HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/1993MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * f
9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
LJUL 7 1,99'
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
PAGE
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Appointment of Ann Zugelter to Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee
( letter dated June 28, 1993) 1
B. Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating
Board Annual Report
( memorandum dated July 15, 1993) 2 - 9
C. Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Annual
Evaluation Report
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993) 10 - 19
D. Progress Report E Reimbursement Invoice / Third Year
Planning Grant (1993) Invoice #2
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993) 20 - 26
E. Transportation Disadvantaged Commission FY 1993/94
Planning Grant Application
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993) 27 - 36
BOOK F o
r--JUL 27 1993
BOOK
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
F. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated July 20, 1993)
G. Second Amendment to St. Francis Manor Lease
(memorandum dated July 19, 1993)
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Comprehensive Plan Urban Service Area (USA)
and Utility Service Expansion
(memorandum dated July 20, 1993)
90 FAIJF 34
PAGE
37
38 - 40
41 - 110
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Lutheran Church of the Redeemer Request for
Special Exception Use Approval for a Child
Care Facility
(memorandum dated July 19, 1993) 111 - 118
2. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc.'s Request
for Special Exception Use Approval to Construct
a 280 Foot High Tower
(memorandum dated July 19, 1993) 119 - 131
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Bid No. 31-06 C.R. 512 Corridor - Wentworth
Ditch Relocation 8 Landscaping
(memorandum dated July 16, 1993) 132 - 137
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
JUL 2 7 1993
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ): PAGE
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Turn Lane and Driveway Construction -
1. R. C. vs Ames - Parcel 109
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993) 138 - 144
2. Construction Materials Testing - Indian
River Blvd. Ph. IV Amendment No. 1
( memorandum dated July 19, 1993) 145 - 150
H. UTILITIES
1.
Water Main Replacement - Project No. 1
Pineview Pk. S/D, Rivenbark S/D, and
15th Ave. / C. O. # 1 6 Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993)
151 - 161
2.
Water Service Replacement / Tropic Villas
North / Change Order 6 Final PaRequest
'
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993
162 - 169
3.
Water Line Extension Project / Oslo Rd. 6
74th Ave. Intersection to Solid Waste
Facilities
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993)
170 - 178
4.
Bidding F Construction of Water 8 Waste-
water to Commercial/ Industrial Nodes, Rt.
60 and 1-95
(memorandum dated July 16, 1993)
179 - 181
5.
North County Schools Water 8 County Rd. 512
to 1-95 Commercial Node Water / Final Pay
Request 6 Change Order No. 3
(memorandum dated July 13, 1993)
182 - 187
6.
North County Schools Wastewater 6 County
Rd. 512 to 1-95 Commercial Node Wastewater
Final Pay Request and Change Order No. 3
(memorandum dated July 13, 1993)
188 - 195
7.
South County R.O. Plant Odor Control Pilot
Testing
(memorandum dated July 13, 1993)
196 - 199
8.
Sludge/Septage Ordinance
(memorandum dated July 19, 1993)
200 - 208
9.
Process Analysis 6 Modification at the
West Regional 6 Gifford Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant, by Camp Dresser 5 McKee, Inc.
(memorandum dated July 16, 1993)
209 - 213
10.
Petition Water Service In Raintree Corner
S/ D / 54th Ave. ( south of 12th St.) /
Resolutions I and II
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993)
214 - 222
11.
West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion to 2 MGD
(memorandum dated July 20, 1993)
223 - 250
12.
Solid Waste Facilities Force Main; Work
Authorization No. 16
(memorandum dated July 16, 1993)
251 - 259
BOOK 9® FADE 35
JUL 27 mi BOOK 90 PAGE 36 -7
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY PAGE
A. Clarification of Motion re: Phase III Water
Expansion
( memorandum dated July 20, 1993) 260 - 262
B. Letter of Understanding with Hospital District
and Health Department
(memorandum dated July 14, 1993) 263 - 267
C. Electromagnetic Field Seminar
(memorandum dated July 15, 1993) 268 - 271
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
Committee Memberships
(letter dated July 21, 1993) 272
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 6/15/93
2. Authorization to Submit Matching Grant
Application to State EMS Office for
FY 93/94
(memorandum dated July 20, 1993) 273 - 279
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Recycling Video Contract Signature
(memorandum dated July 14, 1993) 280 - 286
1S. 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 JWAST 48 HOURS IN ADVA r F
MEE
Tuesday, July 27, 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 27, 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.
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAJEMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of Item 13.C.,
Fellsmere Community Health Coalition.
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of Item 8,
Reconsideration of Sheriff's Budget, and Item 13.A., Budget
Revision and Schedule Preliminary Budget Hearing. He also
requested that Item 11.H.8., Sludge/Septage Ordinance be deferred.
Later in the meeting Chairman Bird requested the addition of
Item 11.G.3., Discussion of Removal of Tank Traps from South Beach.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
the additions and deletion on the Agenda.
JULL- 271993 860K 90 F,,PE 37
JUL 27 i9m
BOOK 90 F'AUE 3
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Appointment of Ann Zugelter to Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously appointed
Ann Zugelter to the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee as the representative of the Town of
Orchid, and Town Manager Ernest Polverari as the
alternate.
B Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Annual
Report
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
Rohani dated July 15, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
VISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
i
obe t IM . Beating AI
Community Develojinent irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani <4t,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 15, 1993
RE: TDLCB ANNUAL REPORT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 27, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In order to comply with Rule 41-21 Florida Administrative Code,
the Board of County Commissioners must submit several reports to
the State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
Included among those submittals is: a Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) Annual Report. The TDLCB annual
report provides a brief summary of the TDLCB's accomplishments/
activities during its third year of operation. The report
summarizes the TDLCB's organization, allocated funding, vehicle
inventory and related activities for fiscal year 1992-93.
On July 15, 1993, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the attached TDLCB
annual report. At that time, the TDLCB recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the Transportation
Disadvantaged Program Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA),
approve the attached report and forward the report to the TDC.
2
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the TDLCB annual report for fiscal year 1992-
93. This report must be submitted to the State of Florida
Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal
of this report as submitted, to approve transmittal of the TDLCB
annual report with revisions, or to deny the transmittal of this
report to the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the TDLCB annual report for fiscal year
1992-93 and direct staff to transmit this report to the State of
Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating
Board annual report for fiscal year 1992/93 and
directed staff to transmit the report to the State
of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission,
as recommended by staff.
C. Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Annual Evaluation
Report
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
Rohani dated July 15, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE
ober M. Reatin , AI
Community Development irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani S -A -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 15, 1993
RE: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR (CTC) ANNUAL
EVALUATION REPORT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 27, 1993.
3
JULL_ 271.993 BOOK 9Q Fr1�C 39
r Jul 27 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
800K 9 0 r", -GE -7 40
One requirement of the current year (1992-93) annual element of the
county's coordinated transportation disadvantaged development plan
is that "the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board
(TDLCB) shall evaluate the performance of the Community
Transportation Coordinator and provide a recommendation to the DOPA
for continuation or replacement of the Community Transportation
Coordinator". To facilitate this evaluation process, the TDLCB
developed a set of criteria for the coordinator evaluation. On
September 11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the county's Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA), approved
the CTC's evaluation procedures and standards.
To conduct the CTC evaluation, the Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) established a subcommittee, whose
purpose was to meet with the coordinator and evaluate the
coordinator's performance. Using the criteria established by the
TDLCB, the subcommittee assessed the performance of the Community
Transportation Coordinator and prepared a report addressing the
coordinator's performance in relation to each of the evaluation
criteria. A copy of that report is attached. Based upon its
assessment, the evaluation sub -committee recommended that the
Indian River County Council on Aging be retained as the county's
CTC.
At its regular meeting on July 15, 1993, the TDLCB approved the CTC
annual evaluation report submitted by the evaluation subcommittee.
The TDLCB also directed staff to forward the evaluation report to
the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA for review and approval.
Alternatives and Analysis
The Indian River County Council on Aging has been the County's
Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) since October 1990. In
the past two years, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) recommended that the BCC/DOPA retain the
Council on Aging as the county's CTC. Subsequently, the BCC/DOPA
approved the TDLCB's recommendation and retained the Indian River
County Council on Aging as the coordinator.
This year, evaluation of the CTC has been performed by an
evaluation subcommittee of the Local Coordinating Board. This
evaluation was conducted according to the CTC evaluation procedures
and criteria approved by the TDLCB and the BCC/DOPA. Based upon
the evaluation committee's report, the Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board voted to retain the Council on Aging as
the county's CTC.
The Board of County Commissioners acting as the Transportation
Disadvantaged Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) has
several alternatives. The first alternative is to approve the CTC
annual evaluation report and retain the Council on Aging as the
County's CTC. A second alternative would be to reject the CTC
annual evaluation report and direct the TDLCB to re-evaluate the
coordinator. A third alternative would be to make changes to the
evaluation report and vote either to retain or terminate the
Council on Aging as the county's CTC.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and staff recommend that BCC/DOPA approve the attached
CTC annual evaluation report, retain the Indian River County
Council on Aging as the county's CTC, and direct staff to forward
the evaluation report to the State Transportation Disadvantaged
Commission.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC)
Annual Evaluation Report, retained the Indian River
County Council on Aging as the County's CTC and
directed staff to forward the evaluation report to
the State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission,
as recommended by staff.
D. Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice, Third Year Planning
Grant (1993) Invoice #2
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
Rohani dated July 15, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP NT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert bG Rea i ,
Community Develo men irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani -5'.(Z
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 15, 1993
RE: PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE
THIRD YEAR PLANNING GRANT (1993) INVOICE #2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 27, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
It is required, as part of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD)
Planning Grant contract between the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) as the Designated Official, Planning
Agency (DOPA) and the State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged
Commission (TDC), that periodic progress reports and reimbursement
invoices be. submitted. To comply with the TDC°s requirements,
staff has prepared a progress report and invoice for the period
from April 1, 1993 to June 30, 1993.
For the third year planning grant (1993), the invoice and progress
report represent the second submittal. This progress report and
applicable finished products, such as the Local Coordinating Board
(LCB) meeting minutes, by-laws, etc., are required to accompany all
reimbursement invoices.
Attached for your review is a copy of draft invoice #2 and the
progress report. This report, along with the appropriate
supporting documents, will be submitted to the TDC upon the Board
of County Commissioners/DOPA approval.
5
BOOK 90 FAGS 41
JUL 2 7 1993
Boa 90 eaci 42
On July 15, 1993, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the attached
progress report and invoice. At that time, the TDLCB recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA), approve the attached progress report and invoice and
forward these to the TDC.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the progress report and invoice for the April
11 1993 to June 30, 1993 period.
Finished products such as the TDLCB meeting minutes, by-laws, and
reports are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices.
These materials will be submitted to the state along with the
reimbursement invoice and the progress report.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal
of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice as submitted, to
approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with
revisions, or to deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and
reimbursement invoice to the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the Progress Report and reimbursement
invoice #2, and direct staff to transmit the report and the invoice
to the State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice 12 and
directed staff to transmit the report and the
invoice to the State of Florida Transportation
Disadvantaged Commission, as recommended by staff.
E._Transportation Disadvantaged Commission Fiscal Year 1993194
Planning Grant Application
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
Rohani dated July 15, 1993:
2
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DVPWON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
W
Obert M. Re t ng, AIC
Community Development rector
FROM: Sasan Rohani S '1?"
Chief, Long-Range Planning
DATE: July 15, 1993
RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COMMISSION FY 1993/94
PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 27, 1993.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
In June of 1990, the Board of County Commissioners was approved by
the state to become the local Designated Official Planning Agency
(DOPA) for the provision of transportation disadvantaged planning
activities in the area.
For fiscal year 1993/1994, the state has allocated $17,689.00 to
Indian River County for transportation disadvantaged planning
related services. The grant funds are available for the specific
purpose of accomplishing the duties and responsibilities of the
Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) as identified in the
Transportation Disadvantaged law, Chapter 427, F.S. and Rule 41-2
FAC. The DOPA is required to apply for the Planning Grant (copy
attached).
As provided for by the state, a Designated Official Planning Agency
may transfer any or all of its unobligated planning grant funds to
the county's non -sponsored trip/equipment grant allocation. Non -
sponsored trip/equipment grant funds are monies available to the
county's Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) to cover
capital and operating costs associated with the provision of
transportation disadvantaged service. Essentially, this transfer
provision allows unneeded planning funds to be transferred to the
Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) to be used for providing
trips.
In this case, the planning grant amount allocated to the county for
FY 93/94 represents an increase of $3115.00 from the FY 92/93
allocation. While the planning grant amount has increased, the
CTC's Trip/Equipment grant allocation for FY 1993/94 has decreased
by $11,425.00 from the FY 1992/93 allocation.
Based upon a review of the amount of work involved in fulfilling
the county's planning related duties and responsibilities
associated with the Transportation Disadvantaged program, staff has
determined that $4,000.00 of the funds allocated for the planning
grant can be transferred to the CTC for provision of non -sponsored
transportation disadvantaged trips. If approved, the $4,000 will
supplement non -sponsored trip/equipment funds and will be utilized
by the Community Transportation Coordinator (I.R.C. Council on
Aging) to provide transportation services to transportation
disadvantaged clients. Since the total number of passenger trips
7
L-JUL 27 i9.qj
BOOK 90 NAGE 43
r JUL 27 NO
BOOK 90 PnF 44
and the total vehicle trip miles provided through the CTC are two
of the factors included in the state formula for distribution of
trip/equipment funds to the CTCs, any increase in the number of
trips provided through the Community Transportation Coordinator
will also increase the Community Transportation Coordinator's
chance of getting more trip/equipment funding for FY 94/95.
On July 15, 1993, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board discussed and recommended approval of the FY
1993/94 Planning Grant application.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The purpose of the planning grant application is to obtain funds to
cover the planning related costs involved with fulfilling the
county's duties and responsibilities associated with the state
mandated transportation disadvantaged program. The grant monies
are needed to provide monetary support to the county for the
continued provision of planning related services in conjunction
with the local transportation disadvantaged program.
Failure to apply for the grant will result in a lack of funding
from the state for planning related services which are mandated by
the transportation disadvantaged program.
The Board has three major alternatives. One is to apply for the
grant funds as recommended by staff and the TDLCB. The second
alternative is to apply for the entire amount allocated for the
planning grant and not transfer any funds to the trip/equipment
fund. The third alternative is to not apply for the grant funds,
an action which would make the county ineligible for reimbursement
of monies expended for planning related services.
RECONNENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the transmittal of the FY 93-94 Planning
Grant application to the state TDC as proposed by staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-124, authorizing the filing of a
Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Grant
Application with the Florida Transportation
Disadvantaged Commission, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION 93-124, WITH GRANT APPLICATION ATTACHED
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
8
M M M
A RESOLUTION of
EXHIBIT C
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
Resolution No. 93-124
Indian River County Board of County Comm. (DOPA)
the
authorizing the
filing of a Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Grant Application with
the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission.
% WHEREAS, this BOARD has the authority to file a Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund Grant Application and to undertake a transportation
disadvantaged service project as authorized by Rule 41-2, F.A.C., and Section
427.0159, F.S.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD THAT:
1. The BOARD has the authority to file this grant application.
Robert M. Keating, AICP to file and
2. The BOARD authorizes Indian i.ver ounty
execute the atpplicatio�DO n �ehalf of the
Board of Coun Yy Comm. t with the Florida Transportation
Disadvantaged Commission for the total amount of $_
13, �8 9_
of Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Funds.
3. The BOARD authorizes Robert M. Keating, AICP to sign any
and all agreements or contracts which are required in connection
with the application.
4. The BOARD author i z es Robert M. Keating, AICP to sign any
and all assurances, reimbursement invoices, warranties,
certifications, and any other documents which may be required in
connection with the application or subsequent agreements.
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS
27tH DAY OF July 19 93
a
ATTEST:
Seal required)
--t`z�gna gARTCN. CL RK.
Aowm Rev. 4/26/93
L 'JUL w9 71993
BOARD OF.
I.R.C. Board of County Comm.
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Typed name f Chairperson
�Z�'�
Signature of Chairperson
9
PL Grant Appl. Page 4
BOOK 9® FA6E 45
r JUL 2 7 m3
300K 90 t
Cr �[ 16
F. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Legal Secretary Sandy Wright
dated July 20, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Sandy Wright, County Attorney's Offi4>
DATE: July 20, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of
County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they
can be recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Satisfaction of Impact Fees
SHEEHAN/HARE
FILOSA
GERGELY
MONROE
HILL
BRYANT
DUPUIS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the satisfaction of impact fees as listed in staff's
memorandum.
SAID SATISFACTIONS
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
G. Second Amendment to St. Francis Manor Lease
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated July 19, 1993:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Asst. County Atty. -y-P6
DATE: July 19, 1993
RE: SECOND AMENDMENT TO ST. FRANCIS MANOR LEASE
Frank L. Zorc, President of St. Francis Manor, has requested an
amendment to the original lease to allow for refinancing of the existing
mortgage on the property. Attached is a Second Amendment to the
lease which, if approved, will accomplish this objective.
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Second Amendment to the lease with St. Francis
Manor of Vero Beach, Florida, Inc., as recommended
by staff.
SECOND AMENDMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SHERIFF'S BUDGET REVISION
Sheriff Gary Wheeler announced the reduction to his proposed
budget as requested by the Board. He related that since the budget
workshop, he and his staff analyzed and considered the options, and
their proposal is not to increase civilian staff members for the
new courthouse and defer the purchase of four new vehicles. They
will transfer the personnel from the old courthouse, and will
attempt to coordinate trained volunteers with the trained staff,
and possibly fill some part time positions. Sheriff Wheeler
expected some difficulty managing the operation of the new
courthouse with fewer bailiffs, and he will use the last four
months of the fiscal year to find out what difficulties arise and
how to handle them. They will use a school bus to transfer
prisoners to the courthouse rather than purchasing a new van, and
they will defer the purchase of three unmarked vehicles for the
detective division. These revisions cause a decrease in the
Sheriff's proposed budget of approximately $250,368.00.
Chairman Bird appreciated the Sheriff's cooperation in this
extremely tight budget year in revising his already bare -bones
budget proposal.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that the figures required
some recalculation and he would present the final figures to the
Board later in the meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (DSA) AND
UTILITY SERVICE EXPANSION
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
11
JUL 27mqj aooK 90 Feu
JUL 2 7 wi
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPt AK
Community Development Director
BOOK 90 FaH 48 -7
DATE: July 20, 1993
RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (USA) AND UTILITY
SERVICE EXPANSION
It is requested that the information contained herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 27, 1993.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On June 22, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners considered a
county -initiated comprehensive plan amendment request to change the
county's urban service area (USA) boundary and to amend the land
use plan designation for 2280 acres of land. At that time, the
Board voted not to transmit the proposed amendment to the state for
its review; instead, the Board directed staff to research the issue
further and to schedule a Board workshop to discuss the issue in
more detail.
In taking this action, the Board indicated that it wanted to
revisit the comprehensive plan's utility provisions in general,
rather than focusing only on urban service area expansion. To
address the comprehensive plan's utility provisions, it is
necessary to consider not only the plan, itself; but also state
comprehensive plan requirements.
C State Requirements
There are several state requirements which affect the county's
comprehensive plan. While some of these regulations address
procedural matters, others set minimum requirements.
The most important of these is Florida Statutes Section 163.31611
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act of 1985. Implementing that act is Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code (Minimum Criteria for Review of Local
Comprehensive Plans). Also important is the state comprehensive
plan (Chapter 187, F.S.) and the applicable comprehensive regional
policy plan.
None of these documents specifically requires that a local
comprehensive plan include an urban service area boundary. State
rules, however, do require that each local government adopt a
future land use plan map, include a Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Aquifer Recharge Element,
address the extension of potable water facilities to meet future
needs, address maximizing the use of existing facilities while
discouraging urban sprawl, and coordinate future land uses with the
availability of services and facilities.
Although urban service areas are not required as components of
local comprehensive plans, the various regulations, together, do
12
require something comparable to an urban service area. For example
local governments must delineate land use boundaries, base those
boundaries on availability of facilities (and other factors),
provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses, and
establish water and sewer service extension areas. Consequently,
lines must be drawn, and policies addressing these issues must be
adopted.
0 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
Like many other counties in the state, Indian River County adopted
an urban service area boundary as part of its comprehensive plan.
Based upon existing development patterns, existing service areas,
and proposed service areas, the county's urban service area
encompasses those lands that are served by or will be served by the
full range of urban services and facilities. By definition, the
urban service area is that portion of the county which can support
urban type land uses.
In establishing its urban service area, the county developed
various policies addressing urban service area functions. Among
these policies are a prohibition on extension of urban services
outside of the USA, a prohibition on establishing urban land uses
outside the USA, and a commitment to provide urban services within
the USA.
During plan preparation, staff felt that establishing an urban
service area and a USA boundary was not only useful, but necessary.
Besides serving as a basis for setting land use designations, the
urban service area provided a target on which utility master plans
could be based. Utility line extensions, even more so than other
types of projects, must be based upon service area limits and
demand projections. With an established urban service area, the
necessary utility master planning can be done with more certainty.
Although the county's urban service area boundary establishes the
limits of urban development in the county, the county's future land
use map would not be any different without the USA. The reason for
that is that both the USA boundary and the county's land use
pattern were ultimately established through negotiation with the
state Department of Community Affairs (DCA). To address issues
such as urban sprawl, overallocation of residential land,
agricultural preservation, and others that arose after plan
adoption, the county made significant changes to its future land
use plan map and urban service boundary.
In setting its urban service area boundary, the county used
roadways, as much as possible, as dividing lines. This not only
provided an easily identifiable boundary, but also served as a
physical separation between urban and rural uses and between
residential and agricultural uses.
o Plan Amendment
The issue of roadways serving as urban service area boundaries
arose in 1991. It was then that David Feldman submitted a land use
plan amendment request for forty acres of land west of and
bordering Rings Highway.
Mr. Feldman's request was to expand the urban service area to
encompass his property and to change the land use plan designation
for his property from AG -1 to R. As justification for the
amendment, the point was raised that having roadways which serve as
utility line corridors as urban service area boundaries and
prohibiting utility service to land on one side of those roadways
13
LJUL �? M3 ROOK 90PAGE 49
�� 7 600K 9FAGE 50
JUL 1993
was not efficient or cost effective. The County agreed with this
reasoning and approved the amendment request.
Because the rationale of providing utility service to both sides of
roadways having major utility lines within their rights-of-way made
sense, DCA accepted that argument as the basis for approving the
Feldman amendment. In negotiating with the County on this
amendment, however, DCA indicated that the County would have to
analyze all similarly situated land and make appropriate
comprehensive plan changes. Consequently, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 in
conjunction with adoption of the Feldman amendment.
In committing the County to complete a corridor analysis by 1993,
policy 1.37 ensures that the issue of how to address land outside
the urban service area but contiguous to a road right-of-way
serving as a major utility line corridor will be addressed in a
comprehensive, countywide manner. As written, policy 1.37 not only
requires that the County consider the issue of utility service for
lands adjacent to utility corridors,. but it also requires that the
County consider the land use plan designation for those properties.
O Corridor Analysis
Consistent with the requirement of policy 1.37, planning staff
prepared a corridor analysis, focusing on roadways serving as urban
service area boundaries and having existing or programmed utility
lines within their rights-of-way. A copy of that corridor analysis
was included with the comprehensive plan amendment backup material
submitted to the Board for consideration at its June 22, 1993
meeting, and a copy is attached to the staff report. That corridor
analysis was the basis for developing the comprehensive plan
amendment request considered by the Board of County Commissioners
at its June 22, 1993 meeting.
Through its corridor analysis, staff determined that, while
roadways make good boundaries for land use designations, zoning
categories, and urban service areas, their function as utility
corridors warrants -consideration of each roadway separately. In
assessing each roadway, staff determined that the roads programmed
to accommodate utility lines were chosen because other roadways
within the USA already had rights-of-way which were crowded with
utility lines and other improvements.
Given the results of its corridor analysis, staff proposed that the
Board of County Commissioners expand the urban service area and
redesignate land within one quarter of a mile of the Rings Highway
corridor and other roadways programmed for major utility line
installation by 1995. A copy of the staff report on the proposed
amendment which was presented to the Board of County Commissioners
at its June 22, 1993 meeting is attached to this agenda item.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The corridor analysis prepared by staff contained several important
findings and conclusions. First, the analysis found that it was
necessary to use the roadways programmed for utility line
installation to accommodate the lines because other rights-of-way
were already too crowded. Second, the analysis found that it would
be cost effective if utility service were made available to those
lands adjacent to roadways serving as utility corridors.
In preparing the corridor study and developing the comprehensive
plan amendment recommendations, staff focused primarily on urban
service area expansion and land use redesignation. There are,
14
however, other mechanisms by which service can be provided to land
adjacent to roadways serving as utility corridors.
o Alternatives
With respect to this issue, there are several alternatives
available to the Board of County Commissioners. Each has
advantages and disadvantages.
In the staff report submitted to the Board of County Commissioners
for the June 22, 1993 meeting, five alternatives for addressing the
utility corridor issue were identified. Besides a no action
option, there were four alternatives involving various combinations
of urban service area expansion and land use plan map
redesignation. The attached memorandum which was presented to the
Board at its June 22, 1993 meeting contains an analysis of each
alternative.
As indicated in the attached staff report for the June 22, 1993
meeting, staff had recommended the alternative of enlarging the
urban service area by 2280 acres and redesignating that land from
AG -1 to R. Staff still supports that recommendation (see
attachment 1).
Although the attached staff report addresses the corridor issue
from the perspective of USA and land use designation boundary
changes, there is another set of options which could resolve the
issue. These options involve changing USA related policies.
Specifically, these options involve modifying the prohibition on
extension of urban services outside of the USA boundary.
Since urban service areas are not mandated by the state, a revision
to the county's USA policies would not conflict with state law.
If, however, such policy changes would result in urban sprawl, then
the state could object to any such revisions.
Of the 700+ policies of the comprehensive plan, only two prohibit
extension of water and sewer services outside of the USA. These
are policies 5.9 of the Potable Water Sub -Element and 5.9 of the
Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. While various other plan policies
relate to the urban service area, no other policies prohibit the
extension of urban services outside of the USA.
By modifying the two referenced policies, the issue of providing
utility service to land adjacent to roadways serving as urban
service area boundaries where those roads also accommodate major
utility lines can be resolved. Such changes to the two policies
could be either broad or narrow in scope.
A broad change to policy 5.9 of the Potable Water Sub -Element and
to policy 5.9 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element would delete the
prohibition of extending service outside of the USA and would not
limit service extension at all. With such a change, water and
sewer service could be provided anywhere in the County. Although
such a change would provide complete flexibility to the Board, it
would eliminate the guidance provided by the comprehensive plan for
utility master planning. It also would have a tendency to create
urban sprawl through the extension of utility services into rural
and agricultural areas.
Instead of making a broad change to policy 5.9, the Board could
make a more narrowly designed revision. For example, the Board
could revise policy 5.9 to allow expansion of utility services
outside of the USA only for those parcels located wholly or partly
within one quarter of a mile of the urban service area boundary
15
L2JUL
800K �' E 5
21q5{
JUL 271993
(see attachment 2). With this approach, the issue of service
extension to lands adjacent to roads serving as urban service area
boundaries and having utility lines within their rights-of-way can
be resolved. At the same time, the geographic scope of the utility
service extension can be limited, and any expansion would
necessarily occur in a logical and rational manner.
Of the two options for revising the policy prohibiting the
extension of utility service outside of the USA, staff would
recommend the one narrower in scope. As with the other
alternatives for addressing the utility service/corridor issue, the
change in policy 5.9 would require an amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Given the alternatives referenced in the staff report for the June
22, 1993 Board of County Commissioners meeting and the options
reflected in this memorandum, there appear to be several broad
choices available to the Board, with several variations of each
choice possible. The choices are:
C No Action
C Expand USA and redesignate land
C Expand USA with no redesignation
C Amend comprehensive plan policies prohibiting the
extension of urban services outside of the USA (no USA
expansion nor redesignation)
Each of these alternatives and their variations are discussed in
either this staff report or the report prepared for the June 221
1993 Board meeting. It is staff's position that the best
alternative would be to expand the USA by 2280 acres and
redesignate that land from AG -1 to R.
Since any option other than the no action alternative requires a
comprehensive plan amendment, the statutory amendment process will
need to be followed. That process prohibits local governments from
amending their comprehensive plans more than twice in each calendar
year. Since Indian River County implements that requirement by
accepting comprehensive plan amendment applications during the
months of January and July, whichever amendment option chosen by
the Board of County Commissioners can be processed with the July
set of plan amendments.
RECONNENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
the alternatives identified in this agenda item and the report
prepared for the June 22, 1993 Board meeting, choose an
alternative, and direct staff to process a comprehensive plan
amendment to enact the chosen alternative. Staff recommends that
the Board choose the alternative of expanding the USA by 2280 acres
and redesignating that land from AG -1 to R.
Commissioner Eggert asked, and Director Keating clarified that
if the Board decided that policies 5.9 of the two sub -elements were
changed to the quarter mile option, those people within that
quarter mile fringe would not be redesignated or rezoned merely by
that policy change; they would still have to request expansion of
the urban service area and request land use redesignation and
rezoning for their property. The excluded Oslo Corridor also would
have those requirements.
16
� � a
County Attorney Charles Vitunac clarified that the urban
service area boundaries are roadways which have either water or
sewer lines.
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the recommended Rural
land use designation. He pointed out that it could be argued that
it is inequitable to have one side of a roadway designated R (1
unit per acre) while the property across the road is designated L-1
(3 units per acre).
Director Keating explained that staff considered the
residential allocation ratio and the fact that changing the land
use designation to anything more intense than R would project more
residential units than can be absorbed within the time horizon of
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The R designation is the least
intense land use allowed in an urban service area. The strongest
reason for recommending the R designation is because the area under
discussion is in the south county, west of Kings Highway and east
of 82nd Avenue, which is generally a flood prone area where
densities are restricted.
Chairman Bird clarified that the Oslo Road Corridor eventually
will have sewer and water lines from U.S.J1 to I-95 and will serve
the planned industrial node. He realized that the property owners
on that corridor have mixed feelings as to whether they are in
favor of or opposed to that corridor being included in the proposed
change, and he read aloud the following ��lppettttt�er:
STOC MORE GROVE
2419 EAST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308-4042
(305) 491-0100
July 22, 1993
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
Indian River County, Florida
` County Administration Building
Attns Mr. John Wachtel, Staff Planner -
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
o
Re: County Initiated Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan by
Enlarging the Urban Service Area and Redesigr.ating
Approximately 3200 acres from AG -1- to R (LUDA 93-01-0100)
Dear Honorable Members:
I respectfully request that this letter be read at your workshop
meeting on July 27, 1993 by Mr. John Wachtel.
I am a very concerned property owner of approximately 80 acres
lying on the north side of 9th St., S.W. (Oslo Rd.) between 58th
Avenue and 74th Avenue, Vero Beach, F1. My concerns are that the
final decision makers, being yourselves, of this proposed land use
plan change are being partially misdirected by some of the
surrounding vocal neighbors.
17
BOOK 33 f u 53
JUL 27 1
F,"- U [ 2 7 wr,
BOOK 90 PAGE 54 -7
I feel that the Oslo Road corridor should be included in the Land
Use Plan change due to the fact that this land along the corridor
does lie within the j mile corridor of the U.S.A. utility expansion
program. Most importantly, by allowing the one unit per acre
density development will be efficient and facilitate the economical
use of the utility lines that are going to be installed in this
corridor. development will enable the repayment of the cost of
installing these lines in the neighboring right-of-ways. And, as
Indicated by staff in it's April 16th, 1993 memorandum, "the net
increase in the total number units over the proposed 3200 acres
would not exceed the building permits issued in the year$ 1990 thru
1992". "Thgreby, including the entire_ 3200 acres as originally
Proposed would not increase the counties allocation ratio."
Thus, I eat in favor of including the Oslo Road carrldor in the
proposed land use change from AG -1 to R, or increasing the allowable
houbiriy Units from i per 5 acrea to 1 rosidsnce per 1 acre. T feel
this land use change would be a benefit to all, better utilization
of the utilitida, employment opportunitica, and an increased tax
base for the county.
As a suggestion, if some people still do not want to be included in
the comprehensive plan change., then leave them out and give my
property the increased use designation.
I apologize for not being able to attend this meeting in person.
Chairman Bird announced that he received a telephone call from
Mr. and Mrs. Barney Green who are in favor of the proposed change.
The Chairman opened the public discussion and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Freda Hoppe, 1140 66th Avenue, noted that the current plan
excludes her property but she would like it to be included in the
change.
Clausson P. Lexow, 3540 North Hills Drive, Hollywood, Florida,
represented Southeast Citrus Capital Corporation which owns and
manages about 1,000 acres of groves in St. Lucie and Indian River
Counties, and approximately 500 of those acres would be affected by
this change. He was in favor of the proposed change to the R land
use designation and suggested that the same designation be on both
sides of the street. He felt that staff's concern about the impact
of the residential allocation ratio could change. Speaking from
the perspective of a developer, he thought that 3 units to an acre
makes it economically feasible to endure assessments. He thought
that three units per acre allows for a respectable residential
development and would not add unreasonable trips to the road.
18
� � v
Chairman Bird asked for an explanation of staff's rationale in
drawing boundary lines along roadways for the urban service area
and having one land use designation on one side of the road and
another designation on the other side.
Director Keating agreed that problems develop whenever lines
are drawn on a map. He explained that it is more logical to have
the change in zoning at the front of property facing the road
rather than at the back end of property, which could cause uneven
or jagged boundary lines. He further explained that with the R
land use designation, residences can be clustered on a parcel, and
if the density changes later, some of the land that was left vacant
could be developed. He stressed that the major reason for
recommending R is the county's absorption rate, which is an
analysis of the total number of units that can be produced under a
proposed density. When we established our Comprehensive Plan we
based our population projections on the University of Florida
Bureau of Economic and Business Research mid range projections, as
well as our own projections. We projected a growth rate of about
4 to 5 percent, with a resident population of about 140,000 in the
year 2010. Currently we are down to about 1.5 or 1.7 percent
growth rate, lower than the original projection, but we expect it
to go back up.
Glen Legwen, 5900 5th Street, Southwest, stated that he
expected a workshop where those in favor of and those opposed to
the proposed change would exchange ideas. He had not received any
written material prior to arriving at the meeting and he expected
staff to recommend a modification of the original proposal, which
was to change the zoning. Mr. Legwen opposed the change. He
operates a nursery and landscape business and is concerned that our
agriculturally zoned land is being developed and we are losing our
ability to provide our own sustenance. He also was concerned about
the tax rates. Mr. Legwen addressed a recent change in land use on
property owned by Mr. Feldman and contended that it was done easily
with no public notice.
Director Keating responded that Mr. Feldman's change was done
only after the complex process of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
which involved hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and
before the County Commissioners as well as a review by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
Chairman Bird pointed out that the proposed change would not
prevent a property owner from using his property for agricultural
purposes. It would simply give property owners the second choice
of low density residential development.
19
L 27
BOOK 90 FAcr 55
r- JUL 271993
BOOK 90 FADE 56 -7
commissioner Eggert noted that the agriculture exemption would
control the taxes.
Mr. Legwen asked whether the County can assess property owners
on both sides of Kings Highway when the main canal is on the east
side and prevents access to those properties.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained that if any
parcel cannot access the utility lines, there is no benefit to that
property and it would not be assessed.
Dr. Skip Barkett, 5850 12th Street, was concerned about a
change in the Board's tone regarding the property owners who have
larger parcels and want to maintain the status quo. At previous
meetings the Board was friendly to agriculture and the environment,
and now the feeling seems to be that extending the urban service
area will not hurt at all. He heard the comment that he has the
option to continue using the property for agriculture, but he felt
he will not have that option if his assessment is $15,000 or
$20,000 for a utility line in front of his property to serve a
development down the road. If a developer wants sewer and water,
let him pay for it and not force others to pay for something they
don't want. Dr. Barkett stated he would agree to pay for utilities
if they happen to run in front of his property and he wanted
service. The people who have owned agriculturally zoned property
for 30 and 40 years are scared to death, because a 40 -acre
development down the road could weaken the resolve of the owners of
other large parcels who wish to refrain from developing their
property. He criticized the creation of higher density land use to
supply a customer base for utilities. Dr. Barkett felt that people
who have lived in the county for 30 and 40 years and have paid
taxes all that time should be given special consideration regarding
impact fees. He realized that the impact fees are charged to
people who come in later, but these people who have been paying
taxes for 30 and 40 years should be in a different category. Dr.
Barkett urged the Board to remember the last two meetings where
they indicated they were concerned about agriculture and the
environment.
Chairman Bird reminded everyone that the original reason for
considering the proposed changes was because utility lines run down
major corridor roads which serve as boundaries for the urban
service area and people on the side of the road which is outside
the urban service area are barred from receiving utilities service.
Director Pinto clarified that the lines under discussion will
be built whether the urban service area is expanded or not. They
20
s � �
must be constructed to service other sections of the urban service
area. It is unfair to install lines down these roads and deny
service to property on one side because it is outside the urban
service area. Director Pinto stated that the Utilities Department
must know the size and location of the urban service area in order
to do the engineering and to design and size the lines. He
confirmed that the utility lines under discussion are not
assessable. He went on to explain that public utilities deal with
certificated areas of service, and if property is within 1500 feet
of the boundary of that certificated area, that public utility is
required to provide service to that property. Likewise, if
property owners outside of our urban service area want service, we
should be able to accommodate them.
Dr. Barkett realized all that, but he questioned the necessity
of changing the land use designation because a change in land use
invites development.
Director Keating pointed out that it is not necessary to
change the land use designations because there are alternatives.
Michael Zeigler, 3375 12th Street, representing property
owners in Section 35 on the map, stated that he personally was
confused and was concerned that the Board also was confused. He
listed the three entities involved in the proposed changes: the
County Planning Department with their flexible Land Use Plan of
2010; the County Utilities Department with the Brown and Caldwell
master utility plan, which could be considered a fixed plan; and
the county residents who have no comprehensive plan, no consensus
about the prospects for the year 2010 and very little understanding
of that 2010 plan. Mr. Zeigler pointed out that staff presented
recommendations at the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting
in April, and at each succeeding meeting staff's recommendation was
modified and more alternatives were added. He felt that we all
need more time to discuss and comprehend the alternatives after we
hear the presentations from everyone involved. We have heard the
opinions of residents for and against development, but we have not
heard what other counties have done and the consequences of their
actions. The proposed change is directed at 2280 or 3200 acres,
but the entire county will be affected by this change. Mr. Zeigler
also believed we do not understand enough about the possible
consequences of the proposed change to make a decision, whether it
is a policy requirement, redesignation requirement or exception of
a particular area or segment of the county. We need to understand
what the implications will be regarding the cost and who will bear
the assessments. Mr. Zeigler agreed with the suggestion that long -
21
JUL -271993
BOOK 90 PACE
BOOK 90 PAE 58
J U L 2 7 1993
time residents should be given special consideration in terms of
impact fees.
Sam Adams, 6600 4th Street, had three concerns: the possible
location of the citrus highway on 66th Avenue, paying an assessment
for somebody else"s service, and possible higher taxes if his
property is rezoned. He believes that if he keeps his property
zoned agricultural, the assessment should be deferred until he
decides to change the zoning to a higher density.
Bob Schlitt, 505 66th Avenue, was in favor of giving the
property owners the option of being included in the urban service
area and of rezoning to a higher density. He is concerned with the
quality of his water and wants to receive the water service. He
thought everyone needed clarification on the points under
discussion.
Philip Mank, 6300 8th Street, stated that his property is
across the road from Pine Tree Park and he looks forward to having
the water service. He does not like depending on electricity for
his water supply because when electricity is off, he cannot get
water from his well. He stated that 20 years ago his property was
zoned residential and was changed to agricultural, and he is
satisfied with that. He did not care about the sewer lines but
wanted the water service.
Director Pinto explained that the master utility plan
addresses the capital expense of utilities and the construction of
utility lines within the urban service area; however, the master
utility plan does not include capacity for properties outside the
urban service area. This change was proposed because of requests
from residents who want service but are not able to obtain it
because they are outside the urban service area. If the Board does
not wish to build capacity for properties outside the urban service
area, that is fine, but the Utilities Department must know what
will be needed for purposes of designing and sizing the lines. He
stated that the people who live on the other side of that urban
service area boundary must realize that if they are not included in
this plan, they cut their property off from utilities in the
future. There is no coming back for seconds except at great
expense. The Utilities Department is not promoting this expansion,
but if there is the possibility that owners of property outside the
urban service area will want the service, it must be designed ahead
of time.
22
M
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public discussion.
Commissioner Adams opposed a blanket change in the urban
service area. She felt it would be better for individual property
owners to request a change. The problem is caused by our policy of
not allowing the lines to extend outside the urban service area.
The recommended broad change to that policy would allow an owner to
request expansion of the urban service area to a specific parcel.
If we do not expand the urban service area, utilities staff may not
know what densities and capacities are needed, but that is not
impossible to overcome, and we should design capacity with a little
extra as we go. Commissioner Adams was concerned about protecting
the rights of the large parcel owners who want to continue to live
on 5 or 10 or 20 acres. They should not have to worry about
protecting their property every time one of their neighbors
requests a change in land use. Commissioner Adams was in favor of
the recommended broad change to policy 5.9 of the Potable Water
Sub -Element and policy 5.9 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element.
Commissioner Eggert stated that the broad change alternative
was her first choice but she realized that we would have complex
problems with that choice. Property owners would have to request
a change in the urban service area as well as their land
designation and their zoning, and the urban service area boundary
would be very uneven. Commissioner Eggert favored the alternative
where utility services could be extended within a quarter -mile
fringe of the urban service area. She further commented that our
Comp Plan is due for re-evaluation in the next year or two.
Chairman Bird pointed out that in spite of our best efforts to
encourage orderly growth, there are some areas in the county that
are more conducive to development, such as the lightly wooded and
upland areas, which seem to be scattered throughout the county. If
those developers want the service and are willing to pay, that is
where we should go with the utilities, realizing that it does not
always follow the master plan.
Director Keating advised that the concept of the urban service
area includes not only utilities but also emergency services. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages infilling and utilizing the
facilities within the urban service area and discourages urban
sprawl.
23
L_JUL 27
M90 BOOK 90 FvF 59
FJUL 27 199.3,
BOOK 90 FA -7
CE 6®
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that a Comprehensive Plan
amendment be brought forward, both for the potable
water sub- element and the sanitary sewer sub -
element, to allow expansion of the utility services
to those properties located outside the urban
service area and either wholly or partially within a
quarter mile of the urban service area boundaries.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht clarified that the effect
of this proposed amendment would be to allow anyone who is
currently living outside of but within a quarter mile of the
service area to be able to get service if service is readily
available. Water and sewer service currently is prohibited outside
the urban service area. This amendment will not change the urban
service boundary and will not change any land use designation.
Chairman Bird asked how the amendment would affect utilities,
and Director Pinto responded that property owners would have to
make a decision whether they want to be included at the time of the
assessment.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to make every effort to clarify the
possible confusion and make absolutely clear to property owners
what consequences will follow for those who do not choose to be
included in the expansion, and not just immediate consequences but
long range consequences as well. The costs should be spelled out
in detail so that they fully understand the import of not being
included in the expansion.
Director Pinto explained that the normal assessment procedure
would provide the means to furnish that information. The property
owners would be notified of the assessment, and if they do not want
to be included, they will be given all the information so that they
have a clear understanding of the consequences. If they decide to
be excluded, that fact would become a part of the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible ways to handle
property which will be excluded from the assessment.
Director Pinto advised that the size of the project would be
determined and those calculations would dictate the size of the
lines. The important thing is to inform the property owners of the
consequences of being excluded from a project.
Commissioner Macht asked for a restatement of the motion.
Commissioner Eggert restated the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
24
PUBLIC HEARING - LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER REQUEST FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY
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
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a_
in the matter
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
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 ^ bet Be me /1 day of aJ� A.D. 19 _
S Is
(Business Manager)
(SEAL) She "/)q Yh, t I �►-tf'/e.
NOWY Public, State of fclerWa of larM
My Commission Gpires Oct, 11, 199%
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARWO
Notice of hearing to consider the gran" of spe.4
�t�� ap�el for a chi cue faint as -
an ting place of worship, The sus
tact Property is Presently owned by Lutheran:
Ctwrch of the Redeemer. and located at 900 27th
Avow. See the above map for the location..
A public hearing at which parties In Interest and
citizens shaii have an opporturdty to be heard, will
be held by the Board of County Co mftsioners of
Indian River County, Florida• in the County Comrds_
Won Chambers of the Canty Adnftstra t Bicid-
�,�located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor•7
Anyone who may wish ttoo9:05 a m
which may be made at ft mite will � ,
sure that a verbatim record of tine proceedings Is
made, winch Includes testimony and evidence, upon
which the Is based.
ANYONE WWHHOaI NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT.••THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIESACT '
c
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT `
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET,
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY t ; -
Board of County Conunissioners
BY -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman ;
July 7,1993 , , 1013096
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Eric Blad Dated July 19, 1993:
25
L_ JUL 27199,1 BOOK - 90 FA;E 61
�..i
IN
rte
N •
i.'•i y. . ►.
, .• 4
Ilk
I
I—A
.Gvr
,. rowi
�r •
• �
r. •�
it
tf
tj
Subject Site
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARWO
Notice of hearing to consider the gran" of spe.4
�t�� ap�el for a chi cue faint as -
an ting place of worship, The sus
tact Property is Presently owned by Lutheran:
Ctwrch of the Redeemer. and located at 900 27th
Avow. See the above map for the location..
A public hearing at which parties In Interest and
citizens shaii have an opporturdty to be heard, will
be held by the Board of County Co mftsioners of
Indian River County, Florida• in the County Comrds_
Won Chambers of the Canty Adnftstra t Bicid-
�,�located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor•7
Anyone who may wish ttoo9:05 a m
which may be made at ft mite will � ,
sure that a verbatim record of tine proceedings Is
made, winch Includes testimony and evidence, upon
which the Is based.
ANYONE WWHHOaI NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT.••THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIESACT '
c
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT `
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET,
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY t ; -
Board of County Conunissioners
BY -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman ;
July 7,1993 , , 1013096
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Eric Blad Dated July 19, 1993:
25
L_ JUL 27199,1 BOOK - 90 FA;E 61
JUL 27 NO
BOOK 90 PAU 6 2
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County
Commissioners
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
lb -b- iresti , AI
Community Developmen irector
THROUGH:Q ,Stan Boling, AICP ��
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blade
Staff Planer, Current Development
DATE: July 19, 1993
SUBJECT: Lutheran Church of the Redeemer Request for Special
Exception Use Approval for a Child Care Facility
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 27, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Edlund and Dritenbas Architects, P.A., on the behalf of the
Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, has submitted a request for
special exception use approval to operate a child care facility in
association with an existing place of worship. The subject site is
located at 900 27th Avenue and is zoned RS -6 (Single Family
Residential at 6 units per acre). Recently, special exception and
site plan approval were granted for expansion of the church. The
expansion project is now complete, and the child care use proposed
with this application would be located in a portion of the expanded
church facility. Child care facilities located within RS -6 zoning
districts may operate only after receiving special exception use
approval pursuant to section 971.28(1).
At its regular meeting of June 24, 1993, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners grant the special exception use request with the
conditions stated in this report. The Board of County
Commissioners is now to consider approving, approving with
conditions, or denying the special exception use request. Pursuant
to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is
to consider the appropriateness of the requested use for the
subject site and surrounding area. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to
ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
Staff have reviewed the submitted proposal and have granted
administrative site plan approval subject to the granting of
special exception use approval. Therefore, the administrative
approval will become effective when the Board of County
Commissioners grants special exception approval.
ANALYSIS:
1. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Single Family Residential (up to
6 units per acre)
2. Land Use Designation:
acre)
S
L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units per
26
3. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Single family residence/RS-6
South: Single family residence/RS-6
East: Single family residence/RS-6
West: 27th Avenue/RS-6
4. Building Area: The proposed facility will utilize 2,800
square feet of an existing 91341 square foot building which
is part of the approved expansion. The building should
adequately provide for a child care operation, including
provisions for restrooms, four classrooms (indoor activity
areas) and an administrative office.
5. Total New Impervious Surface: No additional building or
parking area is required. The 175 square foot outdoor play
area mandated by state licensing standards is neither
impervious area nor stabilized. Therefore, no increase in
impervious surface will result from this project.
6. Open Space: Required: 408
Provided: 488
7. Traffic Circulation: Site access and on-site circulation for
the church and proposed child care facility have been approved
by the County Traffic Engineer.
S. Off -Street Parking: Required: 11 paved parking spaces
Provided: 11 paved parking spaces
Note: The child care facility parking is provided in addition to
the approved parking provided for the church.
9. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department.
10. Landscaping Plan: The landscaping plan is in accordance with
Chapter 926 and 971 of the land development regulations.
11. Utilities: The site is currently serviced with county potable
water. County wastewater services are not available to the
site at this time. To ensure future connection to wastewater
services, the applicant has executed a developer's agreement
with county utilities services.
12. Environmental Issues: Environmental planning staff have no
objection to the approval of the child care facility and its
associated recreation area.
13. Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS): The Environmental
Health Services Unit has no objection to special exception use
approval, and has conducted a preliminary review of the
proposed child care facility. The local HRS unit, however,
has notified staff that one of the prerequisites to the
issuance of a state license to operate a child care facility
is the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the local
jurisdictional government entity. Consequently, the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommended condition that the
applicant obtain a state child care license prior to a
certificate of occupancy is impossible for the applicant to
meet. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval be
that, prior to the child care facility becoming operational,
the applicant must furnish staff with a copy of the applicable
HRS license.
27
JUL 27199,3
BOOK 90 PACE 63
BOOK 9 PALE 64
14. Special Land Use Criteria: The application must satisfy all
the following specific land use criteria which apply to a
child day care facility proposed in a AS -6 zoning district:
a. The site shall be located on a paved road with sufficient
width to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic
generated by the use. The facility shall be located near
thoroughfares, as designated in the county's major
thoroughfare plan, so as to discourage traffic along
residential streets in the immediate area;
b. Special passenger loading and unloading facilities shall
be provided on the same site for vehicles to pick up or
deliver clientele. Such facilities shall include
driveways that do not require any back-up movements by
vehicles to enter or exit the premises.
C. All regulations of the State of Florida that pertain to
the use as presently exists or may hereafter be amended
shall be satisfied;
d. Child care facilities shall provide recreation area(s)
and facilities that meet or exceed applicable state
standards. The applicant shall supply to the planning
division, prior to site plan approval, written
acknowledgment from the state that the proposed
recreation area(s) and facilities meet or exceed
applicable state standards. The applicant shall provide
either a six-foot opaque buffer or one hundred fifty -
foot setback between all outdoor recreation areas and
adjacent residentially designated properties.
e. A Type "D" buffer will be required, acceptable to the
planning department.
All of the above specific land use criteria have been
satisfied by this site plan application with the exception of
item c. As indicated in item 13 of the staff report, it will
be a condition of approval that the applicant satisfy this
criterion.
RECOMNDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for the
requested child care facility with the following condition:
1. Prior to operating the child care facility, the applicant
shall obtain a state license for the child care facility and
submit a copy of the license to planning staff.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted
special exception use for the requested child care
facility with conditions as set forth in staff's
memorandum.
28
PUBLIC HEARING - BELL SOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., REQUEST FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 280 -FOOT HIGH TOWER
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
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of Z1, .17
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 be(Qre meds day of ' L� LG A.O. 19 l
(SEAL)
4— (Business Manager)
Sh e !/A Yn , 1 frit
Subject y
Site
s•R so
L+
—
Notice of NOTICE OF PUJBIX HEMM I
owned by BN South Ted=Wh" to considar the Fan" of sw! I
Mission bW. The ��
II I
bated in Section 26, Toms* 32 and nc., 35�d 1
See the above map for the location
i.
o ation.'
dtiiensshalhave aPublic hearing n which Perthes .in interest and
oWW- uNty to be heard, will
be held by the Board of Cainryry Cis pf
Indian River Courtly, Florida, lo ze County Camrds- '
sbn Cambers of the County AdmbNstration Bull-
ing. located at 1640 25th .Street, Vero Beach, pa.
Ida on Tuesday, July 27, 1993 at 9:05 am.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any deddowhich rry be made at this rt i
sure that verbatim record of ttgye ap meed to a oceedings is
trx
made, w ich kxks testimony and b '
which the appeal Is based. uP� ; f
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIALA000MMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE '
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-6000 X406 AT ;
�
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE -OF THE MEET-!
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY sd
B -P Lard N. Bird, Chahm
July 7, 1993 1013099
104-1
Notary Public, Ston of Florida at lerM
My Comminlon E*m AcL 11, 1"&
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Eric Blad dated July 19, 1993:
29
L_ JUL 27 199
BOOK 90 FAGF 65
BOOK 90 PAGE 6
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County
Commissioners
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Keating AIC
Community Development bdrector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP,I�jA
�*<Planning Directo
FROM: Eric Blad 1�.3
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: July 19, 1993
SUBJECT: Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. 'S Request for Special
Exception Use Approval to Construct a 280 Foot High Tower
[AA-93-08-084/IRC #93050004-001]
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of July 27, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bell South Mobility, Inc., on behalf of Bell South
Telecommunications, Inc. has submitted an application requesting
administrative approval and special exception use approval to
construct a 280' tower and an associated equipment building. The
subject site is zoned A-31 and located at 23200 SR 60,
approximately 18 miles west of I-95. Because a tower over 140' in
height is proposed and because the site is located within an A-3
zoning district, special exception use approval must be granted for
the construction of the tower.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, at its regular meeting of June
24, 1993, voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
grant the special exception use request with the conditions stated
in this report. Now, the Board of County Commissioners is to
consider granting approval, approval with conditions, or denial of
the special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of
the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the
appropriateness of the requested use for the subject site and
surrounding area. The County may attach any conditions and
safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure
compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
Staff have reviewed the submitted proposal and have granted
administrative site plan approval subject to the granting of
special exception use approval. Therefore, the administrative
approval will become effective when the Board of County
Commissioners grants special exception approval.
ANALYSIS:
1. Zoning Classification: A-3, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 20
acres)
2. Land Use Designation:
acre 20 acres)
AG -31 Agricultural (up to 1 unit per
30
3. Surrounding Land Use:
North:
Vacant,
South:
Vacant,
East:
Vacant,
West:
Vacant,
agricultural/A-3
agricultural/A-3
agricultural/A-3
agricultural/A-3
Note: SR 60 abuts the southwest boundary of the triangular
shaped site.
4. Airport Zoning Ordinance Regulations:
The proposed 280' tower would extend into one of the county's
"height notification zones." Pursuant to the county's airport
zoning ordinance regulations, the applicant has been notified
that it must file a notice of proposed construction form with
the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), obtain the FAA's
determination and comments on the proposed tower, and obtain
from county staff either an "airport construction permit" or
an "airport obstruction variance". At this time, the
applicant has documented to staff that the appropriate
notification form, along with an obstruction evaluation, has
been filed with the FAA. The applicant has acknowledged that,
upon receipt of the FAA's determination, he will apply for a
county "airport construction permit".
Pursuant to county LDRs [911.17(4)(a)j, the project site plan
cannot be released until an "airport construction permit" is
issued by county staff.
5. Building Area: 312 sq. ft.
6. Open Space: Required: 80.08
Provided: 97.48
7. Traffic Circulation: The site access and on-site facilities
have been approved by the county traffic engineer.
S. Off -Street Parking: Required: 2 spaces
Provided: 2 spaces
Note: county off-street parking regulations for towers
require two (2) parking spaces. The spaces may be fully
sodded or otherwise stabilized as approved by the Public Works
Director. The stabilized parking spaces provided for the
subject site have been approved by the Public Works Director.
9. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in compliance with
Chapter 926 of the land development regulations. Landscaping
requirements pursuant to the specific land use criteria of
section 971.44(2) have also been satisfied by the site plan
application.
10. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department.
11. Utilities: The proposed site is outside of the utilities
service area. Given the type of use, no water or wastewater
services are required. Therefore, county utilities has no
objection to site plan and special exception use approval.
12. Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS): The HRS Environmental
Health Unit acknowledges that the site will not require a
potable water supply nor a sanitary facility, and have no
objections to site plan and special exception use approval.
31
BOOK 90 FADE 67
600K�� 68
J U L `7 1993 90 pA,,�
13. Environmental Issues: The location of wetlands on the
proposed site has been defined by the applicant's consulting
environmental engineer, using a methodology consistent with
the criteria of the Army Corp of Engineer. The proposed
development avoids all wetland areas and, therefore, has no
impact on wetlands. The Environmental planning staff have
accepted the wetland identification and delineation
methodology and have no objections to site plan and special
exception use approval.
14. Specific Land Use Criteria: The applicant must satisfy the
following specific land use criteria which apply to the
erection of a tower exceeding 140' in height within a A-3
zoning district.
A. General criteria for all towers exceeding 70' in height.
1. All towers shall have setbacks from all property
lines equal to one hundred ten (110) percent of the
height of the proposed structure. This provision
may be waived or modified upon a recommendation by
the director of public works, based upon the
following criteria.
a. The designed fall radius of the tower is
depicted on the site plan and does not impact
adjacent uses;
b. A certified, signed and sealed statement from
a Florida registered professional engineer
states that the tower would collapse within
the designed and specified fall radius
depicted on the plans.
2. In no case shall the fall radius (one hundred ten
(110) percent of height or other approved design
fall radius) encroach upon existing off-site
structures or residentially designated property;
3. The distance of any guy anchorage or similar device
shall be at least ten (10) feet from any property
line;
4. All accessory structures shall be subject to the
height restrictions provided in Accessory uses,
Chapter 917;
5. If more than .
necessary for
present in a
located every
fence or wall
the following:
two hundred twenty (220) voltage is
the operation of the facility and is
ground grid or in the tower, signs
twenty (20) feet and attached to the
shall display in large bold letter
"HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER";
6. No equipment, mobile or immobile, which is not used
in direct support of the transmission or relay
facility shall be stored or parked on the site
unless repairs to the facility are being made
(applies only on A-1 zoned property);
7. No tower shall be permitted to encroach into or
through any established public or private airport
approach plan as provided in the airport height
limitations.
32
- M
B. Specific criteria for towers over 140' in height
requiring special exception use approval.
1. Suitable protective anti -climb fencing and a
landscape planting screening shall be provided and
maintained around the structure and accessory
attachments. Where the first fifty (50) feet of a
tower is visible to the public, the applicant shall
provide one canopy tree per three thousand (3,000)
square feet of the designated fall radius. The
trees shall be planted in a pattern which will
obscure the base area of the tower, without
conflicting with the guy wires of the tower;
2. All towers shall submit a conceptual tower lighting
plan. Louvers or shields may be required as
necessary to keep light from shining down on
surrounding properties. Strobe lights must be used
unless prohibited by other agencies;
3. The reviewing body shall consider the impact of the
proposed tower on residential subdivisions near the
project site;
4. All property owners within six hundred (600) feet
of the property boundary shall receive written
notice;
5. Applicants shall explain in writing why no other
existing tower facility could be used to meet the
applicant's transmitting/receiving needs. An
application may be denied if existing tower
facilities can be used;
6. Towers shall be designed to accommodate multiple
users;
7. A condition of approval for any tower application
shall be that the tower shall be available for
other parties and interests. This shall be
acknowledged in a written agreement between the
applicant and the county, on a form acceptable to
the county, that will run with the land.
Note: the above referenced agreement shall include
(but not be limited to) specific language for:
a. the use of the site for accessory structures
as necessary,
b. that any licenses or easements be granted for
utilities as needed,
ce that the cost be market value and commercially
-reasonable,
d. terms of a covenant running with the land,
e. that any such expansion of the facility be
compatible with the Bell South Mobility
frequencies,
f. and that the responsibility for permitting and
coordination be that of the entity desiring
co -use of the facility.
33
BOOK 9.0 PAGUF_ 69
L_ JUL 27 1993
J U L 271993
BOOK 90 FA;F 70
Each of these 14 criteria has been addressed by the applicant.
Staff has verified that each criterion is satisfied, with the
exception of criterion B.7. which can be satisfied via a
condition that the applicant enter into an agreement with the
county to allow other parties to use the tower.
15. Dedication and Improvements: The LDRs do not require any
dedications or improvements connected with the proposed
development of this site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the
requested tower with the following conditions:
1. Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall obtain a
county "airport construction permit". -
2. Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the county which is acceptable to the county
attorney's office to allow use of the tower by other parties
when technically viable and feasible in relation to the Bell
South Mobility operations.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously granted
special exception use to construct a 280 -foot -high
tower with the conditions set out in staff's
memorandum.
Allen Gabriel, representative of Bell South
Telecommunications, Inc., assured the Board that this tower will
result in better communications throughout the county. He also
advised that his organization is in contact with the City of Vero
Beach to relocate their existing tower.
BID NO. 31-06, CR -512 CORRIDOR - WENTWORTH DITCH RELOCATION AND
LANDSCAPING
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated July 16,1993:
34
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: H.T. "Sonny" Dean
General Services Director
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell
Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Bid No. 31-06
County Road 512 Corridor - Wentworth Ditch Relocation & Landscaping
IRC Project #8612
DATE: July 16, 1993
Bid Opening Date: June 30, 1993
Specifications Obtained by: Eight (8) Vendors
Replies: Two (2) Vendors
BID TABULATION UNIT PRICE
Sheltra & Son Construction Company, Inc. $244,996.75
Indiantown, FL
Cathco, Inc. $394,706.71
Vero Beach, FL
:3 k) i hi 11191F,
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Traffic Impact Fees, District 3.
BUDGETED AMOUNT: Account No. 101-153-541-067.38, $500,000.00.
Staff recommends that bid be awarded to Sheltra & Son Construction Company, Inc., Indiantown,
Florida as the lowest, most responsive bidder meeting specifications for construction of the County
Road 512 Corridor - Wentworth Ditch Replacement & Landscaping. The Contract Agreement is
now being presented for approval and execution by the Chairman and attesting by the Clerk. We
have had four (4) Contract Agreements executed in the original by the proposed contractor, Sheltra
& Son Construction Company, Inc. Staff will work closely with Risk Management and the
Attorney's Office in getting those offices' approval of the insurance certificates and bonds prior to
issuing the Notice to Proceed.
35
L— JUL 2'11993
aooK 90 Fa,E 71
J U L 27 1993 BOOK
90 F�n
Alternative No. 1. The Board award the contract to Sheltra & Son Construction Company, Inc. of
Indiantown, Florida and direct the Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board of
County Commissioners. Staff further recommends that the Board direct that all bonds, insurance
certificates and other formalities as required by the terms of the contract and bid documents be
submitted and approved by the appropriate staff departments responsible, including the Attorney's
office prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department of Public Works.
Alternative No. 2 The Board reject the bids and not award the contract.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 31-06 to Sheltra & Son Construction Company,
Inc., for the CR -512 Wentworth Ditch Relocation and
Landscaping with conditions as set out in
Alternative No. 1 in staff's memorandum.
TURN LANE AND DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION - I.R.C. VS. AMES, PARCEL 109
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated July 15, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,p�r
Capital Projects Manager `1�/
SUBJECT: Turn Lane and Driveway Construction
Indian River County vs. Ames - Parcel 109
DATE: July 15, 1993 FILE: irbames.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Final Judgement for Parcel 109 requires that the County
construct certain road improvements by December 10, 1993. These
improvements consist of limerock base material, cross -drain pipe,
etc. to serve a future full access driveway to Indian River
Boulevard including left -turn lane and right -turn lane. The
36
driveway will be located a safe distance from the Barber Avenue
(37th Street)/Indian River Boulevard intersection. -..The base
material will be protected with filter fabric and sodded. When the
property is developed, the owner will remove the sod and pave.
The attached agreement from H.F. Lenz Company provides for survey,
design and development of plans for construction of the proposed
full access driveway at a cost of $2,800.
H.F. Lenz is currently under contract with the County to design
improvements on 37th Street. Construction of the proposed driveway
will probably be bid with the 37th Street improvements. For the
above reasons, staff feels that H.F. Lenz can best perform the
proposed work.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
the attached Agreement. Funding is from Account 309-214-541-033.13
- Indian River Boulevard Phase III.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with H. F. Lenz Company for
Professional Engineering and Surveying Services for
Driveway Connection, as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE IV,
AMENDMENT NO. 1
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated July 19, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.��
Public Works Directo�i�a'
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,�'✓�
Capital Projects Manager 1
SUBJECT: Construction Materials Testing
Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
Amendment No. 1
DATE: July 19, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: irbtest.agn
Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI) is under contract
with Indian River County to provide materials testing services
during the construction of Indian River Boulevard Phase IV.
37
L_ JUL 271993
Bou 90 PAGE 73
I JUL 27 1993
BOOK
90 FAr,E 74
The SJRWMD permit for Phase IV construction, requires surface water
quality monitoring during construction. The attached Amendment No.
1 provides for PSI to prepare a surface water monitoring plan for
SJRWMD's approval and perform the required tests.
Compensation for Amendment No. 1 is on a unit price basis for
actual work performed. Amendment No. 1 increases the "Not -to -
Exceed" amount of the Agreement from $70,000 to $74,900.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached Amendment No. 1. Funding is from Account #309-215-541-
033.13 - Indian River Boulevard Phase IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 1 to the Construction Testing Services
Agreement with Professional Services Industries,
Inc., as recommended by staff.
UNDERWATER TANK TRAPS ON SOUTH BEACH, PORPOISE POINT
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the underwater tank
traps located offshore at Porpoise Point at south beach.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that 20 to 30 tank
traps were removed a year or two ago through the combined efforts
of United States Navy underwater divers and County employees using
our equipment to drag those objects out of the water.
Chairman Bird pointed out that more of these underwater
objects have become uncovered and Emergency Services personnel
marked them with buoys. Apparently, something is happening
offshore that is causing more of the tank traps to become exposed.
They are a danger to swimmers. Chairman Bird thought that this
calm season is the time to remove those tank traps.
Mr. Davis explained that it took a couple of years to get the
other tank traps removed, and he did not anticipate that a second
effort could take place in any shorter time frame.
Commissioner Adams recommended that the Board declare an
emergency situation, which might cause the DER to address this
situation sooner.
Chairman Bird and Commissioner Eggert agreed that it is a life
threatening emergency.
38
_ e AMENDMENT NO.
1 TO
AGREEME,�'['e r
IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE
BOARD
UNDERWATER TANK TRAPS ON SOUTH BEACH, PORPOISE POINT
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the underwater tank
traps located offshore at Porpoise Point at south beach.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that 20 to 30 tank
traps were removed a year or two ago through the combined efforts
of United States Navy underwater divers and County employees using
our equipment to drag those objects out of the water.
Chairman Bird pointed out that more of these underwater
objects have become uncovered and Emergency Services personnel
marked them with buoys. Apparently, something is happening
offshore that is causing more of the tank traps to become exposed.
They are a danger to swimmers. Chairman Bird thought that this
calm season is the time to remove those tank traps.
Mr. Davis explained that it took a couple of years to get the
other tank traps removed, and he did not anticipate that a second
effort could take place in any shorter time frame.
Commissioner Adams recommended that the Board declare an
emergency situation, which might cause the DER to address this
situation sooner.
Chairman Bird and Commissioner Eggert agreed that it is a life
threatening emergency.
38
r � �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously declared
an emergency situation wherein tank traps are
serious and dangerous obstacles to swimmers, and
requested the assistance of the Department of
Environmental Regulation in removing these tanks
traps which have been marked with buoys from our
offshore area.
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - PROJECT NO. 1, PINEVIEW PARR SUBDIVISION,
RIVENBARK SUBDIVISION AND 15TH AVENUE, CHANGE ORDER #1 AND FINAL
PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 15, 1993:
DATE: JULY 15, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIY SE CES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM I
\ AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - PROJECT NO. 1
PINEVIEW PARK SUBDIVISION, RIVENBARK SUBDIVISION, AND
15TH AVENUE
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 7
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -18 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
Construction of. the subject project has been completed, and the
contractor, Driveways, Inc., of Titusville, Florida, has made
application for final payment. The pay request includes an increase of
$6,657.60 as reflected on Change Order No. 1. (See attached.)
The cost increase is primarily due to (1) the relocation of several
meter boxes from the front yards to within five feet of the edge of
pavement for easy access; (2) the addition of several jack and bores
and additional water service lines that were required along 40th Avenue
to serve single family homes to the west of 40th Avenue; and (3) an
increase in the quantity of sod and the number of fittings used as
compared to the original estimate.
ANALYSIS
All Indian River County requirements have been met and our testing has
been satisfactorily completed. - The original contract price was
$89,606.44, and the final contract price is $96,264.04, which includes
Change Order No. 1. The contractor has previously. been paid
$69,712.01. This leaves a remaining balance of $26,552.03.
39
JUL 27 1993
BOOK 90 P,1GF 75
r'JUL 27 1993
BOOK 90 PAGE 76
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached
Change Order No. 1, and Final Pay Request of $26,552.03, as payment in
full for services rendered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request in the
amount of $26,552.03 to Driveways, Inc., as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER SERVICE REPLACEMENT - TROPIC VILLAS NORTH, CHANGE ORDER AND
FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 15, 1993:
DATE:
JULY 15, 1993
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT ERVICES
PREPARED
TERRY H. DRUM
AND STAFFED
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
WATER SERVICE REPLACEMENT
TROPIC VILLAS NORTH
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 11
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -12 -DS
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
Construction of the subject project has been completed, and the
contractor, Driveways, Inc. of Titusville, Florida, has made
application for final payment. The pay request includes an increase
of $3,711.24 as reflected on Change Order 1 (see attached). The
cost increase is for the construction of additional poly service
lines and an additional quantity of asphalt.
ANALYSIS
All Indian River County requirements have been met, and all testing
has been satisfactorily completed. The original contract price was
$17,661.48, and the final contract price is $21,372.72, which
includes Change Order 1.
40
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached Change Order 1 and the final payment request of $21,372.72
as payment in full for services rendered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order 1 and Final Pay Request in the amount
of $21,372.72 to Driveways, Inc., as recommended by
staff.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATERLINE EXTENSION PROJECT - OSLO ROAD AND 74TH AVENUE
INTERSECTION TO SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 15, 1993:
DATE: JULY 15, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S ES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM /I
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER LINE EXTENSION PROJECT
OSLO ROAD AND 74TH AVENUE INTERSECTION TO SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 15
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NO. 91-113
On August 6, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
award of the labor contract bid to Driveways, Inc., Bid No. 91-113
(see attached minutes). The Department of Utility Services proposes
to use this labor contract to expand the ongoing Oslo Road water
line construction by tying in at 74th Avenue and providing the
Indian River County Solid Waste facilities with water service and
fire protection. This water line will extend south along the east
right-of-way of 74th Avenue, an approximate distance of 3000 LF
then head west into the solid waste facilities compound. This
action is to coordinate with future building construction at the
Indian River County Solid Waste facilities.
41
BOOK 90 F,�G,E 77
JUL 27 1993
BOOK 90 PAGE 78
rz�
The project is comprised of the extension of approximately 3000 LF
of 10 -inch, 440 LF of 8 -inch, and 725 LF of 6 -inch ductile iron pipe
water main. The water main is to be extended to the south along the
east right-of-way line of 74th Avenue and then west into the Indian
River County Solid Waste facilities compound, where it will be
distributed to service future buildings and three (3) on-site fire
hydrants.
The cost of the labor to construct the water main under the labor
contract is $37,605.96 (see attached Work Authorization No. 15 with -
Driveways, Inc.). The pipe and fittings will be supplied by the
County at a cost of $65,685.50. In-house engineering, surveying,
permitting fees, inspection, and administrative cost, plus
contingencies are estimated to be $25,822.87. Funding for this
project will be from impact fees during construction and reimbursed
by the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) upon completion.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners execute the subject agreement, which
approves Work Authorization No. 15 to construct the subject project
with Driveways, Inc., for the amount of $37,605.96 to extend an
estimated 4190 IF of water main, and authorize expenditure of
$65,685.50 for materials and $25,822.87 for in-house support and
contingencies, for a total project cost of $129,114.33.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Agreement for Work Authorization No. 15 with
Driveways, Inc., to construct the subject project,
as set out in staffs memorandum.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER TO COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODES AT SR -60 AND I-95
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 16, 1993:
W
® � r
DATE: JULY 16, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI ITY ERVICES
PREPARED WILLI t!M IN
AND STAFFED CAP CTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR LITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER TO
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODES, ROUTE 60 AND I-95
IRC PROJECT NOS. US -92 -27 -CS, UW -92 -28 -DS AND
US -93 -11 -CS
BACKGROUND
On August 25, 1992, the Board
design of the above projects.
The design and permitting of
Utilities Department is prepare
ANALYSIS
of County Commissioners approved the
(See attached agenda item and minutes.)
these projects are complete and the
d to bid and construct the projects.
As stated in the August 25, 1992, agenda item, we were to come back to
the Board of County Commissioners with final cost estimates and request
authorization to bid the master planned water main and sewer force
main. We have also designed a gravity collection system for the north
side of State Road 60 east of I-95. This design was utilized in lieu
of splitting the force main on both sides of the road as it will reduce
the cost of connection for the properties to be served on the north.
If a force main were utilized, each property would require a lift
station; this design allows the use of an existing master lift station
and gravity connections. The cost estimates for construction are as
follows:
Master Planned Lines
Wastewater force main $205,000.00
Water main $318,000.00
Gravity sewer 97.625.00
Total Project Cost: $620,625.00
All project construction is within the DOT right-of-way, and therefore
the prices used for estimating have been very conservative. Funding
for these master planned utilities will be from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the Utilities Department to bid
the master planned projects and proceed immediately with award and
construction, and also to proceed with the assessment process for the
north side of Route 60 as stated.
43
L_ JUL 271993 Boa 90 FA;E 79
r JUL 27 moi
BOCA P
90 a.UF 80
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized the Utilities Department to bid the
master planned projects for water and wastewater to
commercial/ industrial nodes at SR -60 and I-95 and to
proceed with award of contract and construction of
the project, as recommended by staff.
NORTH COUNTY SCHOOLS WATER AND CR -512 TO I-95 COMMERCIAL NODE
WATER, FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto July 13, 1993:
DATE: JULY 13, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T 9ERCES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F.
CAPITAL P S EN NEER
DEPAR I TY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY S OOLS WATER AND COUNTY ROAD 512
TO I-95 COMMERCIAL NODE WATER
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
IRC PROJECT NOS. US -91 -21 -CS AND US -92 -24 -CS
BACKGROUND:
The construction of master planned water lines to both the North
County schools and the I-95/County Road 512 interchange are now
complete. We are therefore coming to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval of the final pay request and final change
order.
ANALYSIS:
The original contract, i.e., North County Schools Water, was in the
amount of $1,734,267.36. Several change orders were approved in
January 1993 in the amount of $435,743.02 for the continued
construction of the water line on County Road 512 to serve the
commercial area at I-95. Approval of this change order raised the
total contract amount to $2,170,010.38; with the approval of this
final Change Order No. 3, the final contract price will be
$2,128,563.31, for a total contract reduction of $41,447.07. (See
attached pay request and change order.)
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve both the final pay request and
Change Order No. 3 with Boyce Company, as presented.
44
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
both the final pay request and Change Order No. 3
with Boyce Company, as recommended by staff.
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER, FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto July 13, 1993:
DATE: JULY 13, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T VICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM V. M IN
CAPITAL E S ENGINEER
DEPAR OF ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NOR COUNTY SCHOOLS WASTEWATER AND COUNTY ROAD 512
TO I-95 COMMERCIAL NODE WASTEWATER
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
IRC PROJECT NOS. US -91 -21 -CS AND US -92 -24 -CS
BACKGROUND:
The construction of master planned wastewater lines to both the
North County schools and the I-95/County Road 512 interchange are
now complete. We are therefore coming to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval of the final pay request and final change
order.
ANALYSIS:
The original contract, i.e., North County Schools Sewer, was in the
amount of $238,451.00. Several change orders were approved in
January 1993 in the amount of $241,962.00 for the continued
construction of the sewer line on County Road 512 to serve the
commercial area at I-95. Approval of this change order raised the
total contract amount to $480,413.00; with the approval of this
final Change Order No. 3, the final contract price will be
$473,500.51, for a total contract reduction of $6,912.49. (See
attached pay request and change order.)
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve both the final pay request and
Change Order No. 3 with Owl & Associates, Inc., as presented.
45
�9�� BOOK 90 Pa;E 81
r jL 27 10®1,
BOOK 90 PAGE 82 -7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
both the final pay request and Change Order No. 3
with Owl & Associates, Inc., as recommended by
staf f .
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT ODOR CONTROL PILOT TESTING
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 13, 1993:
DATE: JULY 13, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO (J�
DIRECTO OF UTILITY ES
PREPARED WILLI MCCAIN
AND STAFFED CAP NGINEER
BY: DE OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT ODOR CONTROL PILOT TESTING
With the recent construction of the south county park adjacent to
the South County R.O. site and the upcoming construction of the
south county school opposite the park, the Utilities Department must
proceed with the installation of an odor control system at this
water plant immediately. Based on the recent success of our brine
treatment system (previously developed by a joint effort between
utility staff and our consultant, Camp Dresser and McKee), we feel
this same technology can be applied to an odor control system at a
substantial cost saving over that of a conventional odor control
system. We are now in front of the Commission requesting
authorization to proceed with a pilot test of our proposed treatment
system.
ANALYSIS
The brine treatment system previously developed primarily removes
H S from the water stream by converting it to a nongaseous form.
B9th the consultant and staff feel it will perform the same function
prior to degasification of our product water, thus eliminating odor
problems. Attached is a work authorization with CDM to assist in
performing the required pilot test and analysis (see attached work
authorization and detail in scope of services). The cost negotiated
with CDM is a lump sum of $5,000.00, with a $2,500.00 contingency to
be authorized by the Utilities Director in writing if additional
analysis is required over and above what is anticipated. We also
estimate the lab and materials costs will not exceed $3,500.00.
Funding for this work will be from the water continuing services
fund.
46
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of this work authorization with our water continuing consultant as
presented and the expenditure of the lab and materials cost as
outlined.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the work authorization from Camp Dresser & McKee,
Inc., for engineering services as set out in staff's
memorandum.
SAID WORK AUTHORIZATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SLUDGEISEPTAGE ORDINANCE
This item was deferred.
PROCESS ANALYSIS AND MODIFICATION AT WEST REGIONAL AND GIFFORD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS BY CAMP DRESSER A MCKEE, INC.
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 16, 1993:
DATE: JULY 16, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F M IN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL P ER
BY: DEP F UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROCESS ANALYSIS AND MODIFICATION AT THE WEST REGIONAL
AND GIFFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, BY CAMP DRESSER
AND MCKEE INC.
BACKGROUND
During our master planning efforts, we had our consultant review the
wastewater treatment process at both of the above plants. We had
previously modified the plants' treatment process in-house to allow us
to meet the more stringent effluent requirements from the DER enacted
after the design and construction of these facilities. The main points
of further modification at each of these facilities are as follows:
West Regional: piping and head works modifications, providing
increased treatment capacity
Gifford: piping and process flow modifications, along with a
conversion from our existing course bubble aeration system to a
fine bubble diffuser system
47
BOOK 90 F,1jc 83
JUL 2 7 1993
Juts
L. S
BOOK 90 PA;F 84 7
A detailed scope of services in the work authorization, for a lump sum
cost of $12,000.00, is attached. The work on the West Regional Plant
will increase the existing operating capacity of .75 MGD± to a full 1
MGD facility, until the plant expansion to 2 MGD can be completed in
late 1994. The work on the Gifford facility will cut power consumption
costs by 30%± by converting to a fine bubble diffuser system. Since
this plant will not be expanded in the next year, we are also having
our engineer modify the existing operation permit. The engineering fee
of $12,000.00 is split between the two facilities; $5,000.00 for the
West Regional Treatment Plant and $7,000.00 for the Gifford Plant, due
to the extra work necessitated at that facility. Funding for this work
will be from the renewal and replacement account.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached work authorization
with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the work authorization with Camp Dresser & McKee,
Inc., for services as set out in staff's memorandum.
WORK AUTHORIZATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION WATER SERVICE IN RAINTREE CORNER SUBDIVISION, 54TH AVENUE
SOUTH OF 12TH STREET, RESOLUTIONS I AND II
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 15, 1993:
DATE: JULY 15, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED' JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS SS N PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF ITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE IN RAINTREE CORNER
SUBDIVISION/54TH AVENUE (SOUTH OF 12TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -08 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
BACKGROUND
On May 25, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service for Raintree
Corner Subdivision/54th Avenue (south of 12th Street) to supply
potable water to its residents. Design has been completed by the
Department of Utility Services staff. We are now ready to begin the
assessment process associated with this project (see attached agenda
item and minutes of the above meeting).
48
ANALYSIS
There are 16 lots in this subdivision; the typical lot sizes are
.52± acre. The 11 property owners signing the petition represent
69% of the properties to be served. The attached map displays the
area to benefit from the assessment project.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
total estimated cost to be assessed is $37,247.70. The cost per
square foot is $0.09864980467.
This project is to be funded through the assessment of property
owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim
financing will be through the use of impact fee funds.
ILl v I � I n . w •
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions which
approve the preliminary assessment roll and establish the public
hearing date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-125, providing for water main
extension to Raintree Corner Subdivision (54th
Avenue south of 12th Street), and Resolution 93-126,
setting a time and place for a public hearing, as
recommended by staff.
49
� JUS 27 199
BOOK 90 PACE 85
JL 27 1001T
BOOK 90 PAGE 8
7/18/93(ra®o.r�introa)vk/DC
Providing (First Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 93-125
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO RAINTREE
CORNER SUBDIVISION (54TH AVENUE SOUTH OF 12TH
STREET); PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD
OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has determined that the improvements herein described are necessary to
promote the public welfare of the county and has determined to defray
the coat thereof by special assessments against certain properties to be
serviced by a water main extension to Raintree Subdivision, hereinafter
referred to as Project No. UW -93 -08 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a water main extension shall
be installed to provide service for 16 properties, which are
located generally as described above, and the cost thereof shall be
specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections
206.01 through 206.09 of the Code of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
3.
4.
improvements is shown -to be $37,247.70 or $0.09864980467 per square
foot to be paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the
assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
A special assessment in the amount of $0.09864980467 per square
foot shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on
the assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced County
Code.
The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in
full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest.
All
If not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten
equal yearly installments of principal plus interest. If not paid
.when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the principal
not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special assessments
shall bear interest at a rate of 8% from the Credit Date until
paid.
S. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services
a plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications,
and an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of
these are open to inspection by the public at the Department of
Utility Services.
6. An assesscpent roll with respect to the special assessments shall
promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution (along with
a map showing the areas to be served) to be published at least one
time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ad nm a ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tipp in , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 27th day of July, 1993.
Attest:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Qleerk
51
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
900K 9JUL 27 1993 0 FADE 87
r- "JUL 27 1993
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 12 6
BOOK 90 F}AGF 8
7/16/93(legal)Vk/DC
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF RAINTREE
CORNER SUBDIVISION (54TH AVENUE SOUTH OF 12TH
STREET) AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE
HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF
CONSTRUCTING A WATER MAIN, AS TO THE COST THEREOF,
AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE
AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH
PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has, by Resolution No. 93-j2_5_, determined that it is necessary for the
public welfare of the citizens of the county, and particularly as to
those living, working, and owning property within the area described
hereafter, that a waterline be installed to serve 16 properties
hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.09864980467 per square foot;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment
roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that
the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which
the owners of- the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County Commissioners
and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such
water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of
payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be assessed against
each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers
in the County Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on
Tuesday, August 17, 1993, at which time the owners of the
52
� � r
K
properties to be assessed and any other interested persons may
appear before said Commission and be heard in regard thereto. The
area to be improved and the properties to be specially benefited
are more particularly described upon the asses6ment plat and the
assessment roll with regard to the special assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for
said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the
office of the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30
a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week apart.
The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the date
of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of Utility
Services shall give the owner of each property to be specially
• assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and
place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to
each of such property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T ipp12 in , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 27th day of July, 1993.
Attest:
Jeffrey K: Barton, Clerk
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
53
°� ' (
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
1993 800K 90
Fr_ J U L 2 7
�A
BOOK 9
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION TO 2 MGD
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 20, 1993:
DATE: JULY 20, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA'
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO//y./
DIRECTOR OF UTILI �// SERVICES
PREPARED WILL M IN
AND STAFFED CAP ECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEP OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2 MGD
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -03 -CS
BACKGROUND
On April 27, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the selection of Malcolm Pirnie as the number
one ranked consultant for the above -referenced project. (See attached
Commission minutes and agenda item.) The Utilities Department has now
completed negotiations with Malcolm Pirnie for this project. Basic
services cover permitting (excluding site plan), design, contract
administration and construction inspection for this expansion and the
planning and layout of the ultimate buildout of the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The site planning efforts for this project will be separately
negotiated with our wetlands consultant (Masteller and Moler) for
project continuity and will be brought to the Commission in the near
future for approval. The West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is
past its 70% capacity level, and with Countryside Mobile Home Park's
connection to our system in late June, we must now expand this
facility. This expansion due to current capacity is required by the
Department of Environmental Protection and is scheduled in our recent
Master Plan update.
We are now before the Commission seeking approval for the negotiated
contract and work authorization with Malcolm Pirnie for the project as
stated here and in more detail in both the attached contract and work
authorization.
ANALYSIS
The estimated construction cost is $3,000,000.00 ±. The project is as
previously described; however, a more detailed description may be found
in Work Authorization No. 1 (see attached). The negotiated
compensation for engineering services is as follows:
54
Preliminary engineering, engineering
design, inspection, and permitting
services contingency
Additional: O&M manual, coordination with
other engineers, contingency* as needed,
permitting, engineering, and start-up
services
$317,000.00
mvpvul#�#�
$362,500.00
* Services to be authorized when and as needed by the Director of
Utility Services.
The actual design cost equates to 6.54;, ± with inspection costs at
2.5%, which is well within acceptable limits for a project of this
complexity. For a more detailed explanation of the project scope,
please see the attached Work Authorization No. 1 with Malcolm Pirnie.
Funding for this project will be from the impact fee fund.
•,LP+ • ° .,
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and execute the attached contract
and Work Authorization No. 1 with Malcolm Pirnie as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services
and Work Authorization No. 1 with Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., as presented by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT AND WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FORCE MAIN, WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 16
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated July 16, 1993:
55
LJUL 71993 BOOK 90 PA I";F..91
BOOK 90 FACE 92
JUL 27 1993
DATE:
JULY 16, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF iITILITY6CES 2;
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM 4P.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FORCE MAIN PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NO.. 91-113
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 16
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the award
of the labor contract bid to Driveways, Inc., Bid No. 91-113 (see
attached minutes). The Department of Utility Services proposes to use
this labor contract to construct approximately 3200 L.F. of 4" P.V.C.
force main along the south side of the onsite asphalt entrance road of
the solid waste facilities located west of 74th Avenue and south of
Oslo Road.
This construction will connect the existing landfill leachate pumping
station to the landfill regional lift station for transmission to the
West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
ANALYSIS
The project is comprised of the extension of approximately 3200 L.F. of
4" force main. The force main is to be extended from the existing
onsite manhole at the east of the property to the existing lift station
located to the west.
The cost of the labor to construct the force main under the labor
contract is $12,593.06 (see attached Work Authorization No. 16 with
Driveways, Inc.). The pipe and fittings will be supplied by the County
at a cost of $6,500.00. In-house engineering, inspection,
administrative cost and contingencies are estimated to be $4,250.00.
Funding for this project will be from impact fees during construction
and reimbursed by the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) upon
completion.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of The Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Work Authorization No. 16 to
construct the subject project with Driveways, Inc., for the amount
of $12,593.06 to extend an estimated 3200 L.F. of force main and
authorize expenditure of $10,750.00 for materials and in-house support,
and execute the subject agreement for a total project cost of
$231343.06.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 16 with Driveways, Inc., as
set out in staff's memorandum.
SAID WORK AUTHORIZATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
56
CLARIFICATION OF MOTION RE: PHASE III WATER EXPANSION AND
RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated July 20, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ao-Q194L
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATES July 20, 1993
RE: Clarification of Motion re: Phase III Water Expansion
During the public hearing for the confirmation resolution (resolution
#3) for the Phase III Water Project the Board moved to delete the
Cherrywood and Cherry Lane property from the assessment program and was
clear that a new public hearing would have to be held if the assessments
increased for the remaining property. The motion as written by the
Minutes Clerk is as follows:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert,
the Board unanimously directed staff to proceed with Phase III of
the Water Main Expansion Growth Plan excluding Cherrywood Estates
and Cherry Lane Manor, recalculate the costs and assessments, and
schedule a public hearing on this project.
After deleting Cherrywood and Cherry Lane residents from the assessment
program, the Utilities Department indicates that the assessments for the
remaining properties will not increase over that projected in the
notices sent to each of the property owners, since the over-all project
is of such a magnitude that the small deletion of Cherrywood and Cherry
Lane could be covered adequately in the contingency fund factor.
The recording secretary and the Utilities Department now need clarifi-
cation from the Board now that that fact is known. If the Board's
intention was that no new public hearing was necessary, then it would be
appropriate to confirm the fact that resolution #3 should have been
passed and should now be recorded. Otherwise, the Utilities Department
will have to re -notice and re -schedule a public hearing for a new
resolution #3, which would have the same numbers in it as the old
resolution #3 except for the deletion of Cherrywood and Cherry Lane.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that staff is asking
for confirmation that the Board's intention was that if there would
be no increase in the preliminary assessment to Phase III Water
Main Extension, Resolution 93-108A was to be adopted on June 22,
1993.
57
L_JUL 27 1993
BOOK 90 PAH .93
r JUL 27 1993
BOOK 90 wE 94
Main Extension, Resolution 93-108A was to be adopted on June 22,
1993.
Chairman Bird confirmed, and all Board members agreed, that it
was the intention of the Board to adopt Resolution 93-108A if the
assessment would not increase after the exclusion of certain
portions of that project.
Utilities Department submitted the following:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES
PHASE III WATER EXPANSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -15 -DS
REVISED PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING
JULY 19, 1993
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST $1,420,587.86
TOTAL ESTIMATED. PROJECT A AND E COST 252.072.14
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,672,660.00
PHASE III ASSESSMENT $1,137,257.27
(9,598,030 square feet @ $0.118489 per square foot)
NON -URBAN SERVICE AREA ASSESSMENT 289,203.57
FRONTED BY COUNTY
(2,440,763 square feet @ $0.118489 per square foot)
NON -ASSESSED COUNTY CONTRIBUTION 246.199.16
TOTAL $1,672,660..00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-108A, confirming the special
assessments in connection with Phase III of the
Water Main Extension Growth Plan, as recommended by
staff.
58
• Public Hearing ( Third Reso .) 3 / M4 / W3 ( raaaoptiaa®33 V It /IAC
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 105-A
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH PHASE III 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. 93-91, adopted May 11, 1993, determined
to make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by
Phase III 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 May 17, 1993, as
required by Section 206.04, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 93-92, on May 11, 1993, which set a time
and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to
be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be
heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said special
assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 206.07,
Indian River County Code; and °
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was
published' in the Press Journal Newspaper on Tuesday, June 1, 1993,
and Tuesday, June 8, 1993 (twice one week apart; the last being at
least one week prior to the hearing) , as required by Section 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
County on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the special assessments,
59
BOOK 90 F'�;E :�5
JUL 271993 �
JL 1993.
BOOK 90 PKE 96
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 108-A -
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
Ti pilin , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner F�ort_,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 22nd day ofJune , 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIV COUNTY, FLORIDA
�- By
Richard N. Bird
Jeffrey K:' Barton, Clerk Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM"
A LEGA -S IENCY:
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL Wit._
Charles P. Vilunac
County Attorney
e
60
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated July 14, 1993:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
1�
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, Coun y Attorney
DATE: July 14, 1993
RE: Letter of Understanding with Hospital
District and Health Department
The Indian River County Hospital District has recommended executing a
Letter of Understanding so that Indian River County, the Hospital, and
the Health Department understand their prospective rights and
obligations relating to certain public health programs offered in the
County. Commissioner Eggert reviewed the first draft and suggested
certain changes which are reflected in this revised attachment.
Execution of the agreement does not obligate Indian River County to fund
these programs, but merely acknowledges that the programs are operated
as stated in the letter.
If the County Commissioners approve the letter, the proper action would
be to authorize the Chairman to execute three original copies and route
them to the Health Department for Dr. Berman's signature.
Commissioner Eggert clarified for the record that we do not
have a contractual agreement with the hospital in this regard but
we are required by the State to have a primary care program. She
emphasized that although the Letter of Understanding does not speak
to the issue of the State requirement, the County has the
obligation to provide primary health care.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that this Letter of
Understanding serves to inform the new hospital members what
medical services are provided by the other health care providers
throughout the county.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Letter of Understanding with Indian River County
Hospital District and the County Health Department,
as recommended by staff.
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
61
L- L 7 1993 BOOK 90 PAGE 07
FFF___ U L 2 7 19,93
BOOK 90 PAGE
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD SEMINAR
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated July 15, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1 `
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: Ju y 15, 1993
RE: Z1;
1 romagnetio Field Seminar
Attached is notice of a two-day seminar on electromagnetic field
regulation which may be helpful to the County in developing regulations
concerning electromagnetic fields. The City Attorney of Vero Beach is
planning on attending this seminar.
REQUESTED ACTION: Request direction from the Board whether the County
should be represented at the electromagnetic field seminar, and if so by
whom.
Commissioner Macht did not think this conference would provide
any useful information. His experience has been that this
discussion has gone on for 33 years and he predicted that the
conclusion of the conference will be that they do not know the
effect of 60 cycles H Field - this is not EMF, or Electromagnetic
Field.
Commissioner Eggert thought this is a way to get information
on this subject because the Commissioners have been receiving
inquiries about it. That information also might be helpful in the
future in preparing state and local EMF regulations.
Commissioner Adams stated that the Florida Association of
Counties is researching this issue and the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council will send us sample ordinances to regulate
placement of poles.
Chairman Bird asked who should attend, and Attorney Vitunac
responded that the memo suggested personnel from planning and
zoning. This seminar is sponsored by industry to learn how to
protect themselves from regulation. He advised that the Vero Beach
City Attorney and Hillsborough County Attorney plan to attend.
This is the only seminar which gives us industry's point of view
and it will be useful to have someone there.
62
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, to authorize the County Attorney
personnel to attend the EMF Regulation & Litigation
Institute Seminar on September 20-21, 1993, in
Washington, D.C., as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht argued that it is not our
place to dictate to a power company where they need to distribute
their service. Everybody needs electric service.
Chairman Bird thought that since we have become involved in
this issue we should send a representative.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3-2, Commissioners Adams
and Macht voting in opposition.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised the Board that Carroll
Harrod wished to address the Board on the subject of powerline
pole.
Carroll Harrod, 665 Fox Run, Southwest, asked what plans the
County has for Old Dixie Highway. He recounted that during the
Vero Beach City Council workshop on the subject of powerline poles,
it was suggested that the City might reroute the powerlines on Old
Dixie Highway. He asked whether the City Attorney communicated
with the County Attorney in this regard.
Attorney Vitunac advised the Board that he received the
following letter which was forwarded to Public Works Director Jim
Davis.
City of Vero Beach
1033 201h PLACE - P. O. Baa 1389
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961-1389
o..i« Or TME Telephone: (107) 567-5151
CITY MANAGER
Mr. Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
County Administration Building
1840 -25th Street
Vero Beach, FL. 32960-3394
RE: Old Dixie Highway; Right -of -Way
Dear Charlie:
I % ,
July 23, 1993
I have been requested by Councilman Bill Jordan to contact you
and County Administrator Jim Chandler, concerning the above -
referenced matter. During the public Workshop of July 21, 1993,
the possibility of re-routing the tie -line from the Lateral J Canal
to Old Dixie Highway was discussed.
63
L_ JUL
271993 BOOK 90 PAGE 99
BOOK 99 PAGE IOU -1
It is my understanding that the County Chas only a minimum
right-of-way along Old Dixie Highway and in many places the actual
right-of-way is ill-defined and may not extend outside the
pavement. The transmission line would have to be placed outside
the limits of the pavement by a distance of approximately 10 to 15
feet, depending on the speed limit and curb design.
Councilman Jordan's specific question is: Would the County
purchase enough right-of-way along Old Dixie Highway to allow the
installation -of the transmission line on public right-of-way? The
right-of-way would be sufficiently wide to allow the transmission
line to remain in place, should the County elect to widen Old Dixie
Highway.
If you need. any additional information to respond to this
informal inquiry, please feel free to contact this office or Larry
Raisor at the City's Transmission and Distribution Facility.
Very truly yours,
Lawr ce E. Braisted
City Attorney
Director Davis reported that he planned to answer the letter
by asking for more information as to their needs.and intent. The
right-of-way acquisition will be a mammoth project and will take a
lot of time.
Commissioner Macht felt we should ask the City if it would
serve their purpose in view of the fact that a great deal of time
will be needed to acquire the rights-of-way.
Chairman Bird agreed that we are not talking about a quick
solution.
Discussion ensued regarding the areas involved in the project,
and Director Pinto commented that the City has an alternative
routing plan, with an estimated $90,000 for acquisition, so they
should be able to furnish information on those routes immediately.
Director Davis stated that he will communicate with the City
Attorney and ask for more details.
Commissioner Macht noted that Director Davis' letter will
cover the technical aspects of the issue, and he emphasized that a
letter should be sent from the Board to the City asking what their
intent is if we make this commitment.
64
M
Cu
0
0
.'T•l
BUDGET REVISIONS
7.1319
. (36,743)
427
(2,200)
641
07/29/93
(36,743)
1,068
(2,200)
TOTAL REVENUE REVISIONS
6.6770
AGGREGATE
G_F.
MSN EMS LIBRARY BD
TOTALS
BUDGET REVISIONS
(207.680)
(76,160)
59,943 (191,4631
EXPENSES:
. `NIA
ASSESSMENT BASE
5,464,987.531
SHERIFF DOUBLE COUNT 911 SURCHARGE
(44,328)
0.900/0
(44.328)
PROPERTY APPRAISER REDUCTION
(38,331)
(4,683) (737)
(43,731)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR REDUCTION
(1,185)
7.1698
(1.1.85)
COUNTY COURT - OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES(
0.3010
_
(6,155)
MEDICAL EXAMINER REVISION
6,155)
BCC CLERK I POSITION
(20,073)
(20,073)
SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR EXISTING BCC ADMIN ASST
866
866
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL ASSESSMENT
350
350
COUNTY ATTORNEY - TRAVEL & TUITION REINSTATEMENT
1,525
1,525
COUNTY ATTORNEY DUES & MEMBERSHIPS
(500)
(500)
RIGHTSTUFF PROGRAM
(11,745)
(11,745)
VETERANS SERVICES TRAVEL REINSTATED
665
-
665
AG EXTENSION - CITRUS AGENT
7,500
7.500
FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION - DUES & MEMBERSHIPS
200
200
SHERIFF REDUCTION (LAW ENFORCEMENT)
(16,910)
(16,910)
SHERIFF ION (NON -LAW ENFORCEMENT)
(233,406)
(233,406)
EMSREDUCTION
(314,067)
(314,067
CLERK REDUCTION
(10,000)
(10,000)
INCREASE IN AGENCIES
49,301
49,301
U1 LIBRARY STAFF CHANGE
34,287
34,287
INSURANCE ADJUSTMENT
(34,437)
(34,437)
2% PAY INCREASE POOL (INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONALS) (1)
201,487
94,098 136,860
432,445
TRANSFERS OUT (60% OF SHERIFF REVISION)
(36,743)
(36,743)
TOTAL EXPENSE REVISIONS
(110.779)
57555 (181.8%) (737)
(235-851)
REVENUES:
TRANSFERS IN (60% OF SHERIFF REVISION)
STATE REVENUE SHARE
RIGHT STUFF PROGRAM
7.1319
. (36,743)
427
(2,200)
641
21927....:'
(36,743)
1,068
(2,200)
TOTAL REVENUE REVISIONS
6.6770
(38516)
641 0
0
(37,8751
REVISION TCS AD VALOREM TAXES
(207.680)
(76,160)
59,943 (191,4631
(776)
. `NIA
ASSESSMENT BASE
5,464,987.531
5,464,987531
3,043,011.059 4,567,430.241 5,464,987531
0.900/0
INCREMENTAL MILLAGE REVISION
0.0380
0.0139
0.0197 0.0419
0.0001
ORIGINAL MILLAGE
7.1698
• 4.3905
1.6374 2.2346
0.3010
REVISED MILEAGE ::..
7.1319
> :43766 ...::
1.657Y >. s,..:..:::
21927....:'
::.>.::; 0.3009
ROLLBACK
6.6770
4.0428
1.3975
2.2155
N/A
REVISED %INCREASE..::..:.;8264b
..'......,.I&58%...<
:.:.."1.03:,....:
. `NIA
ORIGINAL % INCREASE
7.38%
8.60%
17.20%
0.900/0
N/A
NOTE: A CALCULATING DIFFERENCE OF 56,834 REGARDING THE SHERIFFS BALANCE OF THE 2% SALARY POOL WILL BE ABSORBED.
C.•19394BUDG)MILREV3A. WK3
bD hd
a �
�R H
m t�
rt O d
m w
r• o
W
O
O H
O O
N rt
.. 0
G
O
m
W
a
K
a
b
m
N
m
O
rt
m
a
rt
O'
m
W
N
n
a
I-�
K
m
a
t'I
F+
10
10
' w
I
10
Ob
m m O
Q a
� ~ N
N
fa11 rNt �.
O
� M m
r'I
fi
O
M
� N
a cr
m
F•�
ft O
m n
" t1.
O
x
H
H
°x
tr
o :IV 0
a
ct 0�
N fi
O
rt k o
O
M ►~i ttm
m o
C Q
m rt
n m tr
O W &'6
LJ
u
1
jL 27 llnlnl'�
BOOK 90 PAGE 192
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Budget Revisions, as prepared by OMB Director
Baird.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by .
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously.
authorized staff to advertise the preliminary budget
hearing for September 8, 1993 at 5:01 p.m.
FELLSMERE COMMUNITY HEALTH COALITION
The Board reviewed the following letter:
July 21, 1993
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Fellsmere Community Health Coalition
To the Board of County Commissioners:
The bylaws of our organization, the Fellsmere Community Health Coalition,
recommends the establishment of a position on the Advisory Committee for all
funding agents for the duration of the project in which they are involved. The
approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the funds for the Fellsmere
evening clinic makes the addition of a new advisory position a pleasure.
Therefore, following the recommendation of our bylaws, we would like to extend
to the Board of County Commissioners a most sincere invitation to a seat on the
Advisory Committee of the Fellsmere Community Health Coalition.
This is a non-voting membership whose words and counsel will form an integral
part of every decision this Coalition makes. We do hope that we will see a
representative from the Board at our monthly meetings. The next meeting of the
Coalition is on July 27 at 7:00 p.m. in the Media Center of the Fellsmere
Elementary School.
Sincerely,
Kenneth D. Kies
Community Advocate - Fellsmere Community Health Coalition
Commissioner Adams volunteered to represent the Board at the
meetings of the Fellsmere Community Health Coalition.
66
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS
The Board reviewed memo from Commissioner Macht dated July 21,
1993:
July 21, 1993
Hon. Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, F1 32960
Dear Dick:
The Commission is aware that some individuals have been
serving on a number of committees over a long period. This
practice, whatever its origin, has the negative effect of
denying greater and more diverse participation from the
generality of County citizens.
A reasonable policy would, in my opinion, limit
committee membership to a single committee except in the
case where a person, by virtue of their office, would be
required to serve on more than one. This would generally
apply to elected officials and possibly some appointed
governmental officials.
If you concur, please enter this item on the next
available agenda under my matters or wherever appropriate.
Yours ly,
Kenneth R. Macht
County Commissioner
Commissioner Eggert thought the exception would be the ex
officio seats where organizations repeatedly send the same
individual to fill that seat. The Board has no control over those
representatives.
Commissioner Macht agreed, and explained that his point was
directed to appointments of private citizens.
Chairman Bird suggested, and the Board members agreed, that in
the future we will attempt to fill committees with people who are
not serving on existing committees.
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the
Emergency Services District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
67
�� � BOOK 90 FIAGE103
r JUi 27 f�
Box 90 FAcE 104 -7
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of
the meeting of the Emergency Services District 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 11:56 o'clock a.m.
ATTEST:
C;�`, QDC�
J. arton, Clerk
Cf 3
Richard N. Bird, Chairman