Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/20/1993� MINUTES Iry ITACHED � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 4) Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) Kenneth R. Macht ( Dist. 3 ) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 2. INVOCATION - Rev. G.P. LaBarre, Retired 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of June 22, 1993 B. Special Meeting of June 24, 1993 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Occupational Licenses ' Collected During Month of June (memorandum dated July 8, 1993) B. Authorize -the Management 5 Budget Director to do the Necessary Amendments for Balancing the Budget for the 1992/93 Fiscal Year (memorandum dated July 14, 1993) C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment - 021 (memorandum dated July 14, 1993) S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Clerk of Court: Florida Counties Investment Trust (memorrandum dated July 13, 1993) BOOK �9 PAGE 0 i J U L 20 1993 . BOOK 90 PCH 02 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None 10. 11. 12. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 210 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT LEVY PURSUANT TO F.S. 125.0104(3)(d), AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Land Acquisition Guide Revisions (memorandum dated July 12, 1993) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES After School Program ( memorandum dated July 14, 1993 ) E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL Agreement with City of Sebastian; Defensive Driving Course (memorandum dated July 9, 1993) G. PUBLIC WORKS Consultant Fee / Design of Left -Turn Bays and Related Drainage Design Intersection of SR 60 at 82nd Avenue (memorandum dated July 13, 1993) H. UTILITIES Acquisition of General Development Util., Inc. (GDU) Vero Highlands/Shores Utility System (memorandum dated July 14, 1993) COUNTY ATTORNEY Authorization to Revise Chapter 955 - Moving of Structures ( memorandum dated July 13, 1993 ) a W W 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT None B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT I. Recyclable Materials Marketing ( memorandum dated July 12, 1993 ) 2. Solid Waste Master Plan (memorandum dated July 9, 19931 15. ADJOURNMENT v 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. J U L 20 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 03 Tuesday, July 20, 1993 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, July 20, 1993, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Rev. G. P. LaBarre, Retired, Trinity Episcopal Church, gave the invocation, and County Administrator Jim Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 1993. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 1993, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 24, 1993. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 24, 1993, as written. J U L BOOK 90 PAGF. 4 U BOOK 90 FAG. 05 CONSENT AGENDA A. Occupational Licenses Collected During Month of June ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted the following report from Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann summarizing Occupational License Taxes collected during the month of June 1993. IMBAPDDl1 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: July 8, 1993 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $1,827.16 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of June, representing the issuance of 131 licenses. B. Authorize the Management & Budget Director to do the Necessary Amendments for Balancing the Budget for the 1992/93 Fiscal Year The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated July 14, 1993: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 14, 1993 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR TO DO THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS FOR BALANCING THE BUDGET FOR THE 1992/93 FISCAL YEAR CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Bai4 OMB Director"" The 1992/93 fiscal year ends September 30, 1993. All budget amendments must be done prior to the close of the fiscal year to be in proper compliance. I would like the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the Management and Budget Director to do the necessary budget amendments for balancing the budget for the 1992/93 fiscal year. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the Management and Budget Director to do the necessary budget amendments for balancing the budget for the 1992/93 fiscal year. C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment - 021 The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated July 14, 1993: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE. July 14, 1993 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT - 021 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDMONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. The Fire Department is making the final payment on the ladder truck in the current year. This entry is to appropriate the funding. 2. To replace carpet in the high traffic area in the Main Library. 3. To appropriate funding for agreement approved by BCC at their April 27, 1993 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 021. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment 021: 3 J U L 201993 BOOK 9 -Ur' 06 r JUL 201993 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director (Q EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ,GENERAL FUND Princ al -In GENERAL FUND va: a Vzuu GENERAL FUND GENERAL FUND BOOK 90 FACE 07 -7 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 021 DATE: July 14. 1993 FLORIDA COUNTIES INVESTMENT TRUST The Board reviewed memo from Clerk of Circuit Court J. K. Barton dated July 13, 1993: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Florida Counties Investment Trust FROM: Jeffrey R. Barton, Clerk of Circuit Court Enclosed is a proposed ordinance authorizing investment in the Florida Counties Investment Trust (FCIT) and a proposed resolution approving the Joinder to the Agreement and Declaration of Trust creating and establishing the Florida Counties Investment Trust. Resolution No. 89-76 currently governs Indian River County investment of funds in excess of current needs. This resolution authorizes all investments specified in Florida Statute 125.31. The Board of County Commissioners may authorize the use of investments in addition to those listed in F.S. 125.31. The Florida Association of Counties and the Florida Association of Court Clerks/Comptrollers joined in a venture to create an alternative investment for local governments to that offered by the State of Florida. We have been monitoring the development and progress of the FLIT Fund since early 1991. The FCIT Fund commenced operation on Jan 1, 1992. We did not chose to be a charter member. However, it is now operating successfully and deserves to be included in our portfolio of investments because of the increased yield it offers. The State of Florida operates the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund commonly referred to as the SBA Fund since it is administered by the State Board of Administration in the Department of Revenue. On March 31, 1993, the SBA report showed 617 participating local governments with a total investment of $101 816, 718, 682. The SBA Fund is limited to an average maturity of 120 days. It is currently yielding about 3.5 per cent. Its 1992 yield was 4.3 per cent. Indian River County has been using the SBA Fund for several years as its principal investment for funds that need to be the most liquid. The FCIT Fund offers an attractive and safe alternative for a portion of the Counties' investment portfolio that has typically been at the SBA Fund. The FCIT Fund allowable investments are listed in Article IV, Section 4.02 of the Appendix A to the enclosed Joinder. The FCIT Fund maintains a longer average maturity than the SBA Fund. The FCIT Fund does not include investments with a maturity over five years. The current FCIT portfolio average maturity is approximately three years. This permits a higher yield while maintaining good safety and reasonable adequate liquidity. We may make a deposit or withdrawal to our SBA account for the current day as long as it is requested by 11:00 a.m. on that day. The FCIT requires a minimum of one day notice for any deposit or withdrawal. Therefore by using a combination of SBA and FCIT Funds, the County can increase its yield on investments and keep the necessary liquidity to meet weekly accounts payable requirements, biweekly payroll needs, periodic bond payments and all other financial liabilities. A copy of the most recent FCIT quarterly publication, the "Update", is enclosed. It highlights that in the first sixteen months of operation, the portfolio has grown to $148.8 million with participation by over 12 counties. Page three lists the current Board of Trustees and the Trust Staff. The investment advisor is Payden & Rygel, Investment Counsel. The custodian is Nations Bank. The auditor is Ernst & Young. , The current Board policy on investments, IRC Resolution No. 89-76, will be replaced by the enclosed proposed IRC Resolution 93- that authorizes the use of the FCIT Fund. I request the Board's approval of the enclosed ordinance and two resolutions approving the addition of the FCIT Fund as an alternative investment vehicle for funds excess to the County's current needs. 5 BOOK g® PAGE JUL 20 N93 BOOK 90 PAGE 0.1 County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the Board should not adopt the two proposed resolutions until after the ordinance is adopted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously scheduled a public hearing for August 10, 1993, to consider an ordinance authorizing the investment of surplus public funds in shares of investment funds created by the Florida Counties Investment Trust. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 210 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAB, TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT LEVY The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published PUBLIC NOTICE J at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being The Board of County Commissioners of Inman Public Hearing River County, Florida, will conduct a on Tuesday July 20, 1993 at 9:05 a.m. in the Com- mission Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero a Beach, FL 32980, to consider the adoption of an ordinance entitled: in the matter of .n AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN- TY, FLORIDA, AMENDING; CHAPTER 210 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, TO AU- -1 THORIZE AN ADDITIONAL ONE PER- CENT LEVY PURSUANT, TO F.S., 125.01041l3)(d AND TO. AMEND AU- J§ES AND in the Court, was pub- THORIZED OF REVENUE, ABILITYO�ANDEFFECTIVEDATTE. SEVER - Anyone who may wish toappeal any decision which me be made at this mea g may need to ensure the is made, lashed in said newspaper in the issues of a verbatim record of proceedings which includes testimony and evdence upon which Me appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meetIM must contact the County's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Ceordmator at 587- 8000, Ext. 408 at least 48 hcore Inadvance of the Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at rneetI Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore INDIANRNERCOUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- June30,1993 1011700 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. jo �} Sworn to and subscribed before me this day o A.D. 19 (usiness Manager) Now (SEAL) y Public, State of Florida at Large. My Co mnissian EVir" Oct. 1I,1993. 807 0 County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the proposed ordinance permanently dedicates a certain source of funds for bond purposes. If the ordinance is adopted, up to half of the Tourist Development Tax revenues will be available to secure and repay any bonds issued for the beach renourishment program. Attorney Vitunac emphasized the clause "up to half," and if the County issues bonds in a lower amount, the balance of the funds will be available for other purposes authorized by the ordinance. Commissioner Eggert asked whether a percentage of funds would be designated for advertising. Commissioner Tippin reported that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) will receive the tourist study from Dr. Stronge of the Regional Research Associates, and recommendations will be made based on that report. Commissioner Adams noted that the consensus is that we would like to put emphasis on advertising. John Morrison, member of the Tourist Development Council, pointed out that research shows that the beach is the most important factor when tourists consider Indian River County as their vacation destination. Beyond the promotional aspect, protection of the beach is important to those who reside close to the beach or who have a business there, but it is important also to the Indian River and to the properties west of the Indian River because a storm surge beyond 9 to 11 feet would cause destruction inland to U.S41. The result of that would be reduction in real estate values for everyone because even if there is no damage to a particular structure, the attitude would be that our county is subject to that kind of destruction. There is also the environmental consideration. High ocean salinity would destroy the micro organisms in the river as well as the mangrove system. Mr. Morrison urged the Board to anticipate the likely problems of this sort of devastation rather than waiting for it to take place. Carol Johnson, public affairs administrator for the Vero Beach - Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, noted that this change will mean a reduction in the amount of money which the Chamber will have available to promote Indian River County. The current two percent is available for all authorized uses, but with the increase to 3 percent, only 1-1/2 percent will be available for other than beach restoration and preservation. The Chamber thinks that the use of these funds for beach restoration is wonderful because the beach is important to tourism. Ms. Johnson encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance because protecting the beach not only promotes 7 in L 201993 BOOK 90 FACE 10 r JllL 201993 BOOK O N,GE tourism but also provides storm protection for the county. John Morrison reappeared and asked why 1-1/2 percent of the 3 percent is being allocated to beach renourishment rather than just the additional one cent. Chairman Bird explained that it was determined that one cent probably would not generate enough revenue to support the anticipated bonds needed to pay for the project. Commissioner Macht noted that if the Chamber of Commerce does their job and the beach restoration project is effective, our tourist development tax funds should be enhanced. Mr. Morrison urged the Board to keep in mind that the original intent of the tourist tax revenues was to promote tourism. He reported that the investment in international tourism had good results, and he felt that two percent should be designated for advertising. Ralph Sexton, 8005 37th Street, president of Save Our Shores, supported the increase and urged the Board to adopt the ordinance. George Gross, 1230 39th Avenue, noted that the present statute allows up to 50 percent of tourist tax revenues for beach maintenance and restoration. The proposed ordinance changes the language from "may" to "shall" be up to 50 percent. Commissioner Eggert clarified that the ordinance permits some portion of the revenues to be used for beach renourishment but not necessarily the full 50 percent. Commissioner Adams explained that one of the reasons for "up to" 50 percent is that if we have a terrible tourism year and revenues drop, we can use "up to,, 50 percent for bond payments. Chairman Bird noted that innkeepers who are in charge of collecting the tax are aware of this proposed increase and do not seem to oppose it. Commissioner Adams agreed that members of the hotel industry want to do something to promote tourism. While we do not want more taxes, this increase puts us on a par with Brevard and St. Lucie counties and well below Orlando's 10 percent tourist tax. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 93-27, amending Chapter 210 of the Code, Tourist Development Tax, to authorize an additional one percent levy and to amend authorized uses of revenue, as recommended by staff. _ 8 r 8/28/93(C31Xn/tou1r1at)LECiALEWGa/1.113m) ORDINANCE NO. 93- 27 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 210 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX, TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT LEVY PURSUANT TO F.S. 125.0104(3)(d), AND TO AMEND AUTHORIZED USES OF REVENUE, AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Indian River County, by ordinance and referendum of the voters in 1987•, levied a two percent tourist development tax on each dollar and major fraction of each dollar of total consideration charged for leases and rentals for a term of six months or less; and WHEREAS, the two percent tax has been imposed for the statutory minimum of three years required prior to the effective date of this additional levy; afid WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is desirous of having a dedicated . source of revenue to finance beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. Amendment to Section 210.01, Taxing District and Lev Section 210.01 of the Indian River County Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (c), to -wit: "(c) There is hereby adopted and imposed an additional one percent (1%) tourist development tax in accordance with Section 125.0104 (3) (d) , Florida Statutes, on the exercise within each of the taxing districts of the taxable privilege of renting, leasing, or letting for a consideration any living quarters or accommodations in any hotel, apartment hotel, motel, rooming house, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park, camping space or condominium for a term of six (6) months or less. Said additional tax shall be for the purpose of funding those authorized uses of tourist development tax revenue as set out in Section 210.03(a) (4) of this ordinance." 9 JUC 20 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 12 i Jva% BOOK ORDINANCE NO. 93- 27 90 P, GF 13 SECTION 2. Amendment to Section 210.03 (b) , Authorized Uses of Revenue Section 210.03(b) is hereby amended to read: (b) .TYIO / t0*0)Jtj0$ l 10 / 150 / ja$tjl od / ftolh l Yno l 1'oilitjol 00*0141holii/10/bit /160/$Y0,11011/YolWON /444/YVOYA00 WoAlhoo l DOW l 140004/ bt l 010/ ¢oviiitt l fot l 1110 / blW0404 40MOiYil Y / 4000ft / M III lot Up to fifty (50) percent of the revenues to be derived from the tourist development 'tax Ifi4$ shall be pledged/ to secure and liquidate revenue bonds 'issued by the county for the purposes set forth in section (a) (4) of this section. Up to one-half of the remaining revenue may be pledged to secure and liquidate revenue bonds issued by the county for the purposes set forth in section (a)(1).11 SECTION 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the Indian River County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the A ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4. Severability If any section, part of a 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 hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 5.' Effective Date The effective date of the levy and imposition of this tax authorized under F.S. 125.0104(3)(d) shall. be September 1, 1993. CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions. 10 M ORDINANCE NO. 93-_Z Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 20thday of July , 1993 . This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the ,gyp ' , 199, for a public hearing to be held on the , day of June 20th day of July , 1993_, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Tipui,_n and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert -,'and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman John W. Tippin _ A ya Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert. A ua Commissioner Kenneth. R. Macht AYE ATTEST Y Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By gicha d N. Bird, Chairman Boar of County Commissioners Wr._ Co. Dale 'j 2 -- Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 271h day of July 199 3. Acknowledgment for the Department of State received on this 3 0th day of July , 199 3, at 10:00a.m./lxxK. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. 11 BOOK 90 F,�u 14 J U L 20 1993 BOOK LAND ACQUISITION GUIDE REVISIONS 90 FnF 15 -7 The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois dated July 12, 1993: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert Keating, ICP Community Develloopmuen irector FROM: Roland DeBlois, A CPP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: July 12, 1993 RE: Land Acquisition Guide Revisions It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 20, 1993. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Background On May 7, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Indian River County Land Acquisition Guide. Since that time, the Guide has been used by the County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee..(LAAC) as its main procedural document relating to environmental land site selection and funding recommendations. Page 3 of the Land Acquisition Guide provides for an amendment and updating procedure with reference to Guide maintenance. Although minor amendments in the form of memoranda have been approved, no substantial revisions to the Guide have occurred since it -was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in May, 1991. The Guide also provides that "after one year of implementation of the Land Acquisition Guide, the Advisory Committee shall reconvene and review all changes (minor and substantial), with issuance of a revised Guide, if warranted". Because there were no substantial changes to consider after one year, however, a revision of the Guide did not occur. In the past year, a number of actions have occurred which now warrant consideration of a substantial revision to the Guide. These actions include Board Resolution 92-58, which was adopted to supersede and clarify Resolution 90-104, relating to the purpose of LAAC, and the passage of the $26 million bond referendum. Also, now that the County is actively pursuing matching funds from various state programs, it is prudent to review the Guide for consistency with state acquisition procedures. For these reasons, county staff - with volunteered expert advice from The Nature Conservancy - have drafted revisions to the Guide for the Board to consider. 12 Adoption of Guide as an Ordinance Although the Guide has been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as a guideline for land acquisition procedures, it does not have the legal weight of an ordinance from the standpoint of establishing procedural requirements. Proposed Guide revisions and the issue of whether to adopt the revised Guide as an ordinance were discussed by LAAC at its last regular meeting on June 30, 1993. LAAC Review/Recommendations Overall, LAAC endorsed the staff's proposed revised Guide, with minor changes. Staff have since incorporated LAAC's recommended changes into the revised draft. An important change to the Guide, as discussed and endorsed by LAAO, is the addition of two new members to the Committee, one being a representative of the Mosquito Control District, and the other a "Member at Large". LAAC voted to reject the idea of adopting the Guide as an ordinance, with the reasoning that, if the Guide were an ordinance, the County would be opening itself to lawsuits if the Guide were not strictly followed. It was also voiced at the LAAC meeting that the Guide has served an adequate function in its present adopted state, and adoption as an ordinance is not warranted. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Proposed revisions to the Guide can generally be categorized as follows: non -substantive changes for clarification and typographic correction purposes; incorporation of Resolution 92-58 into the text of the Guide, with amendments including the addition of two new members; addition of a "conflict of interest" provision; and addition of provisions for the development of a "work plan" for due diligence investigations and purchase negotiations, consistent with state standards, regarding an annual list of properties under consideration for acquisition. Of the categories mentioned, the main revision under consideration relates to the proposed procedure for developing a work plan for LAAC review, regarding due diligence investigations and purchase negotiations consistent with state standards. These procedures as proposed are modeled after state acquisition program procedures. Adoption of the Guide as an ordinance would strengthen the general public's and the State's perception that Indian River County has a set, consistent procedure in reviewing and acquiring environmental properties. For reasons aforementioned, however, LAAC has voted not to endorse adoption of the Guide as an ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed revisions to the Land Acquisition Guide. 11 �C 0 BOOK 9® pacE 16 r JUL 2 0 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 17 Commissioner Eggert questioned the section of the guide titled "Private Group/ Cooperative Acquisition" on page 24 of the guide. She wanted to be sure that the Board of County Commissioners retain control in making decisions regarding purchases. Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois felt that detail is covered in the section titled "Purchase Negotiations with Profit and Nonprofit Organizations" wherein it states that nothing shall be final until a decision is reached by the Board. Commissioner Macht noted that the operative word is negotiations, and the conclusion will lie within the usual mechanism of the County. Commissioner Eggert then addressed the section titled "Phase 6: Acquisition Listing/ Work Plan/ Negotiations" on page 36 of the guide. She specifically pointed out the sentence, "Properties recommended for the Acquisition List by the Committee should be reported to the Board of Commissioners by county planning." She asked whether this means the list will be presented to the Board for approval, or simply reported like information. Mr. DeBlois drew the Board's attention to page 37 of the guide where it states, "Appraisals will be conducted by independent appraisers on master contract with the County as approved by the Board of County Commissioners." He felt the intent is that the Commission would approve the appraisals. Commissioner Eggert felt that there was a step missing between the Board receiving the list and the appraisal process. Community Development Director Bob Keating agreed that the wording states that the properties are recommended, or reported, so actually the Board receives a list of recommendations. Commissioner Eggert wanted to be sure that property is not appraised until the Board authorizes that appraisal. Mr. DeBlois suggested a change in the language as follows: "Properties recommended for the Acquisition List by the Committee shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval," and Commissioner Eggert agreed. Commissioner Macht commended staff for developing an excellent document. He was concerned that in dealing with $26 million we must have all procedures in plain sight and that the public will be fully informed at all times. Chairman Bird asked, and Mr. DeBlois outlined the procedure as follows: 1) In the normal cycle, submittals would be presented to the Committee on an annual basis at the beginning of the fiscal year, allowing for special exceptions and emergency acquisitions. 14 2) Once a full application is submitted, the Committee reviews the application and visits the site. Staff will pool all available information on that property, and that information will be included with the list of all properties under consideration. The properties will be evaluated on an annual basis to determine which ones are of highest concern for acquisition. Ten criteria are used to give the properties a ranking and the list is narrowed to ten properties. 3) We do not necessarily acquire the highest ranked property first. We simultaneously pursue various opportunities for cost share funding, and once we secure funding we work through state program procedures or county procedures and do independent appraisals, surveying and so forth. Within this analysis, staff determines the availability of alternatives, such as conservation easements. 4) In the facilities and management phase we analyze the management implications for the long term, along with security, and receive input from the various departments in the County. 5) All the information is reported to the Commission for their decision. We get two independent appraisals of the property, confidentiality is maintained during that process, and within the appraisal process the Board and Committee are kept apprised of what is happening. Those appraisals are used as the basis in the negotiation process. Chairman Bird asked, and Director Keating responded that we have not delineated a specific individual within the County to do the negotiations. Other counties have sent out Requests For Qualifications for groups that have the ability and desire to do the, entire acquisition process, including negotiations, and some nonprofit agencies have done that in other areas. Our two options for handling negotiations are an in-house team or the RFP/RFQ process and having one of the nonprofit agencies do it. Chairman Bird asked at what point in the process we determine whether we have a willing seller. Mr. DeBlois responded that the willingness of the seller is determined soon after the property is nominated for the LAAC's consideration. In some cases land owners nominate their property. The owners of properties on the current list are aware and are willing to cooperate with the County. Commissioner Eggert asked when the factor of maintenance is considered, and Mr. DeBlois responded that maintenance is considered and addressed prior to the formal appraisal so that we have a conceptual management plan before we purchase the property. 15 L_ JUL 2 ® 1993®o®K. so PAGE 18 r JUL 201993 BOOK 90 PAr,F 9 John Morrison, member of the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC), cautioned the Board that The Nature Conservancy is an advocacy group which has written itself into the Land Acquisition Guide, and the Indian River Land Trust is an advocacy group hoping to acquire the McKee Jungle Gardens. He asked that reference to those organizations be deleted from the guide. He did not approve the increase in members on the Committee. He felt that if we need the expertise of the Mosquito Control Board, we can call for it. He also felt that the "At Large" seat could not be filled because everyone has a specific interest, and it should be filled by someone who has interests throughout the County. He further suggested an interim market value opinion before going to expensive appraisals on properties under consideration for purchase. He avidly supported setting aside land which has a unique or remarkably noteworthy purpose. He felt that some of the properties under consideration do not stand on their own merit and will be purchased only because share funding is available from some other entity. Mr. DeBlois pointed out that on page 24 under the section titled "Private Group/ Cooperative Acquisition," the Indian River Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy were deleted. Commissioner Eggert quoted the first paragraph of that section: "In addition to state and local land acquisition funding opportunities, profit and nonprofit organizations with expertise in land acquisitions, such as the Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy, provide opportunities to protect environmentally significant lands via a cooperative county -private group approach." Chairman Bird suggested that the wording be kept generic and merely state "profit and nonprofit organizations." Mr. DeBlois explained that if we delete any reference to a specific agency by name, we would have no idea what we mean when we say "private nonprofit organization." The Nature Conservancy and Land Trust were added as examples to indicate such organizations. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, that the Board accept the Land Acquisition Guide Revisions as submitted by staff with the amendment that line 43 on page 36 of the guide read as follows: "Properties recommended for the Acquisition List by the Committee shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval." 16 Discussion followed regarding the membership of the LAAC. Commissioner Eggert thought that seat 12, a member of the Taxpayers Association, and seat 13, a member of Civic Association were to be the "At Large" members. Commissioner Macht explained that those two members were not designated individually but could be designated by those groups. He continued to explain that the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee is responsible for $26 million dollars and there is a need for a representative who has no organizational responsibility who will voice the opinion of the citizens at large. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that even if the committee has 200 members with public interaction, the most important public interaction occurs when a recommendation for acquisition is presented to the Board for approval. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM The Board reviewed memos from County Administrator Jim Chandler dated July 14, 1993, and from the After -School Program Evaluation Committee and OMB Director Joe Baird dated July 9, 1993: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 14, 1993 FILE: SUBJECT: After School Program r� FRO ames E. Ch ndler REFERENCES: County Administrator The attached recommendation is being submitted to the Children's Services Advisory Committee on July 16, 1993. The Committee's recommendation will be presented at the July 20th Board meeting. 17 L_ JUL 20 1993 BOOK- 90 Piu 20 JUL 20 199.1 BOOK 90 FDGF 21 TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: After -School Program Evaluation Committee: Bonnie Swanson, Joyce Johnston & Pat Callahan Joseph Baird, OMB Director Terrence P. O'Brien, Asst. County Attorney DATE: July 9, 1993 RE: Indian River County RFP $3093 - Ater -school Enrichment Program The After -School Program Evaluation Committee was charged with the responsibility of advertising and reviewing Indian River County's Request for Proposals #3093. After reviewing the two bids submitted, the fee proposed by Small Wonders Day Care was less than that proposed by La Petite. Small Wonders proposes $22 per week full pay, $5 per week reduced pay, and $0 per week for hardship cases. On June 17., 1993, the After -School Program Evaluation Committee interviewed the principals of Small Wonders. The committee was impressed with the interest, sincerity, and cooperative spirit of these principals, and, after the meeting, the Committee voted 2 to 1 to go with the lowest bidder, Small Wonders. Administrator Chandler explained that there is a modification to staff's recommendation to the Board. The modified recommendation was presented to the Children's Services Advisory Committee (CSAC) at their Friday, July 16, 1993, meeting, and there was not sufficient time after that meeting to prepare the material to present to this Board. Staff is recommending that the School Board assume the After School Program. The School Board is the best entity to administer that program because they can control costs, and costs determine the fee structure. Administrator Chandler reported that CSAC concurred with staff's recommendation. He further explained that the modified recommendation evolved from a point where staff felt we had only two alternatives: 1) for the County to continue to operate it or, 2) after goning through the RFP process and determining that Small Wonders is a qualified organization, Small Wonders would provide that service. At that same point, --the School Board indicated that they were concerned about finances and could not administer the program. Administrator Chandler related that prior to the CSAC meeting he telephoned School Board Superintendent Gary Norris and informed himthszt the 18 recommendation was going to be to award the contract to Small Wonders. During that conversation Dr. Norris indicated that he felt, as he had in the past, that the school system could administer the program more effectively. He also expressed his concern about funding and that they were not able to expend school funds for the After School Program. Administrator Chandler stated that he advised Dr. Norris that whoever administers the program has the ability to adjust the fee schedule. In order to aid the School Board in starting up the After School Program, Administrator Chandler recommended a one-time allocation of a sum not to exceed $5,000 for transitional expenses. He reported that. Dr. Norris indicated he would recommend to the School Board that they assume responsibility for the After School Program. Administrator Chandler felt that the school system could assume responsibility for* the After School Program, but if they would not accept that program, staff recommends that the Board award the contract to Small Wonders. There is some concern regarding the fee of $22.00 per child per week, but that fee is necessary to offset the expense of paying for the use of school facilities. Administrator Chandler reported that he also discussed with Dr. Norris the $77,000 rental fee being charged by the School Board to Small Wonders. That rental should be taken into consideration when comparing fees. Staff's recommendation is that the School Board assume the program and that we allocate an amount not to exceed $5,000 to help them through the transition and to get the program started. If the School Board does not or cannot assume the program, a contract should be awarded to Small Wonders Day Care, who staff believes are qualified. Chairman Bird noted that time is of the essence and he doubted whether the Board has all the information necessary to make a decision. He presumed that County staff and the School Board need more time to plan and prepare the curriculum and the fee schedule and present it the Board for a decision. Administrator Chandler reported that Dr. Norris indicated that they could move forward quickly. Commissioner Adams led discussion regarding the bids from day care centers. She realized that having a third party come in is not really fair, but this program really belongs within the school system. The County should not run it. The day care centers had to include $77,000 for rent of school facilities as part of the bid, and since the School Board would not have to pay that, the School Board obviously could do it at a lesser cost. Commissioner Macht received agreement from the Board members that we absolutely must have an After School Program. The School 19 JUL 2 0 A BOOK 90 PAGE 22 r JUL 20 1993 BOOK 90 PnE 23 �I Board is qualified, has the facilities and personnel, and is authorized by the State to operate the After School Program. By having this program within the school system, PTAs and other community groups will be involved and the school will once again become the center of the community. In the case of schools where the community is not willing or able to be involved, the day care centers can be called in. The County will be involved to the extent of allocating the $5,000 as start-up funds. Commissioner Macht was sure that with the involvement of the community groups and increased management by the School Board, the fee can be reduced or at least not increased, and it certainly will not be $22.00. Commissioner Macht urged the Board to act on this recommendation because time is of the essence and we have agreement from the School Board in principle to assume this program. Dr. Gary Norris, Superintendent of Schools, recalled that several months ago he told the Board that the School Board would present a forward -thinking plan for after school care. He could offer only to recommend to the School Board that they try running the After School Program on a trial basis this year. The fee structure is antiquated and would be reworked. He described the proposed plan as exciting. Government will be the catalyst, and neighborhoods and communities will again take responsibility as they did in the past. Some schools and neighborhoods are excited about trying some of the new ideas, and at certain schools where the enthusiasm is not so great, private providers can come in and be partners rather than adversaries. The rental fee charged to private providers in the Request for Proposals would be addressed to see if that is fair. Rental was charged because the schools were worried about allowing profit making bodies to use public facilities, but there may be other options. School operations must change with the times. Lenore Quimby, 1947 36th Avenue, owner of For Kids Only day care, agreed that it is exciting that the PTAs and other community groups will be involved in the After School Program. Ms. Quimby recounted that for the past five years she has been encouraging the County to involve everyone who has a service to offer. She felt that the civic organizations, the schools and the funding agencies should make a joint effort to address the needs of the 6,000 children who are not in the After School Program. Ms. Quimby feit that the manner of addressing this After School Program and subsequent recommendation to have the School Board handle the program was unfair to the private providers. She contended that 20 the Request For Proposals was stacked against small business by requiring $1 million liability, requiring that they serve all 11 elementary schools, and charging rent for use of school facilities. The County Administrator's recommendation to give $5,000 to the School Board was not available to the private providers. The private providers were going to be charged rent of $77,000 for using the school facilities. The private providers must carry workers' compensation for the teachers and must be licensed by the State. Ms. Quimby agrees with the philosophy that it takes the entire community to raise a child, and she reminded the Board that the child care industry is part of this community. For Kids Only is a service -driven business, and if there is a need for child care, recreation, or educational services, her business wants to provide it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously gave responsibility for the After School Program to the School Board, allocated $5,000 on a one time basis to assist in the transition phase in starting up the program, with the understanding that if the School Board cannot assume the program, a contract should be awarded to Small Wonders as qualified and able to do the job. AGREEMENT WIT$ CITY OF SEBASTIAN: DEFENSIVE DRIVING COURSE The Board reviewed memo from Risk Manager Beth Jordan dated July 9, 1993: 21 J U L 2 01993 Boa . 90. F -,1u 4 JUL 20 BOOK 90 FADE 25-1 TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manager DATE: 9 July 1993 SUBJECT: Agreement with City of .Sebastian; Defensive Driving Course Please consider the following item for inclusion on the Board of County Commissioner's agenda for July 20, 1993. Background During May, 1993, staff was asked by Wendy Widmann, Personnel Director, City of Sebastian, if the County could consider inclusion of City employees in the County's ongoing defensive driving course. The County holds monthly classes and the inclusion of City employees on a space -available basis would not have an adverse affect. Analysis Staff considered the feasibility, costs and liability issues involved in providing this program and asked that Ms. Widmann prepare an agreement for Board consideration. That draft agreement was reviewed by County staff and we believe that the inclusion of City employees in this ongoing program would have mutual benefits. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board approve this agreement with the City of Sebastian and authorize the Chairman's signature. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the agreement with the City of Sebastian for Defensive Driving Enrollment of individuals employed by the City of Sebastian, as recommended by staff. PARTIALLY EXECUTED COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD CONSULTANT FEE - DESIGN OF LEFT -TURN BAYS AND RELATED DRAINAGE DESIGN, INTERSECTION OF SR -60 AND 82ND AVENUE The Board reviewed memo from County Traffic Engineer Robert Zaitooni dated July 13, 1993: 22 TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Robert Zaitooni, P.E. County Traffic Engine SUBJECT: Consultant Fee Design of Left -Turn Bays and Related Drainage Design Intersection of SR 60 at 82nd Avenue DATE: July 13, 1993 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Mosby and Associates, Inc., is presently under contract with the Gator Truck Stop (located at the Southwest corner of 82nd Avenue and SR 60) to design the 82nd Avenue widening south of SR 60 as required by County as a part of their off-site improvements. These improvements are paid for by the Developer. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation is planning to install a traffic signal at this intersection in the month of July. In accordance with County's permit requirements with Florida Department of Transportation, County is required to design and construct the left - turn lanes on 82nd Avenue. In order to complete this within the same time frame as the other improvements, it is critical to expedite the preparation of plans and drainage design for their improvements. Mosby and Associates has proposed a fee of $3,800 to perform survey work for the southbound left turn lane, prepare the construction plans, drainage design, and obtain the required permits. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Approve the requested $3,800 design fee for Mosby and Associates. Alternative No. 2. County staff prepare the plans and perform the drainage design. Alternative No. 3. Advertise the work through the competition process. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Because of the critical time frame staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1. Funding will be from County account #101-'158-541-067.62 2`3 L_ JUL 201993 800K 90 PAGE 26 r JUL 201993 BOOK 90 pnE 27 ON MOTION by Commissioner. Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved a fee of $3,800 to Mosby & Associates, Inc., for design work at the intersection of SR -60 and 82nd Avenue, as set out in staff's memorandum. SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD ACQUISITION OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC., (GDU) VERO HIGHLANDS - VERO SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated July 14, 1993: DATE: JULY 14, 1993 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. DIRECTOR OF FROM: HARRY E. AS ASSISTANT D UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. (GDU) VERO HIGHLANDS/SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM BACKGROUND On April 17, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) authorized the Department of Utility Services (Department) to pursue negotiations for the acquisition of General Development Utilities, Inc. (an Indian River County franchised utility) serving the Vero Highlands/Shores area. On May.8, 1990, the BCC authorized the Department to engage the firm of CH2M Hill to provide an independent evaluation of the GDU Vero Highlands/ Shores Utility System. The evaluation was completed and the Department met with GDU to discuss the possibility of the purchase of the Vero Highlands/Shores utility system. GDU advised that the Vero utility system was not for sale at that time. On May 3, 1993, the County received GDU's filing for a water and sewer rate increase as allowed by the franchise. The rate increase, as requested, would increase the average residential bill approximately 81.5% for a water -only customer and 155% for a sewer -only customer. 24 Analysis of Monthly Billing for a GDU Combined Water and Bever Customer at Current and Proposed Rates Monthly Usage Cost at *Cost at GDU Current Rates Proposed Rates *Cost at Consultant Recommendation 0 Gals(Min) $18.35 $71.60 $38.26 5,000 Gals $42.30 $90.35 $81.81 7,000 Gals $52.36 $98.33 $99.71 *Both GDU Proposed and Consultant Recommended Rates are subject to Public Hearing. General Development Utilities, Inc., in May 1993, advised the County that it now wishes to sell its water and wastewater utility system located in the Vero Highlands/Shores areas. The Indian River County utility service area surrounds the GDU franchised area. The County utility system currently supplies water to GDU to provide water service to the franchised area. The County's policy has been to acquire such privately -held utilities and to expand its regional and subregional water and wastewater facilities. Acquisition of this system will assist the County in implementing this policy. ANALYSIS As of December 31, 1992, the GDU system served approximately 1,393 water equivalent residential units (ERUs) and 1,324 wastewater ERUs, with an additional 123 ERUs of water and 88 ERUs of sewer capacity reserved. The projected buildout of the project.is 3,724 ERUs. Analysis of ERU9 Current and Projected at Buildout The Wastewater Treatment Plant is designed for 850,000 gallons per day (GPD) capacity. It is operated as a conventional activated sludge plant with aerobic digester. The Department of Environmental Protection permitted capacity of the plant is 450,000 GPD, due to effluent disposal capacity. To increase the permitted capacity of the plant to the design capacity of 850,000 GPD will require an increase in the effluent disposal capacity. The projected costs for the facilities to increase the effluent disposal capacity are included in the revenue requirements.for the system. The Wastewater Collection System consists of approximately 104,902 feet (19.86 miles) of 4"-16" pipe and nine lift stations as listed on page S-6 and 6(A) of the 1992 Annual Report (attached). The system data indicates that the wastewater collection system is installed to serve an additional 515 lots. The Net Sewer Utility Plant in Service as of December 31, 1992, as reported in the 1992 Annual Report, is shown as follows: 2'5 L_ JUL 20 i m, BOOK 90 PAGE 28 ERUs/Current BRUs/Lines Available Projected BRUs/Buildout ERUs To Buildout Water 1,516 __[515 677 3,724 2,331 Sewer 1,412 13,724 2,400 The Wastewater Treatment Plant is designed for 850,000 gallons per day (GPD) capacity. It is operated as a conventional activated sludge plant with aerobic digester. The Department of Environmental Protection permitted capacity of the plant is 450,000 GPD, due to effluent disposal capacity. To increase the permitted capacity of the plant to the design capacity of 850,000 GPD will require an increase in the effluent disposal capacity. The projected costs for the facilities to increase the effluent disposal capacity are included in the revenue requirements.for the system. The Wastewater Collection System consists of approximately 104,902 feet (19.86 miles) of 4"-16" pipe and nine lift stations as listed on page S-6 and 6(A) of the 1992 Annual Report (attached). The system data indicates that the wastewater collection system is installed to serve an additional 515 lots. The Net Sewer Utility Plant in Service as of December 31, 1992, as reported in the 1992 Annual Report, is shown as follows: 2'5 L_ JUL 20 i m, BOOK 90 PAGE 28 JUL 20 M3 BOOK 90 PAGE 2.11 ?9 sewer Total Plant in Service Less Accumulated Depreciation Net Sewer Utility Plant in Service $5,930,362 2.137.925 $3.792.437 The Water Distribution system consists of 82,960 feet (15.71 miles) of 2"-16" of water mains and 1,251 water meters in service as detailed on pages W-8 and W-9 of the 1992 Annual Report. The system data indicates that the water distribution system is installed to serve an additional 677 lots. The Net Water Utility Plant in Service as of December 31, 1992, as reported in the 1992 Annual Report, is shown as follows: Water Total Plant in Service $3,059,908 Less Accumulated Depreciation 811,778 Net Water Utility Plant in Service 52,248.130 Summary schedule of Water and sewer Plant in service Item Water Sewer Total Total Plant In Service $3,059,908 $5F930,362 $8,990,270 Accumulated Depreciation i $ 811,778 $2,137,925 $2,949,703 Net Utility Plant 1 $2,248,130 $3,792,437 $6,040,567 As a result of this Offer of Sale, the County has been negotiating the purchase of the GDU water and wastewater utility system. The negotiated price is $3,000,000, plus closing costs of aRproximately'S25.000. As a result of the Offer of Sale and changes in the County rates from 1990 to 1993, and possible changes in the GDU utility plant status, the Department requested CH2M Hill to update the 1990 Evaluation Report. The CH2M Hill updated report (copy attached) indicates a supportable 30 -year levelized debt service of $8,030,000 under the existing County rates. Acquisition costs are to be financed from recent bond proceeds, with debt service to be paid from revenues collected from the users of the system. The Department proposes to retain the current GDU line extension charges of $6.51 per front foot for water and $15.77 per front foot for sewer lines installed and available for service. This is to assist in the reasonable recovery of the costs associated with the purchase of the water and sewer lines currently installed and available The revenue to be generated from these charges are revenue projections of the system. 26 for service. used in the ® M The debt.service for the acquisition cost is supported with revenues generated from the existing GDU customer base with current County uniform rates. The current County rates are approximately 19% higher than the current GDU rates, but the current County rate is 78.96% lower than the GDU proposed rates for a customer using 5,000 gallons per month. Monthly Usage IRC Current Rates GDU Current Rates GDU Proposed Rates Consultant Recommended Rates 0 Gal(Min) $26.70 $18.35 $71.60 $38.26 5,000 Gals $50.49 $42.30 $90.35 $81.81 7•,000 Gals $60.49 $52.36 $98.33 $99.71 *Does Not Inc. 6% Tax The water and wastewater system improvements as recommended in the Updated CH2M Hill Evaluation Report are included in the revenue requirements supported by the system. It should be noted that if the utility is not purchased by the County and GDU is required to make these improvements,.the costs incurred will be recovered through higher rates to the customers in the GDU Vero Highlands/Shores service area over and above the amount requested in their current rate increase request. The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners set a date for a Public Hearing as required by Florida Statutes -125.3401 and approve the proposed purchase of the General Development Utilities, Inc., utility system serving the franchised area of Vero Highlands/Shores, based upon the outcome of the Public Hearing. Director Pinto further explained that since the memo was written, General Development committed to a price of $3 million, based on certain approvals. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously scheduled a public hearing on August 17, 1993, to consider the purchase of General Development Utilities, Inc., (GDU) Vero Highlands/Shores Utility System, as recommended by staff. 21 J U L 201993 90QK 90 FAGS 310 r JUL 20 mv BOOK 90 PAGE 31 , AUTHORIZATION TO REVISE CHAPTER 955 - MOVING OF STRUCTURES The Board reviewed memo from Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II dated July 13, 1993: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: `/ William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: July 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Authorization to Revise Chapter 955 - Moving of Structures Chapter 955 of the LDRs deals with moving of structures, and requires moving permits and performance bonds to guarantee that the costs of foundations, electrical and plumbing hookups are bonded prior to structures being moved. As I understand the rationale for the ordinance, it is to prevent substandard structures from being moved and abandoned or dumped on other properties. Charles Cox of the County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and Bootstrap Housing, Inc. has pointed out to me that there have been circumstances where houses are available to not-for-profit groups such as his and Habitat for Humanity, which could be utilized more readily if some of. the regulatory impediments were revisited. For example, County bond requirements take from funds necessary to make the foundation, electrical and plumbing hookups. I had suggested that he bring the matter before the Board for a possible revision to the ordinance whereby any "housing partners" seeking to provide affordable housing could apply for. an exemption to the moving bond requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize our office to work with the Community Development Department and Building Department to draft revisions to the bond requirements of Chapter 955 on moving of structures which would allow exemptions for nonprofit organizations participating in our affordable housing programs as "partners". Commissioner Eggert explained that there are nonprofit organizations who participate in the affordable housing program as partners, and the basis for this revision in Chapter 955 is to exempt those organizations from the bond requirement. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, to authorize staff to draft revisions to the bond requirements of Chapter 955 as recommended in staff's memorandum. 28 Chairman Bird added that staff should see whether any part of that chapter is unreasonable to anyone. Administrator Chandler clarified that Chapter 955 protects the County from situations where a permit is issued to move a structure and the mover simply dumps the structure in another location without the proper electrical and plumbing hookups. Deputy County Attorney Collins further explained that this bond is separate from the requirement for liability coverage. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman 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. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:38 a.m. ATTEST: J. rton, Clerk 25 Ri hard N. Bird, Chairman BOOK 90 PAGE 32L-1 'U'L 2 01993