The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/8/1992MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBERS, 1992 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman ( Dist. 2) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) of 9/29/92 C. Regular Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Kenneth R. Macht (Dist. 3) Meeting of 10/20/92 7. CONSENT AGENDA John W. Tippin ( Dist. 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ITEM 13C - Parks and Recreation Committee 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Special Meeting of 9/15/92 B. Special Meeting of 9/29/92 C. Regular Meeting of 10/6/92 D. Regular Meeting of 10/13/92 E. Regular Meeting of 10/20/92 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Report of Convictions, Month of November, 1992 B. Copeland's Landing Inc.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for Copeland's Landing Riverside PRD ( Phase 111) and Extension of Copeland's Landing Phase II Contract for Construction ( memorandum dated December 2, 1992 ) C. Xerox Copy Machine Contract ( memorandum dated December 1, 1992 ) DEC - 81993. 80OF -1 r s0UK 88 DEC 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ): D. Purchase Authorization; 45th St. R -O -W Acquisition, Robertson Parcel ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) E. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 9, Block 20, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4 ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) F. Sole Source / Master Meter Items ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) G. Award Bid #3033 / Glendale Lakes Subdivision Water Distribution System ( memorandum dated November 23, 1992 ) H. Mosquito Control / Waste Tire Abatement Grant ( memorandum dated November 25, 1992 ) (. Underwriter Selection for Utility Financing ( memorandum dated December 2, 1992 ) J. Solid 6 Hazardous Waste: Solutions for the 90's and Beyond - Workshop ( memorandum dated December 2, 1992 ) S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Phase II - Water Main Expansion Growth Plan Resolution III ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE WHISPERING PINES STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ( memorandum dated December 1, 1992 ) 3. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 307, TRAFFIC; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF HANDICAPPED, FIRE LANE PARKING AND OTHER RELATED PARKING RESTRICTIONS; PROVIDING FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EDITORIAL TRANSFER OF SECTIONS 306.06, 306.07 AND 306.07.1 TO CHAPTER 307 OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 4. IRC Housing Authority Request to Rezone Approx. 15.41 acres from RS -6 to RM -10 ( memorandum dated November 18, 1992 ) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Approval of Reduction in Animal Control License Fees for Non -Sterilized Animals During Rabies Vaccination Clinics ( memorandum dated December 1, 1992 ) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL Health Benefit Program Contracts ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) G. PUBLIC WORKS Kimball -Lloyd & Assoc., Inc. CR512 Intersection Improvements Professional Services Agreement ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) H. UTILITIES None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT B. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD 0 �� tW.,.DEC - 1992 ; DEC - 8 1992 BOOK 88 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ): D. COMMISSIONER KENNETH Q.. MACHT -r E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT Approval of Interlocal Agreement for Use of St. Lucie County Air Ambulance (Helicopter) ( memorandum dated December 1, 1992 ) B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT St. Lucie County Interlocal Agreement Waste Tire Processing ( memorandum dated November 30, 1992 ) 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. Tuesday, December 8, 1992 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, December 8, 1992, at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Deputy Clerks Barbara Bonnah and Diane Albin. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert requested the addition of Item 13C - Parks and Recreation Committee Report. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously added the above item to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 15, 1992 or September 29, 1992. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 15 and September 29, 1992 as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of October 6, October 13, or October 20, 1992. There were none. DEC ®8 199BOOK p,,r BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of October 6, October 13, and October 20, 1992 as written. 8� F•�F 94 CONSENT AGENDA A. Reports The following was received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, Month of November, 1992 B. Copeland's Landing Inc 's Request for Final Plat Approval for Copeland's Landing Riverside PRD (Phase III) and Extension of Copeland's Landing Phase II Contract for Construction The Board reviewed the following memo dated December 2, 1992: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD� CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Reat g, P Community Deve opme Director 40 THROUGH: Stan Boling# AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy �)V4A, Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: December 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Copeland's Landing Inc. Is Request for Final Plat Approval for Copeland's Landing Riverside PRD (Phase III) and Extension of Copeland's Landing Phase II Contract for Construction It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On July 25, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners granted conceptual PRD plan special exception approval for Copeland's Landing Riverside (Phase III). Subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval at its regular meeting of February 28, 1991. The approved PRD preliminary plat/plan depicted improvements necessary to serve the proposed four single family lots, as well as a 16 -slip boat dock facility to serve the entire Copelands project (all phases). The Riverside FRD K, project site consists of 23.94 acres and is located east of Copeland's Landing Phase I (constructed) and Copeland's Land Phase II (under construction). Copeland's Landing Riverside will connect to, and is dependent on, Copeland's Landing Phase II for infrastructure improvements such as access, water, sewer and drainage. ANALYSIS: The owner's agent, Carter Associates, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval for Copeland's Landing Riverside (Phase III) and an extension of the existing contract to construct the required improvements for Copeland's Phase II. The agent has submitted the following: 1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PRD plat/plan; 2. Completed Contracts for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements (Phase II, Phase III, and Mosquito Impoundment Improvements); 3. Engineer's Certified Cost Estimates for the remaining required improvements (Phase II, Phase III, and Mosquito Impoundment Improvements); and 4. Appropriate security arrangements acceptable to the County Attorney's Office (Phase II, Phase III and Mosquito Impoundment Improvements). •Phase I1 Contract/Security Extension Final plat approval for Copeland's Landing Phase II has been granted and the final plat has been recorded. The developer has bonded -out all required improvements for final plat approval and is currently constructing Phase II subdivision improvements. The letter of credit guaranteeing the construction of required improvements will expire February il, 1993. The applicant is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners extend the contract date for Phase II and accept a new letter of credit to guarantee construction. All appropriate documentation related to this request has been submitted to and reviewed by county staff. No county staff have objected to this request. •Wetlands Mitigation Contract/Security As part of Copeland's Landing Riverside (Phase III) approval extensive wetlandsmitigation work was required in addition to normal subdivision improvements. This mitigation work related to the existing mosquito impoundments. Although the wetland mitigation relates to the Riverside PRD (Phase III), the work will be guaranteed under a separate contract and Letter of Credit. The applicant is requesting that this contract and Letter of Credit be approved by the Board of County Commissioners in conjunction with the Riverside PRD approval. All appropriate documentation related to this request has been submitted to and reviewed by county staff. No county staff have objected to this request. 3 L_ QEC - 81992 BOOK 88 or,F 211 DEC ® 8 1992 BOOK 88 F.+c X12 *Riverside (Phase III) Contract/Security Relative to the Riverside PRD area, the applicant has commenced construction and is proposing to "bond -out" for the remaining improvements as required by the County's Land Development Regulations. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved all of the submitted Contracts for Construction, and all of the letters of credit. The Public Works and Utilities departments have reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate and corresponding letter of credit amount. It should be noted that all improvements within Copeland's Landing Riverside will be private, with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be dedicated to Indian River County, as approved by the Utilities Department. Finally, it should be noted that pursuant to county subdivision regulations no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any dwelling unit in Phase III until all required subdivision improvements, including the required wetland mitigation work, are completed and inspected and deemed acceptable by all reviewing jurisdictions. The performance dates for the contracts for construction and the expiration dates for the letters of credit will run concurrently for all improvements [Phase II, wetland mitigation, Phase III (Riverside) improvements]. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1• Grant final plat approval for Copeland's Landing Phase III (Riverside);.and 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements for Phase III (Riverside) and accept the letter of credit that secures the contract; and 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction of required Wetlands Mitigation work and accept the letter of credit that secures the contract; and 4. Authorize the Chairman to execute the revised contract for construction of remaining required improvements for Phase II and accept the letter of credit that secures the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for Copeland's Landing Phase III (Riverside) and accepted the construction contracts and letters of credit as set forth in the above staff recommendation. COPIES OF CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 4 C. Xerox Copy Machine Contract The Board reviewed the following memo dated December 1, 1992: DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1992 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU : JAMES E. CHANDLER. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �% FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, ,DIRECTOR` -A 1 DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: XEROX COPY MACHINE CONTRACT BACKGROUND: The one year warranty on our Xerox 5100 copy machine will expire on December 18, 1992. It is imperative that a maintenance contract be in effect for this high volume piece of equipment. There is an average of 180,000 copies run per month, on this one machine alone. Xerox has available a two year maintenance contract for a price of $1,175 per month for the first 150,000 copies, and .0062 cents per copy over the basic allowance. This cost equates to $1,361 per month or $16,232 annually, based on the average of 180,000 copies per month. ANALYSIS: It is anticipated that the number of copies per month will increase over the next two years and this contract will probably amount to a cost of approximately $34,000.00. This is an estimate based on copies produced over the past years. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board approve the attached contract authorize their chairman to execute the applicable documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved maintenance contract in the amount of $16,232 with Xerox Corporation, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 5 and DECL_ m 8 199 DDDR 88 r -,1u 2-1 DEC - 8 1992 -7 BOOK 8 8 F�, �+,,F 91 4 D. Purchase_ Authorization; 45th Street Right -of -Way Acquisition Robertson Parcel The Board reviewed the following memo dated November 30, 1992: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E Public Works Directo and Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Capital Projects Manage FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA County Right of Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization; 45th Street Right -of -Way Acquisition, Robertson Parcel DATE: November 30, 1992 Indian River County is planning to widen and pave 45th Street east of U.S. Highway #1 to Indian River Boulevard, Phase 4. The additional right-of-way needed to accomplish this project consists of the acquisition of 10 parcels. A Contract For Sale and Purchase was sent to the property owner at the appraised value of the 0.36 acre parcel, which fronts on U.S. #1. The Robertsons have not agreed to sell at the $48,888 appraised value but have executed the Contract For Sale and Purchase at the purchase price of $55,000. There are no additional attorney's fees or special conditions to the contract. • ��t • • A111410 I • Staff requests the Board accept the $55,500 contract and direct the chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf. Funding in available in Account No. 309-215-541-066.12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved Contract for Sale and Purchase with Etta Oquilla Robertson in the amount of $55,000, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 6 E. Request for Floodulain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 9 Block 20, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4 The Board reviewed the following memo dated November 30, 1992: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, Public Works Dv and Roger D. Cain, P County Engineer FROM: David B. Cox, P.EaK Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 9, Block 20, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4 REFERENCE: Project No. 92110103 DATE: November 30, 1992 CONSENT AGENDA Ando Building Corporation. has submitted a building permit application for a single family residence on the subject property. The site is located in an AE flood hazard zone, base flood elevation 22.8 ft. at the northeast corner of 79th Street and 92nd Avenue. In the attached letter dated November 18, 1992, the engineer has requested the cut and fill balance waiver provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance be granted by the Board of County Commissioners. The request has been kept on file by staff until a building permit application was submitted. The lot area is 1.08 acres. The amount of 100 year floodplain displacement created by the proposed grading plan is estimated as 389 cubic yards by the applicant's engineer. The attached letter signed and sealed on November 18, 1992 certifies that all applicable requirements of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance will be met. The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located in the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit. Alternative No. 1 - Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4. Alternative No. 2 - Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for the proposed floodplain displacement. ®EC ® 81992 ROOK 8 8 P.�r;F. t9VI5 -.,A Fr -DEC - 8 1992 Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1. BOOK 88 PAF .916 -7 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously granted cut and fill balance waiver for Lot 9, Block 20, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4, based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4, as recommended by staff. F. Sole Source/Master Meter Items The Board reviewed the following memo dated November 30, 1992: DATE: November 30, 1992 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director dOt Department of General Services FROM: Fran'Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage SUBJ: Sole Source/Master Meter Items Utilities Department BACKGROQND INFORMATION: On October 6, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved the low bid of Davis Meter and Supply Company for utility materials, meters and supplies for 1992-1993. The Master Meter is the meter currently being purchased under the Davis Meter bid. ANALYSIS: The Department needs to purchase additional items for electronic meter reading to more efficiently obtain meter readings in remote areas. The meter data collection equipment was not a part of the original bid and the equipment needed will only work with the Master Meter. The Department of Utility Services has reviewed this request with the Purchasing Department and they support the Department's request for sole source approval. RECOMMATION: The Department recommends the Board of County Commissioner's approval for the sole source purchase of the Master Meter items as attached from Davis Meter -and Supply Company. 8 ON -MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved purchase of items from Davis Meter & Supply as the sole source supplier of Master Meter supplies, as recommended by staff. G. Award Bid #3033 - Glendale Lakes Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated November 23, 1992: DATE: November 23, 1992 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Services FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager SUBJ: Award Bid #3033/Glendale Lakes subdivision Water Distribution system - IRC Protect #UW 92 -11 -DS Utilities Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: Advertising Dates: Specifications Mailed To: Replies: VENDOR Driveways, Inc Titusville, FL A.O.B. Underground Indiantown, FL Timothy Rose Enterprises Vero Beach, FL G.E. French Construction Okeechobee, FL P & C Construction Murdock, FL JoBear, Inc Palm Bay, FL TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: October 28, 1992 October 9, 13, 201 1992 Forty -Three (43) Vendors sig (6) Vendors BID TABULATION $ 95,149.25 $103,445.00 $118,435.50 $137,263.75 $144,444.00 $145,271.00 $ 95,149.25 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities Department General Impact Fees. BUDGETED AMOUNT: P] L_DEC - 8 N92 $1490500.00 800K 88 F,1 E 217 Fr"_ OEC o 8 19 9,21 RECOMKMMATION: BOOK 88 1'4,F.918 -7 Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Driveways, Inc as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See attached departmental memo). In addition, staff requests the Board's approval of the attached Agreement, when all requirements are' met and approved as.to form by the County Attorney. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #3033 in the amount $95,149.25 to Driveways, Inc., as recommended by staff, and authorized the Chairman to execute the Agreement. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD H. Mosquito Control - Waste Tire Abatement Grant The Board reviewed the following memo dated November 25, 1992: DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DIS /� FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRI(.- SUBJECT: MOSQUITO CONTROL/WASTE TIRE ABATEMENT GRANT BACKGROUND The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) is awarding grants to the counties that have mosquito control programs for. the purpose of controlling mosquitos generated by waste tire site or other debris sites. The Mosquito Control Department requested that the Board of County Commissioners apply for this grant and the Board subsequently authorized the SWDD staff to apply for the grant in their behalf. The FDER has awarded the County a Mosquito Control Grant in the amount of $18,802 as provided in the attached grant contract, No. MT93-29. These funds may be -transferred to the Mosquito Control program, provided that the program is certified by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, however, compliance with the grant is ultimately the responsibility of the County. 10 CONCLUSION The grant funds will be of benefit in the control and elimination of mosquito problems related to waste tire sites. An application for the grant was submitted to the DER prior to October 1, 1992. SWDD staff will serve as the primary coordinator for the grant and the subsequent paperwork related to obtaining the grant funds. SWDD staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant and authorize the Chairperson to execute the contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the mosquito control grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in the amount of $18,802 and authorized the Chairman to execute the contract, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD I. Underwriter Selection for Utility Financing The Board reviewed the following memo dated December -2, 1992: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 2, 1992 SUBJECT: UNDERWRITER SELECTION FOR UTQ,rIY FINANCING CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director At the meeting of September 8, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to send out proposals for an Underwriter to evaluate Utility financing needs. Proposals were received from A. G. Edwards, William R. Hough & Company and Raymond James and Associates. On November 30, 1992 a selection committee comprised of Jim Chandler, County Administrator, Charles Vitunac, County Attorney, Art Diamond, Financial Advisor, Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director, and Terry Pinto, Utilities Director reviewed proposals and presentations from all three firms. The selection committee concluded William R. Hough & Company was the best candidate. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve William R. Hough & Company as Underwriter for the Utility financing needs. 11 DEC ® 8 W2 BOOK 88 F.ti;F DEC BOOK 8 8 Dr ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved William R. Hough & Company as underwriter for utility financing needs, as recommended by staff. J. Solid and Hazardous Waste: Solutions for the 90's and Beyond - WorkshoA The Board reviewed the following memo dated December 2, 1992: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney l DATE: December 2, 1992 RE: SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE: SOLUTIONS FOR THE 90'• AND BEYOND - WORKSHOP The Department of Utility Services requests that I attend a one -day seminar given by The Florida Bar in Orlando on Friday, December 11, 1992. The cost for this type of seminar was included in our office's 1992-93 budget. REQUESTED ACTION: Request permission from the Board to attend. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously authorized Attorney Vitunac to attend The Florida Bar seminar on solid and hazardous waste in Orlando, Florida on Friday, December 11, 1992. PUBLIC HEARING PHASE II - WATER MAIN EXPANSION GROWTH PLAN - RESOLUTION III The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: 12 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on path says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Y -x f. Ir In the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of J` Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before. me this /ate day ofZ"Z(./19 (SEAL) (Business Manager) PUBUC HEARING — PHASE 9 - WATER ASSESSMENT PROJECT . The Board of Courrty Commiabners of _Indian Rivor County. Florida, hereby provbes notice of PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on posed yt� mol relat m toa SPECIIAALLASSESS MENT PROJECT In Uxan Rim Cour the h- sta0atiar of WATER SERVICE FOR 8 OF THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION GROWTH PLAN, - MW providing for special assesmud fens to be made of record on the props to be served. Anyone who may wish to appeal any ded O which may be made a< thl9 meeting will creed to ensure that a veftum record Of the Wocee*W Is made, w Includestesthrony and evideroe upon which the appal Is Inn& Nov. 5.1A 1992 947240 James D. Chastain, Manager of Assessment Projects, Department of Utility Services, presented the following memo dated November 30, 1992: 13 D E C - 8 1992 Boor 88s 807 BOOK 88 FbF � DEC DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRALo FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTDIRECTOR OF UTI RVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAIlk AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSES PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF TY SERVICES SUBJECT: PHASE II - WATER MAIN EXPANSION GROWTH PLAN RESOLUTION III - PUBLIC HEARING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -14 -DS BACKGROUND On October 27, 1992, the Indian River Board of County Commissioners approved Resolutions 92-190 and 92-191, which contained the preliminary assessment roll and established the date of the public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution 92-190 was published in the PRESS JOURNAL on November 2, 1992. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.) ANALYSIS Design of the water distribution system is complete. Approval of the attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary assessments. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The project will serve the area described by the attached map and is further described below: Informational meetings 10, 17, 19, were held for the property owners on November and 24 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers. Subdivision Location Pine Hill Park 30th Avenue, south of 4th Street Clemann Estates North of 4th Street to 6th Street, 35th Avenue to 38th Avenue, South of 4th Street from 35th Avenue west, 3rd Place south to 2nd Place Westwind Northeast corner of 43rd Avenue at 4th Street, 5th Place south to 4th Place and 42nd Court Westlake Park West side of 43rd Avenue, 2nd Street north to 2nd Circle Stevens Park West side of 43rd Avenue to 50th Avenue, south side of 2nd Street to north side of 1st Street SW Emerson Park South of 4th Street to 2nd Street, east of 35th Avenue to just east of 32nd Avenue King's Music Lands West of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) to 60th Avenue, 59th Street south to 57th Street Bentwood Terrace 38th Court, north of 4th Street Florence Acres S/D 39th Court, north of 4th Street 14 s _ � Fox Haven Vero Beach Homesites Graves Annex Metes and Bound Parcels North of 4th Street, 4th Place, 31st and 33rd Avenues 1st Lane to 1st Street SW, east from 35th Avenue to the 2800 block 8 lots on 1st Road, east of 29th Avenue from 35th Avenue, east into the 2800 block Various, abutting various streets throughout the above The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The total cost to be assessed is $1,685,756.24. The cost per square foot is $0.118570. This project contains 11055 Parcel I.D.'s, including 1,416 parcels and platted lots, of which 1,277 or 90.18% are substandard or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan, and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, which require that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum of one-half acre. If served by a public water system, the lot may be reduced to one-quarter acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized lots." The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolution III, which affirms the preliminary assessment on the subject project.. Commissioner Adams asked about density, and Mr. Chastain replied that most of the areas included in this project are densely developed and most of the lots are undersized. Commissioner Bird wanted to know how essential the fire hydrants are to the Emergency Services District and how much oversizing the lines for fire hydrants increases the cost of the projects, and Director Pinto felt that they are very essential, and suggested that the Fire District could do a cost -benefit analysis. Commissioner Bird commented that he would like the Fire Chief to discuss this in depth with the Board. Director Pinto reported that staff made an adjustment on one lot that is so small it won't make a difference in the assessment. He then reviewed the guidelines for determining assessments. If staff feels there is a benefit to the property, the owner is assessed. If the property does not have access to the water system, or if the entire piece of property is serviced from another source of water that already has been built by the County, it is not part of the assessment. Commissioner Bird asked if the Board was sitting today as an adjustment board, and Attorney Vitunac advised that today the Board has the power to adjust this assessment roll either up or down. Once the gavel comes down on this meeting, there is no power to go to a higher assessment than the one that has been set. 15 BOOK 88 F',* 993 1992 BOOK 88 PAO,JE224 Director Pinto advised that if any adjustments are made today, every three acres removed from the total assessment will result in increasing the assessment charged the other property owners by one cent per square foot. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Jerry Smith, 3645 3rd Street, came before the Board to appeal the assessment on his property of $14,326.33 for 2.75 acres. He related that paving would cost about $172,095, and even if the County paved the streets, the cost of developing six lots would be over $104,000. He noted that the Commission has made exceptions in other cases where the property did not adjoin a paved street, and he only is asking for the same treatment as everyone else has received in these situations. He suggested that if he or someone else decided to develop the property in the future, the assessment could be done at that time. Or he would be willing to sign a deed restriction against this 2-3/4 acres eliminating certain things being built there. Mr. Smith requested that the Board reduce his assessment to a 140 -foot frontage with a depth of 150 feet. Chairman Eggert asked Director Pinto to explain the difference between the Smith property and other properties mentioned by Mr. Smith, including certain property owned by Mr. Gallagher. Director Pinto pointed out that the two parcels in front of the Gallagher property are owned by someone other than Mr. Gallagher, resulting in a diminished benefit for Mr. Gallagher. Director Pinto did not think there were any similarities between the Smith property and the Gallagher property, since both pieces of the Smith property are owned by Mr. Smith. Commissioner Macht asked for clarification of the method used for assessing the Smith property, and Director Pinto explained they are being assessed independently because they are two separate parcels of 1.25 acres and 1.52 acres respectively. Commissioner Bird asked if deed restrictions were feasible, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the County should adhere to zoning codes and avoid contracts that result in spot zoning. Further, private deed restrictions are not enforceable by the County. Discussion ensued regarding the need for Mr. Smith to extend 2nd Lane and 3rd Street if he subdivides the property, and Community Development Director Bob Keating agreed with Director Pinto that it is difficult to predict how a piece of property will be developed. 16 Chairman Eggert wondered whether some relief could be granted Mr. Smith by treating the two parcels as though they were one. Director Pinto cautioned that you have to be very cautious with independent parcels even though they have the same owner, because they can be sold separately. Commissioner Macht thought the Board should give Mr. Smith some relief. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to use the 150 -foot rule on Mr. Smith's property, measuring the length of the property from east to west. Jerry Carlson, 2900 First Lane, came before the Board and announced that his original assessment was over $20,000 because he was assessed for the north and south ends of his property. He stated that the north end was eliminated from the assessment, reducing his assessment to about $11,000. However, he noted that there is an easement at the south end of his property. In order to have sufficient frontage to develop his property, he thought he probably would have to purchase land near Citrus School from the School Board. He added that the area is low-lying and might be considered wetlands. Chairman Eggert asked Mr. Carlson to describe the area that appeared to have a lake on it, and Mr. Carlson confirmed that it is a man-made lake with fish and turtles in it. To the south of the lake is low-lying, frequently flooded land. There was discussion regarding the ability of Mr. Carlson to develop his property, and Director Pinto commented that Mr. Carlson is being assessed only for two acres of his total 9.77 acres. Attorney Vitunac emphasized that the issue is whether Mr. Carlson receives utility service from 29th Avenue, but Mr. Carlson's position is that the 29th Avenue access is of no use to him because of the 30 -foot easement. Commissioner Bird asked, and Director Keating confirmed that even with the easement there is sufficient land to build one house on the south two acres in the cul-de-sac at the end of 29th Avenue. Discussion ensued, and Attorney Vitunac advised that Mr. Carlson was being assessed for two acres starting from the southern boundary line of his property and 29th Avenue and to the west. 04FA �� o 1992 BOOK PA E & F, DEC 8 1,997 BOOK 8O Pk 'IF 226 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht to use the 150 -foot rule on Mr. Carlson's piece of property. Under discussion, Attorney Vitunac stressed that the definition of the 150 -foot rule should be changed if it is used in this manner. Chairman Eggert recommended that it should depend on the situation and whether or not the property is touching a road. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. Russell Peterson, local attorney, asked the Board to combine his five -acre and his one-half acre parcels and apply the 150 -foot rule to the entire 318 feet of frontage. Commissioner Bird expressed a willingness to apply the 150 - foot rule and reduce the assessment to two acres. Commissioner Macht pointed out that treating two parcels as one is an exception to the rule. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Peterson stressed that he was willing to unify the two parcels but explained that the deadline has passed for filing a unification request. He mentioned that portions of the property are not buildable because there is a muck pond on the land. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously agreed to combine the five -acre parcel and the .57 acre parcel and apply the two -acre rule, subject to Mr. Peterson filing the proper unity of title. Jim Beindorf, Jr., 4780 2nd Street, stated that he owns 2.62 acres, was assessed $10,329.81, and would like to know if there was any way that amount could be reduced. Commissioner Bird conveyed that the Board would need some unique circumstances to justify an adjustment. He realized that Mr. Beindorf has a deed restriction on his property, but the County Attorney has advised that private deed restrictions are not enforceable by the County. Chairman Eggert asked, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed, that limiting the lot to one house does not change the total square footage being assessed. 18 Discussion ensued, and Director Pinto reminded the Board that it takes a lot more line to service Mr. Beindorf's frontage, which is four times that of the other lots. Commissioner Bird felt there wasn't anything unique about Mr. Beindorf's property to warrant an adjustment. Nancy Richards stated that she owns property in Stevens Park and wanted to know how eminent sewer service is into that area. Director Pinto replied that sewer service was not planned into that area in the foreseeable future, unless the residents petition for it. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-224, confirming the special assessments in connection with Phase II of the water main extension growth plan, with the adjustments to the Smith, Carlson and Peterson parcels as set forth above. RECOFsflK ATOtA JEFFREY 'C,acu"T RESOLUTION NO. 92-N01AN 81,460 �r A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH PHASE II OF THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION GROWTH PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 92-190, adopted October 27, 1992, determined to make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by Phase II of the Water Main Extension Growth Plan of the County; and WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and WHEREAS, the resolution was published on November 2, 1992, as required by Section 206.04, Indian River County Code; and 19 BOOK 88 F: uE 227 r"- BOOK 88 N .928 RESOLUTION NO. 92- 224 ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River p County on Tuesday, December 8, 1992, at 9:05, a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in full. 2. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird : , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner M a c h t and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: 20 0 C LL u M. N WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed Resolution No. 92-191, on October 27, 1992, which set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would have the Jchance 'to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by SCIO ection 206.07, Indian River County Code; and Fa oa cis WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Thursday, November 5, 1992, and Thursday, November 12, 1992 (twice one week apart; the last being at least one week prior to the hearing) , as required by Section w 206.06, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River p County on Tuesday, December 8, 1992, at 9:05, a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in full. 2. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird : , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner M a c h t and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: 20 0 C LL u M. N RESOLUTION NO. 92- 2 2 4 Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 8th day of December, +: ktte t : w Je fray K. Barton Clerk 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN R VER COUNTY, F ORIDA By Carolyn K. Eggs Cha; a . REVISED ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE WHISPERING PINES STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily DEC o 1992 Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being � a tlP mUCC �NEmAt�RrB�Ifi TheT Board River Ch. FaComrpNewsl�rrere of kaftan Of 13 PLft Hea�n9 scheduled far n ITu96day, r : a.m. D8W11W 8. 1992, to dlsama the to9Ow6iB pp In the matter of a"" �AN ORDIWdIft:NANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE WHISPERING SS STREET G DISTRICT. ArW� mmaeyy be ride of the Pub6Cwish to AP� Rny which . 1892 we need to ensure that vefiatkn bar 8' in the Court, was pub -the nh rd>J� k taedmdormy . � w1d1�1 the � hated. �/ Nor. 7.1892 947712 Iished in said newspaper in the issues of i Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _� day of s6�A.D. 19!0_r9_ (Business Manager) 21 BOOK�� F,,� 99� pp®® �� BOOK ©O FA ,F 930 -7 Administrator Chandler gave the following presentation: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director Terry O'Brien Assistant County Attorney Y#q SUBJECT: Establishment of a Municipal Service Benefit Unit Street Lighting District Whispering Pines Subdivision Located South of 4th Street along 21st and 22nd Avenues DATE: December 1, 1992 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In 1988, developer Ron Mitchell requested that the County establish a MSBU (taxing district) to provide funding for street lighting along 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue between 4th Street and 2nd Street. At that time, Mr. Mitchell was developing Whispering Pines Subdivision, a 34 lot subdivision between 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue having frontage on one side of each street. In the process of setting up the MSBU in 1988, it was discovered by staff that the Final Plat document had not yet been recorded; therefore, an assessment benefit area could not be described. The MSBU project was therefore delayed. In 1989, the Final Plat was recorded, however, staff noticed that the development had not yet been completed, and there remains today several lots in Whispering Pines Subdivision which are still owned by Mr. Mitchell (Vero Building Corporation) and not occupied by a house. A few residents of Whispering Pines, at this time, are requesting installation of ten street lights that the developer indicated would be included within the subdivision, and staff is now proceeding with bringing before the Board of County Commissioners an Ordinance to establish the MSBU. In defining the benefitted area for the street light project, staff is of the opinion that lots on both sides of each street (21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue) should be included in the district since it is impractical to design street lighting that will light one side of a street. As a result, a total of 70 lots have been included in the assessment area, 34 of which are within Whispering Pines Subdivision and the remaining 36 lots are within Indian River Heights Subdivision. To determine if a majority of the property owners within the 70 lot area are in support of the MSBU assessment of $30.00 per lot per year, staff mailed a coy to each lot owner in the area Witha pre-stf the attached letter d response Post card addressed to the County for each owner to indicate his or her willingness to pay $30.00/year per lot for street lighting. The response received from the County -was as. follows: 22 Property owners in Whispering Pines Subdivision For 25 lots Against 4 lots No reply 5 lots Property owners in Indian River Heights Subdivision For 5 lots Against 20 lots No reply 11 lots It is apparent from those who responded that more property owners are against the assessment of $30/per lot/per year than are in support of the project. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives presented are as follows: Alternative No.l Approve the Ordinance establishing a MSBU for street lighting in Whispering Pine Subdivision and a portion of Indian River Heights Subdivision along 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue between 2nd Street and 4th Street. Alternative No.2 Do not approve the Ordinance as written. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that comments be heard at the Public Hearing regarding establishment of a MSBU and based on continents received, the Board either approve or disapprove the Ordinance creating an MSBU for the street light project. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. John Posloski, 256 21st Avenue, Indian River Heights, spoke in opposition to the street lights. He felt this was a selling gimmick on the part of the developer, and if the developer wants street lights then the developer should pay for them. He added that he already has lights on his driveway and behind his house and would derive no additional benefit from the street lights. Lloyd Kolbe, 275 21st Avenue, Whispering Pines mentioned that when he bought his house street lights were in the contract, and it was his understanding that the builder placed money into escrow for that purpose. Director Davis explained that when the project was going through the development review process in 1988, Mr. Mitchell had the prerogative to request that a street lighting district be 23 BOOK�" ��'9A BOOK 232 established. Mr. Mitchell was within his rights to request a street lighting district. However, Whispering Pines Subdivision is unique in that it lies between two already dedicated roadways. When we went to set it up, we found that the plat had not been recorded yet and that he had not gone far enough along in the process for us to be able to initiate a district. In 1989, he did record the final plat but the development was still very sparsely built out and the project didn't go forward at that time. Now there are some residents who are requesting it. Regardless of whether Mr. Mitchell buys them and puts them in himself, there is still a perpetual energy charge and that almost always is borne either by a property owners' association or a district concept. Whichever way it is done, there is still a monetary obligation to the property owners that are benefiting. It was our opinion that it is not fair to assess one side of the road when the other side also benefits. Attorney Vitunac suggested that staff could take action against the developer to install street lights in the event the County decides not to establish a street lighting district, and Director Keating replied that the County could either establish a street lighting district that would assess the Whispering Pines residents only or allow individual property owners to install individual lights on separate lots. The County also could reduce the total number of lights in the district. Proctor Barber, 385 21st Avenue, expressed the opinion that the neighborhood is in dire need of street lights. It is very dark there, sometimes dogs run loose, and there have been instances of vandalism and break-ins. He could not understand why someone would say they do not need street lights. Further discussion ensued regarding the cost of installing and operating the street lights, and Chairman Eggert indicated that she had a problem with the County returning money to the developer before the Board decided to establish a Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) to finance the installation of the street lights. Director Keating explained that bonding for the street lights was part of a lot of other improvements for which the developer had placed a bond, and that staff had returned the bond because the County had always established an MSBU in the past. Chairman Eggert related that she thought the County needed to review its policy in this type of situation. Commissioner Bird asked whether the County has the authority to require the developer to install the street lights just for Whispering Pines. 24 Director Davis responded that the County has this authority, and the developer could set up a homeowners' association to pay the monthly charge to the power company. However, it would be an after -the fact homeowners' association and the developer would need the unanimous approval of all the homeowners to set it up. Attorney Vitunac suggested the County could set up an MSBU and only charge the Whispering Pines residents. He added that the law does not require everyone who gets the benefit of the lights to help pay for them. Director Davis mentioned that there are no installation charges for the street lights, but an annual fee is charged which covers the energy costs and also pro rates the cost of the fixture over ten years. He would need to ask the power company about having the developer pay for the poles and fixtures and the residents pay the annual energy charges. Commissioner Bird thought the County should require Mr. Mitchell to install the lights and bill the energy costs*to just the residents of Whispering Pines. He could do this either by setting up an MSBU or a homeowners' association, but this is not something the Board can decide today. Chairman Eggert felt that the developer should pay for the initial installation and just the residents of Whispering Pines Subdivision pay the annual energy costs. Administrator Chandler asked if the Board would consider continuing this public hearing for thirty days so that staff can discuss this with the developer and the power company. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams the Board unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing for thirty days, and directed staff in the meantime to meet with the developer and the power company. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 307, TRAFFIC• PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF HANDICAPPED FIRE LANE PARKING AND OTHER RELATED RESTRICTIONS: PROVIDING FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EDITORIAL TRANSFER OF SECTIONS 306.06 306.07 AND 306.07.01 TO CHAPTER 307 OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: 25 FpU POOK �E �.�� DEC 8 00 BOOK 88 FA -7 ;F?34 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority g- `'=^ 9 y personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath � NOT says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published The Board of at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being RiiverPublIc �►renty. Fbft �✓�I/) 1 d a POSW O* p NICE' OF �) COUNTY COMMISSIC ��/ RIVER COUNTY, FL In the matter of ��P/% 7 w0 FOR � REOU CAPPED, FIRE LAN i OTHER RELATED P TIONS, PROVIDING F In the. ) / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the Issues of -/7117f, hi �7 � � 9 --)— Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed beforepe this day ofx"� A.D. 19 ` ffBusiness Moana er) 110 h - (SEAL) f t Mary Pt"lc Ss„•� „f p f�da1 �,odrex ,I+!rtq 24, 199, misalome of fi dlan p a m. notice of a: DS an Ttwsda,. ,, e ft Wb”pro JE BOARD OF { IS OF INDIAN i )A ADDING A AFFIL PROMO- a ON 6F NANDI.. '.l A 111 PROVIDING IFOSPETHELIEDITORIAL TRANSFER OF SECTIONS 306.06, 309.07 AND 309.07.1 TO CHAPTER 307 OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decINon Wtft may be made at the Fh�cHewing D�6e, 8,: 1892, w@ need to enwm that a verbatim ►ecord of avid eve Is made, whbh t , Arryone who a wfth appeal b bated. ft spatial accgmnodation for vft �ttno , contact the CM*'s Americans Oi Act (ADA) Coordinator. at 687-90W ext. 408 at least 48 holes In advam of ff"U4 Nov. 17, 1992 950398 The Board reviewed the following memo dated October 30, 1992: TO: Board of County Commissioners y FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney t DATE: October 30, 1992 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 307, TRAFFIC; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF HANDICAPPED, FIRE LANE PARKING AND OTHER RELATED PARKING RESTRICTIONS; PROVIDING FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EDITORIAL TRANSFER OF SECTIONS 306.06, 306.07 AND 308.07.1 TO CHAPTER 307 OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. A public hearing date of December 8, 1992 is suggested for the subject ordinance. 26 807 Commissioner Bird felt that $250 for a first offense is excessive. Chairman Eggert disagreed and pointed out that these fines provide funds for public information and the State allows some of the monies to be used for groups such as the group for a barrier - free community and help to businesses that need some help. She added that handicapped spots constantly are used incorrectly and the only fighting chance most handicapped drivers have is to have stiff fines that will startle people and for us to have the ability to inform the public through the newspaper. Discussion ensued, and Chairman Eggert reported that the County will pay for printing the tickets. In addition to the Deputies, a volunteer force will trained as Parking Enforcement Specialists who are allowed to ticket cars. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. Neil Duval, 982 Laredo Lane, Sebastian, announced that he was representing about 2000 handicapped people in Indian River County. He recalled that physically and mentally handicapped people in this County have approached the Board in the past, and the Board has listened, had compassion, and helped in many ways. He felt that the proposed ordinance is a very important part of making this community barrier -free for everyone. Dean Lockwood commented that his wife had polio and wears a brace. Her major concern is that overzealousness would create resentment on the part of able-bodied people. Chairman Eggert noted that among most handicapped people there is the realization that a lot of things cannot be changed, but there are also a lot of things that can be changed. Most of the handicapped people do not want half the town to be turned into handicapped parking. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 92-42, adding a new Chapter 307, Traffic; providing for the regulation of handicapped, fire lane parking and other related parking restrictions; providing for parking enforcement specialists; etc. 27 DEC m 81992 BOOK FaCE DEC (8 111 aT ORDINANCE 92-__&2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 307, TRAFFIC; PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF HANDICAPPED, FIRE LANE PARKING AND OTHER RELATED PARKING RESTRICTIONS; PROVIDING FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EDITORIAL TRANSFER OF SECTIONS 306.069 306.07 AND 306.07.1 TO CHAPTER 307 OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. BOOK 88 FA%r 236 -7 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, pursuant to Section 125.01, 316.006, and 316.008, Florida Statutes, retains jurisdiction over the public streets, highways, roadways, and parking areas in the unincorporated area and parking areas located on property owned or leased by Indian River County whether or not such areas are located within the boundaries of chartered municipalities; and + WHEREAS, the enforcement of handicapped parking, fire lane parking on properties owned or leased by county, and parking on road right-of-ways owned or leased by state, is difficult due to the fact that under existing Florida Statutes, a law enforcement officer is required to physically contact and issue a citation to the offending party, and WHEREAS, this procedure is time consuming, does not utilize manpower efficiently, and takes officers away from responding to more serious matters, and _ WHEREAS, this ordinance would allow enforcement by deputies and parking enforcement specialists to be effective and is in the best interest of the health, safety and public welfare of the citizens of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, Section 316.640(2)(b), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Sheriff's Office to employ as a Parking Enforcement Specialist any 11 individual who successfully completes a training - program established and approved by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission for parking enforcement specialists;- and 28 ORDINANCE 92- 4 2 WHEREAS, a parking enforcement specialist is authorized to enforce all state and county laws, ordinances, regulations, and official signs governing parking within the unincorporated areas of the county by appropriate state or county citation and may issue such citations for parking in violation of signs erected pursuant to Section 316.006(3) at parking areas located on property owned or leased by the County, whether or not such areas are within the boundaries of a chartered municipality; and WHEREAS; Section 316.1967, Florida Statutes, requires counties to provide the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles with a list of persons who have violated handicapped parking laws or ordinances: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. NEW CHAPTER. A new Chapter 307, Traffic, as set forth in attachment "A" to this ordinance is hereby adopted SECTION 2. EDITORIAL TRANSFER. Section 306.06, 306.07 and 306.07.1 are hereby editorially transferred as follows: Section 306.06 to 307.10 Section 306.07 to 307.11 Section 306.07.1 to 307.07 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid, or inoperative part. 29 DEC - 8 1992 Bou 88 F,, 20.. 7 r r - 0Fr - R IPP? ORDINANCE 92--.gL2 BOOK 8O P" 11.0. SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on becoming law. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this q day of December , 1992. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press- Journal on the 17 day of November 9 1992, for a public hearing to be held on the _$_ day of D P r m h P r , 1992, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner M a c h t and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams and, adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn. K. Eggert A v e Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay e Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ay e Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ay e Commissioner John W. Tippin Ay e BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Attest by Jef . Barton Clerk YHf � Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 14 th day of December , 1992. Effective date: Acknowledgment for the Department of State received on this 18th day of December , 1992, at to : o0 a.m. /pxz. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. M IRC HOUSING AMMORITY REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 15.41 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO RM -10 The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that the public hearing had been properly advertised, as follows: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being i4 i a in the matter In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of !i / * Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River coun. ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before m his � r day of A.D. 19 �. V /i'. �� (�Mango (SEAL) 31 SUbjeCt Property 4 t �► ST RMH-6 �`•• iso' ` ''.'amu' �(• . • ::.::,::<::; ��:•.:<: � ti wit, � �. gf •� it � �,. ,Q7ti' a r o"s=i r AL•t i l y rs,. X • � � th iS�' NOTICE - PU13UC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a' county ordinance rezoning land from: RS -8, Family Residential District to RM -10, MuftIpWFam Single - Family District. The subject property is pre- sently owned by Diane Maynard FlDicetd The sub- pand roperty and between 40th AvenueIs located between 49thSUM arid 35th .Avenue, ii and contains aPprox6nately 15.41 acres! The tion o�=ect p gray � in the SSoL wmat 1/4 sec - and being In Indian Rive=, Florida. 39E, lying. A public hearing at which parties In Ingest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissldners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County COmrrjw sion Chambers of the County AdndNstration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor- ida on Tuesday, December 8, 1992, at 9:05 am. The Board of County Comrrdssioners may adopt anther zoning Af lat, other than the district re- quested, Provided it .b within the same general use "atAny�one who may wish toany decslon which may be made at this mee w61 need to en- sure that a verbatim record ' of the proceedings Is • Made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans With 0198bilfts Act (ADA) Coordinator at 587-8000 extension 408 at least 48 hours In. advance of.. meaft Indian River County BByoard of Commissioners 9 Nov.18, i99a Carolyn Eggert Chairman MIXIN 807 eooK DEC ®8 1992 �� .+•� �:.�� °LL BOOK 88 FAGE0 Director Keating made the following presentation with the aid of an overhead projector: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert esti g, A THRU: Sasan Rohani <3.IC- Chief, Long -Ran a Planning FROM: John Wachte Staff Plane, Long -Range Planning DATE: November 18, 1992 RE: Indian River County Housing Authority Request to Rezone Approximately 15.41 acres from RS -6 to RM -10 (RZON 92-08-0115) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 8, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to rezone approximately 15.41 acres. Located between 49th Street and 47th Street, and between 40th Avenue and 35th Avenue, the subject property is currently owned by Diane Maynard Fillicetti. The request involves rezoning the property from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre). As the contract buyer of the subject property,. the Indian River County Housing Authority (IRCHA) has initiated this request and plans to develop its 15.41 acre parcel with 100 units of affordable housing for farm labor families. The subject property is graphically depicted on Attachment 2. As shown, the property has an unusual configuration with several narrow strips extending soutward from the major part of the property. Because of this configuration, staff attempted to contact adjacent property owners to determine if those owners would consent to join in the rezoning to produce a squared off tract that could be zoned RM -10. While staff was able to contact most of the property owners and secure indications either of approval or no objection for rezoning the shaded area depicted in Attachment 41 that process was time consuming. Because of advertising deadlines, staff had to advertise for the rezoning public hearing prior to receiving responses from all affected property owners. Consequently, staff proceeded with the required legal advertising, identifying only the IRCHA tract as the subject property. 32 Despite only having advertised for the IRCHA tract, staff presented the entire shaded area site depicted on Attachment 4 to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. Because of the advertising issue, however, the Planning and Zoning Commission could formally act only on the IRCHA site. At its meeting of October 22, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property (IRCHA tract) to RM -10. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that a county - initiated rezoning be undertaken to square -off the zoning boundary. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District and is vacant, uncleared land. To the east is a five acre parcel containing one single-family home. This area is also zoned RS -6. North of the subject property, across the H-2 Canal and 49th Street, is a large tract of vacant, A-1 zoned land. The area west of the subject property is zoned RM -10 and contains the Victory Park residential development and Gifford Garden Apartments. The Victory. Park residential development was developed by, and is owned and managed by, the IRCHA. To the south are six parcels that border the subject property. These parcels are between 1/3 and 3/4 of an acre in size and are zoned RS -6. Three of the parcels contain single-family homes, two are vacant, and one contains a non -conforming, multiple -family building. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and land to the south, east, and west are designated M-21 Medium -Density Residential on the county future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential densities up to 10 units/acre. Land north of the subject property is designated L-21 Low -Density Residential. The L-2 designation permits residential densities up to 6 units/acre. Environment The subject property consists primarily of undeveloped pine flatwoods. In the northwest quadrant of the subject property, there is a ±1.5 acre isolated freshwater wetland with a small central pond. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps (1984) characterize the wetland as a "persistent palustrine (freshwater) wetland, permanently flooded, partially drained". The pond is characterized on the wetland maps a excavated. Although no site specific environmental survey has been conducted, no rare r endangered species are expected to occur on the subject The subject property is in a flood zone "8", outside of the 100 Year floodplain hazard area. 33 DEC -BOOK 992 �ooK �� F4 F 9 1 DEC BOOK 88 2,42 Utilities and Services The subje t c property is within the Urban Service Area of the county. As such, the site has access to the services needed to accommodate urban development. For potable water, the site is currently serviced by the South County Water Plant; however, when the North County Water Plant is completed, potable water service will be provided by that facility. Wastewater service is available to the site from the Central County Wastewater Plant (Gifford). Transvortation System The property abuts 49th Street to the north and 47th Street to the south. Forty-ninth Street is classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 49th Street is a 2 -lane paved road with approximately 35 feet of existing public road right of way. It is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of public road right of way by 2010. Forty-seventh Street is a 2 -lane paved road with approximately 70 feet of existing public road right of way. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning district. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Property: ±15.41 acres 2• Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±15.41 acres 34 �_ J M 3. Existing Zoning Classification: 4. Proposed Zoning Classification: 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Existing Zoning Classification: 6. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Zoning Classification: - Transportation RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre) 93 units 154 units A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on 49th Street would not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic is as follows: Existing Land Use and Zoning 1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single - Family 2. For Single -Family Units, in ITE Manual: a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35% 3. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage (93 X 1.01 X .65 = 61) 4. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (93 X 9.55 = 888) Proposed Land Use and Zonina 1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Condominium/Multiple-Family 2. For Condominium/Multiple-Family Units, in ITE Manual: a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 5.86/unit b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 0.55/unit c. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 82% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 18% 3. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage (154 X .55 X .82 = 69) (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) 4. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (154 X 5.86 = 902) 5. Peak Direction of 49th Street, from 43rd Avenue to Old Dixie Highway: Westbound 35 L_ R o 1992 Boor 88 43, DE411 c 8 1 BOOK 88 F.,-7 c X44 6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 49th Street, at a Level of Service "D": 630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of 49th Street: 153 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning classification is 888. This was determined by multiplying the 93 units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor of 9.55 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning classification is 902. This was determined by multiplying the 154 units (most intense use) by ITE's multiple -family residential factor of 5.86 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways. According to ITE, the proposed zoning classification generates more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 49th Street is westbound. Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning classification was calculated to be 61. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (93) under the existing zoning by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, then taking 65% of that total to ensure that only inbound trips were counted. To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning classification, the total number.of units allowed (154) under the proposed zoning was multiplied by ITE's factor of 0.55 p.m. peak hour trips/unit; that volume was then multiplied by the inbound trip factor of 0.82. The result was 69, or 8 more than the 61 that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning. Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the trips generated under the proposed zoning classification were then assigned to roadways on the network. Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of 49th Street adjacent to this site is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Service "D", while the existing traffic volume on this segment of 49th Street is 153 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 69 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning classification will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of 49th Street to approximately 222. 36 Based on staff analysis, it was determined that 49th Street and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service. Impacted roads are defined in the county's Land Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more daily project trips, whichever is less. The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with this proposed zoning classification. As indicated in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Roadway Segment Road FromCapacity To LOS HDn 1320 1325 U.S. 1 U.S. 1 8th Street 12th Street 2270 1330 U.S. 1 12th Street S. VB City lmt. S. VB City Lmt. 2370 1335 O.S. 1 17th Street 17th Street S.R. 60 2270 1340 1345 U.S. 1 II.S. 1 Utlantic S.R. 60 Royal Palm P1. 2270 2300 1350 S 1 U.S. Royal Palm Pl. Atlantic Blvd. Blvd. 2300 1355 1360 1 U.S. N. VB City lmt. N. VB City Lmt. Old Dixie Hwy. 2300 2300 1365 1.S. O.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy. 41st Street 41st Street 2300 1370 U.S. 1 45th Street 45th Street 49th 2650 1375 1380 O.S. 1 U.S. 1 49th Street Street 65th Street 2650 2650 1385 O.S. 1 65th Street 69th Street 69th Street 2650 Old Dixie Hwy. 2650 Roadway Sent Segment Road From Capacity To LOS nDn 1390 1395 U.S. 1 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy. Schumann Dr. 2370 1400 O.S. 1 Schumann Dr. C.R. 512 C.R. 512 2370 1810 C.R. 510 C.R. 512 N. Seb. City Lmt. 2300 1820 C.R. 510 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 630. 1830 C.R. 510 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 630 C.R. 510 U.S1840 1 U.S. 1 630, 1930 S.R. 60 . 58th Ave. S.R. AIA 630 1935 S.R. 60 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 2650 1940' S.R. 60 27th Ave. 27th Ave. 2650 2335 Old Dixie Hwy. 16th Street 20th Ave. 2600 2345 Old Dixie Hwy. 41st Street S.R. 60 830 2350 old Dixie Hwy. 45th Street 45th street 630 2355 Old Dixie H Hwy. 49th Street 49th Street 630 2360 Old Dixie Hwy. 65th Street 65th Street 630 2935 43rd Ave.69th S.R. Street 630 2940 43rd Ave. 26th street t 26th Street 830 2945 43rd Ave 41st Street 41st Street. 630 2950 43rd Ave. 45th Street 45th Street 630 3030 58th Ave. S.R. 49th Street 630 3035 58th Ave. 41st Street 41st Street 830 3040 58th Ave. 45th Street 45th Street49th 630 3045 58th Ave. 49th Street Stmt 630 3050 58th Ave. 65th Street 65th Street 630 3055 58th Ave. 69th Street 69th Street 630 3120 66th Ave. S.R. 60 C.R. 510 630 3130 66th Ave. 26th Street 26th Street 630 3140 66th Ave. 41st Street 41st Street 630 3150 66th Ave. 45th Street 45th Street 630 4220 49th Street 66th Ave. 65th Street 630 4230 49th Street 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 630 4240 49th Street 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 630 4250 49th Street Old Dixie H Hwy. Old Dixie Hwy. 630 O.S. 1 630 37 'BOOK 88 FA E 2 c0' DEC m N92 BOOK 88 F -aur 246 Roadway Existing Ex1'8t Demand Total Available Positive Segment ng Volume Vest Volume Segment Demand Segment Capacity Project Concurrency Demand Determination 1320 1526 44 1570 700 1 Y 1325 1526 58 1584 786 2 Y 1330 1341 57 1398 872 3 Y 1335 1341 56 1397 873 3 Y 1340 1143 57 1200 1100 4 Y 1345 1143 72 1215 1085 6 Y 1350 1309 81 1390 910 10 Y 1355 1309 34 1343 957 12 Y 1360 1365 1309 74 1383 917 20 Y 1370 1309 1309 41 33 1350 1300 20 Y 1375 747 39 1342 786 1308 1864 25 15 Y 1380 1385 747 30 777 1873 12 Y Y 1390 779 S15 36 68 815 1835 12 Y 1395 950 74 883 1024 1487 1346 4 4 Y 1400 1810 945 26 971 129 2 Y Y 1820 162 162 54 33 216 414 6 Y 1830 360 31 195 391 435 239 6 4 Y 1840 1930 346 28 374 256 4 Y Y 1935 972 612 110 73 1082 1568 5 Y 1940 878 51 685 929 1965 1671 5 10 Y 2335 2345 139 39 178 652 2 Y Y 2350 139 139 15 10 154 476 2 Y - 2355 76 9 149 85 481 4 Y 2360 76 5 81 545 549 5 3 Y 2935 2940 373 31 404 426 4 Y Y 2945 283 166 .27 19 310 320 4 Y 2950 166 13 185 179 445 451 6 10 Y 3030 3035 414 31 445 385 3 Y Y 3040 414 414 20 16 434 196 5 Y 3045 202 23 430 225 200 405 5 5 Y 3050 3055 175 10 185 445 5 Y Y 3120 189 ISO 30 5 219 411 5 Y 185 445 3 Y 3130 3140 180 180 7 187 443 3 Y 3150 126 6 3 186 444 3 Y 4220 153 7 129 160 501 470 5 5 Y 4230 4240 153 153 7 160 470 10 Y Y 4250 153 12 11 165 164 465 466 49 Y 40 Y - Water The site is within the North County Water Service Area. Since the North County Water Treatment Plant has not been built yet, this area is served by the South County Water Plant. With the most intense use allowed under the proposed rezoning, the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 154 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 38,500 gallons/day. This is based on a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Since the South County Water Treatment Plant has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed zoning. When the subject property connects to county lines, it will be serviced by the North County Water Plant. Phase 1 of the North County Water Plant will have a capacity of 21000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the additional demand generated by the property under the proposed zoning. 38 ® M - - Wastewater The subject property is serviced by the Central County Wastewater Plant (Gifford). Based upon the most intense use allowed under the Proposed zoning classification, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 154 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 38,500 gallons/day. This is based on the level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The Central County Wastewater Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 537,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the site under the proposed zoning. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by a 154 unit residential development on the subject site will be approximately 246 Waste Generation Units (WGU) or 729 cubic yards Of solid waste/year. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste/year. According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGU/unit. With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards/person/year and the county's average of 2 persons/unit, each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 (2/1.6 = 1.25) and 2.9625 cubic yards of solid waste/year (1.251% 2.37). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the proposed .zoning classification, staff utilized the following formula: Total number of WGUs X 1.25 X 2.37 (246 X 1.25 B 2.37 = 729 cubic yards/year). A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of more than 900,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 3 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD). Since the site is located within the IRFWCD, development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of 2 inches in a 24 hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. The minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply in this case, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site under the proposed zoning, the maximum area of impervious surface will be approximately 469,882 square feet, or 10.78 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 Year/24-hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD 2 inch discharge 39 DEC ® 81992 RooK 88 F, 947 DEC,r- - 8 1992 BOOK 88 PA -7 E 248 requirement, will be approximately 465,000 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required to retain approximately 350,000 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soils characteristic of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 40 cubic feet/second. Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of 2 inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of 350,000 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense use that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning classification indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by park type. Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, water, wastewater, and parks, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map; these uses include agricultural, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are Future Land Use Policies 1.13 and 1.14, Housing Objective 1,. Housing Policies 1.5, 7.2 and 7.31 and Economic Development Policies 8.3, 8.41 and 8.5. 40 LOS Project Park Type (Acres per 1000 population) Demand Acres Surplus Acreage Urban District 5.0 1.54 211.477 Community (north) 3.0 0.92 25.746 Beach River 1.5 0.46 73.843 1.5 0.46 34.840 Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, water, wastewater, and parks, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map; these uses include agricultural, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are Future Land Use Policies 1.13 and 1.14, Housing Objective 1,. Housing Policies 1.5, 7.2 and 7.31 and Economic Development Policies 8.3, 8.41 and 8.5. 40 - Future land Use Policy 1.13 Future Land Use Policy 1.13 states that the medium -density residential land use designations are intended for urban scale development and intensities. In addition, this policy states that these residential uses must be located within an existing or future Urban Service Area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as M-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, the proposed request is consistent with Policy 1.13. Future Land Use Policy 1.14 Future Land Use Policy 1.14 states that Single -Family, Multiple - Family and Mobile Home uses at densities of up to 10 units/acre are permitted in the medium density districts. The subject property is located within the M-2 land use designation and abuts properties already zoned 10 units/acre. Therefore, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.14. - Housing Objective 1 Housing Objective 1 states that the county "shall secure the means to reduce the cost of housing development and construction to ensure that affordable housing is available to the 60% of county households in the very low, low, and moderate income groups". Planning staff feels that the proposed zoning will facilitate the construction of affordable housing units within the county. Adopting a multiple -family zoning district on the subject property will allow a wider range of residential development at a slightly higher density and lower per unit cost than currently exists. This is consistent with Housing Objective 1. - Housing Policy 1.5 and Economic Development Policy 8.3 Housing Policy 1.5 and Economic Development Policy 8.3 state that the county shall identify federal, state and other sources of funding earmarked for low and moderate income housing and actively Pursue these funds for local use'. The IRCHA has received a commitment for financial assistance from the Farmers Home Administration and the Housing Assistance Council in Washington D.C. for affordable housing development on the subject property. The proposed rezoning would allow the applicant to develop affordable housing on the subject property, utilizing federal funding. This is consistent with Housing Policy 1.5 and Economic Development Policy 8.3. - Housing Policy 7.2 Housing Policy 7.2 states that the county will search for innovative approaches to improve the affordability of farmworker housing. The IRCHA plans to construct affordable housing units for low income farm labor -families on this site. This is consistent with Housing Policy 7.2. - Housing Policy 7.3 Housing Policy 7.3 states that farmworker housing shall be located in areas which contain infrastructure, and are close to other Public services and facilities. Since urban services and facilities are available and because water and wastewater lines extend to the subject property, construction of farm labor housing on the site would be consistent with Housing Policy 7.3. For those reasons and because the requested zoning will facilitate the construction of farm labor housing, the proposed rezoning is consistent with Housing Policy 7.3. 41 DEC — 81992 BOOK 88 F.,b 4494 r DEC - 8 INK - Economic Development Policy 8.4 BOOK -7 88 f,{; 950 Economic Development Policy 8.4 states that the county shall designate land for higher density housing. Since RM -10 is the highest density allowed under the M-2 Land Use Designation, the proposed zoning is consistent with Economic Development Policy 8.4. - Economic Development Policy 8.5 Economic Development Policy 8.5 states that the county shall direct higher residential densities to certain areas to reduce cost per unit and thereby provide more affordable housing. It is staff's Position that the subject rezoning request is consistent with Economic Development Policy 8.5. Based upon its review of the county's comprehensive plan policies, staff feels that the proposed rezoning is not only consistent with the plan, but will serve to implement several specific plan policies. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area It is staff's position that a multiple -family zoning district would be appropriate for the subject property and would result in development compatible with the surrounding area. Because the area to the west is already zoned for and developed with multiple -family housing, and the area to the east is zoned for multiple -family development, rezoning the subject property would result in an extension of an existing land use pattern. The principal impacts of the proposed rezoning would be on the single-family areas to the south of the subject property. Because the RM -10 District does not require buffering between RM -10 developments and adjacent single-family uses, the rezoning could result in some incompatibility between development on the site and the existing nearby single-family areas. Any such incompatibility, though, would be minimal. Unlike commercial, multiple -family development provides an acceptable transition to single-family uses. Whereas commercial sites often produce impacts such as lights, noise, and other activities which adversely affect single-family residential areas, multiple -family development is similar to single-family, differing primarily in dwelling unit type and density. Even with a lack of buffer requirements between multiple -family development and single-family uses, there are several county land - development regulation provisions which would serve to mitigate any potential impacts associated with this request. Among these provisions are 25 foot front and rear yard setbacks in the RM -10 district. This requirement ensures physical separation and constitutes a limited buffer. Another provision is the requirement for multiple -family developments to undergo site plan review. Through this process, potential impacts will be minimized with site design. Additionally, 47th Street provides a physical separation between the subject property and most of the RS -6 zoned single- family residential area to the south. For these reasons, the proposed rezoning can be expected to have only minimal impacts on the adjacent property. 42 Potential Impact on Environmental Quality The proposed rezoning would have no more of an adverse impact on environmental quality than the -present zoning. Under both the existing RS -6 zoning and the proposed RM -10 zoning, the county's 10/15% native upland plant community set-aside requirement, as well as wetland protection regulations, will apply. These issues will be addressed at the time of site development. Zoning District Configuration As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this staff report, the IRCHA parcel is unusually configured, and rezoning only that one parcel would result in an irregular zoning district boundary. Such irregular zoning district boundaries not only make zoning administration more difficult; they also can create use conflicts. Attachment 2 shows the IRCHA property. For the reasons stated above, staff determined that the property to be rezoned should be squared off. Staff then identified the total area which warranted rezoning and identified the individual parcels comprising this area. Attachment 3 depicts the squared off area, while Attachment 4 shows the individual parcels within this area. County planning staff subsequently contacted the property owners of parcels 1 through 8 and 10 on Attachment 4 to determine if those owners would object to their parcels being rezoned to RM -10. Of the nine owners, six (parcels 1-5, and 10) expressed no objection to having their property rezoned; two (parcels 6 and 8) did express objection, while the owner of parcel 7 was unable to be contacted by phone and did not respond to the letter which was sent to the property owners to gather their opinions. Based on the property owners' responses, staff feels that all shaded areas depicted on attachment 4 should be rezoned to RM -10. Besides the IRCHA tract, the shaded area includes parcels 1-5 and 10. Conclusion The request to rezone the subject property to RM -10 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency requirements, will not negatively impact environmental quality, and is compatible with the surrounding area. Not only does the subject property have the necessary utilities and roadway access required by multiple - family developments, but it is also accessible to other urban services. As proposed, the RM -10 zoning would provide an efficient use of both land and public services, and provide increased affordable housing opportunities. For those reasons, staff supports the request. Recommendation Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that Board of County Commissioners rezone the subject property from RS -6 to RM - 10. Additionally, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to undertake a county initiated rezoning of parcels 1-5 and 10 as depicted on Attachment 4, from RS -6 to RM -10. 43 L_ 0® BOOK 8.8 F'v ;f 2- BOOK 88 pg' 252 Director Keating explained that the property is just east of Victory Park, also a Housing Authority project. Because staff thought this was an unusual zoning pattern, owners of the property surrounding this parcel were contacted to see if they wanted to be included in the rezoning request. Six of the nine other property owners were in favor, two were opposed, and one did not respond. Planning and Zoning recommended that the subject property be rezoned and also recommended County -initiated rezoning of the nine additional parcels. Director Keating mentioned that several residents who spoke at the Planning and Zoning meeting complained that there were problems at Victory Park. However, the problems are actually at Gifford Gardens, not Victory Park. Joe Collins, attorney for the Indian River County Housing Authority, came before the Board and reported that the Housing Authority is just getting Orangewood filled and there are over 300 additional applications for low income farmer housing over and above what is available at Orangewood. There is a tremendous need within Indian River County for public housing. Also, this project goes a long way towards meeting the Comprehensive Plan requirements, particularly as to the County's responsibility in the low cost housing area. Mr. Collins added that he would be glad to answer any questions any of the members of the Board might have. Chairman Eggert commented that the people she spoke to felt that Victory Park is very strictly run and this new development should be a good thing because it is very similar to Victory Park. Commissioner Macht added that he had never seen a public housing project run any better, and very few half as good. Attorney Collins noted that Federal officials attended the grand opening of Orangewood and Indian River County is quickly becoming a model for other projects throughout the country. Although the rezoning will allow 150 units, the Housing Authority plans to only build 100 units which will leave a lot of room for a buffer to meet the needs of the persons who expressed concern at the Planning and Zoning meeting. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 92-43, amending the zoning ordinance and the accompanying zoning map from RS -6 to RM -10 for the property generally located between 49th Street and 47th Street and between 40th Avenue and 35th Avenue, and authorized County -initiated rezoning of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 from RS -6 to RM -10, as recommended by staff. 44 ORDINANCE NO. 92- 43 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 TO RM -10, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN 49TH STREET AND 47TH STREET AND BETWEEN 40TH AVENUE AND 35TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of "Couaty Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The West 20 acres of the East 30 acres of the Northeast one- quarter of the Southwest one-quarter; less the South 35 feet of the East 326 feet; and less the North 265 feet of the South 300 feet of the East 128 feet; and less the North 499 feet of the South 534 feet of the West 128 feet; and less the East 128 feet of the West 326 feet of the North 232 feet of the South 267 feet; and less the North 232 feet of the South 267 feet of the West 128 feet of the East 326 feet of Section 22, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from RS -6 to RM -10. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. 45 ® 1992 MOK 8 P,1 -;r C4 F, cC o 2 -1992 BOOK 88 Pf� c 254 ORDINANCE NO. 92- 43 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this -8th day of December, 1992. . This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 16th day of November, 1992 fora public hearing to be held on the 8th day of December, 1992 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird T ATe Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth -R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: K. E ATTEST BY: Jef B�� k ,b. C. Acknowledgement -by the Department of --State f the State of Florida this 14th day of December , 1992. Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State received on this 18th day of December , 1992, at A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Lc� t� William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney Robert M. Keating►, AI Community Development 46 APPROVAL OF REDUCTION IN ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSE FEES FOR NON - STERILIZED ANIMALS DURING RABIES VACCINATION CLINICS The Board reviewed the following memo dated December 1, 1992: TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Chandler, •ounty Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Services DATE: December 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Approval of Reduction in Animal Control License Fees For Non -Sterilized Animals During Rabies Vaccination Clinics It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next regular scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During recent meetings with the area veterinarians, the Emergency Services Division of Animal Control and the Humane Society, interest was shown in providing four days in which rabies vaccination clinics will be held in different areas of the County. The first clinic has been scheduled for January 26, 1993, at the Gifford Community Center and possibly another clinic the same day in the Fellsmere area. The clinics would be beneficial to area residents in providing vaccinations to dogs and cats at a reduced rate with the veterinarians providing their time and expertise free of charge. The veterinarians have agreed to provide this service free to the animal owners if the County will provide them with professional liability coverage during the clinics. The Risk Manager has located one company, Western World Insurance Company, who has agreed in writing to provide this coverage annually for $1,500 plus a $25 dollar policy fee for a total of $1,525. Staff is recommending that the County Commissioners authorize this expenditure from the animal licensing program revenue account with a budget amendment. The Humane Society has agreed to furnish the vaccination serum for the clinic for a small charge of $5.00 per animal which the pet owner would pay. The Animal Control Division would have staff at the clinic to sell animal control licenses which would normally be $5.00 for sterilized animals and $10.00 for non -sterilized animals. Staff is requesting authorization to reduce the fee for non - sterilized animals from $10.00 to $5.00 during the clinics in an effort to encourage people to vaccinate and license their animals. Approval of this request would assist the animal control staff in their outreach program efforts to license all dogs and cats in the county while encouraging responsible pet ownership. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The local veterinarians have agreed to participate in this endeavor without compensation except for the professional liability insurance. The $5.00 charge for the vaccination would be payable to the Humane Society with the funds being encumbered for supporting future clinics at various areas of the county. The $5.00 for the animal control license would be conveyed to an account set up for receipt of these revenues with the insurance being paid from this account. 47 DEC © 8 1992 BOOK 08 r DE - 81992 Boa 88 PA E 256 The clinics would be a good incentive for the pet owners in this county to vaccinate, receive a health screening, and license their animals. It will also benefit the county in that additional animals will be licensed and placed in the data base for future licensing renewal procedures. For the price of $10.00 per animal, the pet owner will be able to receive a license, have their animals vaccinated, and receive a health screening for each animal by a licensed veterinarian. Staff feels the general public would respond favorably to these rabies vaccination clinics and respectfully requests the Board approve the recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the reduction from $10.00 to $5.00 for the non -sterilized animal license fee for the rabies vaccination clinics and the expenditure of $1,525 in license revenue to purchase professional liability insurance for the participating veterinarians. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the reduction from $10.00 to $5.00 for the non - sterilized animal license fee for the rabies vaccination clinics and the expenditure of $1,525 in license revenue to purchase professional liability insurance for the participating veterinarians, as recommended by staff. HEALTH BENEFIT PROGRAM CONTRACTS Administrator Chandler presented the following memo dated November 30, 1992: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To: James Chandler, Date: November 30, 1992 County Administrator From: Jack Price, Personnel�� Sub: Health Benefit ` Program Contracts ................................................................. The major health care plan design changes authorized by the Board of County Commissioners for fiscal 1992 were effective in accomplishing the two primary objectives of the plan, to provide competitive coverage for employees and to minimize cost increases. During that first year, processing problems were identified and a great deal of time was expended orienting employees to the program. Negotiations are now completed with the carrier/third party administrator and PPO providers for fiscal 1993. The direct contract with Humana -Sebastian hospital is not recommended for renewal because their demands represent an undesirable degree of risk for the County. The Health Benefit Program will not be significantly affected by this change. Attached for Board of County Commissioner's approval are: 48 1. Contract between Anthem Life Insurance Company of Florida and Indian River County for Life, Accidental Death and Dismemberment and Medical insurance through the "Minimum Premium Plan" funding agreement. 2. Contract between American Health Network, Inc. and Indian River County for Utilization Management Services. 3. Contract between Gold, Vann & White, P. A. (Doctor's Clinic) as a PPO provider, and Indian River County. 4. Contract between Indian River Memorial Hospital as a PPO provider, and Indian River County. The new contracts include changes to improve provider performance, clarify responsibilities and facilitate appropriate claims management. Some fee schedules were increased by approximately 5%. Overall the projected cost of these increases is within the budgeted $50,000 (1t) for fiscal 1993. The plan design changes implemented for fiscal 1992 are expected to continue to modify cost increases in total claims experience during fiscal 1993. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved contracts with Anthem Life Insurance Company of Florida; American Health Network, Inc.; Gold, Vann & White, P.A. (Doctor's Clinic); and Indian River Memorial Hospital, as set out in the above staff's recommendation. COPIES OF CONTRACT WITH ANTHEM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; ORIGINAL CONTRACTS WITH INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND GOLD, VANN & WHITE, P.A.; AND COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN HEALTH NETWORK, INC. ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD (YES) CR -512 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - KIMBALL -LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Public Works Director James W. Davis presented the following memo dated November 30,.1992: 49 L- DEC ® 1992 BOOK 88 F -,v, r ?5 7 DEC o 1992 TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, Public Works Dv FROM: Roger D. Cain, P County Engineer SUBJECT: Kimball -Lloyd & Associates, Inc. CR512 Intersection Improvements Professional Services Agreement DATE: November 30, 1992 a BOOK 8 8 PAGE 108 Kimball -Lloyd and Associates is under contract to perform professional engineering services for the design of CR512 between U.S. 1 and Roseland Road in the City of Sebastian. There have been two previous amendments to the original contract for professional services. The current contract amounts are as shown in the accompanying Professional Services Agreement Summary Sheet of Agreements and Amendments attached to this agenda item. The current contract divides the work into two projects. Project I includes the roadway between the Sebastian Elementary School and Roseland Road and Project II includes the easterly section between Sebastian Elementary School and U.S. 1. The two projects costs are combined into the agreement amount which, after Amendment No. Two, became a total of $236,241.00. Amendment three is necessaryat this time, in order to adjust the contract rates for the hourly times of the various classifications because of the length of time the contract has taken. This has been due to the number of delays in getting F.D.O.T. and Florida East Coast Railroad agreement for the railroad crossing, the relocation of the Wentworth Ditch, and other matters relating to the City of Sebastian, which have significantly lengthened the time of this contract beyond that contemplated by both parties to the contract. None of these delays were within the consultant's or county's control. In addition, there is a need to amend the contract to take into consideration additional work for the new sidewalk south of the road, relocation of the north sidewalk, the Wentworth Ditch work, and to consider the realignment of the roadway at the east terminus of Project I to avoid environmentally sensitive lands. The increase in the contract amount of $36,534.32 is determined as set out in Amendment Three to the agreement. n' -mmarram ma Alternative #1- Approve the amendment to expand the scope of work and provide for the additional work. Alternative #2 - Deny the request and direct staff to re -negotiate the agreement. Alternative #I is recommended such that Amendment #3 to the Kimball -Lloyd and Associates, Inc. professional services contract is approved and the chairman is authorized to sign the amendment. Funding will come from Account # 101-153-541-067.38. The new contract amount will be $272,775.32. 50 Chairman Eggert asked if there were any changes in staffing at Kimball -Lloyd that would make it less desirable to continue this contract. Director Davis confirmed that the staffing of the company has changed dramatically but the new people are very good engineers. Chairman Eggert related that she just wanted to make sure the County is dealing with a consistent level of professional service. Commissioner Adams asked for clarification of the increase in rates, and Director Davis explained that a multiplier is applied to the actual wage rate. In this case, the multiplier is about 3.02 and is calculated based on a strict accounting of their overhead. Discussion ensued, and Director Davis assured the Board that staff scrutinized the number of hours for individuals that Kimball - Lloyd assigned to the tasks and cut some of the hours out. In addition, staff looked at the wage rates and determined that they were comparable to the industry, and that the multiplier applied to the wage rates was appropriate. Administrator Chandler mentioned that the completion of the project was delayed through no fault of the engineering firm, which is why the total contract amount has increased. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Amendment #3 to the CR -512 Intersection Improvements contract with Kimball -Lloyd & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $36,534.32, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Commissioner Bird gave the following summary of the Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting of December 3, 1992: 51 na DEC ® 1992 fs , r DEC rC° PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY December 3, 1992 BOOK 88 FXE 260 1) Construction of _ Girl's _Softball _ Field _ at _ the 16th _ Street Baseball Ca_ n• lex '--- - ------ ---•- - -- -- - _. _ _ Bernie Grall asked permission to construct a girl.'s softball field at the 16th Street baseball complex. The leagues will have • fund raisers to develop aiid mai.ntairi the field. Pat Callahan, City of Vero Reach, and Vero Reach Recreation Committee have all approvefl t'he .1equest c'oIlt.iI':geiit. upon County approval. The Parks and Rec:reatioit recomn,ended that the County Commission grant the request. 2) Request to Fxteiid After School_ Program Godfrey Gipson, Vero Reach Elementary School Principal, and Susan Ear.lywine, PTA President, requested aii after school program. he started at Vero Reach Elementary School.. Pat Callahan said there are only 3 schools in the County that do iiot have an after school piogritm. She said. the 11rograw is t caxpayF'l She recommended 1 -bat an after school program be initiated at - the I bi f -f. TPn�i�ll�i)1(j school .c: jr, the rount.y. . She also recommended that the program be turned over to the schools when we can show them t -bat it. is self-sul)portirig as school teachers, aides arid facilities are used. The committee unanimously recomwen(led that: the after school program be extended to the three remaining schools if the schools are in agrecmexit, olid when feasible, turn the program over to the schools. This i.tc-m has beeli F.c bedul Endfor pplil i c discussion at at. the December 15,. _1992. C�oWx.. C.n►niission Meeting. . - 3) Request for Recreation _ F_a_ c_ i_ l.i.ti_ es_ for _ E:_I derly. -Persons _ ir, North CountX Area Kay. Rogers requested that several recreational facilities be constructed or, County property between Donald MacDonald and Dale tviriibrow Parks. % She was advised to make her request when budgets are considered next year. 4) Offer to Lease'Prj)aert- in_ Archie Carr -Sea Turtle Refuge Because an endangered of beach mice have been discovered on the Treasure Shares Park beach parcel., further construction of the park has been halted. DNR has offered to Lease two small strips of land to the County as an option. The committee recommeiided ghat the County Commission enter into a lease agreement with the state to keep our options open. This item will be scheduled for discussion at a future CountX- Commiss'ion meeting_ " - " ' - __. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ 52 Commissioner Bird announced that Bernie Grall would like to speak to the Board about Item 2, a proposed Girl's Softball Field at the 16th Street Baseball complex. Bernie Grall, 7555 20th Street, reported that the Girl's Softball League has been sharing space with other baseball leagues, and many times has had to schedule games at 10:00 o'clock at night or on Sundays because the fields are in use. It has come to the point in the League's growth that they need their own field. The proposed field is currently vacant. Mr. Grall added that the leagues will have fund raisers to develop and maintain the field. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the construction of a girl's softball field at the 16th Street baseball complex. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Chairman Eggert announced that immediately upon adjournment the Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT Chairman Eggert announced that upon adjournment of the Solid Waste Disposal District meeting, the Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:06 o'clock p.m. ATTEST: C; � 4v- - -, Q!: >4 � J. arton, Clerk 53 i -- !� ; ;�� jig m, �L. Caroly K. Egge , Chairman BOOK 88