,000
322,825
336,500
Our House Network
25,000
25,000
25,000
26.250
Pharmacy
30,000
18,000
13,300
16,000
D'tsuing Nurse Association
700,203
675,000
446,470
368,478
Home Health
209,197
210,000
247,000
194,305
Medicaid Non -Covered
64,768
Hospice House/Care
45.20 1
75,000
4,470
69,305
Mobile Care Unit
445,805
390,000
195.000
40,100
Indian River County Public Health Unit
2,260,930
2,518,505
1,786,500
2,000,000
Primary Care
1,542 948
1,719,263
1-191.000
L205,139
Dental Care
73,694
129,474
73,000
192,840
Gifford Health Center Pediatrics
275,617
300,762
177,000
222.179
Pharmaceutical Program
54,500
54,500
25,500
33,500
We Care fee for service
314,151
314,506
220,000
203,284
We Care program
143.058
Treasure Coast Coinnrunih Health, Inc.
575,000
950,000
695,310
950,000
Medical Services
276,51-9
300,000
208,310
274.550
Behavioral Health
46,575
50,000
107,000
157,150
Dental Care
251,896
600,000
380,000
518,300
New Horrcoru for IRC
70,000
50,000
20,000
35,000
Psych evaislmed management
18,600
Outpatient Therapy
4,960
Case Management
11,440
,dental Health Collaborative
50.000
200,000
200,000
200,000
Public Guardian Program
20,000
Health,NcedAssessmenl
550,000
281,759
120,000
Indian River County
County Share of Medicaid Paid by District
320,000
350.000
379,000
415.000
Total Program Expenditures
12,770,133
13,024,961
12,229,388
12,707297
53
Profit Loss Budget vs. Actual
Fiscal Year 2017/2018 (Unaudited)
October 2017 through September 30, 2018
54
YTD Variance to
Remaining
Oct'17
Oct '17 -Sept'18
Budget
YTD Budget
Annual Budget
Income
Tax Commission Revenue
0.00
0.00
14,496,066.00
(1,208,005.50)
14,496,066.00
Property Appraiser Commission
(46,613.00)
(46,613.00)
(187,226.00)
(31,010.83)
(140,613.00)
Tax Assessor Commissions
0.00
0.00
(281,224.00)
23,435.33
(281,224.00)
Uncollectible t Early Payer Discounts
0.00
0.00
(434,882.00)
36,240.17
(434,882.00)
Net Tax Commission Revenue
(46,613.00)
(46,613.00)
13,592,734.00
(1,179,340.83)
13,639,347.00
Interest Income
739.63
739.63
15,000.00
(510.37)
14,260.37
Other Income
1,498.88
1,498.88
-1,49&88
(1,498.88)
Rental Income
20,041.39
20,041.39
246,000.00
(458.61)
225,958.61
Total income
(24,333.10)
(24,333.10)
13,853,734.00
(1,178,810.93)
13,878,067.10
Expense
Program Expenses:
Indian River Medical Center
Indigent Assessment
587344.00
587,744.00
6,358,449.00
57,873.25
5,770,705.00
We Care assistance
0.00
0.00
200,000.00
(16,666.67)
200,000.00
Partner's Program
110,417.00
110,417.00
1,325,000.00
0.33
1,214,583.00
Partner's Incentive Program
0.00
0.00
100,000.00
(8,333.33)
100.000,00
OF OP Psychiatric Clinic
Psychiatric OP Clinic
4,797.80
4,797.80
87,500.00
(2,493.87)
82,702.20
Community Psychiatry
4,166.67
4,166.67
100,000.00
(4,166.66)
95,833.33
Perkins
6,121.78
6,121.78
49,120.00
2,028.45
42,998.22
VNA Health Services, Inc.
Indigent Expense - VNA
12,759.79
12,759.79
194,305.00
(3,432.29)
181,545.21
Medicaid Non -Covered
0.00
0.00
64,768.00
(5,397.33)
64,768.00
Hospice House
0.00
0.00
69,305.00
(5,775.42)
69,305.00
VNA Mobile Program
660.00
660.00
40,100.00
(2,681.67)
39,440.00
Indian River County Public Health Department
Primary Care Program
49,247.22
49,247.22
1,205,139.00
(51,181.03)
1,155,891.78
Dental Care Program
4,812.32
4,812.32
192,840.00
(11,257.68)
188,027.68
Gifford Health Center
1,363.58
1,363.58
222,179.00
(17,151.34)
220,815.42
We Care Program/Service
17,200.92
17,200.92
346,342.00
(11,660.91)
329,141.08
Pharmaceutical Program
0.00
0.00
33,500.00
(2,791.67)
33,500.00
Mental Health Association WIC
28,344.00
28,344.00
336,500.00
302.33
308,156.00
Mental Health Pharmaceuticals
698.47
698.47
16,000.00
(634.86)
15,301.53
Mental Health Our House Network
3,265.50
3,265.50
26,250.00
1,078.00
22,984.50
Mental Health Collaborative
16,666.67
16,666.67
200,000.00
0.00
183,333.33
Public Guardian Program
0.00
0.00
20,000.00
(1,666.67)
20,000.00
Treasure Coast Community Health, Inc.
Indigent Medical Services
18,514.10
18,514.10
274,550,00
(4,365.07)
256,035.90
Behavioral Health
14,175.00
14,175.00
157,150.00
1,079.17
142,975.00
Dental Program Grant
36,056.55
36,056.55
518,300.00
(7,135.12)
482,243.45
New Horizons for IRC
4,637.00
4,637.00
35,000.00
1,720.33
30,363.00
Health Need Assessment
0.00
0.00
120,000.00
(10,000.00)
120,000.00
IR County Medicaid Assessment
40,543.50
40,543.50
415,000.00
5,960.17
374,456.50
Total Program Expenses
962,191.87
962,191.87
12,707,297.00
(96,749.55)
11,745,105.13
54
Profit Loss Budget vs. Actual
Fiscal Year 2017/2018 (Unaudited)
October 2017 through September 30, 2018
Total Program Expenses
962,191.87
962,191.87
12,707,297.00
YTD Variance to
Remaining
Total Administrative Expenses
Oct'17
Oct'17-Sept'18
Budget
YTD Budget
Annual Budget
Administrative Expenditures:
1,049,129.98
1,049,129.98
13,832,965.00
(103,617.10)
12,783,835.02
Human Services Building
3,612.30
3,612.30
30,000.00
1,112.30
26,387.70
Salaries and Benefits
26,470.21
26,470.21
310,000.00
636.88
283,529.79
GHC - Licenses and Taxes
0,00
0.00
750.00
(62.50)
750.00
GHC - Maintenance
3,043.83
3,043.83
10,000.00
2,210.50
6,956.17
Professional Service -Consulting
1,721.07
1,721.07
50,000.00
(2,445.60)
48,278.93
Professional Service -Finance
2,294.04
2,294.04
30,000.00
(205.96)
27,705.96
Legal Fees
24,205.58
24,205.58
185,000.00
8,788.91
160,794.42
Legal Fees - Outside
13,380.34
13,380.34
50,000.00
9,213.67
36,619.66
Professional Services -Auditing
0.00
0.00
60,000.00
(5,000.00)
60,000.00
Other Expenses-DuesiSubscriptlons/Educ.
0.00
0.00
3,500.00
(291.67)
3,500.00
Other Expenses - Travel
268.45
268.45
2,000.00
101.78
1,731.55
Insurance
0.00
0.00
60,000.00
(5,000.00)
60,000.00
Bank Charges
15.33
15.33
300.00
(9.67)
284.67
Other Expenses -Licenses & Taxes
0.00
0.00
200.00
(16.67)
200.00
Publications & Other
464.75
464.75
20,000.00
(1,201.92)
19,535.25
Purchased Services - Rent
4,853.10
4,853.10
60,000.00
(146.90)
55,146.90
Purchased Services - CAM (Rent)
1,925.00
1,925.00
30,000.00
(575.00)
28,075.00
Office Supplies & Service Contracts
4,489.73
4,48973
40,000.00
1,156.40
35,510.27
District Care Card
194.38
194.38
10,000.00
(638.95)
9,805.62
Depreciation - GHC & Equip
0.00
0.00
59,019.00
(4,918.25)
59,019.00
Depreciation - Gifford Equipment
0.00
0.00
71.00
(5.92)
71.00
Depreciation - HSB
0.00
0.00
114,828.00
(9,569.00)
114,828.00
Total Administrative Expenses
86,938.11
86,938.11
1,125,668.00
(6,867.56)
1,038,729.89
Total Program Expenses
962,191.87
962,191.87
12,707,297.00
(96,749.55)
11,745,105.13
Total Administrative Expenses
86,938.11
86,938.11
1,125,668.00
(6,867.56)
1,038,729.89
Total Expense
1,049,129.98
1,049,129.98
13,832,965.00
(103,617.10)
12,783,835.02
Prior Year Excess Brought Forward
0.00
0.00
(3,143,918.00)
0.00
1,734,494.00
Revenue Over (Under)tExpenditures
(1,073,463.08)
(1,073,463.08
(3,123,149.00)
(1,075,193.83)
2,049,685.92
55
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jason E. Brown; County Administrator
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP; Community Development Director
DATE: January 5, 2018
SUBJECT: Consideration of Two "Early" Recommendations from the Development Review and
Permit Process Advisory Committee: Changes to LDR Chapters 910, 913, 914, 952,
and 971; and Payment Timing Option for Certain Fire Construction Plan Review
Fees
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 16, 2018.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of December 14, 2017, the Development Review and Permit Process Advisory
Committee (Committee) made two unanimous recommendations for the Board of County
Commissioners to consider. The first recommendation was for the Board to authorize the formal
process for adopting an "early" set of LDR (land development regulation) changes to the preliminary
plat and site plan processes together with a change to the current threshold for applicant traffic study
submittals. None of the proposed changes affect actual development criteria or traffic standards.
The second Committee recommendation involves providing an option for an applicant of a project
requiring a large Fire Construction plan review fee (over $5,000) to submit a portion of the fire
review fee up -front with the remaining portion paid prior to or at the time of building permit
issuance.
The Board is now to consider each recommendation. With respect to the recommended LDR change,
the Board needs to consider authorizing staff to initiate the formal adoption process for the proposed
LDR amendments. Regarding the Fire fee payment timing recommendation, the Board needs to
consider adopting the attached Fire fee resolution.
ANALYSIS
So far, the Committee has met three times, focusing its initial work on identifying any development
review process "bottlenecks" and determining improvements for the preliminary plat and site plan
approval processes. In addition, the Committee has focused on traffic study submittal requirements
and the timing of paying large Fire Prevention's construction plan review fees that typically arise
with large commercial projects. In addition to its initial work to date, the Committee will continue to
work on development review process items (site plans, subdivisions/plats) and will then work on
building permit process items, followed by consideration of development review fees.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D9533\@BCL@58OD9533.docx 56
At its November 8th and December 14th meetings the Committee identified development review
process improvements. Those include raising the traffic study submittal threshold (Chapter 910 and
952) and making a number of changes to the preliminary plat (Chapter 913) and site plan (Chapter
914) processes as described in further detail in attachment #3. The Committee also discussed
changing certain administrative permit uses and small-scale conventional residential projects (fewer
than 25 units) from PZC (Planning and Zoning Commission) approval to staff -level approval. Those
changes would save 14 — 28 days in approval time for affected projects. Staff supports all of the
proposed LDR changes. See draft LDR amendment ordinances attachments #4 — #8.
At its December 14th meeting the Committee also discussed providing relief for the payment timing
of Fire Prevention's construction plan review fees for large commercial projects. For larger ALF,
retail, and place of assembly projects, Fire Prevention reviews and project inspections can take a
significant amount of staff time and corresponding fire construction plan review fees for large
projects can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Fire construction plan review fees are based on
project value and were established by Board resolution. The current fire fee resolution requires
payment of the entire fire construction plan review fee up -front, at the time of building permit
submittal (see attachment #9). Over the last 12 months, four projects had fire prevention plan review
fees over $5,000. After thorough discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended providing
an option for projects with high fire construction plan review fees (over $5,000), whereby an
applicant could pay 25% of the fee at the time of building permit submittal and the remaining 75%
prior to or at the time of building permit issuance. Staff is in agreement with the proposed fee
payment option. That option is proposed in the attached resolution (see attachment #10) which
needs to be adopted by the Board to put the option into effect.
The Committee desires Board consideration of these "early" recommendations to provide process
streamlining and improvements expeditiously, recognizing that future recommendations are likely to
require further LDR amendments. Staff supports the Board's early consideration of the
recommended initiatives rather than waiting several more months for a single, large compilation of
various Committee recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Review and Permit Process Advisory Committee and staff recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners:
1. Authorize staff to initiate the formal LDR amendment process for the attached draft LDR
amendments, and
2. Adopt the attached resolution providing a fire construction plan review fee payment timing
option for projects subject to a large fee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes from November 8, 2017 Committee Meeting
2. Minutes from December 14, 2017 Committee Meeting
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D9533\@BCL@580D9533.docx 57
3. Summary of LDR Changes
4. Chapter 910 draft ordinance
5. Chapter 913 draft ordinance
6. Chapter 914 draft ordinance
7. Chapter 952 draft ordinance
8. Chapter 971 draft ordinance
9. Memo from Emergency Services Director
10. Proposed Resolution on Fire Construction Plan Review Fee Payment Option
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D9533\@BCL@580D9533.docx 58
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND PERMIT PROCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(DRPPAC)
The Indian River County (IRC) Development Review and Permit Process
Advisory Committee (DRPPAC) met at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2017,
in the County Administration Building, Building B, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the agenda and the minutes on the IRC
website — http://www.ircgov.com/Boards/DRPPAC/2017.htm
Present were: Chairperson Debb Robinson, District 1; Vice Chairman Joe
Paladin, District 2; Carter Taylor, District 2; Wes Mills, District 3; Bruce Redus,
District 4; Robert Banov, District 4; Chuck Mechling, District 5; John Blum, District 5;
Greg Burke, Christopher Murphy and Raymond Sheltra, Members -at -Large; and
Stephen Melchiori, Alternate.
Others present were Jason Brown, County Administrator, Dylan Reingold,
County Attorney; Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney; John King, Emergency
Services Director; Stan Boling, Director Community Development; Jesse Roland,
Utilities Plans Reviewer; Rich Szpyrka, Public Works Director; Scott McAdam,
Building Official; John McCoy, Community Development Chief; John Duran, Fire
Marshall; Wesley Davis, Indian River Auctions & Appraisals, Helene Caseltine, Indian
River County Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Director; and Joe
Schulke, Schulke Bittle and Stoddard; Richard Bialosky and David Ederer,
Interested Parties.
Absent was Richard Brown, District 3 (excused); and Robin Raiff, District 1
(unexcused).
Call to Order & Welcome — No Action Required
Chairperson Robinson called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m., at which time it
was determined there was a quorum present.
Additions and Deletions to the Agenda
There was none.
Approval of Minutes of October 18. 2017 — Action Required
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Taylor, the Committee voted unanimously (12-0) to
approve the minutes of October 18, 2017.
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\VVindows\lNetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71 \1 1.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 59
New Business — Stan Boling, Community Development Director
a) Review of Process Flow Charts and Traffic Study Requirements — Action
Required
Mr. Stan Boling, Community Development Director, reviewed his memorandum
dated November 1, 2017, with Attachments 1 through 6; a copy is on file in the
Commission Office. A Process Overview chart and site plan flow chart were provided
as handouts to all in attendance. Mr. Boling focused on the first six steps of the Process
Overview chart (Attachment 1), wherein he advised these steps were common to all
review processes in obtaining staff approval. He pointed out if the project needed to
move forward beyond the first six steps, i.e., to a Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, or a Board of County Commission meeting, the later steps indicated on the
Process Overview chart were applicable.
Mr. Boling concentrated on the site plan flow chart, Attachment 2, and explained
the pre -application process and submittal completeness for the Technical Review
Committee's ("TRC") review. He pointed out the current Indian River County Code of
Ordinances ("the Code") required 4 calendar days for sending out Comment Letters
(Attachment 4) for both subdivisions and site plans; however, the actual time frame was
running approximately 14 days. He said the current delay was generally due to an
increased demand and low staffing level still in place from recession cut-backs. He
stated the recently adopted 2017/2018 County budget would allow for the hiring of
additional staff reviewers for current development, engineering and fire prevention to
assist with the backlog and staff's slow response times.
Mr. Boling mentioned after a site plan was approved, there was a site plan
release function where other permits (County or jurisdictional) had to be obtained before
the site plan was released. He continued when the site plan was released, then a
building permit may be issued and construction could begin. He also reminded the
Committee the site plan submittal and approval process and the building permit
submittal and approval process could run concurrently and at any point in time during
the site plan review process, a building permit could be submitted for review of the
vertical construction.
Mr. Boling stated the Committee could discuss restructuring the review process
to allow additional time for the initial staff review and an upfront staff coordination
meeting to work out any conflicting comments before the applicant appeared at the TRC
meeting. He commented that process had been used in other jurisdictions with some
success.
Mr. Boling suggested the Committee also discuss how to make staff comments
to applicants more useful. He noted staff also had some suggestions on how to
improve applicant responses and suggested making some types of routinely approved
projects currently requiring Planning and Zoning Commission ("PZC") approval to
become routine for staff level approval, taking 14-28 days out of the end of the process.
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 60
He also suggested the possibility of having some small level residential projects
approved at a staff level instead of the current requirement of having anything over 3
units automatically go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.
Chairperson Robinson agreed there was clearly an understaffing issue; however,
the new position approved by the Commissioners, was expected to bring current
development planning to an adequate level to meet the requirements of the Code. She
agreed with Mr. Boling's suggestion to provide another week in the planning process
before proceeding to the TRC, when staff would meet together to ensure before going
to the TRC, that staffs comments and position were solid, eliminating extra back and
forth time in the overall process for staff, as well as the applicant.
Mr. Chuck Mechling, District 5 Representative suggested considering the
submittal of a traffic study prior to or at the pre -application conference (pre -app), to
provide the applicant details of what could or could not be done before the TRC
meeting.
Mr. John Blum, District 5 Representative stated until the applicant knew whether
or not the project could be executed, there was no point in spending the money on the
traffic study; therefore the traffic study should be incorporated and coordinated with the
pre -app.
Mr. Boling reminded the committee the purpose of the pre -app was to provide
basic information such as the zoning, the level, the scope, and what were the basic
traffic needs. He welcomed the engineers and architects of the committee to comment
whether or not the applicant knew enough coming away from the pre -app.
Mr. Blum mentioned differences between commercial and residential. He said in
the pre -app there should be a clear indication of whether to move forward or not,
whether the project was feasible. He continued, as far as the number of units, etc., it
may vary with a residential project and a traffic study resulting in 3 or 4 fewer units, and
that traffic study would be relevant and held true. He gave example of a commercial
project with changing entitlements did not know details required for a traffic study before
the TRC meeting.
Mr. Joseph Paladin, District 2 Representative questioned how concurrency would
be known without a Traffic Study.
Mr. Blum stated a lot of the information would be provided at the pre -app before
the Traffic Study was preformed, with the project going through traffic count, trips,
reviewing link assignments, etc., wherein at that point, determination of whether the
project would be impacted. He said he liked the idea of the "coordination meeting"
proposed by staff and appreciated the current process of having pre -app comments
before going through the major expense of a TRC submittal. He noted however, the
dilemma was the level of details not submitted with the pre -app such as the location of
utilities, drainage, etc.
3
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 61
Mr. Boling said currently, the idea was when the applicant/engineer came out of
the pre -app, there was direction; the engineer knew of trouble spots. He continued
staff's suggestion was to have a staff -coordination meeting before TRC to iron out any
conflicts and to provide solid comments at the TRC meeting.
Mr. Chuck Mechling, District 5 Representative voiced his support for staff to have
the extra time period before the TRC meeting; however, questioned when the applicant
and the engineer would know how to proceed with development. He shared his thought
with a residential concept, at the resubmittal time, the applicant would have the Traffic
Study to know how many lots were allowable.
Chairperson Robinson asked Mr. Rich Szpyrka, Public Works Director, with the
understanding the Traffic Study could determine changes in driveway egress, etc., and
would there be general direction from Public Works as to whether a Traffic Study was
required at the formal submission?
Mr. Szpyrka said it depended upon the level of information he was provided to
make that decision. For him to make a decision, he would require the detailed
information from the developer; however, that decision would be arbitrary and staff tried
to stay away from arbitrary. He surmised perhaps the Code needed to be changed to
require a traffic study before the post TRC resubmittal.
Chairperson Robinson asked Mr. Blum when he thought the Traffic Study should
be completed, before the TRC meeting, or before resubmittal. Mr. Blum responded his
opinion was to have the Traffic Study before resubmittal. Mr. Wes Mills, District 3
Representative agreed the Traffic Study should be required at the post TRC resubmittal
because the Traffic Study would need to match the revised site plans.
Mr. Joe Schulke, Schulke Bittle and Stoddard shared his thought the formal
traffic study should be able to wait for a resubmittal of the site plan; however, the Code
required a traffic study methodology meeting prior to conducting the Traffic Study. He
suggested requiring the methodology meeting prior to the formal TRC meeting
submittal, providing staff and the applicant information going into the TRC meeting, so
when staff held their coordination meeting, both parties had the same information.
Chairperson Robinson inquired whether the pre -app and the Traffic Study
methodology could be done at the same meeting. Mr. Paladin responded the pre -app
and Traffic Study covered different items.
Mr. John McCoy, Community Development Chief Planner stated he thought a
civil engineer designing the project, whether it was a small subdivision, or a regional
mall, would know whether a traffic engineer was needed to attend the pre -app based
upon the project.
Mr. Mechling surmised the concept would be at the resubmittal, to have the full
Traffic Study, making a change to the current Code. He also understood having the
4
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\lNetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71 \1 1.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 62
methodology meeting would assist the applicant and his professional (an engineer or
architect) in obtaining preliminary information allowing discussion with staff in a
knowledgeable fashion. He commented it would rely upon the applicant to understand
the magnitude of issues.
Mr. Paladin concurred a rough outline of the traffic due diligence period as far as
concurrency, trips, appropriate intersections, etc., would provide a status of the plan.
Chairperson Robinson said if the Code was changed to resubmittal time, there
would be nothing to preclude the applicant from providing the Traffic Study early, at the
TRC meeting, as a part of the due diligence. She agreed the engineer should have a
good concept of whether or not the Traffic Study would "sink the ship" before doing the
project.
Mr. McCoy, said the methodology meeting with the Traffic Division would provide
where and what the "skeletons" were, prior to refining project site plan design.
Mr. McCoy stated in support of Mr. Schulke's idea of the initial submittal of the
Traffic Study moved to the resubmittal of the formal Traffic Impact Statement, the
developer would want the verification of the methodology meeting prior to the TRC
meeting submittal. He continued this would allow Traffic Division to have an idea of
what to expect, methodology -wise, because approaching the approval stage, the Traffic
Division was required to sign off on the Traffic Study and approve the site plan, closing
the gap and getting to the end result quicker.
Mr. Szpyrka summarized there would be the pre -app conference to ensure the
developer could do what they wish to do, then there would be a methodology meeting
with the Traffic Division, having the information of what the developer thought could be
accomplished, then the TRC meeting, allowing the comments to go back to the
developer, then the full-blown Traffic Study with the resubmittal.
Mr. Greg Burke, Member at Large representative shared he thought it was a
good idea for staff to see the project upfront in the planning stage and to ensure good
understanding by inviting staff to be partners in the design of the project, which would
save time.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling, to shift the time frame where the Traffic
Report was required to resubmittal.
UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Burke inquired about a timeline for the approval of
the Traffic Study; depending upon the consultant providing the correct information.
Mr. Szpyrka informed the committee, according to the current Code, the Public
Works Director has 15 days in which to get the Traffic Study reviewed and back to the
developer, and that time frame runs concurrently with the TRC, so when the TRC plan
5
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 63
was submitted with the Traffic Study, the reviewer has both in front of them. He stated
by doing both at the same time, Public Works was following the TRC deadline, so the
developer would get comments when the TRC comments went back out, eliminating
wait time.
Chairperson Robinson noted if the developer wanted to turn the Traffic Study in
for the first TRC meeting, it would be reviewed. Mr. Szpyrka added, it would be
reviewed as long as it came in with the plan. Mr. Boling clarified the motion, the
recommendation for the Code change would be required by the second submittal;
however, it would be allowed at the first submittal.
THE CHAIRPERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was
unanimous (12-0) in favor of the motion.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Melchiori, SECONDED BY Mr.
Paladin, the Committee voted unanimously (12-0) to
move the Traffic methodology pre -application
conference before the TRC meeting.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling, to add one week to the process timetable to
allow staff to meet together to discuss and coordinate all
comments prior to the TRC Meeting.
UNDER DISCUSSION, it was confirmed the number of days indicated in the
timeline on Attachment 1, under pre -application conference, wherein the Code
mandated 4 days, and actual staff time was 14 days; adding 7 days (staffs
recommendation, with added county staff) would be enough time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was unanimous
(12-0) in favor of the motion.
Mr. Stephen Melchiori, Alternate Representative asked Mr. Boling what triggered
change to the Code and how did a developer prevent relying on outdated or changed
Code information. Mr. Melchiori suggested having direction or process for any changes
to the standards in the Code, whether it was published online or on the County website,
as it would assist developers in ensuring up-to-date changes were known before
submitting site plans.
Mr. Boling replied it depended upon whether or not he is referring to a land
development regulation change or a change to a technical specification standard such
as a Utility Construction Standard. He reminded the Committee communication was a
very important tool to utilize.
Chairperson Robinson agreed any new requirements as far as process should be
on the County website, as a matter of uploading the information.
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 64
Mr. Mechling shared his concept of reinstating the Professional Services
Advisory Committee ("PSAC"). He continued when PSAC was in place, should there be
notable changes to the Code or technical standards, such as Utilities, it would go before
the PSAC, where professional architects, engineers, and developers who were experts
in the industry had the opportunity to review what was being considered before it went
before the County Commissioners.
Chairperson Robinson suggested to wait and see what this committee could
accomplish effectively, efficiently and as an asset to both staff and the County
Commission. She reminded the committee of the specific direction for the present time
from the Commission was to discuss the process of land development and construction
as it related to working with the County and how to make it more effective, efficient and
affordable. She suggested beginning a "Wish List" for the committee and placing PSAC
as a future discussion topic.
Mr. Burke asserted the actual number of days involved in a given process
exceeded a staffing level issue and if the professionals were not aware of what was
required on the documents created additional cost, time and effort. He relayed his
success in getting building permits in Indian River County for most of his projects under
5 days was largely due to relying on the Florida Building Code to provide everything
needed for a project. He continued as long as the plans examiner was made aware of
the project's building design, the process moved quicker.
Mr. Burke mentioned a pilot program offered in Palm Beach County on January
1, 2018 and was expected to run for 4 month to test what 35 architects had been taught
how to do a smaller project properly. He opined the same thing should apply to planning
and site design and if the professionals were not giving staff what was expected, what
was the problem with the applicant and why it was not being done. He stated he did not
believe there should need to be multiple submittals because once a project came out of
the TRC Meeting, the project's questions and issues should have been addressed.
Mr. Mechling referred to Staff Suggestions on pages 3-4, Item 4a, and suggested
review of the 7 suggestions.
1. Hiring and training additional review staff to address the current
basic workload imbalance was already in progress.
Mr. Mechling asked whether Public Works had sufficient staffing levels for the
review process. Mr. Boling responded he could not speak to Public Works budget;
however, an additional Current Development Planner was budgeted for the Community
Development Department. Mr. Szpyrka advised from Public Works' standpoint, there
were 2 positions posted for the Land Development Division; however, the work load was
so far behind, he was not sure if those 2 positions would be enough to keep up with the
review timeframes.
7
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 65
Chairperson Robinson thought it was clear the time constraints were not going to
be met overnight; however, the long-term goal was to ensure the process worked and
projects were not just waiting for the date to turn in comments, but have adequate time
within the process to comment.
2. Expanding staff -level approval authority for certain uses and smaller
or more routine types of development project applications now requiring PZC
approval (adds 14-28 days to approval).
Chairperson Robinson advised she discussed this item with Mr. Boling wherein
he advised if the applicant did not like a staff -level decision, the applicant could appeal
to the PZC. She shared her thought staff's suggestion would clear bottlenecks and
save time.
Mr. Boling directed the Committee to the last page of the agenda packet, Item
4a, Attachment 6, for a list of examples of uses in the Code currently that had become
routine in terms of PZC approval. He continued the same standards in the Code would
apply, making no changes to the criteria; however, making the process shorter by 14 to
28 days by providing staff the ability to approve.
Mr. Boling referenced Item 2: Small residential projects that should have staff
level approval. He pointed out small conventional residential projects over 3 units had
become routine as a consent item on the PZC agenda. He continued allowing staff
approval on certain items would save 14-28 days. He suggested Item 2 for further
discussion because an idea was tying it to what required a Traffic Study or maybe a
certain number of lots (units).
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling to approve routine administrative permit uses
currently requiring Planning and Zoning Commission
review and approval, such as Miniature Golf Course in
CH; Building Material Sales in CG; Outdoor Storage in
CH; Veterinary Clinic in CG and CH; Child Care/Adult
Care in RM -8, RM -10, PRO, OCR, CN; Nursing Home in
MED; Accessory single family dwelling in agricultural
and residential districts; Drug store in CN and OCR; and
Used Vehicle Sales in CH, should be changed to staff
level approval.
UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Bruce Redus, District 4 Representative asked
whether this only applied directly to a project meeting all the zoning criteria. Mr. Boling
answered in the affirmative, adding no changes would be made to the zoning or use
criteria.
Chairperson Robinson commented this change was a win-win with regard to the
saving of an enormous amount of time preparing and awaiting for a Planning and
8
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 66
Zoning Commission meeting and the project did not lose any time options, the decision
could still be appealed through the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Blum asked for confirmation the uses listed on Attachment 6, should have
staff level approval including anything less than 150,000 square feet of commercial use.
Mr. Boling confirmed; however, said the uses listed on Attachment 6 were
administrative permit uses, which at the current time required Planning and Zoning
Commission approval, even if the projects were small.
Mr. Taylor questioned in the list of uses on Attachment 6, were there any limits
on sizes of the facility for Adult Care and Nursing Homes that would be approved by
staff. Mr. Boling responded in the affirmative, a project of a certain size, larger than
150,000 square feet would require Planning & Zoning Commission approval regardless
of the use.
THE CHAIRPERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was
unanimous (12-0) in favor of the motion.
3. Increasing traffic study requirement threshold of 100 daily trips to
speed-up the submittal time frames for applicants of small projects and decrease
costs for those applicants.
Chairperson Robinson directed the Committee Members to Attachment 6, Item 2
of the Staff Level Approvals, "Small residential projects that should have staff level
approval'.
Mr. Szpyrka opined the Traffic Study threshold of 100 daily trips appeared small
and believed a threshold of 350-400 daily trips would benefit the smaller developments,
as well as the smaller "mom and pop" shops, and staff's workload by not requiring a
Traffic Study.
Mr. Taylor asked what percentage of the units constructed would be affected by
the suggested rule change. Mr. Mechling pointed out the 350-400 trips would be a very
small project; possibly a 10 -acre tract under RS zoning with maybe 20 homes; 2 units to
an acre. Mr. Taylor restated his question to what was the accumulative effect, and
would the increased threshold create a problem later.
Mr. Boling remarked the change in the threshold would shift the traffic impact
evaluation responsibility to County Traffic Engineering, which would look at where the
trips were going, how many trips were generated and how to maintain the level of
service. He explained no change would be made to traffic standards or requirements.
He also noted if a developer did not like the evaluation by County Traffic Engineering,
the developer may then decide to hire his own traffic engineer to evaluate traffic impacts
and provide additional data and analysis to County Traffic Engineering.
0
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 67
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling, the Committee voted unanimously (12-0)
to increase the Traffic Study threshold for small
conventional residential projects (currently 100 daily
trips equal 10 single-family units or 15 multi -family units
with Planning and Zoning Commission approval) to a
Traffic Study threshold of 400 daily trips.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling, to amend the small residential projects to
staff approval, coinciding with the 400 daily trips.
UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney, asked about
what type of notice would be provided to homeowners for staff -level approvals. Mr.
McCoy said for conventional projects there would be no notice and currently there was
only a posted sign notice for PZC meeting items. He also noted if a property owner was
interested in a property, they may request a courtesy notice from Community
Development.
Mr. Taylor expressed concern about the 3 units with a very low threshold up to
40 units with 400 trips, saying it was a big jump. The Committee's consensus was staff
recommended the increase and was confident the increase was manageable and the
developer saved time (staff too) and money.
Chairperson Robinson reminded everyone to recognize the end user was the
person the developers were trying to get into a home and every step added to the
process increased the cost, whether it was in delays due to having the financing ticket
going or whether it was unnecessary burdens. She continued, the end result was
attempting to provide affordable housing in this community, for everyone.
THE CHAIRPERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was
unanimously (12-0) in favor of the Motion.
4. Allowing the option of phone conference traffic methodology
meetings to provide convenience and perhaps reduce timeframes for
scheduling such meetings.
Mr. Boling advised the Code currently and specifically required the applicant to
attend a meeting.
Mr. Szpyrka said approximately 70 to 85 percent of the meetings could be
conducted by phone conference; as it was generally the reviewers preference.
Mr. Taylor asked if the County had video conference capability and if not, was it
something to consider in the future?
10
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 68
Mr. Szpyrka expressed his opinion with the technical issues involved and
ensuring parties were working from the exact same plans, it was necessary to review
the plans in person in many cases and the Public Works Director should approve use of
a telephone conference.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Taylor,
the Committee voted unanimously (12-0) to approve
the option of telephone conference traffic methodology
meetings to provide convenience and perhaps reduce
timeframes for scheduling such meetings, if approved
by the Public Works Director.
6. Improving communication in response comments to quickly guide
reviewers to plan revisions that address staff comments; and
7. Providing input to staff on how to make staff comments more useful
to applicants.
It was the consensus of staff and the committee, any comments and/or additional
details provided to staff and developer would save time and prevent misinterpretation
between the parties.
Chairperson Robinson suggested in effort to working together with County Staff,
having the issues separated by what was codified/required and what County staff would
like to suggest. She continued by having the issues specifically separated with the
Code reference, made the reference easier to explain and understand.
Mr. Boling suggested three categories of separation: Code Required; Advisory
Comments, and Recommendations.
Mr. Melchiori suggested County staff submit the letter to the developer as a Word
document to provide ease with cutting and pasting responses.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Taylor,
the Committee voted unanimously (12-0) to approve
staff's recommendation for improving communication
in response to comments, to quickly guide reviewers to
plan revisions addressing staff comments; and
providing input to staff on how to make staff comments
more useful to applicants.
Mr. Jesse Roland, Utilities Plans Reviewer asked what did the professionals
expect from utilities comments. He said the majority of the time water and sewer was
not shown on the plans; however, it may be helpful to have utilities locations, if
available, at the pre -application meeting.
11
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 69
b) Determination of December 14, 2017 Meeting Topic(s) — Action Required
The Committee members agreed to begin the meetings at 9:00 a.m., beginning
with Thursday, December 14, 2017.
Mr. Boling suggested for the December 14th meeting follow-up details (such as
draft Code changes) for motions made at this meeting as well as discussion of submittal
requirements, communication items, and a discussion on final plats.
Mr. Taylor voiced his interest in a future topic for discussing automation;
specifically a survey of what type of appropriate technology and level of automation was
accessible to staff to assist in reducing timelines through the introduction of software or
change in the work process.
Mr. Mechling mentioned discussing zoning concept changes to re -identify RS -6,
RS -3 zoning standards.
Chairperson Robinson shared her interest in reviewing the current process for
duplication and/or necessity. She suggested Committee members email the Recording
Secretary a list of specific focus areas of interest for a clear path of direction in future
meetings.
Other Business
a) Discussion item: Timing of Fire Prevention Review Fee Payment
Mr. Paladin explained the Fire Prevention review fee was required to be paid in
total, upfront. He would like to follow the same fee payment requirement/schedule as
the building permit fee; half upfront when an application was submitted, and the
remaining half due upon receiving the building permit.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling, to move forward with changing the County
Ordinance to reflect the Fire Prevention Review Fee
payment requirement/schedule to reflect payment of half
of the total fees due when application was made, with
the remaining half of the total fee due upon issuance of
the building permit.
UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Scott McAdams, Building Official, relayed the
building permit fees was not half due upfront, half later. He stated the permit application
fee was $200.00, which included unlimited review, with the permit review fee due upon
completion. Mr. John Duran, Fire Marshall said Fire Prevention would not review the
plans until the review fee was paid upfront to cover staff time.
12
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 70
Mr. Jason Brown, County Administrator, explained the upfront cost was
recognition of some plans not going forward after staff time had been spent reviewing
plans. He told the Committee the requirement was via County Resolution versus
County Ordinance, making the payment timing easier to change, without the scheduling
of public hearings; however, a change would require going before the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. Paladin restated his motion.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr.
Mechling, to move forward with changing the payment
schedule for the Fire Prevention Review Fee and broken
down to reflect payment of half of the fee due when
application was made, with the remaining half of the fee
due upon issuance of a building permit.
THE CHAIRPERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was
unanimous (12-0) in favor of the motion.
Announcement of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Development Review and Permit Process Advisory
Committee is scheduled for Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in the
Administrative Complex, Building B, First Floor, Conference Room B1-501; 1800 27th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Adiournment
There being no further business, Chairperson Robinson adjourned the meeting at
12:17 p.m.
13
C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\SEU7ML71\11.8.17 DRPP Minutes.doc 71
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND PERMIT PROCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DRPPAC)
The Indian River County (IRC) Development Review and Permit Process Advisory
Committee (DRPPAC) met at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 14, 2017, in the County
Administration Building, Building B, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an
audio of the meeting; review the agenda and the minutes on the IRC website —
http://www.ircgov.com/Boards/DRPPAC/2017.htm
Present were: Chairperson Debb Robinson, District 1; Robin Raiff, District 1; Vice
Chairman Joe Paladin, District 2; Carter Taylor, District 2; Richard Brown, District 3; Wes
Mills, District 3; Bruce Redus, District 4; Robert Banov, District 4 (arrived at 9:45 a.m.);
Chuck Mechling; District 5; John Blum, District 5; Greg Burke, Christopher Murphy and
Raymond Sheltra, Members -at -Large; and Stephen Melchiori, Alternate.
Others present were Jason Brown, County Administrator, Dylan Reingold, County
Attorney; Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney; John King, Emergency Services Director;
Stan Boling, Director Community Development; Rich Szpyrka, Public Works Director;
Vincent Burke, Director Utilities; David Schryver, County Surveyor; Scott McAdam, Building
Official; John McCoy, Community Development Chief; John Duran, Fire Marshall; Patrick
Murphy, Current Development Planner; Ryan Sweeney, Senior Planner; Tad Stone,
Assistant Fire Chief; Debbie Phail, Applications Specialist, Jim Vitter, Kimley-Horn; Chris
Russell, Oculina Bank; and Rich Brown, and Tom Scott, Interested Parties.
Call to Order & Welcome — No Action Required
Chairperson Robinson called the meeting to order at 10:06 a.m., at which time it was
determined there was a quorum present.
Recording Secretary Note: Mr. Stephen
designated to serve in the place of Robert Banov,
voted only until Mr. Banov arrived.
Additions and Deletions to the Agenda
There was none.
Melchiori, as Alternate Representative, was
District 4 Representative, and Mr. Melchiori
Approval of Minutes of November 8, 2017 — Action Required
ON MOTION BY Mr. Mechling, SECONDED BY Mr. Murphy,
the Committee voted unanimously (13-0) to approve the
minutes of November 8, 2017.
C:\Users\le istar\APPData\Local\Tem \BCL Technolo ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
.72
Old Business — Stan Boling, Community Development Director
a) Consideration of Draft Ordinance Change to Chapters 910, 913, 914, 952
and 971 to Implement Changes Approved at the November 8th Meeting
— Action Required
Mr. Stan Boling, Community Development Director, reminded everyone to sign the
attendance sheet and to utilize their tent cards with the correct name indicated. He also
introduced Patrick Murphy as a new Senior Planner in Current Development.
Mr. Boling summarized his memorandum dated December 4, 2017, titled "Consideration
of Draft Ordinance Changes to Chapters 910, 913, 914, 952, and 971 to Implement Changes
Approved at the November 8, 2017 Meeting", and provided direction to initiate the formal
amendment process for the proposed five (5) Ordinance amendments. A copy of the
memorandum is on file in the Commission Office.
A short discussion ensued regarding when to present the Committee's
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"). A consensus of the
Committee determined to go forward in small increments with presenting recommendations to
the BCC.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Mechling, to
support staff's recommendation that the BCC authorize staff to
initiate the formal process for the proposed amendments.
UNDER DISCUSSION, the members decided to review each draft Ordinance
separately, with the Motion and Second WITHDRAWN.
Ordinance #1: Chapter 910 — Amendments to Increase the amount of daily trips
threshold before a Traffic Study.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Mechling, SECONDED BY Mr. Paladin, the
Committee voted unanimously (13-0) to approve staff's
recommendations for amendments to the Land Development
Regulations Chapter 910.11(1)(B), determination of
concurrency specifically; and by providing for repeal of
conflicting provisions; codification; severability; and effective
date.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nolog ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
7
3
Ordinance #2: Chapter 913 — Amendments to preliminary plat application review
submission.
Mr. Blum referred to Page 2, Section 2, F(1a) and questioned the timing sequence for
the review of application completeness. Mr. Boling responded the language would be refined
to reflect three (3) working days to determine whether the application was complete and three
(3) additional working days to forward one copy of the proposed preliminary plat to each of the
county division or other interested agencies and receive their written comments or approval;
for a time allowance of six (6) working days from receipt of the preliminary plat application.
Mr. John McCoy, Community Development Chief, explained the process at the present
time, staffs actual practice was to review completeness within 48 hours from submission of the
application and contact an applicant immediately if there were any completeness deficiencies.
Chairperson Robinsons noted the Ordinance amendment would articulate time frames.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Blum, the
Committee voted unanimously (13-0) to approve staffs
recommendations for amendments to the Land Development
Regulations Chapter 913, Subdivisions and plats; by amending
sections 913.07(4)(A) and 913.07(4)(F) specifically; and by
providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codifications;
severability; and effective date.
Ordinance #3: Chapter 914 — Amendments to site plan thresholds.
Mr. Christopher Murphy, Member -at -Large, questioned what the next step would be if
staff denied a "staff -level approval" application. Mr. Boling reminded the Committee any
development application decision at staff level was appealable to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and any decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") was
appealable to the BCC.
A discussion ensued regarding staff level approvals in the process, streamlining
difference of opinions and compliance with the Land Development Regulations ("LDRs").
Mr. Carter Taylor, District 2 Representative, referred to Page 4, Section #3(i) and asked
for a description of the document that was "a copy of the approved traffic methodology for the
development project".
Mr. Rich Szpyrka, Public Works Director, explained an approved traffic methodology
was whatever the development project engineers submit, with staffs approval, stamped with
his signature.
3
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@780DC878\@BCL@780DC87 Attachment 2
74
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Redus, the
Committee voted unanimously (13-0) to approve staff's
recommendations for amendments to the Land Development
Regulations Chapter 914, site plan review and approval
procedures; by amending sections 914.06(1) and 914.06(5)
general thresholds and procedures for site plan review and
approval, specifically; and by amending Section 914.14(3)
general submittal requirements specifically; and by providing
for repeal of conflicting provisions; codifications; severability;
and effective date.
Ordinance #4: Chapter 952 — Amendments to Traffic Impact Study.
Mr. Boling, as a follow up to the previous discussion regarding Traffic study
methodology, directed the Committee to Pages 5-6, wherein the criteria for an approvable
methodology were listed.
Mr. Chuck Mechling, District 5 Representative, referred to Page 5, 8(a), confirming a
traffic impact statement and a traffic study methodology were the same thing.
Mr. Mechling requested clarity of the timing flow with the cross outs on Page 3: (d), (e),
(1) and (2). Mr. Szpyrka said basically more time was being eliminated from the traffic study
review timeframe, making the process more expedited and efficient.
A discussion ensued clarifying the traffic study timing process and vesting timeframes.
Mr. Robert Banov, District 4 Representative, arrived at 9:45 a.m.
Recording Secretary Note: Mr. Stephen Melchiori, Alternate Representative, was unseated in
favor of Mr. Robert Banov, District 4 Representative, for purposes of voting.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Mechling, SECONDED BY Mr. Paladin, the
Committee voted unanimously (13-0) to approve staff's
recommendations for amendments to the Land Development
Regulations Chapter 952, Traffic; by amending section 952.07
Traffic Impact Study; and by providing for repeal of conflicting
provisions; codifications; severability; and effective date.
Ordinance #5: Chapter 971 — Amendments to Miniature Golf Courses.
Mr. Boling summarized this Chapter provided specific criteria for specific land uses and
expands the number of uses that staff -level approval may be given if criteria were met.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@780DC878\@BCL@780DC87 Attachment 2
75
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Blum, the
Committee voted unanimously (13-0) to approve staff's
recommendations for amendments to the Land Development
Regulations Chapter 97, Regulations for Specific Land Uses;
by amending Section 971.11 same -unenclosed; by amending
Section 971.12 Commercial Services, by amending Section
971.13 Commercial Uses, by amending Section 971.28
Institutional Uses by amending Section 971.41 Residential
Uses by amending Section 971.42 Sales; General Merchandise,
by amending Section 971.45 Vehicular Sales, Service and
storage; and by providing for repeal of conflicting provisions;
codifications; severability; and effective date.
Chairperson Robinson mentioned she would like to see the Fire Department be a part of
the entire Technical Review Committee ("TRC") process as far as being present at meetings
and be required to meet the same timeframes for staff's responses. Mr. Boling advised Fire
Prevention comments were being provided at the TRC meetings and perhaps Fire Prevention
staff could be "on call' during the TRC in cases where an applicant, engineer, or architect had
a fire code question. Mr. Boling further advised such a change in practice would not require a
Code change; however, that issue could be discussed by this Committee in more detail at a
future meeting.
Mr. Scott McAdam, Building Official, said the Building Division staff would like to be part
of the TRC process as well, and could provide input at the TRC meetings as needed.
Chairperson Robinson noted Attendance and Process for a subject matter for a future
agenda.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Mechling, to
accept all staff's recommendations for amendments to the
Land Development Regulations.
UNDER DISCUSSION, comments were received regarding showing the BCC the
accomplishments of this Committee and to provide recommendations in separate installments
for each logical area of interest, going forward.
Mr. Taylor said the County needed to be prepared to impose discipline on the process
in order for the process to work. Chairperson Robinson said upon discussion with Mr. Jason
Brown, County Administrator and department heads, everyone was committed to streamline
the process as well as holding staff and applicants accountable.
Mr. Bruce Redus, District 4 Representative, mentioned re-educating the outside world of
the upcoming changes in the development review process. Chairperson Robinson reminded
the Committee everyone had online accessibility to any and all changes and the Committee
members needed to spread the word out in the development community about changes. Staff
indicated changes would be highlighted on the County website.
5
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technolo ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
7
6
THE CHAIRPERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was unanimous
(13-0) in favor of the motion.
b) Continued Discussion of Fire Prevention Plan Review Fee Payment Timing
-- Action Required
Mr. Boling summarized his memorandum dated December 4, 2017, titled "Continued
Discussion of Fire Prevention Plan Review Fee Payment Timing", wherein he introduced a
Memorandum from Emergency Services/Fire Prevention dated November 30, 2017, regarding
Fire Prevention Code Review Fees. A copy of both memorandums are on file in the
Commission Office.
Mr. Boling reminded the Committee at the November 8, 2017 meeting, the Committee
supported for large projects such as Adult Living Facilities, if the Fire Prevention Review
("FPR") Fee was over $5,000.00, the fee could be split - changing the current requirement to
allow collecting half of the Fire Prevention Review Fee at the time of permit application and
collecting the second half at the time of building permit issuance.
Chairperson Robinson lead a discussion regarding splitting the fee as related to the
actual cost of the time involved in the FPR process.
Mr. John King, Emergency Services Director, explained the system was based upon
project valuation and most of the time the FPRs required additional staff time. He shared in
the past twelve (12) months, there were only about four (4) projects reaching the $5,000.00 fire
review fee threshold.
Mr. Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney, summarized the question regarding splitting
the fees with the current charge being .0025 percent valuation, and if the project was a
100,000 square foot project versus a 50,000 square foot project, did the plan review activity
require twice the amount of work?
Mr. King advised the FPR included the field inspections and was included in the fee.
Chairperson Robinson suggested the field inspections could be included in the second half fee
payment, when the permit was issued. She continued the first application fee payment should
cover the plan review cost, period, and when the permit was issued, was when the balance of
the remaining fees would be paid.
Mr. Jason Brown, County Administrator, supported twenty-five percent (25%) of the fee
as the initial fee upfront, with the remaining seventy-five percent (75%) due at the building
permit issuance.
A discussion took place about the difference between the Building Department review
fees and the FPR fees and what was included in the fee.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technolo ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
77
Mr. Taylor recommended staff to execute an activity -based cost analysis to better
inform what rate schedule should be applicable and what level or rates were applicable. Mr.
Murphy concurred.
ON MOTION BY Mr. Paladin, SECONDED BY Mr. Mechling, to
support payment timing for large projects (plan review fees of
$5,000 or greater) whereby an applicant may pay twenty-five
percent (25%) of the fees at the time application was being
made and the remaining portion (75%) at building permit
issuance.
UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Carter asked if the County would be losing money, or if
some customers would be subsiding for other customers. Chairperson Robinson responded
should the Committee change the proportion and then change the fees, a loss was likely;
however, at the present time, changing fees was not the topic.
Mr. Murphy agreed the 25% fee up front, with the remaining 75% fee due at the building
permit issuance was a rational way to split the fee.
Mr. Mechling confirmed the fees being discussed was for payment timing for large
project plan review fees of $5,000.00 or greater and anything below the $5,000.00 there was a
schedule of fees, reflected in Mr. King's November 30, 2017 Memorandum as Attachment "A".
THE CHAIRPERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION and the vote was unanimous
(13-0) in favor of the motion.
Chairperson Robinson shared her appreciation for the Committee's topic suggestions
being submitted and announced those topics would be addressed as a part of a logical review
sequence, not all together, at once; focusing on process review items first.
Mr. Murphy communicated with Mr. Vincent Burke, Utilities Director, regarding fees
involving a non-functioning fire hydrant.
New Business
Vice Chairman Paladin said in getting big projects approved ahead of time, a big
problem involved landscaping, Chapter 926. He shared it was almost impossible to obtain an
opaque feature on planting without losing half of your planting because they were too close
together. He continued he would like to see a grow -in period of twelve (12) months to achieve
an opaque feature, stating it would be a great planting problem relief. He asked for staff to
take into consideration and possibly bring back recommendation to this Committee at a future
meeting.
Mr. Boling suggested this discussion be continued later when future topics were
discussed.
7
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technolo ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
7
8
a) Final Plat Review and Approval Process — Action Required
Mr. Boling summarized his memorandum dated December 5, 2017, titled "Consideration
of the Final Plat Process", a copy of the memorandum, with attachments, is on file in the
Commission Office. He pointed out once recorded final plats established lots, rights-of-way,
and tracts, and that lots could not be sold legally by reference to a plat until the plat was
approved and recorded. He further said a plat was a legal and final document and to avoid
survey and future title problems, the document needed to be error free; hence the many
detailed final plat reviews and comments by the Attorney's Office and County Surveyor.
Mr. Boling said the final plat review was also the check point in making sure the
required horizontal infrastructure was completed, or whatever items remaining must be bonded
out and secured and warranted because lots were being sold to individual owners.
Mr. Boling introduced the County Surveyor, David Schryver and explained when
reviewing the final plat process, although the project went through the TRC and all the
departments involved, the commenting taking the longest period of time due to the detailed
review were the Surveyor's and County Attorney's comments.
Mr. Schryver reminded the Committee it was the County Surveyor who reviewed plats
and the details to ensure complete information was provided. He commented when surveyors
submit plats for review, he suspected the surveyors submitting plats were looking to the
County to do the review for them, taking the County Surveyor more time for review. He
continued it was his hope to create a two -column checklist for applicant/surveyors and the
different departments to utilize in reducing review time for plats; one column would be for the
surveyor preparing the plat to check off what was completed and one column dedicated to
County staff indicating those items were, in fact, completed.
Chairperson Robinson stated the checklists would assist with accountability for both
sides; County staff and the professional.
Mr. Szpyrka announced there were currently checklists available, if they were utilized,
would cut down staffs review time immensely. He mentioned punitive damages and/or
incentives for correct and complete checklists.
Chairperson Robinson replied the consistent offenders' licenses should be reported to
enforce the correct completion of the checklists for plat reviews.
Mr. DeBraal relayed points of interest in his review of the plats to included labelling,
quality assurances, taxes paid, easements, encumbrances and liens. He briefly discussed title
certifications, whereby the attorney who reviewed the plat on behalf of the owner/developer
certified the owners' ownership, that all taxes were paid, and all of the mortgages and
encumbrances against the property were listed/included on the plat. He mentioned a recent
new state statute change regarding title certifications, wherein the title company performing
title searches did not certify title, however, the title company would issue a Property
11
C:\Users\le istar\APPData\Local\Tem \BCL Technolo ieeas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
7
9
Information Report, with the title company's limitation of liability being the fee paid for doing the
title work.
Mr. DeBraal confirmed IRC Code, Section 913, required a title certification. He
suggested this topic come before the Committee at a future meeting to review liability with a
title search.
A brief discussion ensued regarding attorneys signing title searches with exclusions and
suggestions of future discussions with attorneys and title companies to address the best way
to resolve the issue and ensure good title to individual lot owners and associations.
Chairperson Robinson hesitantly broached consideration of resubmittal fees for habitual
offenders; i.e., professionals, engineers, architects, etc., when reviewing projects for
completeness. A discussion followed regarding financial consequences and incentives.
Mr. DeBraal introduced and welcomed Mr. Chris Russell, Oculina Bank, to discuss the
financial perspective regarding posting security for final plat (subdivision) projects.
Mr. Russell advised the Committee smaller lenders were pulling away from the vacant
land markets partly due to the financial losses incurred during the recession. He addressed
the lenders' process relative to letters of credit to handle bonding requirements, and strongly
recommended having a title attorney speak to the Committee to provide answers concerning
title searches.
A discussion ensued regarding letters of credit, including restrictions on developers, the
process to clear Letters of Credit sooner and draw downs on posted construction security.
Mr. Mechling suggested this topic be revisited in a future subgroup meeting to discuss
in more depth the process with the County Attorneys' and Administrator's Offices. Mr. Boling
reminded the Committee in setting up any subgroup, only one (1) committee member may be
attendance to avoid a Sunshine Law violation. Mr. Mechling volunteered to work with staff in
coordinating the meeting and suggested an outside attorney attend for final plat and legal
work, as well as a banker and an engineer for discussions regarding ongoing title insurance
relative to plats.
Mr. Boling mentioned three (3) items to be brought back to the Committee for further
discussion relating to final plat review (not requiring a Code change): (1) applicant's checklist;
(2) resubmittal fees and appropriate incentives or disincentives; and (3) ability for staff to
provide a "Stop -loss" comment if a partial review indicated a significantly deficient submittal.
Chairperson Robinson voiced her preference for articulated and logical language for
understanding by one and all.
C:\Users\le istar\APPData\Local\Tem \BCL Tech nolog ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 780DC87 Attachment 2
80
Topics for Next Meeting
Mr. Boling summarized future topics brought forward to be discussed at the next
meeting, January, 17, 2018, to include a follow up discussion regarding final plats; and a report
from Mr. Mechling regarding the subgroup's findings on the final plat process and clearing
Letters of Credit.
Mr. Mechling requested a topic for future discussion include overall grading of the lots
plans on developments; specifically lot drainage, when they were submitted.
Chairperson Robinson reminded the Committee to continue talking with professionals
for input on topics discussed and future topics yet to be discussed.
Announcement of Next Meeting (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)
The next meeting of the Development Review and Permit Process Advisory Committee
is scheduled for Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in the Administrative Complex,
Building B, First Floor, Conference Room B1-501, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Adjournment
a.m.
There being no further business, Chairperson Robinson adjourned the meeting at 11:55
10
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technolo ies\eas PDF 8\ BCL 780DC878\ BCL 78ODC87 Attachment 2
81
Summary of Draft LDR Changes
December 2017 Committee/Staff Recommendations
Staff has prepared 5 draft ordinances, one for each Chapter that requires amendments to
implement Development Review and Permit Process Advisory Committee recommendations.
The draft changes for each chapter are described below.
• Chapter 910 (Concurrency) "Ordinance #1"
Changes proposed reflect the new threshold for traffic study submittal by an applicant (from 100
average daily trips to 400).
• Chapter 913 (Subdivisions and Plats) "Ordinance #2"
Changes proposed reflect the following:
1. Providing applicant the option of submitting an approved traffic methodology rather than a
traffic study, concurrency certificate, or concurrency application at the time of preliminary
plat application.
2. Adding 7 days more staff review time prior to TRC.
3. Requiring staff to conduct a pre -TRC inter -departmental coordination meeting.
4. Requiring staff to send draft TRC comments to the applicant prior to TRC.
5. Requiring staff to indicate code/safety/engineering-required comments and advisory
comments.
6. Requiring final TRC comments to consist of draft comments and items discussed at TRC.
7. Requiring applicant responses to recite each staff comment and indicate where a change has
been made on the revised preliminary plat.
8. Requiring submission of a traffic study and concurrency application prior to or at the time of
the post -TRC resubmittal.
9. Authorizing staff level approval for preliminary plats proposing less than 25 residential lots
or units. (Note: the 25 lot/unit threshold is consistent with the small project threshold used
in other regulations such as the Chapter 918 sewer connection requirements.)
• Chapter 914 (Site Plans) "Ordinance #3"
Changes proposed for site plans reflect the same changes described above for preliminary plats,
and also include an updated reference to the new traffic study threshold.
• Chapter 952 (Traffic) "Ordinance #4"
Changes proposed reflect the following:
1. Providing for the new traffic study submittal threshold.
2. Providing the option for the Public Works Director to approve conducting a traffic
methodology pre -application conference by telephone.
Attachment 3
82
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyMF 8\@BCL@580DF17F\@BCL@580DF17F.docx
3. Requiring the methodology meeting to be held within 5 business days of the request for the
meeting made in writing or via email.
4. Requiring the applicant's engineer to provide a site access plan 3 days prior to the
methodology meeting.
5. Clarifying that the approved traffic methodology will be signed and dated by staff.
6. Requiring approval of the traffic methodology prior to formal site plan or preliminary plat
application submittal.
7. Requiring traffic study submittal prior to or at the time of the post -TRC resubmittal.
8. Providing review timeframes for traffic study submittals.
9. Updating the traffic methodology submittal requirements.
• Chapter 971 (Specific Land Use Criteria) "Ordinance #5"
Changes proposed reflect staff -level approval authority rather than PZC approval for uses that
have become "routinely approved" by the PZC. No changes to development criteria or,
standards are proposed. Uses affected are as follows:
1. Building materials/lumber yards in CG
2. Outdoor storage in CH
3. Veterinary clinics in A-1, A-2, A-3, CL, CG, CH
4. Child care in all agricultural and residential districts, PRO, OCR, CN
5. Nursing Homes in MED
6. Single-family accessory dwelling unit (aka "mother-in-law" units) in all agricultural and
residential districts
7. Drug stores in CN, OCR
8. Used vehicle sales in CH
Formal adoption of LDR amendments requires public notice and consideration at a PZC public
hearing and a BCC public hearing, a process that takes roughly 90 days.
None of the proposed LDR amendments propose changes to existing development criteria
or traffic standards.
Attachment 3
83
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyMF 8\@BCL@580DF17F\@BCL@580DF17F.docx
ORDINANCE 2018 -
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONCERNING
AMENDMENTS TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); PROVIDING
FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 910, CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; BY
AMENDING SECTION 910.11(1)(B) DETERMINATION OF CONCURRENCY,
SPECIFICALLY; AND BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRs) CHAPTER 910, CONCURRENCY&ANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BE
AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: A-,
SECTION #1:
Amend LDR Section 910.11 (1)(b), first two
specifically; as follows:
(1) Transportation.
analysis",
(b) Concurrency analysis. The public q,&flks department and c6iny' unity development
department shall be the agencies responsib efor de`t'eimining whethe adequate capacity
is available to support traf�fiZ-Nkx ected from�a gv' eproposed development such that a
finding of concurrency maTnered. Using; information inventoried pursuant to
section 910.11(1)(a) above, e`,& c1 d v_eellopment g nerated traffic shall be assigned to
those two-lane roadway segmenden�ti%edas receivi at least eight (8) or more peak
season/peak hou�/ak direction�tr`-' sandos €our -lane or wider roadway segments
P_._. ) Y g
identified as receiving-fteen (15)aor morepeak$seson/peak hour/peak direction trips
generated a develrl�ent undederation-pirsuant to section 910.11(1)(a)2
above. The cd0hunity de�R_-e�lopment d0pj tment will review and assign trips to segments
for all individua s � le f mi =, oresidentia-111-affic concurrency determination applications.
low
l fo, f&ffiJ"y,;-,concfff7rency determinations shall be assigned as
rov> ded in 9�110�09 4 -Traffic eerin Division staff will review and assign trips
_ p �() ),o,. g6 g g p
egments for all j ects rating legis than four hundred (400) average trips per day.
D
F' rger projects gegerating� r hundred (400) or more average trip ends per day, the
mn
appl`ic�a4t. shall submi affic impact analysis (TIA) or traffic impact statement (TIS) as
requireby Chapter�952 regulations. Based on this TIA or TIS, the public works
department k'i ll assigns to roadway segments. The community development staff will
update the datase,a5 concurrency determination certificates are issued.
SECTION #2: SEVERABILITY
If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated
from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein.
SECTION #3: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
StF*e tkretgh-i Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCFA4\@BCL@580DCFA4.docx
Attachment 4
84
ORDINANCE 2018 -
The provisions of any other Indian River County ordinance that are inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict.
SECTION #4: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered
or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article",
or any other appropriate word. _1--_
SECTION #5: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with
This ordinance was advertised in the Press
public hearing to be held on the _rd day
adoption by Commissioner , s
by the following vote:
Chairman
oseph
on the th day
, 2018, at wl
2018, for a
it was moved for
and adopted
'IML BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Chairman then upon declar he ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of
92018.
BY:
Chairman
ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Stflce thfa egg Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCFA4\@BCL@580DCFA4.docx
Attachment 4 85
ORDINANCE 2018 -
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONCERNING
AMENDMENTS TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs); PROVIDING
FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS; BY AMENDING
SECTIONS AND SECTIONS 913.07(4)(A) AND 913.07(4)(F) SPECIFICALLY; AND BY
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION;
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRs) CHAPTER 914, GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND
CHAPTER 913 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS, BE AMENpSAS FOLLOWS:
SECTION #1:
Amend LDR Section 913.07 (4)(A), "Preliminaryplic bion and review submission of
application"; as follows: I"
(4) Preliminary plat application and revie
(A) Submission of application.
1. Upon completion of thr al pre-applsi ation- feren,c Nhpfticant may apply
for preliminary plat ap -W-a-4,_At his or hn on, an applicant may simultaneously
01
apply for preliminary pltal and for laneldevelopment permit review. No land
development permit may%l_e i� TsUt&until the liminary plat is approved. An
applicant sharply for prelnina �pl_at approvabyfurnishing to the community
a. A� mplete app kation Ml- rovidey the community development
b�-- he app t. ` jMe establ0fted by the board of county commissioners;
C. 4 -n7TF sets ofthe plater'a ings"�and a written response to each item in the
prole is :re-ap _ ation conference discrepancy letter or a written description
ofall re�i_s3'ons mltthe project plans since the pre -application conference
k&review; =�
d. �T&(2) sealed��nurveys;
e. Oner(�1) aeria) the site with overlay of project showing the surrounding two
hunnec4(24 -et of adjacent properties;
f. Two (2) copies of the owner's deed;
g. If an agent is used, a letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to
function on his behalf, plus one copy of.the letter;
h. Two (2) copies of a tree and vegetation survey showing the boundaries and
acreage of environmentally sensitive areas (see Chapter 928) and
environmentally significant areas (see Chapter 929), where such areas exist on-
site.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Strike &eta Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\L.ocal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCAAA\@BCL@580DCAAA.docx
Attachment 5 86
ORDINANCE 2018-
i. An initial or conditional concurrency certificate, or evidence of application for
a certificate, or a copy of the approved traffic methodology for the
development project.
The community development director or his designee shall determine whether or
not an application is complete and can be routed for interdepartmental review. No
incomplete application shall be routed for review. The applicant shall be notified as
soon as an incomplete determination has been made.
SECTION #2:
Amend LDR Section 913.07 (4)(F), "Reviews"; as
(F) Reviews.
1. Technical review committee review.
a. Within three (3) working d
community development -Ce
completeness determination an4
is determined to be incompl
forward one copy, of the propo
divisions or otherifaf-r_,�sted agen
approval.
b. Within eighteen (18) aft' tli
and prrioMwAhe TRC meeting d
be con0s d-er-e. �� ch TRCrmeml
wiffM comments to the;.1%1
nla a division shall condom
c. At a
k be n
of a preli>tiftry plat application, the
artment shalll►ke an application
lqw
shall contact the applicant if the submittal
h. community developftffmnt department will
pre_snary plat to e� of the county
�esTfHeir review and written comments or
receipt JRfl of the preliminary plat
e awhich thhe-i_application is scheduled to
.r shaibeview tthe application and submit
division rior to each TRC meeting, the
an inter -departmental staff coordination
mments and transmit post -coordination
�!,plicant by email or similar medium prior
meeting, the discrepancy comments will
The community, development department shall, within four (4) working days
fr m the TRC eeting, transmit a comment letter to the applicant or his
ener idenit�ing all of the discrepancies pertaining to the preliminary plat
that wer dfs used at the TRC meeting. Each comment shall either indicate
that th g ment involves a code, safety, or engineering requirement or
that the comment is advisory. Comments shall consist of the draft
comments and items discussed at the TRC meeting.
e. The applicant shall respond, in writing, to each comment following receipt of
the discrepancy letter and submit five (5) sets of a revised preliminary plat if
deemed necessary by the community development staff with a written response
to each item in the project's TRC discrepancy letter. Each response must recite
the subject staff comment, adequately address the comment, and indicate
where any corresponding revision has been made on the preliminary plat.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Stile tlffeughe Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCAAA\@BCL@580DCAAA.docx
Attachment 5 87
ORDINANCE 2018 -
If the preliminary plat requires PZC approval, the applicant's written
response shall include a separate document that verifies the duration of the
required sign posting and summarizes all contacts with the public. The summary
shall, at a minimum, describe the nature of contacts (e.g. from nearby resident,
by phone), the types of comments received, and changes to the project proposal
(if any) based on comments received.
f. At the discretion of the technical review committee, applications with
substantial deficiencies may, upon re -submittal, be scheduled for re -review
at another technical review committee meeting.
dM
g. As part of the post -TRC re-submittal,Afic study shall be submitted if
required by Chapter 952 regulationsd a concurrency certificate or
�y.��
evidence of application for a conc-u"rx:enc-ertificate shall be submitted if
required by Chapter 910 regulations.
h. Once all TRC comments WFOUP15een adeq
io
development department sha11 (approve the
road plat or a plat for a reside-htiial subdi
25 residential lots or units. Al of pre it
not staff -level anhal and that hary'r
shall be schedule
zoning commission
the community
if the plat is a
es for less than
finary plat ap`1 tions that are
signed -off by tMRC members
soonest available planning and
1. Anlicant may�ruest, aanytime %nthe review process, that the
a plhcatinR � be forw�ar , ed to g he x aiming and zoning commission for
nsiderat o Said rees{t shall btted to the planning division in
ting QWi ackno l e that, in staff s opinion, the application is not
read_ for con dgration di ee19 a lack of adequate responses to staff and/or
nissionMe'view and action. Upon completion of the county
.iminary plat plans and application, along with
forwarded to the Indian River County planning and zoning
d-` :c_o-nsideration for approval. The decision of the planning
tall be final unless the application is appealed to the board
Any approval shall be noted on the preliminary plat in the
ROVAL BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That on / /
the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission approved this preliminary
plat.
(Chairperson)
SECTION #3: SEVERABILITY
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppDataUkcal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCAAA\@BCL@580DCAAA.docx
Attachment 5 88
ORDINANCE 2018 -
If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated
from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein.
SECTION #4: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
The provisions of any other Indian River County ordinance that are inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict.
A4
SECTION #5: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS4100 ORDINANCES
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and tbadeI�part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida. The�seotions of the-@ dinance may be renumbered
or relettered to accomplish such, and the word df`ance may be cliang�ed to "section", "article",
or any other appropriate word.
SECTION #6: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect
This ordinance was advertised in the I
public hearing to be heldions-the _rd
adoption by Commissio' - --
by the following vote �'a
the DOOR. of State.
the day of , 2018, for a
x-2018, `a 'swhich time it was moved for
�4omr1issio er , and adopted
r D. O'Ban
Bob v olan
:Susan Adams
W -
Joseph E. Flescher
Tim Zorc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Chairman there upon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
, 2018.
, Chairman
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
S"ie tiffeugh, Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCAAA\@BCL@580DCAAA.docx
day of
Attachment 5 89
ORDINANCE 2018 -
ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Stp�Ee thFaughe Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DCAAA\@BCL@580DCAAA.docx
Attachment 5 90
ORDINANCE 2018 -
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONCERNING
AMENDMENTS TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); PROVIDING
FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
PROCEDURES; BY AMENDING SECTIONS 914.06(1) AND 914.06(5) GENERAL
THRESHOLDS AND PROCEDURES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL,
SPECIFICALLY; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 914.14(3) GENERAL SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY; AND BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER MTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRs) CHAPTER 914, GENERAL�T13HOLDS AND PROCEDURES
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL, BE ND5 IED5 FOLLOWS:
SECTION #1:
Amend LDR Section 914.06 (1), "Site plan th esholds"; as follows:
(1) Site plan thresholds.
(a) Major site plans. The folio -h:gyrojects shAINWIRE"u a major site plan projects and shall
require, except as noted in par pli 4 below,-%* ,. site plan approval.
1. Residential projects havi�tkl r ( -tor morevim- I 'ng units.
2. Nonresidenti�iprojects com�pnsedov thousad(5000) square feet or more or
new imps Zisrsurface area, or : rojee s rise of=new impervious surface area
represe_nt_mg morell.1 (10� rc_ of the ill area of development, whichever
is less.
3. ��e__r�e three 3.�.or more minor site i requests or six (6) or more administrative
approvaLrequr��.�or, a smgIftpr-:oject��ar-ea/site have been submitted and approved
ANS over any ve-yearqIgnod of time where potential cumulative impacts exceed the
- criteria of a j,or SAe lan applica�fro or together may create a substantial impact,
%,.1he director AN comt� 3development department may require any subsequent
> mor site plan or dministrati=Ve approval application to be reviewed pursuant to the
I WA cntehi-a of a major plan.
4. The fo11a�ing m4§57, site plan projects shall require the same approval process
required ofm ndflff e plan projects:
a. Resides - -a projects that constitute a permitted use and that propose less
than 25 residential units.
b. Nonresidential projects involving less than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000)
square feet of new impervious surface area, regardless of new building area
amount.
(b) Minor site plan. The following projects shall constitute minor site plan projects and shall
require minor site plan approval.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Stftke tlfretigli, Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DE9D1\@BCL@580DE9Dl.docx 91
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE 2018-
1. Any residential project, comprised of less than three (3) units determined not be an
exempted single-family development (see section 914.04).
2. Nonresidential projects comprised of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of
new impervious surface area.
3. Nonresidential projects adding or replacing two thousand (2,000) square feet or more
of building gross floor area that do not constitute a major site plan.
(c) Administrative approvals. The following projects shall constitute administrative approval
site plan projects and shall require administrative approval.
1. A modification or alteration to any project coveted -in section 914.04 of this chapter,
consisting of less than one thousand five iunn ed (1,500) square feet of new
impervious surface area which does not re u re=l�agor or minor site plan approval.
2. Improvements or activities which. A-1 to�tain administrative approval
pursuant to requirements specifie other chapters of --Uscode.
SECTION #2:
Amend LDR Section 914.06 (5), "Departmental _review offsi% plan app pons"; as
follows: r
(5) Departmental review of site pl'a HAUtions.
a Coordinating division. The l�Sion shalls onsible for the coordination of
() g p g. p
all site plan revie_wys,zApplicants shall submit all a. plicatioand materials to the planning
division.
(b) Completenessview:
1. The plannivisionhall reviews applications to ensure completeness before
iib ton to reView g gartments d agencies. Only complete applications will
e-dYstrbtxted to h'reviewmg�d partiMelits and agencies. Failure to submit required
applicat� ateria`l�w"-ill result in 1Z plication material not being distributed; the
� applicationill :be d_ ed incomplete. Planning staff shall notify the applicant
within three (3rkingad of submittal if the application is incomplete and will
route the propoldsite pldnrWithm three (3) working days of a determination of
appikeation completeness.
2. Applicant lshallv0��e thirty (30) days from the notice of an incomplete application
to comple 1� plication; failure of the applicant to complete the application
within the tliirt�y") day period shall void the application request.
3. Once the application is deemed to be complete, it will be distributed by the planning
division for departmental review, and consideration at the appropriate TRC meeting.
(c) Application distribution for review. For complete applications, the planning division shall
distribute all appropriate application material(s) to the appropriate TRC members, all
appropriate county departments, and other state, regional and local review agencies.
(d) TRC review and comments. Each TRC member shall review the application and submit
written comments to the planning division within eighteen (18) days after the routing of
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
St4ke through, Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DE9D1\@BCL@580DE9Dl.docx 92
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE 2018 -
the site plan application materials and prior to the TRC meeting date at which the
application is scheduled to be considered.
Prior to each TRC meeting, the planning division shall conduct an inter-
departmental staff coordination meeting to coordinate draft comments and transmit
post -coordination meeting draft comments to the applicant by email or similar
medium prior to the TRC meeting. The technical review committee shall consider each
application, shall complete a technical evaluation of the site plan application, shall
identify any deficiencies or discrepancies, and for each comment shall either indicate
that the comment involves a code, safety, or engineering requirement or that the
comment is advisory. Comments shall consist a draft comments and items
discussed at the TRC meeting. Complete andi final comments on all applications
considered at the TRC meeting shall be assembledadrwarded to the applicant within
four (4) working days. At the discretion_ f the Mechnical review committee,
applications with substantial deficienci�emay, upo%n ost-TRC re -submittal, be
scheduled for re -review at another W&M, 1 review cominE a _,meeting.
(e) Resubmission, staff -level approval,cheduling major sites for planning and
zoning commission consideration. The, giant' rg onse to theq-T&C comments shall
consist of five (5) revised plan sets, a ��"lra�fefffli ify if req Chapter Chapter 952
regulations, a concurrenp` ok-r - ><cate or e a of application for a concurrency
certificate if required by Chapte =9.9 regulate ns; and an itemized letter that recites
each staff comment, details how,ea-M- mment h`�as been adequately addressed, and
states where an�rreespondit plan ree (Lean be�lo�ated. Once all comments have
been adequatey�:addre`ssed, all technical an� normatio requirements met, and the
commenting ember "o the TiV havve- recor"nn �en�'ded approval or approval with
conditions oe e application the app la on shall be approved by the community
development dYfflector T. is designees if staff -level approval, or scheduled for
consiation befohpng�and zoffiLnj commission if not staff level approval.
� An appl cant ma est, at any i e the review process, that the application be
forwarded �to he planrang and zomng commission for consideration. Said request
shall be subnfiMe'd to the p ng division in writing and shall acknowledge that, in
=sta#f s opinion, tepplicaf%n.4s not ready for consideration due to a lack of adequate
reuses to staff or reviewing agency comments.
(f) Approval r site ns. The TRC is authorized to approve, approve with conditions
or deny minor;e plan applications not requiring Planning and Zoning Commission
approval. Withifif 'e y (7) working days after the applicant submits to staff a complete
response to TRCmments (also known as a resubmittal), the county shall either issue
site plan approval or a comment letter. Once all commenting TRC members have
reviewed and approved the applicant's responses to comments, the minor site plan shall
be signed and approved. All approved minor site plans shall be signed by the community
development director or his designee.
(g) For all site plan applications that are not associated with a request involving a public
hearing but are required to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
applicant shall submit the following along with his response to TRC comments and
revised site plans:
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
8"Ee-Uhreughs Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppDataUDcal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DE9D1\@BCL@580DE9Dl.docx 93
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE 2018-
A separate document that verifies the duration of the required sign posting and
summarizes all contacts with the public. The summary shall, at a minimum, describe the
nature of contacts (e.g. from nearby resident, by phone), the types of comments received,
and changes to the project proposal (if any) based on comments received.
(h) Appeals of decisions made by the community development director or by the TRC
may be made by applicants pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.13.
SECTION #3:
Amend LDR Section 914.14 (3), "General submittal
(3) General submittal requirements.
(a) Three (3) surveys meeting the mini
information required in section 914.14(
required by the community developmen
approvals.
(b) Ten (1) plan sets containing all the infor pati,
formal pre -application conference was held fo
written response to each itei�e project's p
or a written description of allure i . Wn :made to
conference review. L _.
(c) A completed qRd ned site
(d) A completed!
Chapter 927c,
stating that no
(e
a
(f) A laUhdscape plan d
(g) A co�Tothe deed
(h) Written autH = rizati,
property owner s).
(i) A concurrency
copy of the ap
to the
; as follows:
56thniMIMstandards and containing the
required Modm : ajor site plans, and may be
.or for mino iXeNDlans and administrative
I in this es motion . (914.14). If a
;t, the apple shall submit a
n conference discrepancy letter
plans since the pre -application
by the planning division).
reffw al permit application pursuant to
form (fdmished by the planning division)
as defined in Chapter 927 is to take place
hent application and two (2) copies of
of Chapter 930.
of Chapter 926.
subject property.
. the property owner(s) if the applicant/agent is other than the
I
te, or evidence of application for a concurrency certificate, or a
traffic methodology for the development project.
(j) For minor site plans and administrative approvals, the community development director
or his/her designee may waive or modify submittal, information, tabulation, or any other
application requirements if he/she deems that such information is not necessary or
appropriate for a review of the proposed project.
(k) Traffic impact study. All proposed developments which are determined to generate four
hundred (400) or more average daily trips, or are located at a critical transportation
location as determined by the public works director, shall submit a traffic study pursuant
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Stere thfougl} Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DE9Dl\@BCL@580DE9Dl.docx 94
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE 2018 -
to the requirements of Chapter 952 prior to the post -TRC resubmittal. All projects
generating between four hundred (400) or more average daily trips shall submit traffic
impact studies prior to the post -TRC resubmittal.
(1) A shared (non -concurrent) parking study shall be required where there is a proposal by
the applicant to reduce normal parking requirements pursuant to section 954.08 of the
land development regulations.
SECTION #4: SEVERABILITY
If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any c,
from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of thi;
and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof hadH
#5: REPEAL OF CONFLI
The provisions of any other Indian River County7l
the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the
The provisions of this
Ordinances of Indian F
or relettered to acconip-
or any other appropnalt
This 0—rdnance shall
This ordirignce,,was advertise
public hearin�f_DN,be held on
adoption by Com�iissioner
by the following vo
IN TRM-00 , OF LA
14 �11
nce shallM.omert
wn, Floria� The seRRA
Rand the word-' nor - ic`i lmor"
red by a court of competent
the same shall be eliminated
111 be in full force and effect
)rated therein.
in conflict with
conflict.
"kpart of the Code of Laws and
the %inance may be renumbered
'Nj e changed to "section", "article",
Department of State.
the �? `e- _ -Journal on the _' day of , 2018, for a
INgta
rd day of , 2018, at which time it was moved for
, seconded by Commissioner , and adopted
Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan
Vice Chairman Bob Solari
Commissioner Susan Adams
Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Strike tl3reughi. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance 95
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DE9D1\@BCL@580DE9Dl.docx
Attachment 5
ORDINANCE 2018 -
Commissioner Tim Zorc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Chairman there upon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of
, 2018.
BY:
A_ , Chairman
y
ATTEST: Jefflre_y R. Smit h,erk of Court and Comptroller
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
StPAEe dweeghi Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance 96
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DE9D1\@BCL@580DE9Dl.docx
Attachment 6
ORDINANCE 2018 -
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONCERNING
AMENDMENTS TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); PROVIDING
FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 952, TRAFFIC; BY AMENDING SECTION 952.07
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY; AND BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRs) CHAPTER 952, TRAFFIC, BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
CF.f TInN #1 -
Amend LDR Section 952.07(1) through (8),
(1) Purpose.
(a) The purpose of a traffic impac�'sr(i
development on the Indian River ,
information which will allow a col
impacted segment. Theft impact
on each impacted segme d'enttiify
service cannot be maintai " i7;l dt
potential solutions for thosegment?
service is no`l.-ORMni met. k
(2) Intent.
(a) The
in
(3)
(a) The
(4) Applicability.
is to
while
; as follows:
3y is to identify the potntial impacts of new
�
nty tranis_portation y in and to provide
Nu�n,wencv&etermination to made on each
stud1 lI'Mentify developmentrtraffic volumes
those seg.:,ents on which the adopted level of
egment n • intersection analysis and identify
t—fid"
-ss on which the adopted level of
requirements, procedures and methodology
.y in Indian River County and to provide an
.ans of determining the future impact of
61
the adopted service levels on all roadways.
waive any requirement contained elsewhere in
this section are included in Chapter 901.
(a) The requirements; procedures and methodology for a traffic impact study contained
in this section shall apply to all conceptual, initial and final development orders and
concurrency determination applications in unincorporated Indian River County.
(b) Any municipal jurisdiction within Indian River County opting to have development
projects located within its municipal boundaries reviewed under the Indian River
County Concurrency Management System for Transportation shall be required to
follow the requirements, procedures, and methodology for the submission of a traffic
impact study contained in this section.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@58ODF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 97
ORDINANCE 2018-
(5) Types of traffic impact studies.
(a) Small project (0-399 daily trips).
1. For projects generating less than four hundred (400) average daily trips, trips will
be assigned by the director of public works or his designee.
2. It will be the responsibility of the applicant or his engineer to determine and
demonstrate to the director of public works that the small project will generate
less than four hundred (400) average daily trips. A signed and sealed letter from
the applicant's engineer documenting the �propriate trip generation rate(s)
will suffice. Individual single-family resided -T& development is excluded from
this requirement. AWW
(b) Large project (400 daily trips or greater).-
1. A traffic impact study shall be req�t� red for every�xo�t generating four hundred
(400) or greater average daily =pys�
(c) For developments of regional imnp�,or Florida Quality Deelo ment projects, the
analysis required by Indian River County far the pu Mses, of determining
concurrency and level orservice compli fn' be, at the direc or,f public work's
option, the same as tl .�ri ns ortation it �t-Mology agreed on for preparing the
application of developm t- -a
val requi e y F.S. § 380.06(10). Otherwise, the
required transportation an5ly7sis the sam�msa t identified for a traffic impact
study.
(6) General require e "
-(a) Whe .'e��f -traffic s y is requ r for a large project, and prior to conducting
a traffic u, y, the applicant's e neer is required to attend a traffic study
:xethodologyre-applic inn_ confreiace to discuss the traffic impact study
requirements anT _ d"iscus`sthetraffi mpact study format as it pertains to the
specifi�o men project.. Upankayyroval by the director of public works or
his des ignetraffitdy methodology pre -application conference may be
ducted by tele. ,honi he methodology pre -application meeting, conducted
either in person .via tele one, shall be held within five (5) business days of a
requue tfor a methodology pre -application meeting made in writing or via email.
Upon map xoval ofd he traffic study methodology, the County shall provide a
signed addatedsapproved methodology to the applicants Traffic Engineer for
use to subm tth;project into the TRC process.
(b) Each traffic impact study must meet the following submission requirements in order
to receive a determination of traffic impact study submission completeness.
1. Three (3) copies of the completed traffic impact study shall be submitted to the
Indian River County Community Development Department as part of the
post -TRC resubmittal to the Community Development Department.
Failure to submit a traffic impact study will result in the resubmittal being
placed on hold until a traffic impact study is submitted.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
St&e th+@ttg4_,.- Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppDataV ocal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@580DF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 98
(c)
(d)
(e)
ORDINANCE 2018-
2. The format of the traffic impact study shall follow the report format identified
in subsection 952.07(7), Format of Traffic Impact Study.
3. The traffic impact study shall include a concurrency determination network
form annotated with each impacted segment's average annual daily project
traffic and peak hour, peak direction, peak season project traffic volumes.
4. The traffic impact study shall include a concurrency determination network map
illustrating each impacted segment's average annual daily project traffic and
peak hour, peak direction and peak season project traffic volumes and
associated levels of service. -.
5. The traffic impact study shall be p
direction of, and be signed and
engineer whose area of practice is
6. The traffic impact study sha
to the project developA
Engineering comments slidli
of the staff comment res
Development Depar3ment to
The appeal ytocess for a tra f . im
forth ins'6 ro ll. ADi)e' SR i'
-pander the responsible supervision and
sea_1ed-by�a Florida -registered professional
rainsportat on ngineenng.
.Previewed iin game time frame allotted
plan review mess, County Traffic
Irovided to the eng neer of record as part
.e lette, -provided 1p,.bfbe Community
ned by the procedure set
Determination.
Site aMs propos d in a tMoT i�'._c,''�'impact sffiUy shall be consistent with the
requirenifflE identifMl in sectioncD2.12, Access Control. The applicant or his
,e eer is r� ed pr idem a sit "Mcess plan 3 days prior to the traffic study
m-etho_dblogy pre applicataoniconferenige conducted in person or via telephone.
The sit` e els plan.= sbj ect to Te, and approval by the director of public works
or his desig`rre� Thi'lvoJew will be made according to currently accepted traffic
::nMe. a determinWibn of traffic study submission completeness is made by the
publi works di> or or his designee, and the traffic impact study has been
reviewdgnd accep7d by the director of public works, the approved study shall be
valid fo�long as the concurrency review process is active for the specific
developme tct being reviewed or one (1) year, whichever is longer.
(7) Format of traffic impact study.
(a) In order to simplify staff review, each large project traffic impact study shall follow
the format defined below. Further definition and clarification of the items listed on
the format may be found in subsequent code sections. Figures and maps are to be
used to the maximum extent possible.
1. Traffic Impact Study Executive Summary;
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@580DF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 99
ORDINANCE 2018-
2. Title page;
3. Letter of transmittal;
4. Table of contents:
a. List of figures;
b. List of tables;
5. Introduction (includes description and location of project, current and proposed
zoning both address and map format, size of the project and any other pertinent
information such as phasing and project build --o- � t);
6. Summary of pre -application conference,rdfic impact study methodology;
7. Inventory of existing conditions (incttue� listi&.3of all segments within the study
area, source of traffic count data identificatXf roadway characteristics);
8. Trip generation methodology_c-luding daily and peak hour volumes);
9. Percent new trips;
10. Internal capture (used for mixeduses _roje_ 9.; y);
11. Traffic distributio :�;==anment m tology;
12. Area of influence X54. ns sf o those ro way segments assigned eight (8) or
more project peak season/ eak r�eak d e ti trips for a two-lane roadway
or fifteen?=5 or more p ect pe
or direction trips for a
fouaneder) roady(kn,w:=as` fict" links or segments) that lie
13.
15. Inte se=. 'on a� iYsis (req 1;e_ mat collector and arterial intersections on
sigmfic nt inks re links armee operating at eighty (80) percent or greater of
Level -of -M a "ll"MMid an approach link assigned eight (8) or more project
eak season/peak hour/pe-ak direction trips for a two-lane roadway or fifteen (15)
w
amore projeettpeak season/peak hour/peak direction trips for a four -lane (or
17116r) roadwa
16. SegnTfffb a fflpis (optional traffic study of impacted segments which will
operate ow FDOT adopted capacity)
17. Roadway needs (identification of proposed improvements and cost);
18. Appendix (as applicable to the specific traffic impact study):
a. Methodology agreements;
b. Traffic count worksheets;
C. Trip generation, internal and adjacent street capture worksheets;
d. Trip distribution and assignment worksheets;
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
8"Ee thfoa&.: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@580DF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 100
ORDINANCE 2018-
e. Computerized travel time study printouts;
f. Intersection capacity analysis using the latest highway capacity analysis
"Highway Capacity Manual" and worksheets accepted by the public
works director or his designee;
g. Link analysis/computerized modeling (if performed);
h. Other analysis worksheets.
(8) Traffic Study Methodology Pre -application conference.
(a) The purpose of the mandatory traffic stud
is to provide guidance and direction to th
approved methodology for conducting t
engineer shall provide a preliminary tr_
the pre -application conference codec
approval of the traffic study met`QH d I
County shall provide a sig n�nd
applicant's traffic engineer for u`se to su
(b) At a minimum, g p
the follows to ics shall-:_
of public works or hissG a*Ig e, obtain
n
application conference:
1. Site access and interna TrculattoK. pla
2. Forma if o �lie�tt,>;affic impale: study
3. Co'fc r- encv &T-F;lnination . _0�k fc
y meth�9ogy pre -application conference
e �'a�t or his engineer concerning the
he`aWic study. The applicant's traffic
affc st methodology 3 -days prior to
on or by telephone. Upon
ted in A
ogy by the P, s tic Works Director, the
dated approvedwmethodology to the
bmit the project ithe TRC process.
ed and approvedaby the director
traffic study methodology pre -
4. Procedff%. to track -he preject''s�t�affic will be defined;
identified in subsection 952.07(11) county
6. Procedh, ;es�for trH c-cOUntS, the location of current traffic count stations, and the
L
/� identificati`oohlofpos 'Be,additional locations;
ZZEL
Source of t ipW&neratio r project traffic;
-ta
8. St action of oiR destination survey sites for determination of percent new trips
9. Traffic dish b on and assignment technique and approach;
10. Justification of internal capture factor if different than those presented in
subsection 952.07(17)(b);
11. Methodology and approach for intersection analysis;
12. Methodology and approach for segment analysis.
(c) Failure by the applicant or his engineer to discuss and obtain resolution to the above
topics may result in disapproval of the traffic impact study or request for additional
information.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@580DF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 101
ORDINANCE 2018 -
SECTION #2: SEVERABILITY
If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated
from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein.
: REPEAL
The provisions of any other Indian River County or
the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the
SECTION #4:
The provisions of this Ordinance shall beco
Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida.
or relettered to accomplish such, and the word
or any other appropriate word.
This Ordinance shall takemeffct upon
inconsistent or in conflict with
inconsistency or conflict.
be made a partloftuthe Code of Laws and
tions of the Ordini-N may be renumbered
ace" mirbe changed trection", "article",
This ordinance was, vertised MHhe Press-1ourna�l n the day of , 2018, for a
public hearing to be f& -on the rd day of W , 2018, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commission — 419 , secon e_`&by Commissioner , and adopted
by the follow--- m
Othairmai-teeter D. O'Bryan
Y=
199L 'VW%1
V3
i 'IVKhairAN-TV, b Solari
Comrlilioner Susan Adams
C@-1 Affissioner Joseph E. Flescher
Commissioner Tim Zorc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Chairman there upon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of
, 2018.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Stfike thNugh, Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@580DF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 102
ORDINANCE 2018 -
Chairman
ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance
Suike through. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\L.ocal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580DF8D9\@BCL@580DF8D9.docx
Attachment 7 103
ORDINANCE 2018 -
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONCERNING AMENDMENTS
TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT
TO CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES; BY AMENDING SECTION
971.11 SAME -UNENCLOSED; BY AMENDING SECTION 971.12 COMMERCIAL SERVICES,
BY AMENDING SECTION 971.13 COMMERCIAL USES, BY AMENDING SECTION 971.28
INSTITUTIONAL USES, BY AMENDING SECTION 971.41 RESIDENTIAL USES, BY
AMENDING SECTION 971.42 SALES; GENERAL MERCHANDISE, BY AMENDING
SECTION 971.45 VEHICULAR SALES, SERVICE AND STORAGE; AND BY PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRs) CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, BE
AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION #1:
Amend LDR Section 971.11(2), "Miniature golf courses"; as follows:
(2) Miniature golf courses (administrative permit: no planning and zoning commission review or
approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an administrative approval or
minor site plan; and special exception).
(a) District requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): CH.
(b) District requiring special exception approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05):
CG.
(c) Additional information requirements: Plans and documentation shall be provided by the
developer as needed to demonstrate compliance with the following requirements.
(d) Criteria for miniature golf courses:
1. Bufferyard. A bufferyard having a minimum depth of seventy-five (75) feet when
adjacent to a single-family zoning district, fifty (50) feet when adjacent to a
multifamily district, shall be established and maintained as permanent open space
where the project site parcel abuts a residential zoning district. Within the
bufferyard, Type "A" screening shall be provided.
2. Exterior lighting. Lighting plans shall be provided (and implemented) which
demonstrate that no "spill over" from exterior light sources shall fall onto either
roadways or residential zoning districts that are adjacent to the project site.
3. Hours of operation. Where a project site is within two hundred (200) feet of a
residential zoning district, the establishment shall not be operated from 11:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.
4. Height limitations. Height limitations shall apply to all structures within the project
site.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1041
Spike tlweugh. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@58OD4002.dMachment 8
ORDINANCE 2018-
5. Signs and images. All formed and fashioned images located outdoors, such as
representations of animals, windmills, recreated scenes, and others which are
visible from an adjacent roadway or residential zoning district shall be treated as
signs and shall be restricted by the zoning code sign regulations. Any formed or
fashioned images used outdoors which the developer demonstrates are not visible
from an adjacent roadway or residential zoning district shall be exempted from
sign regulations.
6. Noise. Where a project site is within three hundred (300) feet of a residential
zoning district, additional conditions may be added by the county to address
special noise impacts. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to,
setbacks, noise reducing buffers, restrictions on outdoor speakers and hours of
operation.
SECTION #2:
Amend LDR Section 971.12(1), "Building material sales and lumberyards" and LDR Section
971.12(2), "Outdoor storage (unenclosed)"; as follows:
(1) Building material sales and lumberyards (administrative permit. no planning and zoning
commission review or approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an
administrative approval or minor site plan).
(a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): CG.
(b) Additional information requirements:
1. A written statement defining the general inventory of materials to be sold on the
premises;
2. Statements disclosing the projected percentage of total sales to be derived from
wholesale activities;
3. A site plan showing the location of all principal structures and all on-site storage
areas.
(c) Criteria for construction material sales:
1. All materials to be sold on the premises must be completely screened from adjacent
properties and roadways;
2. On-site vehicular storage shall be limited to those vehicles used in the operation of
establishment;
3. Such establishments shall not include the manufacture of structural wood
components, roof trusses, wall units and other activities requiring the assembly of
wood products;
4. All wholesale activities shall be accessory to retail sales conducted on the site.
(2) Outdoor storage (unenclosed) (administrative permit: no planning and zoning commission
review or approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an administrative
approval or minor site plan).
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1052
Strike dwough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.achment 8
ORDINANCE 2018-
(a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): CH.
(b) Additional information requirements: A site plan showing the location, dimensions, and
area of all enclosed storage areas and proposed unenclosed outdoor storage areas (which
shall consist of the entire area for storage and spacing between merchandise items).
(c) Criteria for outdoor storage (unenclosed):
1. Outdoor storage shall be accessory in terms of use to the principal use, and in no
case shall the outdoor storage area exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total
square footage of the principal structure;
2. Items allowed to be stored outdoors shall be limited to vehicles and equipment
used in the operation of the establishment, stocking and sales display of items
allowed to be sold (retail) in the CH district;
3. For purposes of calculating parking requirements for outdoor storage of sales
display items, the standards used for the principal use shall apply;
4. All building setback requirements shall apply to the outdoor storage area(s);
5. All outdoor storage areas containing stock and sales display items shall be
completely screened (horizontal and vertical) from adjacent properties and
roadways;
6. The surface material(s) criteria for the outdoor storage area must be approved by
the public works department.
SECTION #3:
Amend LDR Section 971.13(2), "Veterinary clinic or animal hospital"; as follows:
(2) Veterinary clinic or animal hospital (administrative permit. no planning and zonint'
commission review or approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an
administrative approval or minor site plan).
(a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): A-1, A-2, A-3, CL, CG, CH.
(b) Additional information requirements:
1. A statement from the applicant indicating the types of animals to be cared for and
the nature of all on-site facilities shall be submitted;
2. A site plan, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 914.
(c) Criteria for veterinary clinic or animal hospital:
1. All facilities shall be located in an enclosed structure;
2. Commercial boarding of animals may be allowed only as an accessory use and
only within a totally enclosed structure;
3. All buildings shall be soundproofed in such a manner that adequately mitigates
and/or attenuates noise impacts on adjacent properties.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1063
84e t dough: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.dMachment 8
ORDINANCE 2018 -
SECTION #4:
Amend LDR Section 971.28(1), "Child care and adult care facilities" and LDR Section
971.28(4), "Homes for the aged, including nursing homes, rest homes, convalescent homes,
intermediate care facilities, and continuing care facilities"; as follows:
(1) Child care and adult care facilities (administrative permit: no planning and zoning
commission review or approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an
administrative approval or minor site plan; and special exception).
(a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): A-1 A-2 A-3 RFD RM -8 RM -10 RMH-6 RMH-8 ROSE -4 PRO OCR CN.
(b) Districts requiring special exception approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05):
RS -1 RS -2 RS -3 RS -6 RT -6 RM -3 RM -4 RM -6 AIR -1.
(c) Additional information requirements:
1. A site plan which shows all adjacent paved public roads as well as the nearest
major thoroughfare, all off-street parking facilities, and the location and size of all
proposed buildings, structures and signs on the site and adjacent properties,
pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 914;
2. Evidence shall be provided that minimum requirements to qualify for a State of
Florida license have been satisfied;
3. Child care facilities shall describe the type of playground equipment and
playground area, if any, which is to be utilized.
(d) Criteria for child care or adult care facilities:
1. The site shall be located on a paved road with sufficient width to accommodate
pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the use. The facility shall be located
near thoroughfares, as designated in the county's major thoroughfare plan, so as to
discourage traffic along residential streets in the immediate area;
2. Special passenger loading and unloading facilities shall be provided on the same
site for vehicles to pick up or deliver clientele. Such facilities shall include
driveways that do not require any back-up movements by vehicles to enter or exit
the premises;
3. All regulations of the State of Florida that pertain to the use as presently exists or
may hereafter be amended shall be satisfied;
4. Child care facilities shall provide recreation area(s) and facilities that meet or
exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall supply to the planning
division, prior to site plan approval, written acknowledgement from the state that
the proposed recreation area(s) and facilities meet or exceed applicable state
standards. The applicant shall provide either a six-foot opaque buffer or one
hundred fifty -foot setback between all outdoor recreation areas and adjacent
residentially designated properties.
5. A Type "C" buffer will be required, acceptable to the planning department.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1074
Stfike Uxeuo. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistarWppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.Oittach m ent
ORDINANCE 2018-
(4) Homes for the aged, including nursing homes, rest homes, convalescent homes, intermediate
care facilities, and continuing care facilities (administrative permit. no planning and zoning
commission review or approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an
administrative approval or minor site plan: and special exception).
(a) District requiring administrative permit (pursuant to provisions of 971.04): MED
(b) Districts requiring special exception approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05):
CL CG.
(c) Additional information requirements:
1. A site plan, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 914.
2. A license issued by the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 400 of the Florida
Statutes.
(d) Criteria for nursing homes, rest homes, convalescent homes and homes for the aged.
1. All such facilities shall be located near a collector or arterial roadway;
2. Type "D" buffering shall be required along the perimeter boundaries of the site.
Along boundaries where more intense buffering is required, the more intense
buffering requirement shall apply.
3. Adult congregate living facilities, nursing homes, homes for the aged, total care
facilities, group homes, and similar developments shall not be located in the
Coastal High Hazard Area.
SECTION #5:
Amend LDR Section 971.41(10), "Accessory single-family dwelling unit"; as follows:
(10) Accessory single-family dwelling unit:
(a) The construction of an accessory dwelling unit on a residentially zoned lot shall be
allowed subject to the provisions of section 971.41(10). The standards and requirements
of this section are intended to make available inexpensive dwelling units to meet the
needs of older households, single member households, and single parent households.
This is in recognition of the fact that housing costs continue to increase, that households
continue to decline in size, and that the number of elderly Americans is on the rise.
(b) Districts requiring administrative permit approval (no planning and zoning
commission review or approval reauired if associated with a site plan reviewed as
an administrative approval or minor site plan), (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04):
A-3
A-2
A-1
RFD
RS -1
RS -2
RS -3
RS -6
I RT -6
RM -3
I RM -4
RM -6
RM -8
RM -10
Con -2
I Con -3
Rose -4
I RMH-6
I RMH-8
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1085
;fie Offetgha Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\L.ocal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.4kRach m ent
ORDINANCE 2018-
(c) Requirements of section 971.41(10) shall not supersede property owner deed
restrictions.
(d) Additional information required:
1. A site plan conforming to Chapter 914 requirements.
(e) Criteria for accessory dwelling units:
1. Accessory dwelling units shall be located only on lots which satisfy the minimum
lot size requirement of the applicable zoning district.
2. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly incidental to the principal dwelling
and shall be developed only in conjunction with or after development of the
principal dwelling unit.
3. Not more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit shall be established in conjunction
with a principal dwelling unit.
4. No accessory dwelling unit shall be established in conjunction with a multifamily
dwelling unit.
5. The heated/cooled gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed
thirty-three (33) percent of the heated/cooled gross floor area of the principal
structure or seven hundred fifty (750) gross square feet, whichever is less. The
accessory dwelling unit shall be no smaller than three hundred (300) gross square
feet of heated/cooled area.
6. No accessory dwelling unit shall have a doorway entrance visible from the same
street as the principal dwelling unit.
7. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located no farther than seventy-five
(75) feet in distance from the principal dwelling unit from the closest point of the
principal dwelling unit to the closest point of the accessory dwelling unit.
8. Excluding converted garage accessory dwelling units, the accessory dwelling unit
shall be designed so that the exterior facade material is similar in appearance to the
facade of the existing principal structure.
9. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to spaces required for the principal dwelling unit.
10. The accessory dwelling unit shall be serviced by centralized water and wastewater,
or meet the health department's well and septic tank and drainfield requirements.
Modification, expansion or installation of well and/or septic tank facilities to serve
the accessory dwelling unit shall be designed in a manner that does not render any
adjacent vacant properties "unbuildable" for development when well and/or septic
tank facilities would be required to service development on those adjacent
properties.
11. No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold separately from the principal dwelling
unit. The accessory dwelling unit and the principal dwelling unit shall be located
on a single lot or parcel or on a combination of lots or parcels unified under a
recorded unity of title document.
12. An accessory dwelling unit shall be treated as a multi -family unit for impact fees
and for traffic concurrency purposes, and the concurrency requirements of Chapter
910 for a multi -family unit shall be satisfied.
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1096
StpAie dweuo. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.4Machment 8
ORDINANCE 2018 -
SECTION #6:
Amend LDR Section 971.42(3), "Drug stores"; as follows:
(3) Drugstores (administrative permit: no planning and zoning commission review or approval
required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an administrative approval or minor site
lap).
(a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): CN OCR.
(b) Criteria for drugstores:
1. The facility must not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet in gross floor area.
SECTION #7:
Amend LDR Section 971.45(5), "Used vehicle sales"; as follows:
(5) Used vehicle sales (administrative permit. no planning and zoning commission review or
approval required if associated with a site plan reviewed as an administrative approval or
minor site plan: and special exception).
(a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of
971.04): CH.
(b) Districts requiring special exception approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05):
CG.
(c) Additional information requirements: A site plan meeting all of the requirements of
Chapter 914 which shows the approximate location and maximum number of
automobiles to be accommodated on the site.
(d) Criteria for used vehicle sales:
1. No such establishment shall be permitted on a lot of record having less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet in a CG district or fifteen thousand (15,000) square
feet in a CH district;
2. All outdoor vehicular display areas and off-street parking areas shall have paved
surfaces which meet the standards of Chapter 954. For the purpose of this chapter,
vehicular display areas shall be paved areas where vehicles for sale are on display.
Off-street parking areas shall be paved areas maintained for customer and
employee parking;
3. No vehicular sales office (building) shall be located closer than twenty-five (25)
feet to any property line except any property line that is abutting railroad right-of-
way in which case the structure shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet. Also,
no vehicular display areas shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any property
line;
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1107
Stpike tkreugh. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.dMachment 8
ORDINANCE 2018-
4. The site shall provide for separation of vehicular display areas and off-street
parking areas;
5. All designated outdoor vehicular display areas shall provide for a minimum of
three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle. Drives and maneuvering areas shall
be designed to permit convenient on-site maneuvering of the vehicles.
SECTION #8: SEVERABILITY
If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated
from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect and
be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein.
SECTION #9: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
The provisions of any other Indian River County ordinance that are inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict.
SECTION #10: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or
any other appropriate word.
SECTION #11: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the day of , 2018, for a
public hearing to be held on the day of , 2018, at which time it was moved
for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan
Vice Chairman Bob Solari
Commissioner Susan Adams
Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher
Commissioner Tim Zorc
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1118
SWEe through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002.Oittachment 8
ORDINANCE 2018 -
The Chairman there upon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of
, 2018.
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
Deputy Clerk
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Stan Boling, AICP; Community Development Director
Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1129
Stere t dough. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@580D4002\@BCL@580D4002. achment 8
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Boling, Director
Community Development Department
FROM: John King, Director
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: December 27, 2017
SUBJECT: Fire Prevention Code Review Fees
At its meeting of December 14, 2017, the Development Review and Permit Process Advisory
Committee unanimously approved a recommendation that provides a payment timing option for an
applicant of a large project requiring a Fire Prevention plan review fee ($5,000 or greater) to pay
25% of the fee at the time of permit submittal and the remaining 75% prior to or at the time of
building permit issuance. Staff is in agreement with this proposed fee payment option.
Discussion
The building and fire prevention codes are similar in many ways, with each Code having specific
requirements. With respect to single-family residential construction projects, most of the fire
prevention requirements (e.g. smoke alarms, widths of egress, size of windows, etc.) are outlined in
the Building Code and are not routinely reviewed through the Fire Prevention review process.
Generally speaking, commercial, industrial and multi -family construction projects require Fire
Prevention's review and approval. Reviews are classified by type of occupancy and whether a
project involves modification to an existing structure or is new construction. The Fire Prevention
Code (FPC) does not provide "grandfather clause" provisions for existing construction when
upgrades to the existing structure are made or there is a change of occupancy.
Requests for FPC review are rarely submitted through the owner/builder process. A general
contractor, not the owner, is usually the applicant. Plan review compliance incorporates building
design specifications, shop drawings and calculations. Passive fire protection features (rated walls,
rated doors, distances to egresses, etc.) are within the initial plan review permit fee. Active fire
protection features (audible/visual alarms, fire sprinkler systems, commercial kitchen equipment,
etc.) are usually submitted separately by a licensed fire equipment contractor. Again, not all
construction projects require active fire protection systems and that fact supports continuing to have
separate fire review permits. Those permits are $50 for the first $1,000 with the balance based on
valuation. As an example, a $21,000 fire alarm system installation is $50 (minimum fee) plus $80
(additional valuation) for a permit review and inspection total cost of $130.
113
The risks the owner and Fire Prevention have experienced in the past, and which led to the current
requirement that permits be paid upfront, are two -fold. Without paying any initial plan review fees,
County staff experienced spending an exceptional amount of time working on lengthy plan
submittals and the projects failed to move forward, leaving review fees unpaid and the taxpayers to
bear the cost. The second issue is related to general contractors and fire equipment contractors
receiving permit approvals, incremental and final inspections and then failing to pay fees for their
individual permits (see attached Resolution) as they go. Putting off payment for those individual
permits leave the owner/applicant owing fees at the end of the project where they are anxious to
receive a Certificate of Occupancy and the Fire Prevention Bureau attempting to do collections,
more often from out of town/state fire equipment companies.
Staff supports a change for large projects that incur large Fire Prevention plan review fees while
continuing to require permit fees from qualified fire equipment contractors to be paid in full at the
time of application, as they are now. Staff considers large projects to be those that would incur Fire
Prevention plan review fees of $5,000 or greater. Permit reviews routinely take about a week and the
cost of the field inspection(s) is included in the permit application fee.
The FPC plan review fee for all new construction, renovations, alterations or changes in occupancy
are determined by multiplying the estimated cost of construction/building valuation by .0025.
Depending on the valuation, particularly on small projects, contractors may choose to pay all fees
upfront. Again, these fees are for plan review/approval and field inspections. On large projects, with
plan review fees of $5,000 or more, staff is agreeable with a tiered payment of plan review fees with
the balance due at issuance of the building permit. Staff is not comfortable with a payment structure
of fees payable after the building permit is issued.
Summary
In summary, staff supports payment timing for large projects (plan review fees of $5,000 or greater)
whereby an applicant may pay 25% of the fees at the time of application and 75% prior to or at
building permit issuance. For small projects (plan review fees less than $5,000) staff recommends
payment at the time of application.
Attachment
Schedule of Fire Permits and Fees (Resolution #2004-071, adopted July 6, 2004)
114
.,,0
STA
RESOLUTION #2004-071 iNM Of FIER CO
t"ti}iAN RIVER COUN'I'Y
THIS fS TO C[RTiFY THAT THIS K
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN • RIVER COUNTY A T�II;E AND CORRrECT COPY O6
ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR PLAN THE 011G!i•'AL ON FILE IN THIS
REVIEW AND INSPECTIONS; ESTABLISHING A OFFICE.
SCHEDULE FOR FINES FOR VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING Y i,. B.4?TON, CLERK
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SAID FEES THROUGHOUT a� r o.c.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DATE 7_g _o
DISTRICT, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Emergency Services District ("District")
is authorized to provide fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical
services, rescue and other duties and responsibilities throughout Indian River
County, Florida, as may be directed by the Board of Commissioners, and to
exercise the powers of a public authority organized and existing for said purposes,
pursuant to the provisions of the Laws of Florida, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the District is responsible for inspecting all property and
investigating for fire hazards, including the enforcement of a fire prevention code,
and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners. of Indian
River County adopted Ordinance No. 2004-021 enacting the Indian River County
Emergency Services District Fire Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced authority, the District
provides to the public certain plan review, inspection and code enforcement
services through its Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that, in order to continue to provide
the above referenced plan review, inspection and code enforcement services, it
has become necessary to establish fair and reasonable fees for said services, and
fines for violations of the code, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 208.10-14 of
Ordinance No. 2004-021.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County as follows: •
1. The Board hereby adopts the Schedule of Fees for Plan Review, Inspections,
Cost Recovery, Code Enforcement, Violation and Fine Schedule attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Schedule of Fees for Plan Review, Inspections, Cost Recovery, Code
Enforcement and Violation and Fine Schedule shall be enforced by the District
throughout Indian River County, Florida, commencing on the effective date of this
115
Attachment 9
Resolution and until and unless revised, modified, or revoked by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County.
3. This Resolution shall take effect July 6, 2004.
Duly passed and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, this 6th day of July 2004.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Neuberger, and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lowther, and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Vice Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Thomas B. Lowther Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 6th day of July, 2004.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Atte% . Barton, C
By
B �?+ . Caroline D. Ginn, Cha' man
Deputy Clerk
Approved for form and legal
9s is ncy:
illiam K. )e raal
Assistant County Attorney
BCC approval date: July 6, 2004
116
Attachment 9
ATTACHMENT "A"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF FEES
FOR
PLAN REVIEW, PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS:
VIOLATION AND FINE SCHEDULE -
A. Commercial, Institutional, and Multi -Family Residential DeveloRments-
1. The plan review fee for all new construction, renovations, alterations, or
changes of occupancy shall be computed by multiplying the estimated cost
of construction/building valuation by .0025.
2. If no construction cost is involved in a change of occupancy, the plans
review fee will be calculated at the rate of $.02 per square foot of space.
3. The minimum fee for each plans review is $100 per building.
(Reference for 1-3: Plan Review and Inspection Fees, Chapter 69A-52,
Florida Administrative Code
4. Fire Suppression and Fire Alarm Systems
(Includes pre-engineered extinguishing systems and combined sprinkler
and standpipe systems)
Plan review, up to $1,000 (minimum)--____________----_____-_ $ 50
For each additional $1,000 valuation, or fraction thereof ---$ 4.
B. Site Plan Review Fees
Fire Safety Plan Review and Inspection Is Required
by the Florida Fire Prevention Code and Florida Statutes
Note: Fire safety service fees include plan review, permit and initial inspection
Site Development
Pre -Application Conference ---------- – --- — ----- – ----------------- – No Charge
Site Plan Review (less than 5 units to a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft.----$ 75
Site Plan Review (5 to 50 units or 5,000 to 50,000 sq. $ 250
Site Plan Review (more than 50 units or 50,000 sq. ft.)--------------- $ 400
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Less than 50 units---------- $ 400
Planned Unit Development (PUD) More than 50 units–,!--------- $1,200
Administrative Approvals 50
Development of Regional impact (DRI) $1,500
C. Fire Safety InspectionlSeryLice Fees
Fire Hydrant flow test (up to 2 hydrants) --- – ------------ $ 50
Dry Hydrant Test --- – -- – ---------------------- – – ------- – - $ 150
117
Attachment 9
Inspections (Existing Occupancies)
Initial inspection ---- –__w ------ _---------- ---- _------- ----
$ N/C
Re -inspection for compliance ------------------------------ .
$ N/C
Each subsequent re -inspection, non-compliance -----
$ 50
Inspections (New Construction, System, Permitted Activity)
(Includes new construction, renovations, additions, the installation of fire
protection, fire detection systems, all other installations, special events or
permitted activities)
Initial inspection (for each system)---__.,_..—_________ ------ _--
$ N/C
Re -inspection for compliance -----______...._ --- ---- ------------
$ N/C
Each subsequent re -inspection, non-compliance ------------
$ 40
Permits
Special Events __--___ $ 30
Public fireworks display permit $ 100
Fireworks sales permit (.annual) $ 100
Flammable and Combustible Gas Storage Tanks
(Includes plan review and initial inspection of the tank,
dispensers and piping) Installation or removal ---------- $ 50
Air Curtain Incinerator Burn Permit --(less than 3 acres)---- $ 150
Air Curtain Incinerator Burn Permit ----(3-9 acres)---- $ 200
Air Curtain Incinerator Burn Permit ----(9 + acres)---- $ 500
Unit or Staff Assignment Standby Hourly Rates (Cost Recovery)
Fire Unit – manned (3 employees)
Each hour prorated to one-half hour fraction $ 150
Each additional employee ----------------------- $ 50
Fire Unit – manned (1 employee)
Each hour prorated to one-half hour fraction $ . 50
Each additional employee ----------------_____ $ 50
Haz-Mat Unit – manned (2 employees)
Per three hour minimum ------ ------------__.___ $ 100
Each additional hour prorated to one-half hour fraction $ 100
Each additional employee ----------------------- $ 50
Fire Watch (fire or lifesafety standby)
Fire watch, danger mitigation, special events, fireworks
or non-compliance with fire codes, as deemed necessary
by the Fire Chief or Fire Marshal
Per hour, per person ----- -------- –__----- ____- $ 50
4
118
Attachment 9
D. Refunds.
Plan Review and Inspection fees are non-refundable.
E. Payment of Fees.
1. Site Plans
a. Fees shall be charged to the agent, land planner, project architect or
engineer of the owner/developer of the proposed project for review of
Site Plans, including applications for Developments of Regional
Impact, Planned Unit Developments, Land Use Changes,
Preliminary and Final Plats, and Construction Detail Plans. Fees
shall be payable upon application.,
2. Construction Documents.
a. Fees shall be charged to the general contractor of the proposed
project for review of construction documents and the initial inspection
and shall be payable upon receipt of itemized invoice. Includes new
construction, renovations to existing structures, and additions.
b. Initial review and inspection fees for automatic sprinkler plans,
calculations, and specifications shall be paid by the automatic
sprinkler contractor upon application.
c. Initial review and inspection fees of fire alarm systems, detection,
voice alarm, communication, and control station documents shall be
payable by the fire alarm contractor or, electrical contractor upon
application.
d. Fees for review and initial inspection for chemical fixed fire protection
systems shall be payable by the system contractor upon application.
3. Flammable and Combustible Liquid Storage Tanks.
a. Review fees of flammable and combustible liquid storage tanks,
dispensers, related piping, and containment shall be paid by the
Pollutant Storage System Specialty Coordinator or the General
Contractor upon application.
b, Tank Removals. The Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor.
shall be responsible for payment of the fee(s) upon application of the
Fire Marshal's Permit. -
4. Liguified., Petroleum Gas (LP) Installations. The installing contractor shall be
responsible for payment of fees upon application of the Fire Marshal's
Permit.
5. Special Events. The special event coordinator shall be responsible for payment
of fees upon application of the Fire Marshal's Permit.
6, Fireworks , Displays. The display contractor shall be responsible for payment of
Tees upon application of the Fire Marsh6l's Permit.
7, Technical Assistance, Fees shall be charged to and paid by the person
officially requesting assistance and payable upon receipt of itemized invoice.
119
Attachment 9
8. Inspection and Reinspection Fees. Fee(s) shall be charged to and paid by the
responsible general contractor, property owner, or association upon receipt of
an itemized invoice.
F. Violation and Fine Schedule
VIOLATION 1St Offense
Failure to obtain a permit Two times the
applicable permit fee
Performing fire safety system
or related work w/o proper license $100
Unlawful or unauthorized burning $250
(per pile per incident)
Locked or obstructed means of egress $250
Tampering with Fire Division barricades, $250
locks, signs, seals, tags, etc.
Fire suppression or detection systems: $250
not properly; provided, installed, functioning,
maintained, tested tagged, accessible,
or tampered with.
Fire protection water supply devices: $250
(fire hydrants, pumps, wells, etc.)
Not; provided, functioning, properly 'installed,
tested or maintained. Blocked, obstructed or
tampered with.
Repeat Offense
NA
$200
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
Non-compliance with Florida Fire $150 $300
Prevention Code
Failure to cease and desist $500 $500
Failure to vacate $500 $500
F. Additional Fees
1. Site Plans Construction Documents, Permits
a. All fees shall be paid in full prior to review of any plans. No field
inspections will be scheduled until all required fees including re -inspection
6
120
Attachment 9
RESOLUTION #2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR
PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PLAN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL,
INSTITUTIONAL AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Emergency Services District ("District") is
responsible for inspecting all property and investigating for fire hazards, including the
enforcement of a fire prevention code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced authority, the District provides to the
public certain plan review, inspection and code enforcement services through its Fire
Marshal; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (`Board") adopted Resolution
2004-071 which established reasonable fees for said services, pursuant to the provisions of
Sections 208.10-14 of Ordinance No. 2004-021; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2009-029, the Board amended Resolution 2004-071 as it
pertained to fees charged to organizers of Special Events for plan review, inspection
services and penalties for code enforcement; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2017-070, the Board created the Development Review
and Permit Process Advisory Committee ("Committee") that is charged with the duty of
identifying issues and adopting recommendations for improving the development review
and permit process; and
WHEREAS, the Committee identified an issue with the timing of the payment of fees
for construction plan review of Commercial, Institutional and Multi -family Residential
developments. The current fee schedule calls for the entire plan review fee to be paid at
the time of application. This fee is intended to cover the cost of on-site inspections. The
Committee reasoned that if an applicant submitted plans but then decide not to move
forward with the project, the applicant would have paid fees covering inspections that would
never be conducted.
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that Resolution 2004-071 be
amended to provide for the payment of any construction plan review fee calculated to be in
excess of $5,000.00 for Commercial, Institutional and Multi -family Residential developments
to be paid 25% at the time of building permit application and 75% prior to or at the time of
building permit issuance.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County as follows:
The Board hereby adopts the following amendment to Attachment "A", Indian River County
122
RESOLUTION #2018 -
Fire District Schedule of Fees For Plan Review, Permits and Inspections; Violation And Fine
Schedule:
"E. Payment of Fees.
1. No change.
2. Construction Documents.
a. Fees shall be charged to the general contractor of the proposed project for review
of construction documents and the initial inspection. For fees in excess of $5,000.00,
fees shall be paid 25% at the time of application and 75% at the time of building
permit issuance. All other fees aP4 shall be payable upon receipt of itemized invoice.
Includes new construction, renovations to existing structures, and additions."
Except as amended above, the Schedule of Fees for Plan Review, Inspections, Cost
Recovery, Code Enforcement and Violation and Fine Schedule set forth in Resolution 2004-
071 and Resolution 2009-029 shall remain unchanged
3. This Resolution shall take effect January , 2018.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner , and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan
Vice Chairman Bob Solari
Commissioner Susan Adams
Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher
Commissioner Tim Zorc
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, this day of January, 2018.
Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk to the Board
And Comptroller
c
Deputy Clerk
Approved for form and legal
s ffi y:
William K. DeBraal
Deputy County Attorney
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
By
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
BCC approval date:
123
2
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
GENERAL SERVICES
BCC Meeting 0111612018
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA ITEM
Assistant County Administrator /
Department of General Services
Date: December 27, 2017
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
From: Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator
Subject: Fair Associations Request to Amend the Agreement for Use of the Indian River
County Fairgrounds
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
On October 2, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to Indian River
Code Section 205.09 to authorize the sale and consumption of alcohol at the Indian River County
Fairgrounds. On January 24, 2017, the Board executed an Agreement with Indian River County
Fair Association, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation ("Fair Association") for continued use of
the Fairgrounds to hold the annual County Fair ("The Fair Agreement").. The Fair Agreement is
silent as to the sale and consumption of alcohol during the Fair. The Fair Association now desires
to amend to the Agreement and apply for a permit to sell beer and wine products at the Fair under
the appropriate license to be issued by the State of Florida. On March 15, 2016, the Board
approved a standard template license agreement for applicants seeking to utilize the Fairgrounds,
which includes a process for applying for an alcohol permit pursuant to Code Section 205.08,
however; since the Fair is independently authorized by the approved Fair Agreement, the request to
amend is properly before the Board for consideration.
ANALYSIS:
On January 3, 2018, the County received email correspondence from the Fair Association
requesting approval to amend their Agreement and submit an application to the Parks Division for
issuance of a standard alcohol permit in accordance current County Fairgrounds' policy governing
events at the Fairgrounds.
According to the attached e-mail from General Manager of Firefighters' Indian River County Fair,
they found there are approximately 50 fairs in Florida and of those fairs most sell alcohol. Those
fairs with bigger name entertainment rely on those sales of alcohol (usually beer and wine only) to
offset their entertainment costs.
C:\Users\legistar\AppDataU.ocal\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@2COD177E\@BCL@2COD177E.doc 124
Fair Associations Request to Amend the Agreement for Use of the Indian River County Fairgrounds
December 27, 2017
Page two
FUNDING:
There is no cost to the County associated with this request. In accordance with the approved
Fairgrounds policy, the standard daily rate of $400 paid to the County in advance of issuance of the
alcohol permit will apply. The Fair Agreement, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Board decide whether to grant the Fair Association's request
to amend the Fair Agreement to allow the Association to apply for a Fairgrounds Alcohol Permit
and direct staff accordingly.
ATTACHMENT(s):
-E-mail dated January 3, 2018 received from General Manager, Firefighters' Indian River County Fair
-Fair Agreement dated January 24, 2017
Distribution
Wayne Howard, General Manager, Firefighters' Indian River County Fair
Dylan Reingold, Indian River County Attorney
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@2COD177E\@BCL@2COD177E.doc 125
Michael Zito
From:
moefire134@aol.com
Sent:
Wednesday, January 03, 2018 12:19 PM
To:
Beth Powell; Michael Zito
Cc:
Steve Graul
Subject:
2018 Firefighters' Fair
Good Day, as you know the Firefighters' Fair is once again rapidly approaching. This year will mark the 38th year for the
Firefighters' Indian River County's Fair and the dates are March 9th -18th, 2018. We are very excited for some new
changes in grounds acts and musical entertainment. With the recent change in the County's stance to allow alcohol sale
at the Fairgrounds the current Fair Board has agreed to move forward and bring back bigger name entertainment like the
past used to offer. In the past we have had acts such as, Sammy Kershaw, Aaron Tippin, Neil McCoy, Lee Greenwood,
Tracy Byrd, Stevie B, Patty Loveless, to name a few. As the prices for these acts continued to rise, the fair's management
at the time, decided it would be more beneficial to book ground acts that have several shows daily throughout the entire
fair in the place of the one day music acts.
This year our Headline Entertainer will be Country Music Legend Tracy Lawrence on March 11th. 2018. We will also offer
a Latin Music night, a Christian Music night and a Southern Rock music night including the "Georgia Satellites". We feel
the county Firefighter's Fair is an excellent place for Fairgoers as well as Concertgoers to benefit for both. Currently the
contract between the County and Firefighter's Fair does not include sales of alcohol. We would like to request an
addendum be added to the current contract for this year's fair to include the sale of alcohol (Beer and Wine only). We feel
this will help offset the cost involved with Entertainment, Equipment, and Security etc.
As you know multiple Fair staff members each year attend local and out of state conventions for education as well as
networking opportunities. We have researched with other Fairs, Fair boards and found that there are approximately 50
fairs in Florida and of those fairs most sell alcohol. The fairs that have bigger name entertainment rely on those sales of
alcohol to offset their entertainment costs. We have also spoken to the Indian River County Youth Livestock and
Horticulture, Inc. which oversees the operations in the Agriculture Barn and they have no objections to this amendment as
well. We plan to pull three separate three day temporary alcohol permits to accomplish the States Requirements for
licensure.
For Over 37 years we have been in operation providing clean family fun to the citizens of Indian River County. With the
funds generated, we have assisted local charities including MDA, Red Cross, United Against Poverty, Salvation Army,
One Blood, IRC 4-H Association, Local Scholarships and the Indian River County Burn Fund. Through the years more
than $275,000 has been donated to these local charities. The Firefighters' Fair is a non profit organization ( Certificate
#85-8016028326c).
As always, our intentions are to provide a safe environment and not a party atmosphere to where everyone has the
opportunity to come out and have a good time.
Sincerely,
Wayne Howard, General Manager
Firefighters' Indian River County Fair
126
Agreement for Use of Indian River County Fairgrounds
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 24th day of
January, 2017, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, 1801 21st Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 ("County") and the INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, 1818
Commerce Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960 ("Indian River Association") and VERO
BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, 1818
Commerce Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960 ("Vero Beach Association").
BACKGROUND RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Indian River Association proposes to conduct a public fair or
exposition in accordance with Chapter 616, Florida Statutes ("County Fair"), in calendar
years 2017, 2018 and 2019 for the benefit and development of the educational,
agricultural, horticultural, livestock, and other resources of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to support the Association in operating the
County Fair by allowing the Association to use the Indian River County Fairgrounds, as
described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Fairgrounds"); and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Association's use of the Fairgrounds to operate the
County Fair serves a legitimate public purpose and is authorized by Florida Statutes
section 616.11; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Indian River Association had entered into prior
agreements to operate the County Fair; the most recent agreement was dated October
5, 2010, which was renewed on October 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Association and the Vero Beach Association,
(collectively referred to as the "Associations"), will jointly operate the County Fair:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, County and Associations mutually agree as follows:
1. Permit. In accordance with Florida Statutes section 616.15, the Indian
River Association shall annually apply to the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Division of Marketing and Development, Bureau of State
Farmers' Markets ("State") for a fair permit to conduct an annual County Fair in calendar
years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and the Association shall be responsible for all matters
pertaining to such permitting.
2. Schedule. In each year during the term of this Agreement, if a permit is
issued by the State to the Indian River Association, the Indian River Association shall
Page 1 of 5
127
have priority at the Fairgrounds in scheduling the County Fair if the Indian River
Association notifies the County in writing through the County's Parkt Director of the
proposed dates by May 30, in which case the County shall let the Indian River
Association use and occupy the Fairgrounds during a period not exceeding twenty-one
(21) days in March of the following year. In the event the Indian River Association fails
to notify the County of the following year's County Fair dates by May 30, the County
may allow the Association to operate the County Fair at the Fairgrounds in March of the
following year, absent previously scheduled conflicting events.
3. Contracts/Notice to Certain Parties. It shall be the responsibility of the
Associations to arrange for all contracts for amusements, entertainment, and any
commercial exhibits or matters that it determines will enhance the County Fair. The
Associations are also responsible to provide timely notice to the Indian River County
Animal Control Division and The Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River
County, Inc. when and if the Associations will have animals present at the County Fair
that are not associated with the 4-H exhibitions, so that the required inspections may be
performed before and during the County Fair.
4. Structures/Insurance of Contracting Parties. Any person or
organization contracting with the Associations shall provide its own temporary structure
with the approval of the Associations. The County shall have no obligation to provide
such structures. Any contracting person or organizations shall have proof of liability
insurance acceptable to the County and the Associations. Acceptance by the County
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
5. Volunteers/Securily. The Associations shall provide volunteer and other
help to staff the County Fair. Any subcontract for operation or administration of the
County Fair shall be subject to the County's prior review and approval. The Associations
shall provide adequate security for the County Fair and shall provide sufficient
volunteers or paid security guards to maintain crowd control, to the County's
satisfaction, at all times while the County Fair is underway,
6. Electricity. The Associations shall provide electricity and pay all
electricity cost while the County Fair is open as well as for those dates on which the
County Fair is being set up and removed.
7. Accounting. The Associations shall maintain records in accordance with
sound accounting practices and procedures showing all costs, expenses, as well as all
receipts and proceeds from the County Fair. The Associations shall, at their sole
expense, cause a state certified public accountant to conduct a review, based on sound
accounting practices and procedures, of the Associations and of any person or entity
that operates or administers the County Fair. The Associations shall submit copies of
the reviews to the County on or before September 30 of each year that the Associations
operate the County Fair, If the Associations fail to submit copies of the reviews in a
timely manner, the Associations shall pay to the County an administrative charge of Ten
and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) for each calendar day after September 30 that the copies
Page 2 of 5
128
of the reviews are not submitted. All books and records of the Associations and of any
person or entity that operates or administers the County Fair shall be public records and
shall be provided to the County upon the County's request. In addition to the above -
stated accounting and auditing requirements, the Associations shall conduct all
accounting and auditing required by law. The Associations shall maintain records, in a
form acceptable to the County, of all funds received and expended in connection with
the County Fair. All such records shall be provided to the County upon request. The
Associations shall effectuate internal controls and procedures, subject to the County's
approval, regarding the receipt and expenditure of all funds. Such internal controls and
procedures shall include documentation and verification of all gate receipts and invoices
and admissions and enumeration of admissions.
8. Insurance. The Associations shall purchase liability insurance coverage
in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per individual injury and $5,000,000 per
occurrence during the term of the County Fair. On all insurance policies the County
shall be named as additional insured on the policy and copies of the policy or a
certificate of insurance shall be submitted to the County at least two weeks prior to the
start of the County Fair. The insurance company must be licensed to issue insurance
policies in the state of Florida, and must be rated at least A -VII per Best's Key Rating
Guide. The policy must be "occurrence" and not "claims made," and the certificate of
insurance must provide that the County be given a thirty (30) day written notice of
insurance company's intent to cancel or terminate the policy of insurance. In addition,
the Associations must provide proof of insurance from the amusement/midway
company in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrencel$5,000,000 aggregate, adding
County as an additional insured and subject to all above insurance requirements
necessary for the Associations.
9. Release/indemnification. The Associations hereby release and agree to
defend, hold harmless and indemnify the County, and the County's commissioners,
officers, employees, and agents (collectively, for the purposes of this paragraph,
"County"), from and against any and all claims for damages, costs, third party liabilities,
judgments, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) for personal injury,
wrongful death or property damage, arising out of or relating to the County Fair
(collectively "Claims"), except that the Associations' obligation to defend, hold harmless
and indemnify the County shall not apply to Claims which are judicially determined to
have been caused by County's negligence or intentional misconduct.
10. Expenses/Payment of Fee to County. Associations shall be responsible
for the payment and approval of all expenses arising from and related to the promotion
and operation of the County Fair, and shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the
County from and against any such expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The
County shall have no liability for such expenses. Associations shall pay to County on or
before September 30 of each year during the term of this Agreement that the
Associations operate the County Fair, ten percent of the gross revenue from the County
Fair as a fee for the use of the Fairgrounds, to be held by the County in a separate
account, which the County shall use for future Fairgrounds improvements. The Indian
Page 3 of 5
129
River County Board of County Commissioners may waive or defer the fee or a portion
thereof described in this section in the event of extenuating circumstances which result
in an aggregate net loss for the County Fair for that year.
11. Trash/Traffic Control Devices. The County will provide trash containers
and garbage collection. The Associations will pay for water service and sewage pickup
for the County Fair. The County may provide up to thirty (30) traffic barricades and up to
thirty (30) traffic cones with flour (4) lighting trees for the Associations' use exclusively in
connection with the County Fair if, in the County's Public Works Director's sole
discretion, such traffic barriers and traffic cones and lighting trees are available for such
use. If the County's Public Works Director provides such traffic barricades, traffic cones
and lighting trees for use in connection with the County Fair, the Associations shall
retrieve them from the County's storage location, and then return them to the same
storage location or where the County's Public Works Director otherwise directs, within
five (5) days following conclusion of such year's County Fair. The Associations shall
replace, at the Associations' expense, within thirty (30) days following conclusion of
such year's County Fair, any of the County's lighting trees, traffic barricades and traffic
cones that are damaged, lost, or stolen while in the Associations' custody.
12. Sanitation. The Associations shall provide sanitation and adequate
restroom facilities, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and to the
County's satisfaction, for persons attending the County Fair.
13. Staffing. The Associations shall endeavor in good faith to procure a
midway and provide staff to operate the County Fair. However, in the event that the
Associations fail to enter into a contract to provide a midway or if the Associations
determine that the Associations cannot adequately staff the County Fair, then
Associations shall provide written notice to County at least sixty (60) days before the
County Fair is to open that it will not manage the County Fair, in which case the County
may take whatever steps it deems appropriate.
14. First Amendment Activities. The Associations agree to provide
reasonable accommodation for any activities which are protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Such accommodation may be in
accordance with existing Fair rules, provided that such rules are consistent with the First
Amendment and applicable law.
15. Termination. Any party may terminate this Agreement or propose
amending this Agreement by providing written notice to the other party by November 1
of the year preceding the following year's County Fair. The term of this Agreement shall
be from January _, 2017 through October 31, 2019, unless sooner terminated as
provided herein.
16. Governing LawNenue/Liability. This Agreement shall be governed by
the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any lawsuit brought by either party against
the other party or otherwise arising out of this Agreement shall be in Indian River
Page 4 of 5
130
County, Florida, or, in the event of federal jurisdiction, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The Associations liability under this Agreement shall
be joint and several, and the compromise of any claim arising under this Agreement
with, or the release of, either of the Associations shall not constitute a compromise with,
or a release of, the other Borrower.
17. Background Recitals. The Background Recitals set forth above are true
and correct and form a material part of this Agreement.
18. Presuit Mediation. In the event of 'a dispute between the parties, prior to
the filing of any lawsuit, the parties shall (i) select a mutually acceptable certified
mediator, and (ii) participate in good faith in mediation to attempt to resolve the dispute.
Only if mediation proceeds to impasse without resolution of the dispute, may either
party file a lawsuit relating to the dispute.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the proper officials of County and Association have
executed this Agreement, effective on the date first written above.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION
Board OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By:�1� By:'—k
J ph E. Flescher, Chairman Print name:
Title: ?W-SLOE411—
Approved January 24, 2017
ATTEST:
Jeffrey R. Smith Clerk of Court and
Comptroller � ``
By: CI)e- ' L�
Deputy Clerk
Jason E.Prowft County Administrator
APPROVW AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY
Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
VERO BEAC-FtREF-LG TERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
By:
Print name:
Title: Pl-e s, .! ,--f —
Page 5 of 5
131
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
Date: January 4, 2018
To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
From: Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services
Prepared By: Arjuna Weragoda, P.E., Capital Projects Manager
Subject: West Wabasso Phase 11 Septic to Sewer — Status and Update
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
On October 24, 2017, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted the 2018
State Legislative List of Priorities and Concerns. As part of the proposed appropriation request, the BCC
supported three projects. One of those projects is the West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer project.
Therefore, the subject staff report is to update the BCC of the status of the West Wabasso Phase II Septic
to Sewer project efforts to solicit funding opportunities and associated timelines.
Although the design and bid specifications are 100% complete, staff is currently evaluating value
engineering options/alternatives to maintain a competitive procurement process. Staff is evaluating the
following grant funding options:
• Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Federally -Funded Sub -Grant Agreement
— FY 2018 Funding Cycle
• St. Johns River Water Management District FY 18/19 Cost Share Grant
• Local Funding Initiative FY 18/19 through the Florida Legislature
ANALYSIS:
The five potential grant funding opportunities that the County is planning to pursue have varying
requirements and timelines. The following outlines a brief description of these options:
Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG):
The CDBG program is a flexible program that provides communities with up to $750,000 to address a
wide range of community development needs and is administered by the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (FDEO). Funds are available through a competitive application process, and
award selection is based on a formula for small units of general local governments that carry out
community development activities. A minimum of 70% of CDBG funds must be used for activities that
benefit low and moderate income persons. In addition, each activity must meet one of the following
national objectives for the program: benefit low and moderate income persons, prevention or
elimination of slums or blight, or address community development needs having a particular urgency
because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the
community for which other funding is not available. There may be changes to the formula due to a
rule change that is currently in process. Due to the potential rule change, the application cycle has
been delayed to March of 2018.
132
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx
As the BCC may recall, the County previously applied for and was awarded a CDBG grant that
combined the East Gifford Drainage project -with the West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer project
in order to score favorably on the application.
St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) FY 18/19 Cost Share Grant:
The SJRWMD offers several cost-sharing programs throughout the year for projects that assist in
creating sustainable water resources, provide flood protection and enhance conservation efforts.
Funding is typically available for local governments. In general, projects considered for funding shall
benefit one or more of the four district core mission areas, including:
• Water Supply,
• Water Quality,
• Natural Systems Restoration, and
• Flood Protection.
As part of its updated evaluation criteria, the SJRWMD has made the percentage of property owner
participation an important part of the evaluation process. The project will receive the highest point
value of 40 points for proof of over 50% participation, 36 points for proof of participation between
40% and 50%, and 32 points for proof of participation between 30%- 40%. For the medium category,
proof of participation must be 25% or greater. Proof of participation must be in the form of a signed
letter of commitment from each property owner stating the property owner will participate in the
project and will allow their septic tank to be abandoned and connect to sewer within the proposed
project timeframes.
Staff drafted a letter labeled "Commitment Letter" and obtained guidance from SJRWMD as to the
validity of utilizing the letter to satisfy the above requirement. Once consensus was received, staff
mailed 101 letters out November 22, 2017, with a target delivery date of December 22, 2017. In order
for a successful grant application, participation from as many residents as possible is paramount;
therefore, in addition to the letters that have been mailed out, staff further reached out to the
community leaders and the community via email and meeting(s) on the following dates:
Date
Correspondence Description (Media)
11/21/2017
Emailed community stakeholders about the forthcoming commitment letters
12/04/2017
Reminder email sent to community stakeholders
12/04/2017
Director Burke attended Wabasso Civic League Meeting at 8586 64th Drive (6:00
pm)
12/29/2017
Community stakeholders met with Director Burke in his office. Scheduled a
follow-up meeting for 01/05/2018
01/02/2018
Emailed community stakeholders with an update on the outcome of the results
01/05/2018
Meeting was canceled by community stakeholders morning of 1/5/18. One
stakeholder stopped by late morning and was provided a typical cost sheet for
water and sewer based on a 5,000 gallon per day consumption
At the time of writing of the subject agenda, staff had only received valid commitment letters from
12% of the parcel owners.
Local Funding Initiative FY 18-19 through the Florida Legislature:
The State Legislature appropriates and implements bills to authorize spending of public money on an
annual basis. The grants can be individual general fund appropriations or programmatic
appropriations. The West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer project will be submitted as an individual
general fund appropriation. It is the intent of the County to have its legislative representative(s)
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 133
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 2 of 8
sponsor a septic to sewer funding initiative to assist the Wabasso Community.
Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI) Program:
Staff also evaluated the possibility of grant funding through the Rural Economic Development
Initiative (REDI) program. The REDI program is administered by the FDEO. In order to be classified as
a REDI community, Florida Statute 288.0656 lists the following criteria to be met:
1. A county with a population of 75,000 or fewer.
2. A county with a population of 125,000 or fewer which is contiguous to a county with a
population of 75,000 or fewer.
3. A municipality within a county described in 1 or 2 above.
4. An unincorporated federal enterprise community or an incorporated rural city with a population
of 25,000 or fewer and an employment base focused on traditional agricultural or resource-
based industries, located in a county not defined as rural, which has at least three or more of
the economic distress factors identified in paragraph (c) of F.S. 288.0656 and verified by the
department.
The following counties and communities are designated as Rural Areas of Opportunity.
Northwest Rural Areas of Opportunity — re -designated by Executive Order 15-133
All communities within Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, Wakulla,
Washington, and the City of Freeport, DeFuniak Springs, and Paxton in Walton County.
• South Central Rural Areas of Opportunity — re -designated by Executive Order 11-81
All communities within DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee
Counties, and the Cities of Pahokee, Belle Glade, and South Bay (Palm Beach County), and
Immokalee (Collier County).
North Central Rural Areas of Opportunity — re -designated by Executive Order 13-151
All communities within Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jefferson,
Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor and Union.
Further, a "community" not located in a designated rural county can meet all the following criteria to
be eligible for REDI funding:
✓ Have an employment base focused on traditional agriculture or a resource-based industry
(Please Note: land designated as agriculture does not qualify) AND
✓ Be an unincorporated federal enterprise community OR an incorporated rural city with a
population of 25,000 or fewer; AND
✓ Be located in a county not defined as rural.
Upon verification of the top three qualifiers, communities must:
✓ Have at least three or more of the economic distress factors identified in paragraph (c) and
verified by the department.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 134
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 3 of 8
The following communities meet the criteria as stated above and are designated as "rural"
communities under 288.0656(2) (e) 4, F.S.
Cities/Towns (County):
Expiration Date:
Cities/Towns (County):
Expiration Date:
Astatula (Lake)
May 25, 2018
Hastings (St Johns)
February 1, 2018
Center Hill (Sumter)
January 31, 2019
Jay (Santa Rosa)
November 27, 2019
Coleman (Sumter)
August 1, 2017
Lake Hamilton (Polk)
June 23, 2018
Dundee (Polk)
March 21, 2019
Mascotte (Lake)
April 5, 2019
Fellsmere (Indian River)
March 10, 2019
Newberry (Alachua)
August 1, 2017
Fort Meade (Polk)
February 1, 2018
Pierson (Volusia)
July 24, 2019
Frostproof (Polk)
October 11, 2018
Umatilla (Lake)
December 16, 2019
Haines City (Polk)
March 1, 2018
Waldo (Alachua)
May 25, 2018
Hawthorne (Alachua)
July 28, 2019
Webster (Sumter)
May 25, 2018
According to the above information, staffs understanding is that the West Wabasso Community is
not a REDI community at this time and may be unable to secure REDI funding for the West Wabasso
Phase II Septic to Sewer Project.
Federal Clean Water Act Grants:
Last week staff was made aware that the Federal Clean Water Act Grants (319 Grants) could allow
septic to sewer projects to be funded under the Nonpoint Source Management Program (NPSM).
Upon further review on the eligibility section, it appears the fundable portion is only the private line
from the house to the right-of-way as indicated in Attachment 2, Eligibility Guidelines for FY 2019
Section 319(H) Grant.
"Septic to sewer projects (laying the lateral from the residence/business to the main
sewer line, connection to sewer line, grinding station [if on the resident's property], and
abandonment of the septic if the remaining septic tank is a continued source of
pollution)."
Construction of the collection system and lift station will still need to be funded from other sources.
GRANT TIMELINE
The below chart is an estimated timeline of the grant application process and anticipated construction
start.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 135
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 4 of 8
o-0
o p
0 D 0
� m
� v
Z `^+ o
co
00 d
0
0
a co
CL
ni N O
00 Gi
Q N
v +n
M s
M
D
=rI
o
oM °;
v
OM
aa) N
on
o0
~ D
I
0\
p�
O
D
N
tD
\
O
i,
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 135
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 4 of 8
The following table summarizes the timeline and requirements for the three grant funds the County is
seeking:
Grant Name
Funding Cycle/
Milestones'
Administered
Requirements
Application Due Date"
By
CDBG
2018 - March 2018
CATF Meeting —
FDEO
➢ Income Surveys
January 2018
➢ CATF
✓ 15L Public Hearing —
Recommendation
February 2018
2 n Public Hearing —
March 2018
SJRWMD
18/19 - January 2018
✓ Commitment Letters —
SJRWMD
➢ Community
Cost Share
December 22, 2017
Participation
✓ Submit Application —
January 2018
State
18/19 -January 2018
Commitment Letters—
FDEP
➢ Community
Appropriations
December 22, 2017
Participation
✓ Submit Application —
January 2018
*Estimated based on preliminary information
All three funding grant requests are highly competitive. There is no guarantee that the County will be
successful in its request for grant funding. For example, the FY15/16 SJRWMD cost share program had 86
applicants meeting the criteria for the program for a total request of $42,356,401, but ultimately the
SJRWMD awarded only $25 million in grants. The program has gotten more competitive and harder to
rank based on new, more stringent scoring criteria enacted by the SJRWMD Board.
FUNDING (DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE):
Funding for the West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer project is derived based on January 2017 bid prices
submitted to the County and therefore could be subject to change. Staff evaluated two funding options
that County is seeking to pursue.
Option 1(CDBG, Cost -Share and State Appropriations): This option assumes the County will be successful
in securing all three grants associated with the CDBG, SJRWMD Cost -Share and State Appropriations
requests. In order to score favorably on the CDBG application, the East Gifford Drainage Project will be
combined with the West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer project. Please note that the below potential
grant funds are reimbursable; therefore, the County will be obligated to budget the total amount up front.
Option 2 (Cost -Share and Appropriations, No CDBG Funding, IRC Optional Sales Tax): This option
assumes that the County secures grants from Cost -Share and Appropriations but earmarks alternative
funding sources for the project. Given the stringent requirements of the CDBG grant process, staff
evaluated trying to complete the project without CDBG funding in the essence of time and complexity.
Please note that the below potential grant funds are reimbursable, and therefore, the County will be
obligated to budget the total amount up front.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 136
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 5 of 8
Construction Cost
Amount (est.)
West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer
$ 2,100,000.00
East Gifford Drainage
$ 216,000.00
Sub -Total
$ 2,316,000.00
Septic to Sewer
(w/o CDBG)
Impact Fee for 54 Sewer ERU's at $2,796 per ERU
$ 150,984.00
Total
$ 2,466,984.00
Funding Source
Option 1
(with CDBG)
Option 1*
SJRWMD
Option 2
Septic to Sewer
CDBG
Septic to Sewer
(with CDBG)
Septic to Sewer
(w/o CDBG)
SJRWMD
$
742,824.72
$
742,824.72
CDBG
$
720,000.00
$
-
Septic to Sewer
Drainage
$
-
$
-
State Appropriation
$
788,159.28
$
788,159.28
IRC Optional Sales Tax
$
-
$
720,000.00
Total including
$
2,250,984.00
$
2,250,984.00
impact fee costs
* In order to compare the same dollar amount, the evaluation excludes the costs for the East Gifford Drainage
Project.
Since the CDBG grant in Option 1 cannot be exercised without combining the West Wabasso Phase II
Septic to Sewer project with the East Gifford Drainage project, the below table is provided to further
illustrate the anticipated actual costs of the combined projects.
Funding Source
Option 1
(with CDBG)
Project
Description
SJRWMD
$ 742,824.72
Septic to Sewer
CDBG
Septic to Sewer
$ 720,000.00
Septic to Sewer
Drainage
$ 30,000.00
Drainage
State Appropriation
$ 788,159.28
Septic to Sewer
IRC Optional Sales Tax
$ 186,000.00
Drainage
Total including
impact fee costs
$ 2,466,984.00
The above cost grant breakdown is hypothetical, subject to change and should be used for planning
purposes only. The construction costs are taken from the January 2017 bid submittal from Blue Goose
Construction and are not guaranteed to be valid if the project is re -bid. The impact fees are based on the
Indian River County Department of Utility Services (IRCDUS) established schedule of water and sewer
rates, fees and other charges.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 137
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 6 of 8
PROS/CONS OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED
Option 1- With CDBG Funding Request
Currently, there is a strong construction demand in the market place. IRCDUS, Public Works and
other local municipalities such as City of Sebastian are experiencing higher -than -normal bid
submittals from contractors due to heavy work load and/or Hurricane Irma recovery efforts.
The January 2017 bid submittal price is not guaranteed to be held constant and could be different
if the County chooses to re -bid the project.
Using the CDBG funds requires specific requirements to be followed. If this option is selected,
time is of the essence. A local Citizen Advisory Task Force (CATF) meeting must be noticed and
held. The CATF must first approve the project. There must be two (2) BCC public hearings. If
approved by the BCC, CDBG grant applications need to be submitted in March 2018. There is no
guarantee that the project will qualify (past qualification is no guarantee for future funding
requests). Competition for limited dollars is high. A grant administrator must be hired to help the
County deal with the multitude of project submittal updates associated with the federal grant, as
managed through the state office of the FDEO. Specific Federal and State requirements (i.e. Davis -
Bacon wage certifications, Small Business Enterprise or Minority owned business solicitations)
must be documented as part of the bid process. The CDBG process will add about 12-18 months
to the schedule due to the grant requirements. There is a possibility the CDBG requirements will
delay the project start even if SJRWMD awards the County a cost share grant (See page 4 of this
agenda). This timing could present an issue to fulfill documentation requirements of one grant
while balancing the deadline to construct the project from another grant.
In order to score favorably on the CDBG application as before, the East Gifford Drainage project
will need to be combined with the West Wabasso Phase II Septic to Sewer project.
Other funding sources such as the SJRWMD cost share grant are also highly competitive. There is
a possibility that the County may get all three funding requests. There is also the possibility the
County will get none of the funding requests (or one or two out of three awards) based on
application review and scoring criteria used by the various agencies in determining whether a
grant will be awarded.
Although there are no County -supplied dollars to offset construction costs for the West Wabasso
Phase II Septic to Sewer project, due to CDBG requirements, there could be County funds needed
to both offset impact fees that cannot be charged to LMI or VLI owner occupied properties and
the deficit needed to fund the East Gifford Drainage project.
Option 2: Without CDBG Funding Request
• Not having to apply for Federal dollars with the CDBG funding program frees up the County and
its contractor from the specific requirements needed as described above under option 1.
• The timeline for the project is accelerated.
• An alternate funding supply is needed to offset the missing CDBG grant request. Optional Sales
Tax (OST) is a potential funding source. However, if OST dollars are used, this could create a
precedent for other utility assessment projects whereby some projects have had benefitting
property owners pay 100% of the equitable costs associated with their property. This could create
a disincentive for future utility assessment projects.
• By not applying for CDBG funding, the Gifford area drainage project (directed by the Gifford
Neighborhood Plan), would have to be done at a later time.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 138
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 7 of 8
• There is a possibility that the County may get both funding requests. There is also the possibility
the County will get none of the funding requests (or one out of two) based on application review
and scoring criteria used by the various agencies in determining whether a grant will be awarded.
In this scenario, the County will need to decide how best to proceed.
The BCC should consider which option IRCDUS should pursue to try and get this project funded and
constructed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider the following:
1. Choose Option 1 as outlined for the three (3) potential funding sources and have staff bring forth an
updated funding summary and cost at a later date, depending on successful grant award.
Authorize moving forward with submitting a grant application to the St. Johns River Water
Management District Cost -Share Program in January/February 2018.
Authorize moving forward with submitting a grant application to the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) application cycle tentatively scheduled to open in March, 2018. Direct staff to
coordinate the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) meeting to discuss 2018 CDBG categories and
project options, schedule public hearings and solicit a grant administrator.
Authorize moving forward with submitting a grant application to the Local Funding Initiative FY 18-
19 through the Florida Legislature.
C:\Users\legistar\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 139
8\@BCL@2COD0983\@BCL@2COD0983.docx Page 8 of 8
County Attorney's Matters - B.C.C. 1. 16.18
Office of /34
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney
Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney
DATE: January 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Remainder Interest in the Event of Sale of Indian River Memorial Hospital
BACKGROUND
At the January 9, 2018, Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ("the "Board") meeting, the
Board tasked the County Attorney with researching Indian River County's remainder interest in the event
of a sale or lease of the Indian River Memorial Hospital (the "Hospital"). Pursuant to section 155.40(16),
Florida Statutes, if the Hospital is sold or leased, fifty percent of the net proceeds of the sale or. lease shall
be deposited into a health care economic development trust fund, under the control of the Board. The
members of the Board would then serve as the trustees of the health care economic development trust
fund. The net proceeds of the health care economic development trust fund are to be used, in consultation
with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to promote job creation in the health care sector of
the economy through new or expanded health care business development, new or expanded health care
services, or new or expanded health care education programs or commercialization of health care research.
Pursuant to section 155.40(16), Florida Statutes, the other fifty percent of the net proceeds of the sale or
lease of the Hospital would go towards funding the delivery of indigent care, including, but not limited to,
primary care, physician specialty care, out-patient care, in-patient care, and behavioral health. Under the
statute, it appears that the governing board of the hospital district is responsible for appropriating these
funds.
Section 155.40(16), Florida Statutes, specifically defines the term "net proceeds" as being the sale price
after payment of all district debts and obligations.
F:I41oyVUnda1GENFRAL18 C ClArnda Mem Wospiml DisMcr Funds l e.dx 140
DISTRICT
15
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Emergency Services District Board of Commissioners
THROUGH: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
THROUGH: John King, Director of Emergency Services
FROM: Brian Burkeen, Assistant Chief
DATE: January 5, 2018
SUBJECT: Affiliation Agreement between Health Career Institute, LLC and Indian
River County Emergency Services District
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the
Emergency Services Board of Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION:
Indian River County Department of Emergency Services would like to enter into an affiliation
agreement for the purposes of providing education oversight as it relates to preceptor mentoring
with Health Career Institute, LLC. Indian River County Emergency Services District currently
provides services for paramedic students from other training facilities to ride with experienced
paramedics for the purposes of training and education. Indian River County Fire Rescue hires from
an applicant testing and eligibility list and a majority of the time these individuals come from local
schools. Numerous applicants (local and non -local) receive education from Health Career Institute,
LLC and we have hired many of these students into our workforce.
FUNDING:
There are no funding requirements for this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Affiliation Agreement between Health Career Institute, LLC
and Indian River County Emergency Services District.
ATTACHMENTS:
Two (2) Copies of the Affiliation Agreement
141
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
AFFILIATION AGREEMENT WITH HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE, LLC
This Affiliation Agreement is entered into by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT, a dependent special district, whose mailing address is
4225 431d Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32967, hereinafter COUNTY and HCI ACQUISITION LLC, a
Delaware limited liability doing business as HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE, LLC, whose
location address is 1764 N. Congress Avenue, Suite 203, West Palm Beach, FL 33409 and
whose business address is 4200 Congress Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33461, hereinafter
HCI, do hereby agree as follows:
WHEREAS, HCI offers certification programs for both emergency medical technicians
(EMT) and paramedics and has been offering those programs since 2013; and
WHEREAS, students who attend HCI are encouraged to obtain "on the job training" by
conducting ride -a -longs with EMTs and paramedics; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY as entered into other Affiliation Agreements for ride -a -long
training for EMT and paramedic students enrolled in similar certified programs; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY deems this to be a valuable training tool for potential future
employees,
NOW THEREFORE, the parties do agree as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference in this
Agreement.
2. The COUNTY shall permit HCI students to participate in ride -a -longs with EMTs and
Paramedics at the discretion and convenience of the COUNTY.
3. This Agreement shall be effective from January 16, 2018 to January 15, 2019 and may
be renewed by the parties for three additional one year period thereafter by the mutual consent
of the parties.
4. Neither the COUNTY nor HCI shall charge any fees under this Agreement.
5. The parties agree that there will be no discrimination in the selection or the placement of
students in the ride -a -long program.
6. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice.
7. The COUNTY will provide, at the participating student's expense, emergency care for
injuries or acute illness while participating with the COUNTY at a ride -a -long session.
8. The parties will each designate a person or persons to coordinate as a liaison for the
ride -a -long program.
142
9. HCI shall provide the COUNTY with a list of eligible participants for the ride -a -long
program prior to the start of each program. It shall be the duty of HCI to ensure the participants
have the necessary training prerequisites to maximize the experience.
10. HCI does undertake and agree that it will indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY and
its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from all claims, demands, suits, actions,
judgments, and executions for damages, of any and every kind, including reasonable attorney's
fees and costs, and by whomever and whenever made or obtained, allegedly caused by, arising
out of, or relating in any manner to the activity of any student. Each student participating shall
sign the attached Hold Harmless Agreement (copies will be furnished upon request).
11. HCI shall procure and maintain, during the term of this Agreement and any renewal,
liability insurance to cover any and all liability (including professional liability) for claims,
damages, or injuries to persons or property of whatsoever kind of nature arising out of the
activities of the participants carried out under this Agreement. Such insurance shall be on an
occurrence basis in amounts no less than $3,000,000/$1,000,000 for personal injuries and the
COUNTY shall be an additional named insured under such general and professional liability
policy or policies. HCI shall submit certificates of insurance to the COUNTY evidencing such
insurance at the time of the execution of this Agreement, and as requested by the Fire/EMS
Service. HCI agrees that the COUNTY will receive no less than thirty (30) days written notice
prior to cancellation, modification, or non -renewal of any of the insurance coverage's described
herein.
12. HCI will coordinate a calendar with students name and dates. HCI will submit this
calendar to the COUNTY by an agreed upon date.
13. Specific Responsibilities of the COUNTY. It shall be the responsibility of the
COUNTY to:
A. Provide an appropriate orientation of participants in connection with its facilities
and its policies and procedures.
B. Provide opportunities for a learning experience with appropriate supervision.
C. Retain ultimate responsibility for patient care even if a student gives that care.
D. Designate a preceptor (or coordinator) from its staff to act as the liaison with the
Agency in this Agreement, as appropriate to the learning objectives.
14. Specific Responsibilities of the Participant (Student). It shall be the responsibility of
the participant(s) assigned through this Agreement to:
A. Comply with the policies and procedures of the COUNTY. Provide the necessary
and appropriate uniform while on duty at the Fire/EMS agency
B. Obtain prior written approval of both parties to this Agreement before publishing
any material related to the learning experience provided under the terms of the
Agreement.
C. Sign a "Hold Harmless Agreement' with the COUNTY prior to commencing
his/her experience within the Fire/EMS Agency.
2
143
D. At all times wear the appropriated badge on every clinical, and comply in all
respects with the student requirements set forth in the requirements Sheets.
15. Request for Withdrawal of Participant. The COUNTY shall reserve the right to
request HCI to withdraw any participant from its facilities whose conduct or work with patients or
personnel is not in accordance with the policies and procedures of the COUNTY or is
detrimental to patients or others. The COUNTY reserves the right to send any student home if
they cannot accommodate the student at scheduled time.
16. Modification of Agreement. Modification of this Agreement may be made by mutual
consent of both parties, in writing, and attached to this Agreement and shall include the date
and the signatures of parties agreeing to the modification.
17. Copies of Agreement. Copies of this signed Agreement shall be placed on file and be
available at the Corporate office of HCI and in the offices of the COUNTY.
18. Confidential Information. Ride -a -long program participants will be exposed to
confidential, privileged information. HCI understands the sensitive nature of this information and
affirmatively asserts it has trained each participant concerning privileged and confidential patient
information. HCI agrees that its indemnity and hold harmless to the COUNTY extends to the
wrongful release of confidential and privileged patient information.
HCI ACQUISITION LLC, a Delaware limited liability
d/b/a HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE, LLC
By:
Its:
(printed name) (title)
Date:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
By:
Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman
Date Approved:
ATTEST:
Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and
Comptroller
M
Deputy Clerk
3
Approved:
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Approved as to Form and Legal
Sufficiency:
William K. DeBraal, Deputy County
Attorney
144
16-46
�v INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ��VVE
1 I SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
*� * .
�toRmA BOARD MEMORANDUM
-
Date: January 5, 2018
To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
From: Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services
Prepared By: Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E., Managing Director, Solid Waste Disposal District
Subject: CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 12 to CDM Smith, Inc. for the 2018 Annual Financial
Reports
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
The Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) is required by Florida Department Environmental Protection (FDEP)
rules to prepare annual financial reports certified by a third party professional engineer. The Financial
Assurance Report determines SWDD's annual obligations to fund escrow accounts for the closure and long
term care of the County's active landfills. The Full Cost Accounting Report is to inform residents of the County
of the full cost of collection, management and disposal of solid waste in the County.
ANALYSIS:
CDM Smith, Inc. (CDM) has prepared CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 12, provided in Attachment 1, for
engineering services detailing the scope of work, budget, and schedule for each of the tasks. The fees to be
paid by SWDD for the execution of this work authorization are in accordance with the engineer's continuing
consulting services master agreement. The tasks are listed below showing the expected completion dates
and their estimated fees.
TASK DESCRIPTION DUE DATE
AMOUNT
Task 1 Full Cost Accounting Report March 31, 2018
$7,760 — Lump Sum
Task 2 Financial Assurance Report October 1, 2018
$53,050— Lump Sum
TOTAL (Lump Sum) _
$60,810
FUNDING:
Funding for the 2018 Annual Financial Reports is budgeted and available in the Engineering Services account
in the SWDD Landfill Fund which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. The account has a total
budget of $400,000 for the 2017/2018 fiscal year.
DescriptionAccount
Number
Amount
Engineering Services
1 41121734-033130
$60,810
@BCL@OCOE98A7.docx Page IQf�
RECOMMENDATION:
SWDD staff recommends that its Board approve the following:
a) Approve CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 12 with CDM Smith, Inc. in the amount of $60,810 to provide
engineering services related to the 2018 Annual Financial Reports
b) Authorize the Chairman to execute the same, as presented.
ATTACHMENT(s):
1) CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 12 — CDM Smith, Inc.
@BCL@OCOE98A7.docx Page jQf�2
CDM
Smith
1701 Highway A 1 A Suite 301
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
tel: 772-231-4301
fax: 772-231-4998
January 3, 2017
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
Managing Director
Indian River County
Solid Waste Disposal District
1325 74th Avenue SW
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Subject: Full Cost Accounting and Financial Assurance Reporting
Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District
CDM Smith CCNA-2014 WO NO. 12
Dear Mr. Mehta:
Transmitted herewith is one copy of CCNA-2014 WO NO. 12 for the above referenced project. This
project is to provide full cost accounting for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 and financial assurance
reporting for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, which is required each year by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection permits. The Scope of Services, Project Budget, and Project Schedule are
provided herewith as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.
We look forward to the opportunity to assist SWDD in performing this project. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely, Approved by:
v U
Kevin N. Vann, P.E., BCEE Eric J. Grotke, P.E., BCEE
Principal Environmental Engineer Vice President
CDM Smith Inc. CDM Smith Inc.
KNV/EJG/jj
Attachments
File: 0000-EJGMK-MG.IRC
cc: Vincent Burke, IRC
147 10
WATER + ENVIRONMENT + TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY+ FACILITIES
WORK ORDER NUMBER CCNA2014WO12
Full Cost Accounting and Financial Assurance Reporting
This Work Order Number 12 is entered into as of this _ day of 2018, pursuant to that
certain Extension and Amendment of Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as
of this 4" day of November, 2014 (collectively referred to as the "Agreement") and that certain Extension of
Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of this 20 day of October, 2017
(collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and CDM Smith Inc., (CDM Smith) ("Consultant").
The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on
Exhibit A (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The
professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B
(Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. The Consultant
will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit C
(Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all in
accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of
the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement
and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as
if fully set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first
written above.
CONSULTANT:
CDM Smith Inc.
r
By: (4 By:
Title: V .( o 4ICA& ami.[
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
, Chairman
BCC Approved Date:
Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved:
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney
148
EXHIBIT A
AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
FULL COST ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 12
This Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and become part of the Continuing
Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the Indian River County Solid Waste
Disposal District (COUNTY), and CDM Smith Inc. (CONSULTANT), dated December 6, 2011, and the
Extensions and Amendments of Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services, dated
November 4, 2014 and October 24, 2017, hereafter referred to as the Contract.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Each year the COUNTY is required to document full cost accounting and financial assurance in
accordance with the Solid Waste Operations Permit. CONSULTANT assists COUNTY with these
submittals to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) each year.
This project is to provide permitting services which are required including:
■ Task 1.0 -Full Cost Accounting Evaluation for Fiscal Year 2016-17
■ Task 2.0 - Financial Assurance
CONSULTANT will coordinate with the COUNTY in order to provide timely execution of each
portion of this project. The Scope of Work is as detailed below.
TASK 1.0 - FULL COST ACCOUNTING EVALUATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
Under provisions of Chapter 62-708.300(3), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the COUNTY is
required to determine and publicly disclose the full cost of solid waste management within its
service area for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
CONSULTANT will perform an evaluation on the full cost of solid waste management for Fiscal Year
2016-2017 in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 62-708, F.A.C. CONSULTANT will
prepare summary tables and a brief letter presenting the full cost of solid waste management in the
COUNTY for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 and'also prepare a draft public notice.
CONSULTANT will provide the draft tables, letter, and public disclosure notice to the COUNTY by
March 15, 2018 assuming receipt of all data required to perform the study are provided by March 1,
2018. After receipt of comments, CONSULTANT will submit the final tables, letter, and public
disclosure notice within 7 calendar days. The COUNTY is required to inform the residential and
nonresidential users of IRC's solid waste management services area of the user's share of the full
cost for solid waste management in accordance with Chapter 403.7049 Florida Statutes.
CDM
Smith A-1 jj2145 0No.1249
TASK 2.0 - FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The COUNTY operates Class I and construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills through a
contract with Republic Services. The COUNTY is required by Chapter 62-701, F.A.C. to provide
financial assurance for each of these facilities annually.
Subtask 2.1- Recalculation of the Closure Cost Estimates
CONSULTANT will prepare a recalculation of the estimated closing and long-term care costs for the
Class I and C&D debris landfill. CONSULTANT will use the recalculated closing and long-term care
cost estimates to complete the Closure Cost Estimating Form for Solid Waste Facilities for the both
the Class I landfill (includes the waste tire site) and the C&D debris landfill. The forms will be
submitted for review by the COUNTY prior to submittal to FDEP.
Subtask 2.2 - Survey and Airspace Assessment
CONSULTANT will provide surveys and assessments of consumed airspace performed by, a
subconsultant, Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc. for the Class I and C&D debris landfills. The
topographic survey will be performed on the entire IRC Landfill site, including the Class I waste
area (Segments I, II, and III as well as the ditches and roadways surrounding the Class I area), the
C&D debris landfill site (waste area, as well as the fence -line and the surrounding ditches and
berms adjacent to the C&D debris site), expansion areas, stormwater pond, and administrative area.
CONSULTANT will review the volumetric modeling and include a summary of estimated waste
density based on the results of the survey and volumetric modeling.
The deliverable from Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc. will consist of a survey identifying the dates the
field survey was completed. Airspace consumed and remaining airspace based on the survey and
the construction and design criteria shall be specifically identified in the financial assurance report.
The survey shall also include the results of the volumetric calculations for the Segments II and III
portions of the Class I landfill, as well as the C&D debris landfill. Deliverables accompanying the
survey shall include:
A 1 -inch = 50 feet scale contour map for each site with 1 -foot contour intervals in regular weight
lines, and 5 -foot contour intervals in bold weight lines. Signed and sealed contour maps will be
provided on 24 -inch by 36 -inch paper of each landfill site in 1 -inch = 200 feet scale. A Compact Disc
(CD) with ASCII file of the survey data in AutoCAD 2010 will also be provided.
For the Class I Landfill (Segments I, II, and III), the financial assurance report shall include an
evaluation of the compaction of the waste and an analysis as to whether Republic Services is
meeting its contractual compaction requirements. CONSULTANT will include escrow account
balance recommendations for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, as well as escrow account budget
recommendations for Fiscal Year 2018-2019.
Subtask 2.3 - Financial Assurance Report
CONSULTANT will prepare documentation that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for the
cost of closing and providing long-term care for the Class I landfill, the C&D debris landfill, and the
waste tire site. This documentation will be submitted for review by the COUNTY. Two copies of the
final document will be provided to the COUNTY. CONSULTANT will meet with the COUNTY up to
two times to discuss issues and to provide needed coordination. CONSULTANT will also respond to
FDEP correspondence regarding financial assurance.
CDM ' Cn
Smith A-2 jj2145_WO No.
ASSUMPTIONS
■ Topographic survey of entire IRC Landfill site will be performed.
■ Volumetric calculation will be performed on the currently active Class I and C&D debris cells.
DATA OR ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED BY COUNTY
■ Site access.
■ Escrow account balances.
■ The rates and numbers of dwelling units for each of the transporters
■ Available site surveys.
■ Level of service for each transporter.
■ Monthly fees for both single family residence and multi -family residences collected via non -ad
valorem assessment.
■ Numbers of parcels, equivalent residential units, and waste generation units CWGUs) for Fiscal
Year 2015-16 for each customer.
■ Wastestream monthly totals.
■ Changes to Basis of Allocation.
■ Direct and indirect cost breakdowns.
■ Confirmation of waste generation units.
■ Amount of residential assessment.
PAYMENT AND COMPENSATION
Compensation for the Work Order described herein shall be made on the basis of a lump sum fee.
The lump sum fee for Tasks 1.0 and 2.0, inclusive, is $60,810 as shown in Exhibits B. CONSULTANT
will invoice the COUNTY on a monthly basis based on percent complete of each task. For invoice
purposes only, the value of each task is as shown in the Table 1.
Table 1
TASK VALUE FOR INVOICE PURPOSE
TASK DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1.0 Full Cost Accounting Evaluation for Fiscal Year 2016-17
$7,760
2.0 Financial Assurance
$53,050
TOTAL WORK ORDER NO. 12 - LUMP SUM
$60,810
CDM '
Smith A-3 jj2145_WONo. ' C
IL
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
FULL COST ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 12
PROJECT: Full Cost Accounting and Financial Assurance Reporting
DESCRIPTION: Task 1.0 - Full Cost Accounting Evaluation for Fiscal Year 2016-17
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor CategorX
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr Officer
2
$220
$440
Principal
14
$200
$2,800
Senior Professional
20
$165
$3,300
Senior Support
4
$120
$480
Project Administration
4
$85
340
Total Hours
44
Total Salary Cost $7,360
Other Direct Costs 400
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE6
For the basic services under this Agreement, IRC SWDD agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum
fee $7,760. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the work
performed.
CDM
Smith B-1 jj2145_WO No.12 jay
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
FULL COST ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 12
PROJECT: Full Cost Accounting and Financial Assurance Reporting
DESCRIPTION: Subtask 2.1- Recalculation of the Closure Cost Estimates
Subtask 2.2 - Survey and Airspace Assessment
Subtask 2.3 - Financial Assurance Report
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor Category
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr. Officer
12
$220
$2,640
Principal
40
$200
$8,000
Senior Professional
60
$165
$9,900
Professional II
74
$130
$9,620
Professional
20
$110
$2,200
Senior Support
8
$120
$960
Staff Support
10
$85
$850
Project Administration
8
$85
680
Total Hours
232
Total Salary Cost
$34,850
Outside Professionals - Masteller, Moler & Taylor, Inc.
$17,000
Other Direct Costs
$1,200
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE
$5 .
For the basic services under this Agreement, IRC SWDD agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum
fee of $53,050. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the
work performed.
CDM_
Smith B-2 ;;2145_W0 No.l
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT SCHEDULE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
FULL COST ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 12
SCHEDULE
Task
1.0 Draft Full Cost Accounting Report
1.0 Final Full Cost Accounting Report
2.1 Recalculation of the Closure Cost Estimates
2.2 Site Survey
2.3 Draft Financial Assurance Report
2.3 Final Financial Assurance Report
Completion Date
March 15, 2018
March 31, 2018
April 1, 2018
February 28, 2018
June 1, 2018
October 1, 2018
Smith C-1 ;;2145_W0 N0.12U
�' 3
��cOG INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ag1Vl O
s
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 7
�Lo�1oA BOARD MEMORANDUM
Date: January 5, 2018
To: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
From: Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services
Prepared By: Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E., Managing Director, Solid Waste Disposal District
Subject: CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 13 to CDM Smith, Inc. for Engineering Services with the
2018 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:
The Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) landfill operation is a highly regulated activity, which requires
environmental compliance documentation in accordance with several different permits. Many of the
compliance reports are prepared and certified by a third party professional engineer. This agenda item
requests authorization to engage the engineering firm of CDM Smith, Inc. (CDM) to prepare and seal the
following reports:
1. Semi-annual and annual reports to assess the characteristics of ground and surface water at the site
generated by the Class I landfill in accordance with the site's landfill permits.
2. Evaluation monitoring and reporting for the C&D Debris Disposal Facility.
3. Annual reports required by the site's Title V air quality permit, including the annual operating report, semi-
annual monitoring report and the annual landfill gas sulfur content test.
In addition, a general technical assistance and permit compliance task is included as SWDD often requires
engineering, technical and construction services assistance in connection with annual facility upgrade,
compliance and operations.
ANALYSIS:
CDM has prepared CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 13, provided in Attachment 1, for engineering services
detailing the scope of work, budget, and schedule for each of the tasks. The fees to be paid by SWDD for
the execution of this work authorization are in accordance with the engineer's continuing consulting
services master agreement. The tasks are listed below showing the expected completion dates and their
estimated fees.
@BCL@440D298B.doc Page it"
TASK
DESCRIPTION
DUE DATE
AMOUNT
Task 1
Project Quality Management
1/1/18 —12/31/18
$23,540
Task 2
Semi -Annual Water Quality Sampling &
March 2018 & September
$44,740
Reporting
2018
Task 3
1 Title V Permit Compliance Monitoring
March — August 2018
$24,760
Evaluation Monitoring for the C&D
March 2018, June 2018,
Task 4
Debris Disposal Facility
September 2018, and
$26,840
December 2018
Task 5
General Technical Assistance
1/1/18 —12/31/18
$31,110
TOTAL (Lump Sum)_
1 $150,990
FUNDING:
Funding for the 2018 Annual Financial Reports is budgeted and available in the Engineering Services
account in the SWDD Landfill Fund, which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. The account
has a total budget of $400,000 for the 2017/2018 fiscal year.
Description
Account Number
Amount
Engineering Services
41121734-033130
$150,990
RECOMMENDATION:
SWDD staff recommends that its Board approve the following:
a) Approve CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 13 with CDM Smith, Inc. in the amount of $150,990 to provide
engineering services related to the 2018 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting.
b) Authorize the Chairman to execute the same, as presented.
ATTACH M E NT(s):
CCNA-2014 Work Order No. 13 — CDM Smith, Inc.
@BCL@440D298B.doc Page 2W
CDM
Smith
1701 Highway A 1 A Suite 301
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
tel: 772-231-4301
fax: 772-231-4998
January 3, 2017
Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E.
Managing Director
Indian River County
Solid Waste Disposal District
1325 74th Avenue SW
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Subject: Permit Compliance Assistance for the Calendar Year 2018
Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District
CDM Smith CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
Dear Mr. Mehta:
Transmitted herewith is one copy of CCNA-2014 WO No. 13 to provide selected annual operating
permit compliance assistance services, which are required by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) during calendar year 2018. The services provided in this work
order include semi-annual sampling and reporting, Title V permit compliance and reporting,
evaluation monitoring for the C&D debris disposal facility, and general technical and miscellaneous
permit compliance reporting. The Scope of Services, Project Budget, and Project Schedule are
provided herewith as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely, Approved by:
Kevin N. Vann, P.E., BCEE Eric J. Grotke, P.E., BCEE
Principal Environmental Engineer Vice President
CDM Smith Inc. CDM Smith Inc.
KNV/EJG/jj
Attachments
File: 0000-EJGMK-MG.IRC
cc: Vincent Burke, IRC
i
157 is
WATER + ENVIRONMENT +TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY + FACILITIES
WORK ORDER NUMBER CCNA2014WO13
Permit Compliance Assistance for the Calendar Year 2018
This Work Order Number 13 is entered into as of this _ day of , 2018, pursuant to that
certain Extension and Amendment of Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as
of this 4" day of November, 2014 (collectively referred to as the "Agreement") and that certain Extension of
Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of this 24"' day of October, 2017
(collectively referred to as the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY") and CDM Smith Inc., (CDM Smith) ("Consultant").
The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on
Exhibit A (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The
professional services will be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B
(Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. The Consultant
will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit C
(Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all in
accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of
the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement
and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as
if fully set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first
written above.
CONSULTANT: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CDM Smith Inc. OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
% f
By:�By:
Chairman
Title:
BCC Approved Date:
Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller
By:
Approved:
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Deputy Clerk
Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Dylan T. Reingold, County Attorney
158
EXHIBIT A
AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
This Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in, and become part of the Continuing
Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the Indian River County Solid Waste
Disposal District (COUNTY), and CDM Smith Inc. (CONSULTANT), dated December 6, 2011, and the
Extensions and Amendments of Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services, dated
November 4, 2014 and October 24, 2017, hereafter referred to as the Contract.
BACKGROUND
Solid Waste Operation Permit Water Quality Compliance
Semi-annual reports of groundwater quality at the COUNTY Landfill must be submitted to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in accordance with Chapter 62-701.510,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) included as
Appendix 3 of Permit Nos. 0128769 -022 -SC and 0128769 -023 -SO for the Class I landfill and the
WQMP included as Appendix 3 of Permit No. 0128769 -025 -SO -24 dated July 13, 2017 for the C&D
debris disposal facility.
Two semi-annual monitoring reports that document the sampling events will be required in
calendar year 2018.
Semi-annual sampling of the Class I and C&D debris disposal facility groundwater monitor wells
shall be performed in January and July of 2018. The samples collected from the Class I monitoring
wells during these events will be analyzed for the routine monitoring parameters listed in
Paragraph 7 of the WQMP and Chapter 62-701.510(7) (a), F.A.C. The samples collected from the
C&D debris disposal facility monitoring wells, except for MW -21, will be analyzed for the routine
monitoring parameters listed in Paragraph 8 of the WQMP and Chapter 62-701.730(8)(c), F.A.C. In
total, 39 wells (29 Class I and 10 C&D) will be sampled in January and 26 wells (16 Class I and 10
C&D) will be sampled in July. Samples from one surface water site shall be collected in January and
July, if water is discharging from the stormwater pond. The samples, if collected, will be analyzed
for the parameters listed in Paragraph 13 of the WQMP and Chapter 62-701.510(7)(b), F.A.C.
All laboratory analyses will be performed by the COUNTY contract laboratory (ENCO).
Evaluation Monitoring for the C&D Debris Disposal Facility
Results of routine semi-annual monitoring of groundwater quality at the C&D debris disposal
facility in January 2017 indicated that confirmed concentrations of benzene and sodium exceeded
the Primary Drinking Water Standard Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS) in' samples collected
from monitor well MW -21S. MW -21S is one of the 10 detection monitor wells that comprise the
monitoring network for the C&D debris disposal facility. In accordance with Florida Department of
Smith A-1 jj2146_WO No -1359
Environmental Protection (FDEP) rules and the permit for the facility, the COUNTY reported the
exceedances of the MCLS to the FDEP in March 2017. In a letter dated June 22, 2017, FDEP
requested that the COUNTY initiate evaluation monitoring in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 62-701.510(6), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In July2017, the COUNTY installed one
monitor well (MW -49S) and performed two quarterly sampling events (July 2017 and October
2017).
Monitoring wells MW -21 and MW -49S will be sampled quarterly in January 2018, April 2018, July
2018, and October 2018. The samples collected in January, April and July will be analyzed for the
parameters listed in Chapter 62-701.510(7)(a), F.A.C. The samples collected in October 2018 will be
analyzed for the parameters listed in Chapter 62-701.510(7)(c), F.A.C.
Title V Operation PermitAir Quality Compliance
The COUNTY Landfill also operates under a Title V permit (Permit No. 0610015 -005 -AV) effective
on June 1, 2017, which contains monitoring and reporting requirements related to the landfill gas
collection and control system. The COUNTY is required to prepare and submit the following to
FDEP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 4:
■ Annual Statement of Compliance (within 60 days after the end of the calendar year);
■ Electronic Annual Operating Report and Title V Emission Fee (on or before April 1 of the
following year);
■ Semi -Annual Monitoring Report (target submittal dates on March 1 and August 29), and
■ Results of an annual landfill gas sulfur content test (included in the Electronic Annual Operating
Report).
Effective December 31, 2013, the Major Air Pollution Source Annual Emissions Fee is calculated by
FDEP's Electronic Annual Operating Report (EAOR) application that is used to produce the Annual
Operating Report listed above. The emissions fee for 2017 is due by April 1, 2018.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT will undertake the necessary annual permit compliance monitoring and reporting,
which will include the following tasks:
Task 1.0: Project Quality Management
Task 2.0: Semi -Annual Water Quality Sampling and Reporting
Task 3.0: Title V Permit Compliance and Reporting
Task 4.0: Evaluation Monitoring for the C&D Debris Disposal Facility
Task 5.0: General Technical and Miscellaneous Permit Compliance Reporting
The below Scope of Services is based on regulations and monitoring and reporting requirements as
of the authorization date of this Work Order. An amendment to this Scope of Services may be
needed if there are any regulatory changes that result in additional work.
TASK 1.0 — PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Activities performed under this task consist of those generally administrative functions required to
assure that the project remains on schedule, within budget, and that the quality of the work
products defined within this scope is consistent with CONSULTANT's standards and the COUNTY's
expectations.
CDM
Smith A-2 jj2146_WO No.1360
CONSULTANT maintains a Quality Management System (QMS) on all projects. The CONSULTANT
will comply with its QMS, which includes independent review of deliverables, monthly project
status reviews, and project close-out activities. CONSULTANT will meet with COUNTY staff for
project planning and coordination, as needed. CONSULTANT's project manager will attend status
reporting meetings as needed throughout the life of the project. Preparation of invoices and project
administration will also be performed under this task.
TASK 2.0 —SEMI-ANNUAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AND REPORTING
CONSULTANT will assist COUNTY with all sampling preparation activities, including scheduling,
staffing, subcontracting, and field equipment preparation. CONSULTANT will perform the field
testing, sample collection, and water -level measurements. CONSULTANT will contract with Ideal
Tech Services Inc. (ITS) to perform the groundwater and surface water sampling. Prior to collecting
groundwater samples in January and July 2018, CONSULTANT/ITS will collect water level data
from 58 groundwater monitor wells and 1 staff gauge (SG -12). CONSULTANT/ITS will perform
semi-annual sampling of the Class I and C&D debris disposal facility groundwater monitor wells in
January (39 wells) and July (26 wells) of 2018.
CONSULTANT/ITS will also perform semi-annual (January and July) sampling of the surface water
site, if discharging.
It is estimated that data collection and sampling will take four days to complete in January and
three days to complete in July. In the event that FDEP requires resampling of groundwater
monitoring wells, the labor and materials will be invoiced under Task 5 of this Scope of Services. If
the resampling is the result from errors made by the sampling staff, the COUNTY will not be
invoiced. CONSULTANT/ITS will deliver the samples to the COUNTY contract laboratory (ENCO)
Orlando office for analysis.
Unless otherwise determined by the COUNTY, ENCO will perform the laboratory analysis under the
COUNTY's contract. CONSULTANT will assist the COUNTY in coordinating the analytical testing
activities with ENCO, notify FDEP prior to sampling as required by the MPIS, review and evaluate
the analytical test results, and prepare the semi-annual reports.
CONSULTANT will prepare a semi-annual report for each of the two monitoring events that will be
submitted to FDEP within 60 days of receipt of valid laboratory results from the laboratory that is
contracted by the COUNTY to analyze samples. Services included in preparing the semi-annual
reports entail:
■ Review of laboratory results with respect to FDEP groundwater quality criteria and historical
laboratory results. If review of the data indicates potential errors in the results or concentrations
of analyses that could potentially result in enforcement action, CONSULTANT will notify the
COUNTY prior to preparing the report and request confirmatory samples, if needed.
■ Preparation of semi-annual monitoring reports for the January and July monitoring events. The
reports will include brief discussions of the results, water level contour maps, and copies of the
analytical reports. A draft report will be submitted for review, if requested.
■ CONSULTANT will provide the final report in portable document file (PDF) format and analytical
data in ADaPT format for submittal to FDEP in accordance with Paragraph V.7 of the WQMP.
Smith A-3 jj2146_WO No.161
TASK 3.0 - TITLE V PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING
Title V Permit No. 0610015 -005 -AV, which is the current permit as of the date of this work order,
contains monitoring and reporting requirements related to the landfill gas collection and control
system. CONSULTANT will assist COUNTY, as described below, in fulfilling all air permit
requirements and conditions within the required regulatory timeframes.
Statement of Compliance
CONSULTANT will prepare and submit the annual Statement of Compliance for the COUNTY
Landfill. This document must be submitted to FDEP within 60 days after the end of the calendar
year, as required by Rule 62-213.440(3)(a)(2), F.A.C.
Electronic Annual Operating Report (EAOR)
CONSULTANT will prepare and submit the EAOR for the COUNTY Landfill. This report must be
submitted to FDEP on or before April 1 of each calendar year, as required by Rule 62-210.370(3),
F.A.C.
CONSULTANT will estimate the annual emission rates of non -methane organic compounds and
volatile organic compounds from the landfill gas to determine the COUNTY's status with regard to
operation and reporting requirements of the active landfill gas collection and control system under
the New Source Performance Standards requirements. Results of the annual landfill gas sulfur
content test will be used in calculations that are included with the EAOR.
Semi -Annual Monitoring Report
CONSULTANT will prepare and submit two semi-annual monitoring reports to demonstrate
compliance with the federal requirements. The report includes the following information:
a. Submittal of reports of any required monitoring at least every 6 months. All instances of
deviations from permit requirements must be clearly identified in such reports;
b. Reporting, in accordance with requirements of subsection 62-210.700(6) and Rule 62-4.130,
F.A.C., of deviations from permit requirements, including those attributable to upset conditions as
defined in the permit. Reports shall include the probable cause of such deviations, and any
corrective actions or preventive measures taken.
c. All reports shall be accompanied by a certification by a responsible official, pursuant to
subsection 62-213.420(4), F.A.C.
The reports will only cover deviations from Title V permit conditions. Landfill and landfill gas
operational data is not required to be reviewed and submitted to FDEP per the Title V permit.
Annual Title V Emissions Fee
The EAOR application used for reporting to FDEP will automatically calculate the annual emission
fee for the facility. CONSULTANT will notify COUNTY of the fee amount. Once the check is in -hand,
CONSULTANT will submit the fee on COUNTY's behalf prior to the April 1 deadline.
Annual Landfill Gas Sulfur Content Test
CONSULTANT will take three samples of landfill gas annually to determine the sulfur content in
accordance with Method ASTM D5504-12 or D7493. CONSULTANT will coordinate as needed with
certified air testing laboratory. Calculated sulfur emissions using the laboratory results will be
included in the EAOR. The landfill gas sulfur content test can be completed anytime during the
�•
Smith A-4 jj2146_WO No.162
calendar year, but will be completed no later than February 28, 2018 so that results can be included
with the EAOR.
TASK 4.0 - EVALUATION MONITORING FOR THE C&D DEBRIS DISPOSAL FACILITY
CONSULTANT, using Ideal Tech Services, Inc. (ITS) as a subcontractor, will perform the quarterly
sampling events for Calendar Year 2018 (January 2018, April 2018, July 2018 and October 2018)
for MW -49S an MW -21S. The samples collected in January, April and July will be analyzed for the
parameters listed in Chapter 62-701.510(7)(a), F.A.C. The samples collected in October 2018 will be
analyzed for the parameters listed in Chapter 62-701.510(7)(c), F.A.C. The January 2018 and July
2018 events will be performed concurrently with the routine groundwater monitoring scheduled
for late January and July 2018. CONSULTANT /ITS will coordinate with and deliver samples to
COUNTY'S contract analytical laboratory. ENCO will perform the laboratory analysis under
COUNTY'S contract.
CONSULTANT will prepare an Evaluation Monitoring Report for each of the four quarterly
monitoring events. Draft reports will be submitted to the COUNTY for review and comment. The
reports will be finalized and submitted to FDEP after resolution of COUNTY comments. The reports
will be letter reports.
In the event that FDEP requires changes to the monitoring and reporting requirements, the
additional services will be performed under Task 5 below.
TASK 5.0 - GENERAL TECHNICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT COMPLIANCE REPORTING
CONSULTANT will provide general technical and permit compliance assistance to COUNTY staff on
an as needed basis. COUNTY staff is performing a number of the tasks required annually by the
current FDEP landfill permits. CONSULTANT will provide support as needed for the COUNTY staff
as they perform these tasks.
General technical and permit compliance assistance tasks may include:
■ Reporting required by the Multi -Sector Generic Permit for stormwater discharge;
■ Quarterly monitoring and reporting of the landfill gas monitoring wells located at the COUNTY;
Landfill site boundary, as well as enclosed structures located on site;
■ Preparing agenda items for and attending Board of County Commissioners meetings;
■ Developing annual COUNTY budgets;
■ Miscellaneous permit renewals or technical support;
■ Preparation of contamination evaluation plan if required by FDEP;
■ Abandon up to four groundwater monitor wells;
■ Install up to two additional evaluation monitoring wells for the C&D debris disposal facility, and
■ Sampling and reporting for additional monitor wells, surface water, leachate, etc.
ASSUMPTIONS
■ This Scope of Services and cost proposal is based on solid waste operations Permit Nos.
0128769 -022 -SC and 0128769 -023 -SO for the Class I landfill and the WQMP included as
Appendix 3 of Permit No. 0128769 -025 -SO -24 dated July 13, 2017 for the C&D debris disposal
facility.
■ Laboratory analysis is not included in this Work Order.
■ This Work Order is based on the Title V Permit No. 0610015 -005 -AV (effective June 1, 2017),
which is the current permit as of the date of this Work Order and expires on June 1, 2022. Title
CDMLL�
Smith A-5 jj2146_WO No.163
V compliance requirements will not change from those listed in Title V Permit No. 0610015-
005 -AV.
■ Tasks 1 and 2 do not include meetings with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
■ The semi-annual water quality data for the Class I landfill and C&D debris disposal facility will
be submitted as a combined single report.
■ Valid laboratory analytical results are received in January, April, July, and October.
■ Sampling of C&D debris disposal facility wells will be completed under existing WQMP
requirements.
■ This Work Order does not include Site Assessment activities, if required by FDEP.
■ The flare visible emissions test has not been included since the testing is only necessary if
required by the FDEP. Note that a visible emissions test will need to be completed in 5 years for
the next permit renewal.
■ As reported in Title V Permit No. 0610015 -005 -AV, the NMOC emissions are predicted to be less
than the current threshold (50 Mg/year). Therefore, the NMOC Emission Rate Report can be
completed in 5 years for the next permit renewal. If annual NMOC emissions start exceeding the
threshold, the NMOC Emission Rate Report will be required annually.
■ As stated in the Title V Permit No. 0610015 -005 -AV, the landfill is not subject to the gas
collection and control requirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart WWW. Therefore, gas system
operational compliance monitoring is not required to be reported in the semi-annual
monitoring report. The semi-annual monitoring reports will only cover deviations from Title V
permit conditions. Landfill and landfill gas operational data is not required to be reviewed and
submitted to FDEP per the Title V permit.
■ The scope of services in this Work Order is based on regulations and monitoring and reporting
requirements as of the authorization date of this Work Order. An amendment to this Work
Order may be needed if there are any regulatory changes that result in additional work.
■ If FDEP requires contamination beyond the zone of discharge, a separate work order will be
required.
DATA OR ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED BY COUNTY
■ Existing data available on construction of the existing groundwater monitor wells.
■ Available site surveys.
■ Available record information.
■ Laboratory analytical reports and direct access to laboratory personnel.
■ COUNTY contract laboratory will provide copies of analytical reports in electronic format
(ADaPT) and in PDF format.
■ Access and clearance of vegetation to sampling/monitoring sites.
■ Maintenance of wells and staff gauge.
■ Annual operations data needed for emissions estimating including, but not limited to, tonnages
of waste accepted, quantity of landfill gas collected, and hours of emergency engine operation.
■ Annual Title V emissions fee.
PAYMENT AND COMPENSATION
Compensation for the Work Order described herein shall be made on the basis of a lump sum fee.
The annual lump sum fee for Tasks 1.0 through 5.0, inclusive, is $150,990 as shown in Exhibits B.
CONSULTANT will invoice the COUNTY on a monthly basis based on percent complete of each task.
For invoice purposes only, the value of each task is as shown in the Table 1.
CDM_ L A
Smith A-6 jj2146 WO No16
Table 1
jj2146 WO No.16
TASK VALUE FOR INVOICE PURPOSE
TASK
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
1.0
Project Quality Management
$23,540
2.0
Semi -Annual Water Quality Sampling and Reporting
$44,740
3.0
Title V Permit Compliance and Reporting
$24,760
4.0
Evaluation Monitoring for the C&D Debris Disposal Facility
$26,840
5.0
General Technical and Miscellaneous Permit Compliance Reporting
$31,110
TOTAL WORK ORDER NO. 13 - LUMP SUM
$150,990
jj2146 WO No.16
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
PROJECT: IRC SWDD Annual Permit Compliance
Monitoring Reporting Services
DESCRIPTION: Task 1.0 - Project Quality Management
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor CategorX
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr. Officer
8
$220
$1,760
Associate
50
$200
$10,000
Principal
12
$195
$2,340
Senior Professional
24
$165
$3,960
Professional II
24
$130
$3,120
Project Administration
16
$85
$1,360
Total Hours
134
Total Salary Cost
$22,540
Other Direct Costs
$1,000
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE
For the basic services under this Agreement, COUNTY agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum fee
$23,540. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the work
performed.
CDM -
Sm. ■ B-1 jj2146 WO No.166
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
PROJECT: IRC SWDD Annual Permit Compliance
Monitoring Reporting Services
DESCRIPTION: Task 2.0 - Semi -Annual Water Quality Sampling and Reporting
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor CategorX
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr. Officer
8
$220
$1,760
Associate
20
$200
$4,000
Principal
10
$195
$1,950
Senior Professional
48
$165
$7,920
Professional II
30
$130
$3,900
Professional
20
$110
$2,200
Senior Support
6
$120
$720
Staff Support
12
$85
$1,020
Project Administration
16
$85
$1,360
Total Hours
170
Total Salary Cost
$24,830
Other Direct Costs
$1,900
Outside Professional Services
Ideal Tech Services, Inc.
$10,010
Beeson Consulting, Inc.
$8,000
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE
For the basic services under this Agreement, COUNTY agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum fee
of $44,740. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the work
performed.
CDM
Smit ■ B-2 jj2146 WO A367.
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
PROJECT: IRC SWDD Annual Permit Compliance
Monitoring Reporting Services
DESCRIPTION: Task 3.0 —.Title V Permit Compliance and Reporting
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor CategorX
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr. Officer
6
$220
$1,320
Associate
16
$200
$3,200
Principal
4
$195
$780
Senior Professional
60
$165
$9,900
Professional II
36
$130
$4,680
Professional
8
$110
$880
Senior Support
8
$120
$960
Staff Support
2
$85
$170
Project Administration
12
$85
$1,020
Total Hours
152
Total Salary Cost
$22,910
Other Direct Costs
$1,850
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE
For the basic services under this Agreement, COUNTY agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum fee
$24,760. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the work
performed.
CDM
Smit ■ B-3 jj2146 W0 No.13"
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
PROJECT: IRC SWDD Annual Permit Compliance
Monitoring Reporting Services
DESCRIPTION: Task 4.0 - Evaluation Monitoring for the C&D Debris Disposal Facility
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor Category
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr. Officer
4
$220
$880
Associate
8
$200
$1,600
Principal
4
$195
$780
Senior Professional
30
$165
$4,950
Professional II
30
$130
$3,900
Professional
20
$110
$2,200
Senior Support
12
$120
$1,440
Staff Support
4
$85
$340
Project Administration
24
$85
$2,040
Total Hours
136
Total Salary Cost
$18,130
Other Direct Costs
$1,400
Outside Professionals
Beeson Consulting
$5,000
Ideal Tech
$2,310
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE
For the basic services under this Agreement, COUNTY agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum of
$26,840. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the work
performed.
Smith B-4 jj2146_WO No.169
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
PROJECT: IRC SWDD Annual Permit Compliance
Monitoring Reporting Services
DESCRIPTION: Task 5.0 - General Technical and Miscellaneous Permit Compliance
Reporting
CONTRACT
REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.
Labor CategorX
Hours
Rate
Total
Sr. Officer
14
$220
$3,080
Associate
4
$200
$800
Principal
20
$195
$3,900
Senior Professional
40
$165
$6,600
Professional II
14
$130
$1,820
Professional
12
$110
$1,320
Senior Support
2
$120
$240
Staff Support
4
$85
$340
Project Administration
6
$85
510
Total Hours
116
Total Salary Cost
$18,610
Other Direct Costs
$2,500
Outside Professional
(Driller, Surveyor, Beeson Consulting, etc.)
$10,000
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE
11
For the basic services under this Agreement, COUNTY agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum of
$31,110. CONSULTANT will submit monthly invoices based on the percent complete for the work
performed.
CDM
Smith B-5 jj2146 WO NATO
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT SCHEDULE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
2018 PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING
CCNA-2014 WO NO. 13
The following project schedule has been developed based on receiving authorization on or before
January 16, 2018.
Task
Task 1.0
Task 2.0:
Task 3.0
Task 4.0
Task 5.0:
Completion Date
January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018
Sampling events: January 2018 and July 2018: report submittals March 2018 and
September 2018 (Includes sampling events, review and validation of results, and
completion/submittal of reports within 60 days of receipt of laboratory analysis)
Statement of Compliance March 1, 2018
Electronic Annual Operating Report April 1, 2018
Annual Title V Emissions Fee April 1, 2018
Semi -Annual Monitoring Report March 1, 2018 and August 29, 2018
Annual Landfill Gas Sulfur Content Test February 28, 2018
Sampling events: January 2018, April 2018, July 2018, and October 2018: report
submittals March 2018, June 2018, September 2018, and December 2018
January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018
Smith C-1 jj2146 WO No. 137.1