HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/25/1994MINUTPPATTACHEI"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY.- JANUARY 25, 19%
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (Dist. 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Kenneth R. Macht
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
Item 13.A., Florida Highway Patrol Resolution,
was deferred for one week.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 4, 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Indoor Air Quality Cleaning, County Admin. Bldg.
(memorandum dated January 10, 1994)
B. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
(memorandum dated January 13, 1994)
C. County Tax Deed Applications
(memorandum dated January 13, 1994)
D. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated January 17, 1994)
E. 1994 Firefighters/ Indian River County .Fair
(memorandum dated January 19, 1994)
BOOK
r
r""'o-
JAN
s.
9:05 a. m. 9.
10.
11.
BOOK
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
U.S. Fish 6 Wildlife Public Signs at Pelican
Island
(memorandum dated January 18, 1994)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Carl Zubek's Request for Abandonment of a
Portion of I.R. Drive Platted as Part of
the Orchid Island Unit 1 S/D
(memorandum dated January 10, 1994)
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE TREATMENT
OR DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AND SEPTAGE IN
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY EXCEPT THROUGH THE
FACILITIES OF THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF UTILITY SERVICES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
u
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Proposed Sales Tax Program
( backup provided separately)
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Professional Engineering Consultant
Selection:
(a) 66th Ave. Paving 8 Drainage Improve-
ments between 5th St. SW E 4th St:
(b) 5th St. SW _Paving 6 Drainage Improve-
ments between 20th Ave. 8 27th Ave.
(c) Gibson St. Paving & Drainage Improve-
ments within City of Sebastian
(d) 49th St. Paving 6 Drainage Improve-
ments West of Kings Hwy. (58th Ave.)
(memorandum dated January 17, 1994)
2. Crazy Woman Properties (Victor Knight)
I.R. Blvd. Phase IV
(memorandum dated January 17, 1994)
91 PvE564 -7
11. - DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
G. PUBLIC WORKS (cont'd. ):
3. Partial Payment to American Coastal
Engineering, Inc. for the Completion of
Task I and Partial Completion of Task II
Project
(memorandum dated January 19, 1994)
4. County's Responsibility to Perform Mainten-
ance Improvements Within FS 298 Drainage
District Rights -of -Way
(memorandum dated January 19, 1994)
H. UTILITIES
1. Sebastian Utilities Rates
( memorandum dated January 13, 1994 )
2. I.R. Farms R/W Lease Agreement Renewal
(memorandum dated January 13, 1994) '
3. Petition Water Service - 10th Crt. SW
(So. of 9th St., SW/Oslo Rd) -
Resolutions I and II
( memorandum dated January 13, 1994 )
4. Water Expansion Plan, Ph. 11, Contract B
Change order No. 1 S Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated January 10, 1994) ,
5. Central Region Effluent Disposal Project
Change Order No. 1
( memorandum dated January 14, 1994 )
6. Oslo Road East Sewer Force Main
FEC Right -of -Way Agreement
(memorandum dated January 14, 1994)
7. North Roseland . Road Force Main
Final Pay Request and Change Order
( memorandum dated January 11, 1994) _
8. Additional Sleeve Installation on Indian
River Blvd., Phase III
( memorandum dated January 3, 1994 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
New Ethics Ordinance
(memorandum dated January 19, 1994)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) Resolution
( memorandum dated January 11, 1994
B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT
Completion, Acceptance and Commissioning
of the New Courthouse
(no backup provided) -
BOOK 91 F-AGc ��
LJAN251994,
JAN 2 5 1994 56
BOOK 91 Fac 6
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd):
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
E. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 12/14/93
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 1/04/94
3. Authorization to Purchase Flammable
Liquid Storage Cabinet to Store Evidence
Collected During Arson Investigations
(memorandum dated January 17, 1994)
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH . MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHIG{ INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH T -HE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
� � r
Tuesday, January 25, 1994
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, January 25,
1994, at 9:00 a.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth
R. Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Richard N. Bird; and
Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Diane
Albin, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
There were no additions to the agenda.
Item 13.A., Florida Highway Patrol Resolution, was deferred
for one week..
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 1994. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of January 4, 1994, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested the removal of Items 7.A. and
7.E. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
JAN 251994 BOOK 91 PAA, E 5o7
' JAN 251994
A. Indoor Air Ouality Cleaning, County Administration Building
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 10, 1994:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THRU: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servid s,
FROM: Lynn Williams, Superintendent
Buildings & Grounds
DATE: January 10, 1994
SUBJECT: Indoor Air Quality Cleaning, County Administration
Building
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Pursuant to the direction of the Board of County Commissioners
at the meeting of October 19, 1993, staff prepared an invitation to
bid for Indoor Air Quality Cleaning. This work was outlined in the
Clayton Environmental IAQ report of October 11, 1993.
a). Vacuuming of the ceiling space with HEPA (high
efficiency) equipped vacuum.
b). Vacuuming of all carpet, furniture and partitions with
HEPA equipped vacuum.
c). Steam cleaning of all carpets after vacuuming.
The specifications were prepared allowing for varying
combinations of space to be cleaned. The 6,000 sq. ft. occupied by
Utilities was identified by Clayton as requiring cleaning.
However, a portion of the Utilities Division is served by AHU-1 and
shares a return air plenum with the entire north side of the first
floor Administration Building. In subsequent discussions Clayton
recommended that areas common to Utilities return air plenum be
included in the cleaning process. This will total 20,000 gross
square feet.
Staff also included the entire building (80,000 sq. ft.) as an
option (excluding School District).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Four (4) responses were received from vendors. One (1) was
disqualified (Hinton's Carpet Cleaning) due to an incomplete bid.
All other vendors appear qualified to complete the work. They rank
as. follows:
, 6.000 sa. ft.
* Servpro $1,620
C1eanNet $1,860
Aegis Environmental $4,200
2
M
80,000 sa. ft. Per sa.ft.
$23,200 $0.29
$24,800 $0.31
$48,000 $0.60
M M M
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
No cleaning is recommended for the 2nd and 3rd floors due to
the fact that all units in this area are ducted return and draw no
air through the ceiling space.
It is recommended that'a contract be prepared between Servpro
and Indian River County to perform IAQ Cleaning as outlined in the
specifications in an area. of 20,000 sq. ft. (all plenum return
common to Utilities).
Cost of the contract will be $5,800.00. Funding is
recommended from Board contingencies.
Commissioner Adams thought the price was reasonable. She
suggested we clean the entire building because there have been
complaints from other areas of the building. She noticed the air
in the south side of the County Attorney's office was atrocious on
several occasions.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned that if we do an incomplete
job now, we may have to do it over again later.
Administrator Chandler agreed that we need to solve the air
quality problems in the entire building. He explained that the
recommendations of Clayton Environmental Consultants mostly relate
to the Utilities Department. Gee & Jensen currently is doing a
study of the air handling systems in the rest of the building.
Director Dean commented that the recommendations of Gee &
Jensen may or may not include cleaning other parts of the building:
Chairman Tippin stressed that we paid the consultants a
substantial amount of money and we should do what they told us to
do, but he felt that the only way to completely eliminate
complaints about air quality would be for everyone to live in a
plastic bubble.
Commissioner Adams asked how frequently the cleaning will be
done.
General Services Director Sonny Dean stated that the carpeting
and furnishings probably should be cleaned thoroughly once a year.
William Roolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, recalled that when he
worked in the office of the Supervisor of Elections for several
days recently, he was uncomfortably cold even with a sweater on.
He hoped that the Board would try to find a solution to the air
temperature problem in this building.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, to approve the contract with
Servpro as set forth in staff's memorandum, and add
the south side of the County Attorney's office to
the areas that are cleaned.
3
BOOK F'q r.sJ
JAN 2 5�94d
r JAN 25 094
Boa 91 ``'' 579 �
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked, and Administrator
Chandler responded that the change did not constitute a significant
deviation from the consultant's recommendations.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
B. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes - Properties Purchased for
County Use
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 13, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 13, 1994
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TABES
PROPERTIES PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
The County recently acquired some rights-of-way, and, pursuant to
Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is
allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the
property acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done
by resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the
Tax Collector.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolutions cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-19 and Resolution 94-20, cancelling
certain delinquent taxes upon publicly -owned lands,
as recommended by staff.
4
1/13/94(raao\taxaa)Vx�117
Re: R/W - 41st Street
Parcel #26-32-39-00000-7000-00001.7
.—.Virginia Walker 4ussell
RESOLUTION NO. 94-_,2
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 1003, Page 851 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on 41st Street, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to
the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner _gg er t ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner. Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
5
L�JAN 25 1994 BOOK 91 FAGE 5 %1
I
JAN 25 1994
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 25 day of January , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AttestsINDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
` J
By
Cha rm` n orn n p p i n
rk
tachment: Deed
1/13/94(raso\taxaa)VIe11B
Rea R/W - Oslo & Old Dixie
Parcel #30-33-40-00000-3000-00017.0
Calmes & Peirce, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 2 0
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
6 %
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 1001, Page 1080 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on Oslo Road & Old Dixie Highway, are hereby
cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 2 5 day of January , 1994.
Attest:
Perk
Attacr ent: Deed
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By 4
Chairman l n T I pin
C. COUNTY TAX DEED APPLICATIONS .
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 13, 1994:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
(�' A
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 13, 1994
RE: COUNTY TAX DEED•APPLIC.ATIONS
The Board of County Commissioners at its meeting August 3, 1993, approved
and authorized the County to file several tax deed applications with the Tax
Collector on properties with outstanding tax certificates. As part of the
process of transferring title to the County, the Clerk's Office has notified
us that they are ready to proceed with the sale on Cert. $91-5353 and the sum
of $208.26 is now due.
REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the
payment of the above amount to the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
W
��N 251�BOOK 9
� ,��
JAN 25 1994 BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
the payment of title transfer fees in the amount of
$208.26 to the Clerk of Circuit Court,- as
recommended by staff.
91 F-,��E 574
D. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 17, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
6 )2.
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: January 17, 1994
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. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions:
CARNEY
DUNCAN
CORRIGAN
LANE
YATES/HILLIARD
WOLOSEN
STEPHENS
FORD
TSR
STANSEL
REAGAN (2)
MEDSRER
LAVIGNE
CROFT
HEIRES
2. Partial Release of Impact Fee Extension
and Utility Lien:
CHAPAM CORP. (Lots 5, 13, 14, and 18)
3. Rockridge Sewer Project:
ST. THOMAS SARSON
SOROLICH CORDES/LANG
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the releases of liens listed 'above, as recommended
by staff.
SAID RELEASES ARE RECORDED
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
8
E. 1994 Firefighters/Indian River County Fair
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 19, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 19, 1994
RE: 1994 Firefighters/Indian River county Fair
The Firefighters have agreed to execute the attached contract with the
County for holding the 1994 fair; therefore, our application package is
ready to be sent to the state so that the County will receive its 1994
fair permit.
Requested Action: Board authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
contract, application for fair permit, and affidavit and the County
Attorney's Office to submit the completed application package to the
state along with the required $275.00 permit fee.
Commissioner Adams noted that the Firefighters have invested
a considerable amount of money in improvements at the Fairgrounds,
and she thought a security system was needed because the
Fairgrounds have been vandalized on a number -of occasions. She
noticed from the contract with the State that a Fairgrounds
Advisory Committee is recommended, and she wondered if we should
resurrect that committee.
Commissioner Bird explained that the Parks and. Recreation
Committee is responsible for the Fairgrounds.
Administrator Chandler indicated that the application is being
submitted by the Board acting in the capacity of a Fairgrounds
Advisory Committee.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised the Board that the
County waived the rent charge last year because the fair lost
money. This year the contract provides for the County to accept
1/3 of the profits from the County Fair in lieu of rent. If there
is no profit, the Firefighters will not be required to pay any
money to the County.
Commissioner Bird explained that the Firefighters want this
type of contract because they do not want to do all the work
associated with the Fair only to lose money due to poor weather
conditions, and then still have to pay rent.
9
y.; A
BOOK 91 F',�GE 575
r JAN 251994
-7 BOOK 9� FAGE 576
Commissioner Eggert recalled that there were questions last
year about certain items in the budget. She was concerned that a
profit-sharing arrangement might result in some controversy.
Attorney Vitunac responded that the Firefighters will be
required to prepare an audited statement of income and expenses
from the County Fair, which will be available for the Board's
review.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that the County received a
guaranteed $9,000 in income from the County Fair prior to this
year, and she was fairly certain a review of previous financial
statements would reveal little profit. She wanted to keep a close
watch on expenses.
Commissioner Bird commented that the Firefighters view the
County Fair as a county -wide event, and they feel that a profit-
sharing arrangement makes it more of a team effort between the
Firefighters and the County. He suggested that the Commissioners
review the statement of income and expenses and discuss any
concerns they have with the Firefighters.
OMB Director Joe Baird indicated that he can express the
Board's concerns to the Firefighters in writing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved an
agreement with the Firefighters for the 1994 Indian
River County Fair and authorized the County Attorney
to submit the completed application package to the
State along with the required $275.00 permit fee, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SIGNS AT PELICAN ISLAND
Paul Tritaik, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, showed the Board
and the audience a sample of the signs saying "Unauthorized Entry
Prohibited" that recently were posted at the Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge (Pelican Island). Mr. Tritaik reported
that the old signs had the same wording as the new signs, but
people could not read them because they were so faded. When the
signs were replaced, the perception of some of the public was that
people are not welcome at Pelican Island. He understood the
public's concern, but explained that every national wildlife refuge
outside of Alaska is mandated to use these standard -issue signs as
boundary markers. After several discussions, officials from .the
10
local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office decided to bend the
rules a little bit. Mr. Tritaik called officials at several
refuges in Alaska and persuaded them to send signs that he hoped
the public would find less offensive. He showed the Board and..the
audience a sample of the new signs stating "National Wildlife
Refuge Boundary - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior - Consult Manager for Current Regulations." He stressed
that these are the only other signs available, and he hoped they
make it clear that Pelican Island is open to the public because the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have funds available at
this time to pay for custom-made signs.
Commissioner Bird thought it was a shame that the oldest
wildlife refuge in the country has to beg for money.
Commissioner Adams indicated that the Florida Inland
Navigation District (FIND) would consider a grant to fund signs
directing people to Pelican Island. She realized that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service did not intend to offend anyone, and she
thanked Mr. Tritaik for his efforts.
Chairman Tippin was pleased that we were able to bring this
matter to a successful conclusion.
Joe Michael, 1 Earring Point, Orchid, felt that it would be
wonderful to have signs posted in various locations directing
people to Pelican Island.
Administrator Chandler indicated that staff will pursue filing
an application for a grant from FIND to fund signs.
PUBLIC HEARING - CARL ZUBER'S REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION
OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE PLATTED AS PART OF THE ORCHID ISLAND UNIT 1
SUBDIVISION
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
it
JAN 2 51994 BOOK 91 PAGF 577
FF"-
JAN 1'd
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
. -
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 f the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
'I bscribed befor met 's .3,buy A.D. 19 50Z��.• TA -Y jL/
02,
My Comm. pit t' = RBARA C. S RAGUE, NOTARY PUBLIC. (Bu ss anager)
Juste 29,1 997 = Slate of Florida. My Commissxm Exp. Jw* 29, 1997
'. No. CC300572 --- '-- Nua+bw• cCslws7s
pQ�O'�• Shined:
,L-�i��!'..,r1. rrj �.a r.=. •./Lc.--
••p,�� OF
FV Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE ' `1
BOOK 91 PA E 5!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notim of hearing to consider a petition for ftte
9, abmxbmmt, and vacation of aof
Indian River Drive adjacent to Lot 204, = is.
land Subdivision Unit 1. Saki lards " and being j
In Indian Rive County, Florida. '
Lyng and being in Indian River -Canty, Florida,
mom particularly described as fdbws: .
The subject rrmrty Is described as:
That pm1lo of ,San River Drive Right -of -Way -1
tyh�q adjacent to Lot 204 of the Plat of Orchid Is-
land. Unit #1 as recorded in Plat Book 4 Page 3 of
the public records of Indian River County, Florida.
A pubk hearing at which parties in interest and
dimes shag have an opportwuity to be ftesrd, will
be held by the Board of County Commissioners of ;
Irdw River County, Florida, in the County Commis
scar Chambers of the County Administration Build- ,9
Ing, bated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beacti,-Fbr-"
Ida on Tuesday. January 25,1994 at 9:05 am.
Arryae who may wish to aapppeal any detest i
which may be made at this rre w® creed to en-
sure tltat a verbatim reed of the proceedings Is i
made, which Ircludes testimony and evidence upon ,
which the appeal is based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA- "
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DiSABWTIES ACT.J
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 587-8000 X408 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF. , THE MEET -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY '
80ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Jan, 3. 1994. 1059783 -
Planning Director Stan Boling commented from the following
memo dated January 10, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keatin , AICP
Community Dennv��e22lopment rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP Av)v\
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: January 10, 1994
SUBJECT: Carl Zubek'9 Request for Abandonment of a Portion of
Indian River Drive Platted as Part of -the Orchid Island
Unit 1 Subdivision
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of January 25, 1994.
12
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
James A. Taylor, Esquire has submitted a petition on behalf .of Carl
Zubek to abandon a portion of Indian River Drive that was platted
as part of the Orchid Island. Unit 1 Subdivision recorded in 1955
(see attachment #2). Per guidelines established by the Board of
County Commissioners, the petition has been reviewed by all county
divisions and utility providers having jurisdiction within the
right-of-way segment to be abandoned. All reviewing agencies have
recommended approval of the abandonment.
The subject right-of-way segment was severed from the rest of the
Indian River Drive right-of-way by way.of an abandonment approved
in 1961. The applicant's stated purpose for the right-of-way
abandonment is to clear title to Orchid Island lot 204, and
complete the abandonment as it was intended in 1961. The result of
the abandonment will be to provide a logical completion of the
previous abandonment.
ANALYSIS:
The subject segment of Indian River Drive is not part of the
roadway system as noted on the county Thoroughfare Plan and is not
needed for the thoroughfare plan system. There is an unpaved
access way within the subject segment and the segment previously
abandoned in 1961. There is a private access easement between the
property owners that ensures access to each subdivision lot that
fronts the previously abandoned segment and the subject segment.
Staff has determined that the subject segment of right-of-way is
not needed for convenient access, and that it would be in the
public's interest to abandon this discontigous segment of right-of-
way.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners abandon the
county's right-of-way interest in -the portion of Indian River Drive
adjacent to Lot 204 Orchid Island Unit 2, and authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached abandonment resolution (attachment
#3).
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.
�,1pN 251994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-21, providing for the closing,
abandonment, vacation and discontinuance of a
portion of Indian Drive, as recommended by staff.
13
BOOK 91 rku 579
r JAN 19914
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 21
BOOK 91 FbGF 590
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING,
ABANDONMENT, VACATION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF A PORTION OF
INDIAN RIVER•DRIVE, ADJACENT TO LOT 204 ORCHID ISLAND
SUBDIVISION, UNIT 4 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 3 SAID LAND LYING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, on November 1, 1993 Indian River County received a
duly executed and documented petition from James A. Taylor,
Esquire, of Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close,
vacate, abandon, discontinue, renounce and disclaim any right,
title and interest.of the County and the public in and to a portion
of Indian River Drive, adjacent to Lot 204 Orchid Island
Subdivision, Unit 1, Plat Book 4, page 3, said lands lying in
Indian River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Flbrida Statutes 336.10, notice of
a public hearing 'to consider said petition has been duly published;
and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff -investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the board finds that right-of-way is
not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of
the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in
and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly
described as:
That portion of Indian River Drive Right -of -Way lying adjacent
to lot 204 of the Plat of Orchid Island, Unit #1 as recorded in
Plat Book 4 page 3 of the public records of Indian River County,
Florida.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, discontinued,
renounced and disclaimed.
2. The closing, vacation, abandonment, discontinuance and
disclaimer of this public right-of-way is in the best
interests of the public.
3. Notice of -the adopting of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
4. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes 336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
14
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commission
FggPrt who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Marht , and upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin- 'Aye
Vice -Chairman Ken Macht Aye
Commissioner
Fran B.
Adams
Aye
Commissioner
Richard
N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner
Carolyn
K. Eggert
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 25 day of January , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, F ORIDA
BY: U
ohn W. Tippin C airman
Bo Mrd of County Commissioners
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, yer�/
State of Florida Z
County of Indian River
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, and officer duly
authorized in this State and County to take acknowledgements,
personally appeared JOHN W. TIPPIN, and JEFFREY K. BARTON, as
Chairman of the Board of. County Commissioners and Clerk,
respectively, to me known to be.the persons -described in and who
executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me
that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and offic( seal in the County and State last
aforesaid this U day of 3i,cL� , A.D., 1994.
Notary 4publ c
Pk7_91�,L�' 184t,PkTRIC�A HEW
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS `Ngv
.: .. i.. W CONB!lISSION A C=318 EVIM5
P August 28.1997
TROY IAN Off.'
BY:4;Obert AM Kea ing, At P
Director, Communit Deve pment
Division
15
BOOK 91 NVUE 5SI
r JAN 25 1994
BOOK ij.l PAruF. Z)�j �f
PUBLIC HEARING - SLUDGE/SEPTAGE ORDINANCE
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
e
in the matter
In the A
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 fora purpose of securing this
advejLf,�Sment for publication in the said newspaper.
C. S-.,.
prnto�rt�u$s
Q:•�;oiAgy
i' My Comm. Ex0res
June 29,1997
No. CC3=72
cs,9`�G0,aQ;
'►wFOFV�
of Florida, My Commission Exp, June 29,1
Commission Number: CC300672
Notary:
19�
Pl/BLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a
PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for: 9:05 A.M. on
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1994, to,- discuss and
consider adopthq the foVowmg ordinance entified:
AN ORDINANCE OF INbIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE TREATMENT OR
DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AND SEPTAGE IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY EXCEPT THROUGH THE FACILITIES OF
THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SER-
VICES.
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 testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal Is based.
Anyonewho needs a special accommodation for
this meeting may contact the County's Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-
8000, Ext. 406, at least 48 hours in advance of the
Jan. 8,1994 1081312
County Attorney Charles Vitunac commented from the following
memo dated January 19, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J
~ k)t�,>-&C
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 19, 1994
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - SLUDGE/SEPTAGE ORDINANCE
The attached ordinance is presented to the Board for adoption after a
90 -day delay to allow the City of Vero Beach time to study its sludge
disposal options.
16
The ordinance has been modified since the public meeting with the City
of Vero Beach to answer certain of their concerns. The present
ordinance does nothing more than prohibit land_spreading in the unincor-
porated area. It does not prohibit land spreading in the incorporated
area nor does it prohibit transferring sludge out of county for land
spreading. It also does not prohibit construction of sludge and septage
disposal plants similar to that operated by the County.
REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance.
Attorney Vitunac reported that the County received a
congratulatory letter from the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) stating that the DEP officials wish more counties
would pass ordinances that prohibit spreading treated septage and
sludge on land.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto gave a history of the
County's sludge treatment facility, which he reported is available
for use by the public under a non-discriminatory rate structure.
Director Pinto indicated that the County has experienced problems
with illegal dumping of septage and sludge over the years, creating
a major environmental hazard. Some of the illegal dumping was
intentional and some was accidental. In some cases the dumping was
done in permitted areas, but the sludge did not meet the standards
that were required under the permit. There were occasions where
haulers got stuck and had no alternative but to dump the septage or
sludge at the site where the truck was stuck. Director Pinto
concluded that it is difficult to monitor the quality of the
septage and sludge, and it is almost impossible to prevent dumping
in places where the dumping is illegal because the water table is
too high. For these reasons, staff recommends that all land
spreading of septage and sludge be prohibited in the unincorporated
areas of the County. He stated that documented cases of illegal
dumping are on file in the Utilities Department.
Mike Galanis, Director of Environmental Control, reported that
the County continues to have problems with illegal dumping of
septage and sludge, although the situation has improved. Sludge
and septage come in from other counties, and haulers have brought
sludge into this county from as far away as Tampa. Mr. Galanis
explained that sludge comes from sewage treatment plants. We have
had problems with some of the smaller, privately -owned facilities
in the past. Most of the sludge in this community is domestic
waste, but sludge from other communities may contain industrial
waste. Septage comes from septic tanks. There are about 20,000
septic tanks in the county, about 3,000 of which are pumped every
year, generating about 3 million gallons of septage per year. In
17
JAN 25 1994
BOOK 91 FAIJE 593
r J A N 25 1994. BOOK
91 PAU,F 594
this County septage comes from residences, radiator shops, auto
repair facilities, small manufacturing facilities, and grease
traps. Grease is difficult to control because it does not spread
on land well and it does not lend itself to current treatment
technologies. Mr. Galanis stressed that all of these problems are
difficult to control, and for these reasons he urged the,Board to
adopt the proposed ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Charles Sullivan, representing Reliable Services, a
local septic tank waste disposal company, believed that County
staff is trying to make it appear that the proposed ordinance will
solve the problem of illegal dumping of sewage. He pointed out
that there are existing laws that prohibit the illegal dumping of
untreated sewage. He argued that it would be ridiculous for the
County to pass this ordinance when there are no such ordinances
anywhere in the State of Florida, and there are no Federal or State
regulations prohibiting treated sludge and septage from being
spread on land. He recounted that another county in Florida
attempted to adopt a similar ordinance and it failed in a court
test. Mr. Sullivan contended that the County sludge treatment
plant is unable to attract business because the rates are too high,
and that the proposed ordinance is just a way for the County to get
people to use the sludge treatment plant. He predicted that his
client would go out of business if the County adopts the proposed
ordinance.
Director Pinto assured the Board that staff is recommending
passage of this ordinance because of environmental concerns, not to
make money for the sludge treatment facility. He stressed that the
County's facility is funded, and it was primarily built to handle
our own sludge. He felt that the County's prices are reasonable
and are similar to the amount charged in other counties.
George McCullers, owner of Reliable Services, stated that he
invested between $150,000 and $200,000 in a septage treatment
facility and that this ordinance would put him out of business. He
stressed that there is no scientific evidence that spreading of
treated sludge or septage is a health hazard.
Ellen Voss, president-elect of the Florida Septic Tank
Association, gave a list of credentials in support of her ability
to comment on this subject. She reported that her company pumps
septic tanks as well as food service operation greasetraps and
wastewater plants, and processes the septage using a lime
stabilization process. The treatment plant and land application
18
site are located on the 110 -acre farm which is her homestead. She
emphasized that her family, her employees, and her farm animals are
healthy. She stated that the farm is located on sandy soil with
the water table less than 6 feet below the surface, and she gets
potable water from the well on her property. She indicated that
about 3 million gallons a year of treated septage and sludge are
spread on her farm. She felt that her farm benefits from the land -
spreading operation, and that she has saved thousands of dollars on
fertilizer. It was Ms. Voss's opinion that the proposed ordinance
is unnecessary because current laws and regulations are adequate.
Commissioner Macht asked, and Ms. Voss confirmed, that the
lime stabilization process kills viral agents.
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., 1656 71st Court, Vero Beach, suggested
that the Commission enact zoning ordinances restricting the areas
where septage and sludge can be spread, and institute a procedure
whereby septic tanks in the county can be inspected to make sure
they are being pumped out properly and the drain fields are
functioning properly. He did not want the Board to adopt an
ordinance that would hurt Mr. McCullers, who spent thousands of
dollars on a lime stabilization plant. Mr. Scurlock contended that
the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to force the public to use
a facility which is operating at far below capacity. He hoped that
the Board would at least table the proposed ordinance and take the
time to make -the right decision. .
Tom Nason, Vero Beach city manager and utilities director, was
opposed to the ordinance. He quoted statistics in support of land
spreading as a safe and appropriate means of disposing of treated
sludge, and he emphasized that most of the sludge in Florida is
spread on land. Mr. Nason discussed a 1983 meeting of 200 health
and environmental scientists who arrived at a public consensus that
existing guidelines and regulations were adequately protective of
the public health and environment. He noted that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prefers land application as
a beneficial use of sludge. He was confident that the EPA will
continue to issue regulations that protect the environment, and he
felt that it was highly unlikely that the government would allow
sludge spreading to continue if it was hazardous. Mr. Nason
mentioned that the new regulations effective on February 19, 1995,
arose out of a 15 -year study which was accelerated in 1986 when the
Clean Water Act was enacted. He indicated that the City of Vero
Beach has initiated a pre-treatment program, and that all of the
City's sludge has minimal amounts of regulated materials and meets
the criteria for land application.
19
JAN 25 1994 BOOK 91 r -m, S5
r JAN 25 1994
BOOK 91 FACE 5S6
Commissioner Eggert commented that a number of people from
Gifford are concerned about sludge being dumped at a site in North
Gifford. She stressed that even if sludge spreading is safe,
people do not always perceive it as being safe.
Mr. Nason responded that the owner of the property in Gifford
where the sludge was being dumped asked the City of Vero Beach to
stop spreading sludge at that location. In fact, the City is not
currently spreading sludge anywhere in the county. Mr. Nason then
introduced Mr. Dan Click, an environmental engineer with 27 years'
experience and an employee of Montgomery Watson America, Inc., a
division of Montgomery Watson, Inc., which is a multi -national firm
that deals exclusively in water and sewer matters. Mr. Nason
explained that Montgomery Watson America, Inc., has just completed
a study for the City of Vero Beach.
Dan Click distributed a large information 'packet which
contained exhibits substantiating the technical information
presented at today's meeting. The exhibits contained extensive
information about Federal regulations on disposal of sewage and
sludge. The first exhibit was the following fact sheet summarizing
the EPA's sewage sludge use and disposal rule:
A United States Office of Water EPA -822-F-92-002
��� E PA Environmental Protection WH -556 November 1992
Agency Washington, DC 20460
rage Sludgevse and Disposal Hu
(40 CFR Part 503) --- Fact Sheet
The Sewage Sludge Use and Disposal Regulation (40 CFR
Part 503) sets national standards for pathogens and 10
heavy metals in sewage sludge. It also defines standards
(or management practices) for the safe handling and use of
sewage sludge. This rule is designed to protect human
health and the environment when sewage sludge is
beneficially applied to the land, placed in a surface
disposal site, or incinerated. The rule was developed in
accordance with the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water
Act.
The rule is also the product of EPA's most comprehensive
risk assessment to date, in that it considers the full range
of potential impacts sewage sludge could have on public
health and the environment. It is based on the most
current scientific information and is the first rule
published by EPA that considers potential ecological
effects. Although developed by EPA's Office of Water
under the authority of the Clean Water Act, this rule is
multi -media in nature and seeks to protect surface water,
ground water, air, and land.
The scientific research used to develop this rule shows that
most sewage sludge can be safely and beneficially used in
a wide variety of ways. It can be applied safely to
agricultural land, lawns and gardens, golf courses, forests
and parks, and is a valuable resource for land reclamation
projects. This rule is designed to protect human health and
the environment at an equal margin of safety for any of
the regulated use or disposal practices. It sets standards
for pathogens and limits for 12 pollutants which have the
potential for adverse effects, and explains why limits are
not needed for 61 other pollutants that were considered.
Additionally, it contains a comprehensive set of
management practices to ensure that sewage sludge is
beneficially used or disposed of properly.
(e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) and pathogens (e.g.,
bacteria, viruses, and parasites). Some sludges may
also contain small amounts of organic chemicals (such
as chloroform) and inorganic chemicals (such as iron).
■ Sewage sludge must be treated to improve its quality
before it can be used or disposed. This treatment
involves biological,, chemical, physical and/or thermal
processes primarily designed to remove water, reduce
the level of pathogens, stabilize volatile solids, and
make it less attractive to rodents, insects, and other
animals.
How Much Sewage Sludge Is There?
■ A typical family of four generates up to 400 gallons of
wastewater per day. Aka this wastewater has been
treated, about one pound of sludge on a dry weight
basis is produced.
■ There are approximately 13,000 to 15,000 publicly
owned treatment works in the United States which
generate 110-150 million wet metric tons of sewage
sludge, annually.
How is Sewage Sludge Beneficially Used or Disposed
of?
■ Sewage sludge has been used with great success on
agricultural lands throughout the world for decades.
Today, approximately 36% of the United States' sewage
sludge is -beneficially applied to land, 38% is landfilled
at municipal sites, 10% is surface disposed, and 16% is
incinerated.
Where Doss Sewage Sludge Conte From?
■ Sewage sludge is a by-product of treating wastewater
from homes, businesses and some industries. In some
older cities when sanitary sewers are connected to
storm sewers, sewage treatment facilities may also -
receive runoff from street, parking lots, and yards.
■ ' Wastewater treatment facilities are designed to
separate solids from water to allow the water to be
safely discharged. They are also designed to treat the
solids to reduce the level of disease -causing bacteria,
viruses, and parasites so that the remaining solids can
be safely and beneficially used.
■ Sewage sludge is a slurry that is 80% to 99% water. The
rest is a mixture of organic and inorganic solids and
dissolved substances. Sewage sludge contains nutrients
The numbers are changing, however,.The 48% of
sludge that is being disposed in landfills or sludge -only
disposal sites is decreasing as landfill space has
tightened. More and more communities are turning to
beneficial applications. New and innovative uses of
sewage sludge have been developed in recent years
and the science behind established practices has greatly
improved.
How Can Sewage Sludge Be Used?
Sewage sludge can be used in many ways. The organic
nutrient content as well as its soil enhancing properties
make it a practical choice for farmers, landscapers,
foresters, and homeowners.
Farmland—Sewage sludge has been beneficially used
on farmland for many years. It typically contains S30 -
$60 worth of nitrogen per ton and is an excellent soil
amendment. While it is not a complete replacement for
chemical fertilizers, it does do some things chemical
fertilizers cannot do. It promotes necessary bacterial
activity and improves the structure of soil allowing it to
absorb more water, thus reducing dangerous runoff. It
is also less expensive than chemcial fertilizers.
■ Homes and Gardens—High quality sludge can be
processed (usually composted) into a dry granular
substance that is easily handled by landscapers and
homeowners. It is also less expensive than
commercially available peat moss or top soil.
Homeowners and landscapers across the United States
- from Philadelphia to Milwaukee to Seattle - have been
using sludge derived products for many years. Treated
sludge has also been widely used on municipal golf
courses and national, historic landmarks such as the
grounds of the White House and Mount Vernon.
■ Forests—Sewage sludge has been used successfully for
many years on forested areas to reduce runoff and
enhance tree growth. There have been many studies
documenting two to three -fold growth increases where
trees have been grown with treated sludge.
I
■ Land Reclamation—Sewage sludge has also been used
with dramatic success to reclaim lands destroyed by
§trip mining, erasion, and construction. In
Pennsylvania, sewap sludge has been used to help
reclaim thousands of acres of land at abandoned strip
mine sites. Sewage sludge is also being applied to
revegetate the side of a severely eroded mountain that
Incineration
16%
Surface
Disposal
10%
L 7-j
Landrdied
38%
Beneficial
Land
Application
36%
was highly contaminated by a zinc smelting operation
in Palmerton, PA.
Now Safe Is Sewage Sludge?
■ The research conducted for this rule validates the long-
standing use of sewage sludge on the land as both safe
and beneficial. Sewage sludge is a valuable resource
that can be safely recycled back into the land. It has, in
fact, been used on farmland for many years with no
documented adverse affect on human health.
The rule contains incentives for communities to
produce cleaner sludge and to consider changing from
wasteful disposal practices such as landfilling to
beneficial projects. The regulation also prescribes how
communities may incinerate or otherwise dispose of
sludge safely.
Who Is Affected and How?
The rule includes standards that apply to publicly,
privately, and Federally owned facilities that generate
or treat sewage sludge, as well an any person who uses
or disposes of sewage sludge or septage. These
standards consist of pollutant limit, management
practices, and operational standards. The regulation
establishes pollutant limits for sewage sludge that is
applied to the land or disposed of by either placing it in
a a surface disposal site or by firing it in an incinerator.
The regulation also includes requirements for reducing
pathogens in sewage sludge that may cause disease.
The other requirement of the regulation address the
frequency of monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting.
This rule is designed, for the most part, to be self -
implementing, meaning that anyone who uses or
disposes of sewage sludge must comply with all of the
provisions of the regulation whether or not they have a
permit. The rule requires compliance with monitoring
and record keeping requirements 150 days after the
rule is published in the Federal Register. The rule also
requires compliance with other standards as soon as
possible but no later than 12 months from the date of
publication (or 24 months if construction is required).
■ EPA intends to include the requirement of this rule in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit applications. Permit application
deadlines are being phased in, the first applications
being due six months after this rule is published and
the rest becoming due over the next several years.
(The Clerk gave a copy of the complete information packet to
Director Pinto).
21
JAN 25 1994 BOOK 91 F,vF597
BOOK 91 FAPE 5S8
v !►
Mr. Click believed the proposed ordinance was inconsistent
with the intent of State and Federal regulatory agencies, and he
urged the BCC to lay it aside.
Larry Braisted, Vero Beach City Attorney, recapped the
comments of the people who spoke at today's meeting. He cautioned
the Board that in adopting this ordinance, which involves taking
away a legal and constitutional right to engage in an activity, it
is the responsibility of the County to provide proof that the
ordinance must be adopted for health and safety reasons. Even if
the County can prove that the activity is unsafe, the County has a
responsibility to choose the least restrictive method that fits the
situation. Mr. Braisted argued that the proposed ordinance does
not meet those criteria.
Commissioner Adams led discussion about maximum permissible
amounts of nitrogen and other chemicals in sludge. She agreed that
sludge spreading enhances agriculture, but she was concerned about
percolation into our water supply. She stressed that we must
protect our water resources. Although she did not want to hurt any
small businesses, she did not want the County to allow the
spreading activities to run rampant. She preferred to franchise
the haulers that currently are operating in this County and place
restrictions on out -of -county haulers. She felt that the County
should institute a zoning procedure and limit the spreading to
agriculturally -zoned tracts that are 100 acres or larger. She
reminded Mr. Nason that she asked him at the August 25, 1993, joint
City -County meeting where the City was spreading its sludge, and he
told her it was being spread in Martin County and a site "west of
town." She felt she had been misled when she learned after the
meeting that the site he referred to as being "west of town" was in
North Gifford. She asked the Vero Beach City officials to be more
specific when she asks them questions. She recounted that the
Board postponed making a decision on this ordinance to give the
City time to make plans for its own dry sludge facility, and now
the City has decided against building that facility. She
emphasized that it always seems to end up with the City doing all
the asking and the County doing all the giving.
Mr. Nason responded that if rates at the County facility
remain at their current level, the City plans to use the aerobic
digestion process. If the County reduces its rates to the point
where it would more cost-effective for the City to use the County
facility, then the City will do so.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
22
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to deny passage of the ordinance,
and to direct staff to obtain a definitive position
from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and other appropriate regulatory agencies
as to regulations on spreading of septage and
sludge; to get a recommendation on increasing
enforcement; and to explore the desirability of
certifying those who are permitted to spread either
commodity in our county.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht explained that he wanted
specific information, in writing, from the appropriate agencies.
In addition, he felt that we need to do something about inspecting
the sludge and septage of those who are entitled to spread and
increasing surveillance of those who are not, and that we ought to
consider some kind of certification procedure. He suggested that
we use zoning to define areas where sludge can be spread.
Commissioner Bird understood that the intent of Commissioner
Macht's motion was that septage or sludge that is properly treated
in accordance with State and Federal standards can be applied in a
ground -spreading application to property that meets the criteria.
Commissioner Eggert asked whether the City's planned facility
and Mr. McCullers' septage treatment plant will be in compliance
with the new regulations.
Mr. Nason explained that additional aerobic digestion will be
performed in order to significantly reduce pathogens, resulting in
Class B sludge. Pathogens can be further reduced by putting the
sludge through an infrared heat process to bring the temperature to
550 degrees for a period of time, and it then becomes Class A
sludge. There are no limitations on the use of Class A sludge.
Ms. Voss explained that Mr. McCullers' plant, like all lime
stabilization plants, treats septage with lime and aerates it until
the pathogens and viruses meet acceptable levels as determined by
the EPA.
Chairman Tippin indicated that his position over many years
has been that spreading sludge on land is safe, and that he has not
changed his position.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
23
JAN 5 1994 BOOK 91 [;: 5g9
I
JAN 25 1994
OPTIONAL SALES TAX PROGRAM
BOOK 91 F'aGE �:tl
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 19,1994:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: January 19, 1994
SUBJECT: OPTIONAL SALES TAX - SECOND FIVE YEARS
FROM: James E. Chandler *e- Joseph A. Baird
County Administrator OMB Director
Background Information
Chapter 87-239 Laws of Florida initiated the "Local Government Infrastructure Commitment
Act", which allowed counties to levy, for a period of up to fifteen years, a one cent tax on
all transactions subject to taxation under Chapter 212.054 of the Florida statutes. In order
to enact the surtax, an ordinance must be passed by the majority of the members of the
Board of County Commissioners and then approved by a majority of votes in a referendum
or passed by governing bodies of municipalities, representing a majority of the County's
population, and approved by a majority of voters in a referendum.
The Optional Sales Tax revenues are distributed to Indian River County and to the Cities
within the County based on the same formula provided for under Chapter 218.62 Florida
Statutes. This means Indian River County and the municipalities (Vero Beach, Sebastian,
Indian River Shores, Town of Orchid and Fellsmere) shall receive a proportion of monies
earmarked for distribution within the County. The proportion each municipal government
receives is computed by dividing the population of that municipality by the sum of the total
County population plus two-thirds of the incorporated areas' population. The county's
portion is computed by dividing the sum of the unincorporated area's population plus two-
thirds of the incorporated area population by the sum of the total County population plus
two-thirds of the incorporated areas' population. According to the information provided by
the State, in the 1993/94 year the revenue breakdown will be as follows:
Indian River County
*$5,637,867
Vero Beach
1,190,265
Sebastian
789,439
Indian River Shores
161,450
Fellsmere
155,513
Town of Orchid
1,160
TOTAL
$7,935,694
*We budget 95% of the estimated amount
Proceeds of the surtax may be expended on infrastructure as defined in the bill as "any
fixed capital expenditure or fixed capital costs associated with the construction,
reconstruction or improvement of pubic facilities which have a life expectancy of 5 or
more years and any land acquisition, land improvement, design and engineering costs
related thereto."
24
Analysis
In the late 1980's Indian River County found itself in an infrastructure dilemma when
developing its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Based on the capital improvement
element at that time, the County had over $400 million of infrastructure improvements
over the next twenty years and was seeking adequate revenue sources to meet the levels
of service set -forth. A review was begun of additional revenue alternatives available to
fund future infrastructure needs.
Analysis - continued
After studying the alternatives, Indian River County found the Optional Sales Tax
appealing for the following reasons:
1. FAIR ALTERNATIVE - ALL USERS CONTRIBUTE - Everyone pays,
including tourists and non-residents; not just the property owners of Indian
River County. The roads and other infrastructure within the County are built
for peak demand. Tourists and non-residents use the County's roads, parks,
and facilities. Optional Sales Tax does not hit just one specific group of people,
unlike user or impact fees.
2. DOLLARS GENERATED - There were no other revenue sources, besides ad
valorem taxes, that could generate approximately $7 million a year in revenues.
3. INCLUDED EXEMPTIONS - Sales tax is exempted on purchases of medicine
and food.
4. CITIES AND COUNTY SHARE - The sales tax is not just received by the
County. The Cities get a proportionate share to help them in their
infrastructure needs.
5. PAY AS YOU GO - It gave Indian River County the ability to pay for capital
improvements with existing available funds, possibly augmented by short-term
borrowings. This would eliminate the need for ten or forty year debt for these
type projects and would substantially reduce overall cost of capital
improvements by not having to pay huge financing costs (interest) over a long
period of time.
6. USED FOR NEEDED CAPITAL PROJECTS - Money could be used for jails,
roads, parks and health facilities which would have to be built regardless if an
optional sales tax was in place or not. This would place a burden on other
resources (i.e., ad valorem taxes).
7. MONEY CANNOT BE USED FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
8. LIMITED TIME PERIOD - It would be in affect for a maximum of fifteen
years.
9. LIKELIHOOD OF STATE GIVING COUNTIES AND CITIES OTHER
ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES - The state is in the same position
as the County. It cannot keep up with capital improvements and is looking for
ways to pay for its infrastructure. In fact, the State mandates more programs
to the County every day without a revenue stream that will adequately support
them.
25
BOOK 91PAGE 5.91�N 5 �9�4
r JAN 2 5.1994
BOOK 91 P,1, 59
10. MINIMIZE ROAD IMPACT FEE INCREASES - In 1988 the County had
estimated a shortfall of $60 million dollars to purchase right-of-way and
construct roads over the next twenty years. This cost is figured in the
calculation of road impact fees adding to the cost of construction within the
County.
11. OPTIONAL SALES TAX CHARGED UP TO CAP OF $5,000.00 IN
PURCHASES (PER TRANSACTIONI - (A maximum optional additional sales
tax paid on each item purchased of $50.00.)
Conclusion
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, on January 31, 1989 passed
ordinance 89-6 calling for a county -wide referendum on the levy of the one cent sales tax
to be held on Tuesday, March 14, 1989. Shortly thereafter the Optional Sales Tax was
endorsed by every City within Indian River County. The Chamber of Commerce, Taxpayers
Association, Civic Association, Gifford Progressive League, Board of Realtors, Association
of General Contractors and the Treasure Coast Home Builders Association all endorsed the
Optional Sales Tax at that time. The voters passed the Optional Sales Tax to go into effect
June 1, 1989. (60.3% voted for the tax and 39.7% voted against the tax.)
When promoting the Optional Sales Tax, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners put additional constraints on the use of the sales tax by promising that
proceeds would be used only for essential capital projects that the County would have used
tax dollars to complete (i.e. ad valorem, gas tax). It was also emphasized that in the future
a good portion of Optional Sales Tax would go towards the purchase of right-of-way and
roads to help offset the deficit in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional commitment was
made to have a list of projects approved in five year intervals by the Board of County
Commissioners in a public hearing. The projects for the first five years were the Jail (Phase
III), Health Department Building and Courthouse. All projects have been completed with
the exception of the Courthouse scheduled to be finished in the summer of 1994.
The planning of the second five year list of projects has been initiated. The Budget Office
requested a list of major projects from each department with the projected estimated cost,
the year it will be needed, beginning construction date, length of construction time and
estimated annual operating costs for five years after project completion.
As expected, more projects were submitted than there was money available in the second
five years. The County Administrator and Budget office reviewed the requests and have
recommended projects that were felt to be consistent with the original plan. During the
review process, a significant emphasis was placed on the projects' affect on the County's
operating budget. The net affect of projects recommended will result in a net operating cost
increase of only $517,375 over the next five years.
Attached is a list of the recommended projects for the Board of County Commissioners
review. A general overview will be presented at the January 25, 1994 Board meeting. Prior
to scheduling the public hearing, it is anticipated a more detailed explanation would be
presented and Board direction provided at a subsequent meeting or workshop.
Administrator chandler gave a brief overview of the proposed
sales tax program and suggested that we hold a separate workshop to
go over the details prior to scheduling a public hearing date.
Commissioner Macht suggested a 2 -phase public workshop prior
to the formal public hearing.
26
Discussion ensued,
and the consensus was
that the
Commissioners would bring their calendars to next week's regular
BCC meeting so that the workshop can be scheduled.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SELECTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 17, 1994:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. .
Public Works Director. -
SUBJECT: Professional Engineerincy Consultant Selection
1) 66th Avenue Paving and Drainage Improvements between
5th Street SW and 4th Street
2) 5th Street SW Paving and Drainage Improvements
between 20th Avenue and 27th Avenue
3) Gibson Street Paving and Drainage Improvements within
City of Sebastian
4) 49th Street (Lindsey Road) Paving and Drainage
Improvements west of Rings Highway (58th Avenue)
DATE: January 17, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND COMDITIONS
The Public Works Department has received proposals from civil engineering
consultants for professional services to design and/or permit the above
projects. The Public Works staff has reviewed the proposals and the
following ranking is suggested:
66th Avenue Paving and Drainage
1) Carter and Associates Inc. - Vero Beach
2) H.F. Lenz - Vero Beach
3) Knight and McQuire - Vero Beach
5th Street SW Paving and Drainage
1) H.F. Lenz - Vero Beach
2) Carter Associates, Inc. - Vero Beach
3) Mosby and Associates - Vero Beach
Knight, McQuire and Associates - Vero Beach
(tie for 3rd)
Gibson Street Paving and Drainage
1) Knight, McQuire and Associates - Vero Beach
2) Mosby and Associates - Vero Beach
Lindsey Road Drainage - Stormwater Permit
1)
2)
3)
Mosby and Associates - Vero Beach
H.F. Lenz - Vero Beach
Knight, McQuire and Associates - Vero Beach
27
JAN 25 1994 Boa 91 PnUE 593
JAN 25 1994 1
ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
n,q
BOOK 91 PACE 594
Approve the prioritized firm ranking for each project and authorize
staff to begin contract negotiations.
Alternative No. 2
Direct staff to revise rankings.
RECOWEENMTIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the staff ranking is approved
and contract negotiations authorized.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, to approve the prioritized firm
ranking for each project set forth in staff's
memorandum and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht noticed that the
different firms were top-ranked on each project, and he asked
whether staff did that intentionally. He wondered why only 2 firms
were listed on the Gibson Street Paving and Drainage project.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that only 2 firms
submitted proposals for that project. He indicated that staff
tries to rotate projects whenever possible, but in this particular
instance staff did not deliberately rotate the consultants. They
were rated on a point system to determine which consultant best
addressed the scope of work on each project.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
28
CRAZY WOMAN PROPERTIES (VICTOR KNIGHT) - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
PHASE IV
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 21, 1994:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Crazy Woman Properties (Victor Knight)
Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
DATE: January 21, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Construction of Indian River Boulevard through Crazy Woman Properties has
cut off irrigation to the grove belonging to Riverfront Groves on the
corner of 41st Street and Indian River Boulevard. Prices to restore
irrigation were sought from the following local irrigation companies:
Southern A.G. Irrigation, Inc.
Citrus Belt Irrigation
Irrigation and Supplies, Ltd.
Agricultural Services
United Irrigation
Ven Mar Irrigation
Out of Business
$7,333.07
Don't Install
$3,645.97
Residential and Commercial
Installations Only
Out of Business
It is critical that irrigation be restored to the grove as quickly.as
possible. Only two of the companies contacted install grove irrigation.
RECO14MEMATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the attached low bid from Agricultural Services in
the amount of $3,645.97 be approved.
Funding is from Account 309-215-541-066.51, Indian River Boulevard Phase
IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted
the bid from Agricultural Services in the amount of
$3,645.97, as recommended by staff.
29
BOOK 91 F-A"F :J5
r JAN 25 1994
BOOK 91 PAGE 5136
PEP REEF PROJECT - PARTIAL PAYMENT TO AMERICAN COASTAL ENGINEERING
INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 19, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: Don G. Donaldson, P.
Coastal Engineer E ,V�
SUBJECT: Partial Payment to American Coastal Engineering,
Inc. for the Compeltion of Task I and Partial
Completion of Task II Project
DATE: January 19, 1994 c=uss �aeooas2.a®
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
American Coastal Engineering, Inc. has completed the Design
Development report for the Vero Beach PEP Reef Project. This
report was submitted with a permit application to the Federal and
State regulator agencies on December 21, 1993. The report
completes the contract obligations for Task I and the permit
applications partially completes Task II. The County's contract
with Amercian Coastal Engineering, Inc. provides that 50% of Task
II will be paid upon filing of the permit application which amounta/
to $22,500. The remaining balance for Task I is $42,870.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize payment to American
Coastal Engineering in the amount of $65,370.
Funding to be from Tourist Tax Revenues.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
a partial payment to American Coastal Engineering in
the amount of $65,370, as recommended by staff.
MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN FS 298 DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHTS-OF-
WAY
Public Works Director Jim Davis commented from the following
memo dated January 19, 1994:
30
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: County's Responsibility to Perform Maintenance
Improvements within FS 298 Drainage District Right-
of-Ways
ight-
of-Ways
DATE: January 19, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
C:PIIS: DXUN.A=
Last November, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the
County's legal and moral responsibilities to perform maintenance
activities and/or assistance within FS 298 Drainage District Right -
of -Ways. Attached are comments from the County Attorney's office
and Community Development Director's office which indicate that the
County does not necessarily have specific responsibilities, but
county resources should be used "for county purposes". The county
has the power to expand the 1975 Interlocal Agreement in the
Fellsmere Water Control District to. add road
maintenance/ improvements and to enter into additional interlocal
agreements with other drainage districts for certain road related
matters. The fact exists that each of the five drainage districts
are unique and have different dedication language on the Plan of
Reclamation Plats. One uniform program for all five districts
would not be practical nor efficient.
RECOMMENDATION
For road improvement and maintenance funding, establishment of
MSTU's or MSBU's in addition to specific interlocal agreements with
drainage districts, would be advisable.
Commissioner Macht was opposed to using County equipment and
County personnel to maintain the rights-of-way within these
Drainage Districts, and the impression he got from the agenda
backup material was that the Planning Department and the County
Attorney's office recommended against the County entering into
maintenance agreements with the Drainage Districts.
Commissioner Adams explained that the FS 298 Drainage
Districts do not have authority to grade roads. Setting up an MSTU
or MSBU would give us a way to take care of some problems. For
example, we have an existing interlocal agreement dating back to
the 1970s with the Fellsmere Drainage District to grade the road,
but about 10 feet of it is on private property. Establishing an
MSTU or MSBU would enable us to get the property owners to donate
right-of-way and pay for the drainage.
Commissioner Tippin did not think it was fair to grade some
roads that are on private property and not others.
31
A 5 ���� 900K 9� F.�L;L59
Fr -
JAN 25 1994
800E 91 F"� -C 598
Administrator Chandler clarified that the only private roads
being graded are in the Fellsmere District. He explained that
Fellsmere is different from the other drainage districts because
there is residential property in that district that has had access
problems since the 1970s. We are also grading roads in the St.
Johns District, but there is no privately owned property in that
area, and the St. Johns District has been providing us with fill
dirt in exchange for maintenance services.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we continue to provide
maintenance services in exchange for fill dirt, but if we reach a
point where they no longer have anything to trade, we may want to
look at the MSTU or MSBU approach.
Lengthy discussion ensued, and Commissioner Adams acknowledged
that this would be a huge undertaking.
Director Davis indicated that staff is not recommending that
we take existing maintenance resources and move them into these
areas. If the level of services is increased in any of the
districts, the cost of purchasing equipment and hiring people would
be funded by an MSTU or MSBU and would not have an adverse impact
on our current budget.
Administrator Chandler emphasized that staff is not
recommending that we immediately assume responsibility for
maintenance of roads within any of the districts, but rather that
we should only get involved through an MSTU or MSBU.
Commissioner Macht felt that we were getting into a big snake
pit by doing this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Macht voting in
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote agreed that,
if the County elects to perform any maintenance
services within the FS 298 drainage districts, an
interlocal agreement should be reached with that
particular district, funded by establishment of a
separate MSTU or MSBU so that revenue would be from
the area where the services are provided, as
recommended by staff.
SEBASTIAN UTILITIES RATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 13, 1994:
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI VICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASH
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN UTILITIES RATES
Indian River County acquired the utility services serving the River Run and
Reflections developments through franchise agreements. The County provides
wastewater treatment for the two developments with its North County
Regional Wastewater Plant located on Hobart Road. Water service for the
two developments was previously supplied by General Development Utilities,
until the recent purchase of GDU by the City of Sebastian.
ANALYSIS
Water service is provided to the two developments with a 6" master meter
for each development. These meters are located on the west side of US 1.
Service previously provided by GDU for each development was billed under
the GDU tariff for a 6" meter plus a volume charge.
The City of Sebastian advises that the County will be billed under the
residential and multifamily service rate rather than general service rate
for a 6" meter. County purchased water costs for water service to the two
developments will increase by $27,258.00 (70% increase). In addition, an
automatic annual increase equal to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a
minimum of 3% per year will occur beginning October 1, 1994 through and
including October 1, 1997. This would equal another minimum increase of
12% over the next 4 years.
The County has authorized design for construction of the water line from CR
510/US 1 intersection, North on US 1 to the southern city limits of
Sebastian. The schedule for completion of this project has been set for
October 1, 1994.
•• RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends no further
action in this matter considering the fact that the County will provide
service to these two developments upon completion of the North US 1
facilities.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously agreed to
take no further action in this matter considering
the fact that the County will provide service to
these two developments upon completion of the North
U.S. #1 facilities, as recommended by staff.
33
®oox 91 rmu 5`9
BOOK 9�. F�i-,F 60 ,
INDIAN RIVER FARMS R/W LEASE AGREEMENT RENEWAL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 13, 1994:
DATE: January 13, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY' S S
PREPARED WILLIAM F N
AND STAFFED CAPIT S ENGI
BY: DEP ENT UT Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN FARMS R/W LEASE AGREEMENT RENEWAL
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
As a result of County Utilities installations within Indian River
Farm's Right -of -Way, the County must sign a lease and agreement on
an annual basis. (See Attached Indian River Farm's Lease
Agreements).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends
execution of the attached lease agreements as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously agreed to
renew the lease agreement with Indian River Farms,
as recommended by staff.
PERMIT AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION WATER SERVICE - 10TH COURT. S.W. (SOUTH OF 9TH STREET,
S.W./OSLO ROAD)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 13, 1994:
34
� - r
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1994.
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER -
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS*UTLITY
T PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE - 10TH COURT, SW
(SOUTH OF 9TH STREET, SW/OSLO ROAD)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -29 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service for 10th
Court, SW, 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).
ANALYSIS
This nonplatted street contains 19 lots with 12 existing homes.
There are 10 owners (83% of the 12 homeowners) who have signed
requesting County water. Nine have signed the attached petition and
agreement to be included in a special assessment; there is also an
agreement for temporary service. - A tenth owner has prepaid the
water impact fee in anticipation of future construction and water
service. The lots sizes in this project average .43 acres±, 15 or
79% being substandard or undersized. 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 project cost and amount to be assessed is
$35,845.79. The cost per square foot is $0.09870278024.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
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 Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-22, providing for water main extension
to 10th Court, S.W./Oslo Road); and Resolution 94-
23, setting a time and place of public hearing, as
recommended by staff.
35
9 BOOK 91 P,,fF 601
� 51994
r JAN 25 19,94 BOOK 91 �e IJ 62
RESOLUTION NO. 94-_22_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO 10TH COURT, SW
(SOUTH OF 9TH STREET, SW/OSLO ROAD); PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESS-
MENTS, 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 cost thereof by special assessments against certain properties to be
serviced by a water main extension to 10th Court, SW (south of 9th
Street, SW/Oslo Road) hereinafter referred to as Project No.
UW -93 -29 -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 19 lots, 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
improvements is shown to be $35,845.79 or $0.09870278024 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.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.09870278024 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.
4. 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.
36
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.
5. 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 assessment 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 Adams ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 25 day of January, 1994.
st:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
. 14� r'� 1`-
Y
JAN 25 19911
37
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By (��/•
L7 John W. i in
Chairman
BOOK 91 F6J3
JAN 25 1994
BOOK
RESOLUTION NO. 94-23
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF 10TH
COURT, SW (SOUTH OF 9TH STREET, SW/OSLO ROAD) AND
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE BEARD 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.
91 u. 13E 604
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has, by Resolution No. 94-22 , 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 19 lots hereinafter
described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.09870278024 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, February 22, 1994, at which time the owners of the
properties to be assessed and any other interested persons may
38
_I
M M M
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 assessment 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 Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 25 day of January, 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By � r
ohn W. Tipp n
Jeffrey K. a,;rrton, le k' 4 Chairman
. r /
e
39
JAN 25 1994
BOOK 99. �r 6' 5
r JAN
25 1994
BOOK 91 F�,'F6.)6
WATER EXPANSION PLAN, PHASE II, CONTRACT B, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND
FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 10, 1994:
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERPKNCE G. PINT
DI 'UTIL OSERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: D. "DUK " OSTER, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER EXPANSION PLAN, PHASE II, CONTRACT B
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -14 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND:
On October 27, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the subject Phase II in the amount of
$1,893,429.35. On March 23, 1993, Contract "B", which was estimated
to cost $433,297.78, was awarded to Speegle Construction in the
amount of $307,000.00. The contractor has submitted his request for
final payment, along with Change Order No. 1.
ANALYSIS:
All Indian River County requirements have been met, and Department
of Environmental Protection clearance has been received.
The original contract price was $307,000.00; the final contract
price, including Change Order No. 1, is $328,453.09. This increase
of $21,453.09 was due to the addition of gate valves and boxes,
additional restoration, three additional jack and bores of 43rd
Avenue,'and additional tapping saddles (see attached change order).
The contractor has previously billed $270,485.73, leaving a balance
of $57,967.36.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Change Order No. 1 and approval of the final pay request in the
amount of $57,967.36 as payment in full for services rendered.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve Change Order No. 1 and
final payment to Speegle Construction in the amount
of $57,967.36, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht asked the reason for such
a large change order.
40
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained that the
additional cost was the result of decisions, made in the field. He
indicated that additional details would be provided to Commissioner
Macht.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CENTRAL REGION EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 14, 1994:
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: •TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL TY ERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
�W
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CENTRAL REGION EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY NO. US -90 -23 -ED
On May 4, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the contract
to Speegle Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,713,000.00 to
construct the above -referenced project. (See attached agenda item.)
The construction has progressed in a timely manner.
ANALYSIS
In the early construction, the contractor found trash on the project
site covered by dirt and vegetation. The trash consists of white
goods, golf carts, bulky concrete, pipe and other various types of
objects. This trash has exceeded the amount of unsuitable material to
be disposed of off-site. The inorganic/metal trash was hauled
off-site which left us with a high organic -mixed dirt mound that needs
to be disposed of. The excess, unsuitable material exceeded 25,000
cubic yards. Per our contract with Speegle Construction, Inc., this
would have cost the County $200,000.00. ($8.00 per cubic yard).
In the same period, due to security purposes and other reasons, the
Bent Pine Homeowners Association requested an enclosure to be built
along Storm Grove Road. Construction of the earth berm was reviewed
as an option for disposal of the material. The option was negotiated
with the contractor at $40,000.00. The leftover material is to be
disposed of, off-site, at no cost to the County. Along with this
41
BOOK, 91FAGE 6aJ�
,JAN 25 1994 J
r JAN 25 1994
BOOK 91 DGE 608
item, several items are listed in Change Order No. 1. The net value
of Change Order No. 1 is $5,094.11. It adjusts the contract price to
$1,718,094.11. The time increase resulting from this change order is
60 days for a substantial completion. This change order shall be paid
from the 1993 utility bond fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
approval of Change Order No. 1, to the contract with Speegle
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $5,094.11.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 with Speegle Construction, Inc.,
in the amount of $5,094.11, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT - OSLO ROAD EAST SEWER FORCE MAIN -FLORIDA
EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (FEC)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 14, 1994:
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAMPNAND STAFFED CAPIT ENG RBY: DEPAR Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: OSLO ROADEWER FORCE MAIN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJEt"T NO. IIS -90 -19 -CS
FEC RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMEN'P
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On June 9, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the design and construction of a sewer force
main in a cooperative venture with a public works road renovation on
Oslo Road east. The force main will run from Lateral J east to the
existing force main on the east side of US 1. As part of this
construction, a jack and bore must be made under the FEC
right-of-way. In order to permit this part of the project, a
right-of-way agreement must be entered into with the FEC (see
attached).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached FEC agreement as presented.
W
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve the right-of-way
agreement with the Florida East Coast Railway
Company (FEC), as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht questioned the validity
of the clause in the contract stating that the FEC is not liable
for anything their people do, intentionally or unintentionally.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the standard FEC agreement has
been used for 80 years, and if we try to change one word they will
refuse to give us the permit. Officials in cities and counties all
sign the standard agreement and are waiting for a case to come up
in Court.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
LICENSE AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NORTH ROSELAND ROAD FORCE MAIN - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 AND FINAL PAY
REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 11, 1994:
DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT R
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF U RLI VICES
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
WILLIAM F.
CAPITAL PF
OF
NORTH ROSELAND ROAD F
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY P
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND
SERVICES
MAIN
T NO. IIS -92 -34 -CS
GE ORDER
On August 10, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Treasure Coast Contracting in
the amount of $151,815.10 for the above -referenced project. We are
now ready to make final payment to the contractor for this project
as it is complete and cleared for service. Two change orders
previously had been approved on this contract for the connection of
the New Horizons Mobile Home Park; even though we are making final
payment on Roseland Road, the New Horizons portion will remain open
until completion.
43
BOOK , 91 FAGS613
�� 25 1994
JAN 25 I-q9A BON 91 rA-F
ANALYSIS
The final amount of the North Roseland Road force main contract is
$138,715.72. This equates to a contract reduction of $13,099.38.
This reduction is primarily due to changes in design, which resulted
in a corresponding quantity reduction. (See attached final pay
request and Change Order No. 3.)
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 3 and the
final pay request as submitted for the North Roseland Road project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 3 reducing the contract price by
$13,099.38, and final payment to Treasure Coast
Contracting in the amount of $18,444.07, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL SLEEVE INSTALLATION ON INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE III
The Board reviewed the following memo dated January 3, 1994:
DATE: JANUARY 3, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA'
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI II ERVICES
PREPARED WI MCCAIN
AND STAFFED IT ROJECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR iE OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL SLEEVE INSTALLATION ON INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD, PHASE III
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
As a result of the new paving of several contracts on Indian River
Boulevard, the Utilities Department .desires to install steel casings
for future utility work on the Boulevard as required by the Utility
Master Plan. The cost of having this work done by the Public Works
contractor, Dickerson, is in the amount of $10,440.00. This is for
the installation of 24 -inch steel casing pipes at both 41st and 45th
Streets. We recommend these be installed at this time as future
jack and bores at these intersections would be considerably more
expensive. A change order for this work will be coming to the Board
from Public Works; therefore, at this time, we are merely requesting
authorization to transfer these funds from the Utilities impact fee
fund to the Public Works contract account.
44
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommend the Board
of County Commissioners approve the outlined action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
the transfer of funds from the Utilities impact fee
fund to the Public Works contract account, as set
out in staff's memorandum.
NEW ETHICS ORDINANCE
County Attorney Charles Vitunac commented from the following
memo and attachment dated January 21, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 21, 1994
RE: New Ethics ordinance (3rd revision)
On January 18, 1994, Commissioner Macht presented a draft ethics
ordinance and asked that the item be placed on the January 25 agenda for
discussion. The attached version is revision no. 3 and replaces the
versions of January 18 and 19.
This matter is presented for consideration by the Board and if the Board
so desires the ordinance can be scheduled for a public hearing in the
immediate future.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Section 104.05. Code of Ethics and Conduct.
(1) This Code of Ethics is in addition to the requirements of Chapter
112, Florida Statutes. Where there is a conflict between Chapter 112,
F.S. and this code the more stringent requirement shall apply.
(2) This code shall apply to county commissioners and county officers.
The term "person" includes commissioners and county officers. Written
requests for interpretative rulings concerning the applicability of this
code may be submitted to the county attorney for written reply.
45
W=
BOOK91 FA,F.611
F'
JAN 251994
BOOK 91 FADE 612
(3) Information concerning any incident or situation in which it
appears that a county officer or county commissioner may have engaged
in conduct contrary to this code should be forwarded by complaint
affidavit to the state attorney for the Nineteenth Judicial District for
his investigation and appropriate action.
(4) A person shall avoid any action, whether or not specifically
prohibited by this section, which might result in:
(a) using public office for private gain;
(b) giving preferential treatment to any person;
(c) making a government decision outside official channels; or
(d) affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the government by losing complete independence
or impartiality.
(5) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a
person shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of monetary
value, from anyone who:
(1) has, or is seeking to obtain, contractual or other business or
financial relations with the county;
(2) conducts operation or activities that are regulated by the
county; or
(3) has interests that may be substantially affected by the
performance or nonperformance of the person's official duty; or
(4) is in any way attempting to affect the person's official actions
at the county.
(5) is offering anything of monetary value, including food and
refreshments, to an employee because of the person's official
position.
(b) The prohibitions enumerated in paragraph (a) of this section do
not apply in the situations enumerated below:
(1) Where obvious family (such as those between the parents,
children, or spouse of the person) or other personal
relationships make it clear that it is those relationships rather
than the business of the persons concerned which are the
motivating factors.
(2) Food and refreshments, not lavish in kind, may be accepted
when (i) offered free in the course of a meeting or other
group function not connected with an inspection or
investigation, at which attendance is desirable because it will
assist the person in performing his or her official duties; or
(ii) provided to all panelists or speakers when a person is
participating as a panelist or speaker in a program, seminar
or educational conference. .
(3) Loans may be obtained from banks or other financial
institutions on customary terms to finance proper and usual
activities of persons such as home mortgage loans.
(4) Unsolicited- advertising or promotional material such as pens,
pencils, note pads, calendars and other- items of nominal
intrinsic value may be accepted, as well as job related
literature.
_ M M
(5) Gifts given for participation in a program, seminar or educa-
tional conference may be accepted only when such gifts are
(1) of nominal intrinsic value (ii) .in the nature of a remem-
brance traditional to the particular sponsoring entity; (iii)
provided to all participants in the program.
(6) Contributions or expenditures reported pursuant to Chapter
106, F.S., campaign -related personal services provided
without compensation by individuals volunteering their time,
or any other contribution or expenditure by a political party.
(c) A person shall not solicit a contribution from another person for a
gift to an official superior, make a donation as a gift to an official
superior, or accept a gift from a person receiving less pay than him-
self. However, this paragraph does not prohibit a voluntary gift of
nominal value or donation in a nominal amount made on a special
occasion such as marriage, illness, or retirement.
(6) No county officer may engage in outside employment or other
outside activity, with or without compensation, which is in conflict with
or otherwise not compatible with the full and proper discharge of his
duties and responsibilities to Indian River County. Incompatible
activities include but are not limited to:
(1) acceptance of a fee, compensation, gift, payment of expenses,
or any other thing of monetary value in circumstances in which
acceptance may result in a conflict of interest situation; or
(2) outside employment which tends to impair his mental or
physical capacity to perform his duties and responsibilities in an
acceptable manner; or
(3) outside employment or activities ,(excluding the publication of
articles) which reasonably might be regarded as official actions of
the county or which might bring discredit upon the county.
(7) Under Chapter 112, F.S., the word "gift" is defined to exclude
"Food or beverage consumed at a single sitting or event". Pursuant to
Section 112.326, F.S., it. is the purpose of this code to require more
stringent county disclosure requirements than provided for in Chapter
112, F. S. Therefore, and notwithstanding any other section or
personnel manual to the contrary, county commissioners, county officers
and department heads may accept food or beverage consumed at a single
sitting or event only if within five (5) working days of the acceptance,
the donee files a written disclosure statement with the executive aide to
the commission on a form provided by said aide.
Attorney Vitunac distributed copies of the current State Guide
to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics- HP nallf i n"'MA *lke
Board that the State has set the qualifications for Commissioners.
The Board has the right to impose restrictions on staff, but it
might be out of the range of the County's authority to enact an
Ethics Ordinance that impinges on the right of any of the
Commissioners to do business or be Commissioners.
Commissioner Bird wondered whether some of the prohibitions in
the draft ordinance are duplications of the State Code of Ethics.
He thought it would make sense to follow the guidelines and
regulations in the State Code of Ethics, and then if the Board
47
JAN 25 199soar .1013
L
JAN 25 1994
Bou 91 PA,F 614 �
determines that a particular section in the State guide should be
strengthened or modified, to do so in the ordinance by reference.
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien advised that the draft
ordinance is modeled after the Federal Aviation Administration
regulations. He indicated that it would not be a problem to re-
draft the ordinance with Chapter 112 of the State Guide
incorporated in it.
Discussion ensued about several items in the draft ordinance,
and the consensus of the Board was that all the Commissioners would
reread the Florida Guide and the draft ordinance and consider
adoption of the ordinance at a future meeting.
FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL (FHP) RESOLUTION
This item was deferred for one week.
COMPLETION. ACCEPTANCE AND COMMISSIONING OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE
General Services Director Sonny Dean announced that the new
Courthouse should be ready for occupancy by August 15, 1994.
Commissioner Macht suggested that we consider delaying the
move until the beginning of the new fiscal year to give us time to
do the necessary testing to make sure there are no air quality
problems.
OMB Director Joe Baird reported that another advantage to
waiting until the beginning of the new fiscal year is that we can
save an estimated $100,000 in operating expenses.
Commissioner Bird realized that everybody is anxious to move
into the new Courthouse, but he agreed that it would be better to
postpone the move until we know the building is safe for occupancy.
Commissioner Eggert asked whether the trial schedules will
need to be adjusted if we postpone the move.
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk of the Circuit Court, responded that
most scheduling is done about 3 months in advance and is changed
from week to week depending on the cases that are settled or
postponed. The major problem is the State Supreme Court and the
19th Circuit have come out with rules effective January 1, 1994,
that require several divisions to be combined into one division,
known as "Family Court."
The purpose of this is to enable the Court system to
coordinate cases so that one judge can hear everything involving a
particular family. He stressed that it presently is an operational
nightmare to coordinate the cases, because the divisions that must
be combined are spread all over the old Courthouse. For that
reason, Clerk Barton wanted to move into the new Courthouse as
quickly as possible.
48
- M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to
postpone the official opening of the new Courthouse
until October 1, 1994._
Commissioner Macht then -asked the Board's permission for the
Courthouse Advisory Committee to set up a subcommittee to
coordinate the opening ceremony.
The consensus of the Board was that the subcommittee should
include a representative of each of the constitutional officers
that will be occupying the building, a representative from the
State Attorney's office, a representative of the judges,
Commissioner Macht, and other appropriate persons as determined by
the Courthouse Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we schedule a day prior to
the official opening for the public to be given a tour of the
building.
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.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:16 p.m.
ATTEST:
J. arton, Clerk John W. Tippin, Chairman
49
JA N 5 X 994 BOOK 91 F-,� r 615