HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/8/1994MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1994
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (Dist. 4)
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 3 )
Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
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. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
7.N. Approval of Bond for hospital trustee
Heidi Gorsuch, M.D.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of February 8, 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 8 Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: Facilities Report updates for
Delta Farms, Sebastian River, Indian River
Farms, Fellsmere, and Vero Lakes Water Con-
trol Districts
B. Proclamation Designating March 13-19, 1994 as
Employ the Older Worker Week in I . R . C . , Fla.
C. Occupational License Taxes Collected During
Month of February, 1994
( memorandum dated March 2, 1994 )
D. Final Plat Approval for Rosewood Court S/D
(memorandum dated February 22, 1994)
LMAR 81994
MAR 8 1994
BOOK, 91 `AGE 900-7
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
E.
IAQ Cleaning, Bid #4048
(memorandum dated February
15,
1994)
F.
Reject Bid #4048 / Child Safety Seats
(memorandum dated February
28,
1994)
G.
Award Bid #4057 / Sandridge
Above Ground Tank
Removal
( memorandum dated February
23,
1994) _
H.
County Real Property / 43rd
St.
E 33rd Ave. in
Gifford - Surplus Sale
( memorandum dated February
25;
1994 )
I.
County Real Property - Westlake
Estates - Surplus Sale
(memorandum dated February
25,
1994)
J.
Misc. Budget Amendment #011
( memorandum dated March 1,
1994 )
K. Partial Satisfaction of Mortgage
(memorandum dated February 23, 1994)
L. County Tax Deed Applications
(memorandum dated February 25, 1994)
M. Litter Grant
(memorandum dated February 25, 1994)
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
• • None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of the Draft Indian River
County Affordable Housing Incentive Plan
( memorandum dated February 25, 1994 )
2. Geo. G. Collins, Jr., Trustee, Request to
Rezone Approx. 1.7 Acres from RM -10 to PRO
( memorandum dated March 1, 1994 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Base Grant Agreement From the
Emergency Management, Preparedness and
Assistance Trust Fund Contract Number
94 -EO -4M-10-40-01-031
( memorandum dated February 15, 1994 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Amendment No. 3 to Work Order No. 2 /
Oslo Rd. / Old Dixie Highway Improvements
( memorandum dated March 1, 1994 )
2. Execution of Traffic Control Device -
Construction Contract
( memorandum dated February 28, 1994 )
H. UTILITIES
1. Resolution to Reimburse Expenditures from
Future Tax Exempt Borrowings - Phase IV
(memorandum dated February 24, 1994)
2. Resolution to Reimburse Expenditures from
Future Tax Exempt Borrowings - Phase V
( memorandum dated February 24, 1994 )
3. Resolution to Reimburse Expenditures from
Future Tax Exempt Borrowings - Phase VI
( memorandum dated February 24, 1994 )
4. Sludge/Septage Facility Truck Scales
( memorandum dated February 24, 1994 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Jane A. Graves, and Others, vs State of Florida,
and Others
(memorandum dated February 24, 1994)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
Selection of Occupational License Equity Study
Commission Members
(postponed from BCC Meeting of 3/1/94)
BOOK E Pol-
L_MAR 8
1994
BOOK 91 PAGE
902
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
E. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 2/15/94
2. Extension of Contract with Universal
Waste 6 Transit, Inc.
( memorandum dated February 10, 1994 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE -OF
MEETING.
Tuesday, March 8, 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, March 8, 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.
Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA[EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Tippin requested the addition as Item N. on the
Consent Agenda, approval of bond for Heidi Gorsuch, M.D., who
replaced Paul Graham, M.D., as a trustee of Indian River Memorial
Hospital.
Chairman Tippin asked that Item 12 be discussed immediately
after the second public hearing, because a number of people were
present regarding that agenda item and he wanted to avoid the
necessity of their having to wait until the end of the meeting to
have that discussion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added Item
N to the Consent Agenda and agreed to discuss Item
12 immediately following the second public hearing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 1994. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 1994, as
written.
BOOK 9.1PACE �03
�R � 199
-7
MAR 81994 BOOK 91 u" . 904
CONSENT AGENDA
Administrator Chandler requested the removal of Item H. for
discussion.
A. Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board:
Facilities Report Updates for Delta Farms, Sebastian River,
Indian River Farms, Fellsmere, and Vero Lakes Water Control
Districts.
B. Proclamations
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted the
following Proclamation:
P R O C L A M A T I O N
DESIGNATING MARCH 13-19, 1994
AS EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEER
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, All Older Citizens deserve to have the opportunity
to work if they so desire; and
WHEREAS, All Older Citizens are entitled to remain in the
workplace and to be a contributing factor in mainstream America's
development along with other age'groups; and
WHEREAS, Green Thumb, Inc., the oldest Senior Community
Service Employment Program and AARP/SCSF,P are pledged to the
goals of training and job acquisition of Older Citizens; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has designated the week of
March 13-19, 1994 to encourage increased community involvement,
to focus attention on senior job seekers' concerns: '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
March 13-19, 1994 be designated as
"EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEEK"
in Indian River County, and the Board urges the citizens of this
County to take part in observances and activities designed to
advance the cause of "Work for All" in the nationwide efforts of
attaining a healthy work force.
Adopted this 8 day of March, 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHN W. TfIFP HAIRMAN
2
C. Occupational License Taxes Collected During Month of February,
1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the following report from Tax Collector Karl
Zimmermann summarizing Occupational License Taxes
collected during the month of February 1994:
I.ICXL(1).7:r;n 1),
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: March 2, 1994
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $4,651.57 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of February, representing the issuance of 216
licenses. We have begun our annual field audit and will report the
results when completed.
3
p
Bou pm -)E905
r MAR 8 1994 BOOK
D. Final Plat Approval for Rosewood Court S/D
91 FACE 906 -7
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 22, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVVWON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
i1VYGi V a -a. i�GO iriiiy ,
Community Devglopa
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP��
Senior Planner, Current tevelopment
DATE: February 22, 1994
SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval for Rosewood Court Subdivision
SD -91-11-14
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 8, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Rosewood Court Subdivision is a 37 lot subdivision of a 27 acre
parcel of land located in the 5300 block of 16th Street, between
16th Street and the Main Relief Canal. The subject property is
zoned RS -2, Single Family Residential (up to 2 units per acre) and
has a land use designation of L-1, Low Density Residential (up to
3 units per acre). The density for the subdivision is 1.37 units
per acre.
On November 14, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted*
preliminary plat approval for the Rosewood Court Subdivision. The
developer, Rosewood Court Development Corp., subsequently obtained
a land development permit and has completed construction of the
subdivision improvements. The developer is now requesting final
plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat.
2. A certificate of completion for required subdivision
improvements.
3. An executed transfer of responsibility agreement and financial
security to guarantee future construction of a sidewalk along
the project's 16th Street frontage.
4. An Engineers Certified Cost estimate for sidewalk construction
costs and for warranty maintenance obligations related to the
right turn lane constructed at the project's 16th Street
entrance.
4
5. A warranty and maintenance agreement and financial security
for the publicly dedicated improvements.
6. A consent and joinder to be executed by the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to subordinate utility liens
presently in place on a portion of the subdivision.
ANALYSIS:
All required subdivision improvements have been completed by the
developer, with the exception of a sidewalk along the project's
16th Street frontage, and the developer has obtained a certificate
of completion certifying that all required improvements, except the
sidewalk, have been completed and are acceptable. The project
subdivision- improvements are privately dedicated, with the
exception of -a right -turn lane built in the 16th Street right-of-
way, the utility system (which has been properly warranted through
the County Department of Utility Services), and the to -be -built
16th Street sidewalk. The public works department has reviewed and
approved the engineer's certified cost estimate for the sidewalk
along 16th Street and the publically dedicated right turn lane.
The obligation for the sidewalk construction will be transferred
from the developer to the county through a transfer agreement and
financial security approved by the Public Works Director and the
County Attorney's Office.
The developer has executed a warranty maintenance agreement backed
by 25% of the cost of construction of the right -turn lane. The
Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the sidewalk transfer
agreement and the Warranty and Maintenance Agreement. Therefore,
the developer has complied with all applicable requirements for
final plat approval.
Indian River County has a lien (for water and sewer) against a
portion of the property being platted as Rosewood Court
Subdivision. A consent and joinder has been prepared by the County
Attorney's Office for Board approval, so that our lien will be
subordinate to the dedication. The Director of the Department of
Utility Services has signed -off on the consent and joinder, the
Board will need to authorize the chairman to execute the consent
and joinder on the County's behalf.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for Rosewood Court, accept the Warranty and
Maintenance Agreement and corresponding posted security, and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Consent and Joinder.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for Rosewood Court, accepted the
Warranty and Maintenance Agreement, and authorized
the Chairman to execute the Consent and Joinder, as
recommended by staff.
COPY OF WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
5
A
8 1994 BOOK
MAR 8 1994 80 ox 91 FACE 908
E. INDOOR AIR QUALITY CLEANING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 15, 1994:
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
THRU:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THRU:
H.T. "Sonny" Dean,
Director of GeneralSe vices
FROM:
Lynn Williams, Superintende
Buildings and Grounds
DATE:
February 15, 1994
SUBJECT:
IAQ Cleaning, Bid 04048
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
At the Board of County Commission meeting of January 25, 1994
the referenced bid was awarded to Servpro of Indian River County.
During negotiations of the contract documents, Servpro expressed
reservations as to the wording in the Agreement. Clarifications of
the scope of work was added (after consultation with Clayton
Environmental). Servpro notified by letter on February 11, 1994
that they were "re-tracting their bid".
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff contacted C1eanNet U.S.A. our current custodial
contractor and second low bidder. C1eanNet has agreed to execute
the Agreement (letter attached). A total of twenty thousand, six
hundred seventy one (20,671) square feet will be cleaned. This
will include the County Attorney's Area.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends that the award ($5,994.59) to Servpro be
canceled. Staff also recommends that Bid #4048 be awarded to
C1eanNet U.S.A. in the amount of six thousand four hundred eight
dollars and one cent.(6,408.01).
Funding is recommended from Board Contingencies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to
cancel the award of Building and Grounds Bid #4048
to Servpro, and awarded said bid to C1eanNet U.S.A.
in the total amount of $6,408.01, as recommended by
staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. Child Safety Seats - Emergency Services
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 28, 1994:
DATE: February 28, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
H. T. "Sonny" Dean,
Directo
Department of General Servic s
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Reject Bid #4048/Child Safety Seats
Emergency Services
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
February 9, 1994
Advertising Dates:
Jan 26, Feb 2, 1994
Specifications Mailed to:
Seven (7) Vendors
Replies:
One (1) Vendor
Two (2) No Bids
VENDOR
TABULATION SHEET
Shinn & Associates
$ 42.58 (Each Chair)
Okemos, MI
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 114-253-526-035.29 - Florida Department
of Transportation Grant - $39,000.00
BUDGETED FUNDS: $39,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the sole bid be rejected. An
equivalent model of car seat is available from the Santa
Rosa School Board bid. The bid price of $36.70 each is
extended to Indian River County. ft
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously rejected
the sole bid from Shinn & Associates, and authorized
the award of Emergency Services Bid #4048 to the
Santa Rosa School Board in the amount of $36.70 per
seat, as recommended by staff.
G. Sandridge Golf Course - Above -Ground Tank Removal
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 23, 1994:
7
BEAR 81994 BOOK 91 N$F D
DATE: February 23, 1994
sooK 91 FaU 910
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admimistrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Direco
General Services )
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager �„y�j"
SUBJ: Award Bid #4057/Sandridge Above Ground Tank
Removal
Public Works Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
Brevard Oil Equipment Inc
Melbourne, FL
Florida Petroleum Services
Apopka, FL
Wilson's Petroleum Equipment
Fort Pierce, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
February 4, 1994
January 21, 28, 1994
Twenty Four (24•) Vendors
Three (3) Bids
BID TOTAL
$ 6,250.00
$ 8,690.00
$11,700.00
$ 6,250.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Golf Course Operations Other Buildings
Account - 418-221-572-066.29.
ESTIMATED BUDGET $ 5,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Brevard oil
Equipment Inc as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in
the Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#4057 to Brevard Oil Equipment in the amount of
$6,250.00, as recommended by staff.
H. County -Owned Real Property - 43rd Street and 33rd Avenue in
Gifford - Surplus Sale
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 25, 1994:
8
DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1994
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,,��,D
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTORSdIi"1
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: COUNTY REAL PROPERTY- SURPLUS SALE
43RD STREET & 33RD AVENUE IN GIFFORD
BACKGROUND:
A County area Church has made an inquiry requesting to purchase a
County owned lot on 43rd Street and 33rd Avenue, Gifford. Florida
State Statues 125.35 provides for the sale of surplus public property
by sealed bids after proper advertisement.
ANALYSIS:
A survey of all County Departments was made to ascertain whether or
not this property could be used in the future for their individual
operations. All responses indicated the land was of no value within
their responsibility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the fact the County has no need for this property staff
recommends it be declared surplus. It is also requested that
t authorization be granted to proceed with sale to the public in
accordance with state statues.
Administrator Chandler explained that the County has no need
for the subject property, which is a vacant 88 x 60 foot lot, and
this lot may be suitable for development of affordable housing.
Staff recommends that we declare the lot surplus, contact the non-
profit agencies to see if they are interested in purchasing it for
affordable housing; and if the non-profit agencies are not
interested, advertise it for sale.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously agreed to
declare as surplus the County -owned lot on 43rd
Street and 33rd Avenue in Gifford, contact area non-
profit agencies to find out whether they are
interested in purchasing it for affordable housing;
and if the non-profit agencies are not interested in
the property, to advertise it for sale, as
recommended by staff.
9'
D�A� 1994 BOOK 91 UGF 911
Z
-7 BOOK 91 PAG- 912
I. County Real Property - Westlake Estates - Surplus Sale
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 25, 1994:
DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1994
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
SUBJECT: COUNTY REAL PROPERTY - WESTLAKE ESTATES - SURPLUS SALE
BACKGROUND:
Two realtors in the County area have made a request to purchase a
County owned 156' x 293' lot located in Westlake Estates. Florida
State Statues 125.35 provides for the sale of surplus public property
by sealed bids after proper advertisement.
ANALYSIS:
A survey of all County Departments was made to ascertain whether or
not this property could be used in the future for their individual
operations. Public Works Department indicated the County needs to
retain 55' on the east side of the property. The remainder of land
is buildable. All other responses indicated the land was of no value
within their responsibility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the fact the County has no need for this property, (less
55'east side), staff recommends the rest be declared surplus. It is
also requested that authorization be granted to proceed with sale to
the public in accordance with state statues.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously declared
the subject property surplus and authorized staff to
proceed with sale to the public in accordance with
Florida Statutes, as recommended by staff.
J. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 011
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 1, 1994:
10
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 1, 1994
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 011
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. At their meeting on February 15, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners
approved to purchase 35 used voting booths at a total cost of $7,100. This entry
will allocate the funding.
2. On October 19, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved to
appropriate monies to complete the construction of the 43rd Ave. Bridge. The
fund number was incorrect. This entry will correct budget amendment 002, item
number 5.
3. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners entered into an inter -local
agreement on April 12, 1993 establishing the Vero Beach (Indian River County) .
Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO). On April 23, 1993, the MPO
entered into a joint participation agreement authorizing the receipt of its
proportionate share of Federal Section 112 (PL) funds to be expended on the
Unified Planning Work Program. This entry establishes the fiscal year 1993/94
MPO budget.
4. The Board of County Commissioners approved the purchase of a generator at
their August 10, 1993 meeting. It was received in fiscal year 1993/94 at a cost
of $18,574. This entry allocates the funding.
5. The Main Library has received donations totaling $6,680. Additionally, the state
aid grant was $9,808 over what was anticipated. This entry allocates the funding.
6. At the April 6, 1993 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, Ordinance
93-13 was passed pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP)
Program. This entry establishes the fiscal year 1993/94 SHIP Program budget.
7. The charges for tax deed applications are being paid from the Board of County
Commissioners Other Professional Service account which has created the account
to be "over budget". This will correct the over budget and allow for additional
charges. The Board of County Commissioners approved the payment of Surety
Bonds which were not budgeted for in this fiscal year. This entry adjusts the
funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment number 011.
11
MAR 199 Boot 91 Fa�F9.1
0
-7 MAP I qq Boox91 UGF 914
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment No. 011:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: JosephA. !tx
OMB Dire
BUDGET AMENDMENT. 011
DATE: March 1. 1994
12
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$7,100
Supervisor of Elections
001-700-586-099.11
$7,100
$0
2.
REVENUE
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Cash Forward
111-000-389-040.00
$0
$400,000
EXPENSE
TRANSPORTATION FUND/R & B
Roads and Bridges
111-214-541-066.31
$0
$400,000
REVENUE
ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES
Cash Forward
101-000-389-040.00
$400,000
$0
EXPENSE
ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES
43rd Ave. Main Canal
101-158-541-067.60
$400,000
$0
3.
REVENUE
METROPOLITAN PLAN. ORG.
State MPO PL Funds
124-000-334-044.00
$240,504
$0
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
1244000-369-090.00
$31,063
$0
EXPENSE
METROPOLITAN PLAN. ORG.
Inter -departmental Charge
124-204-515-036.99
$129,567
$0
Other Contractual Services
124-204-515-033.49
$127,000
$0
All Travel
124-204-515-034.02
$3,200
$0
All Office Supplies
124-204-515-035.11
$1,900
$0
Tuition/Registration
124-204-515-035.43
$900
$0
EDP Equipment
124-204-515-066.47
$5,000
$0
Other Machinery and Equipment
124-204515-066.49
$4,000
$0
12
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
4.
REVENUE
911 SURCHARGE
Cash Forward
120-000-389-040.00'
$18,574
$0
EXPENSE
911 SURCHARGE
Other Machinery & Equipment
120-133-519-066.49
$18,574
$0
5.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Donations -Main library
001-000-366-095.00
$4,450
$0
Donations -Books -Main Library
001-000-366-103.00
$2,230
$0
State Aid Library Grant
001-000-334-710.00
$9,808
$0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Main Library
Books
001-109-571-035.45
$10,540
$0
Subscriptions
001-109-571-035.46
$2,700
$0
Audio/Visual
001-109-571-035.48
$1,750
$0
GENERAL FUND/N. Cty. Library
Elderly Books
001-112-571-038.31
$1,498
$0
6.
REVENUE
IRCLHAP/SHIP
Other Human Service Grant
123-000-334-069.00
$65,600
$0
EXPENSE
IRCLHAP/SHIP
Inter -departmental Charges
123-228-569-036.99
$32,710
$0
External Auditors
123-228-569-033.21
$3,500
$0
All Travel
123-228-569-034.02
$500
$0
Postage
123-228-569-034.21
$1,000
$0
Legal Ads
123-228-569-034.91
$1,250
$0
All Office Supplies
123-228-569-035.11
$3,250
$0
Other Professional Services
123-228-569-033.19
$4,750
$0
Outside Printing
123-228-569-034.72
$1,250
$0
EDP Equipment
123-228-569-066.47
$3,500
$0
Office Furniture and Equipment
123-228-569-066.41
$1,750
$0
Impact Fee Grant - New/Rebab.
123-228-569-088.94
$5,000
$0
Impact Fee Grant - Existing
123-228-569-088.95
$2,500
$0
Loan Processing Charges
123-228-569-088.96
$4,640
$0
13
MAR 1994 BOOK ° 91 PAGF 9-.�5
7 809K 9 PAGE 916
Entry
Number Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
7.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/BCC
Other Professional Services
001-101-511-033.19
$15,000
$0
Surety Bonds
001-101-511-03454
$1,413
$0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$16,413
K. Partial Satisfaction of Mortgage
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 23, 1994:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: ktSC_-William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: February 23, 1994
SUBJECT: Partial Satisfaction of Mortgage
On December 20, 1993 the County loaned William Earle Hughes $7,575.00 for
rehabilitation of Affordable Housing under the SHIP Program. It was
subsequently determined that some of the work performed on the Hughes
residence did not qualify for SHIP funding. Thus, since the County has not
in fact loaned the full amount of $7,575.00, a Partial Satisfaction of Mortgage
should be recorded to revise the outstanding balance due Indian River
County down to $3,825.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Partial Satisfaction of
Mortgage, for recording by this office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Partial Satisfaction of Mortgage, as set forth
in the above staff's memorandum.
PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IS RECORDED IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
14
L. County Tax Deed Applications
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 25, 1994:
TO: Board of County Co ssioners
I ko•
CVR��
FROM: Lea.R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 25, 1994
RE: COUNTY TAS DEED APPLICATIONS
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 following tax deed sales and,
therefore, the following sums are due:
(1) Certificate #91-5382 $183.95
(2) Certificate #91-5383 $169.66
TOTAL $353.61
REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the
payment of the above amount to the Clerk of the'Circuit Court.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the payment of $353.61 to the Clerk of the Circuit
Court for fees associated with the subject tax deed
sales, as recommended by staff.
M. Litter Grant - Solid Waste Disposal District
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 25, 1994:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 25, 1994
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU:
TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTO
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
DIS
FROM:
SAM ROHLFING, RECYCLING COORDINATOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
DISTRICT
SUBJECT:
LITTER GRANT
BACKGROUND
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has awarded
Florida counties, including Indian River, a 1993-94 Litter and
Marine Debris Prevention Grant, ours in the amount of $9,582.
This program was created during the 1993 Legislative session as
part of the Comprehensive Litter and Marine Debris Prevention
15
MAR 8 1994 BOOK �1 Fy�cE
0
BOOK 91 PAG 918 -7
Program. Florida's new litter program includes the establishment
of a statewide 50 percent litter and marine debris reduction goal
which is to be reached by January 1997.
ANALYSIS
The amount awarded to Indian River County - $9,582 - requires no
matching funds. Fund expenditure guidelines:
Option 1 - Operating Costs, up to loot (to cover a choice of one
or more of the following Keep Florida Beautiful programs)
a. Great Florida Cleanup
b. Adopt -A -Shore
c. Adopt-A-Road/Street
d. Trash Troopers
e. Boaters' and Anglers' Pledge
f. Storm Drain Stenciling
g. Clean Builders Program
h. Xeriscape/Beautification
i. Adopt -A -Tree
J. Bag It On Buses
NOTE: Details of these programs are attached as Exhibit I.
Option 2 - Projects to assist local governments with the removal
of litter and debris.• The remainder of the award not spent on
removal shall be used to fund educational and prevention -
programs.
I will coordinate the program. I will study the options and make
a recommendation based on Indian River County's specific needs
and the best use of the funds within grant guidelines.
Because no matching funds or additional staffing obligations are
attached to the grant, and because there are Indian River County
litter and marine debris abatement needs that fall well within
the grant guidelines, staff recommends that Indian River County
accept this grant and that the Authorized Representative,
Chairman of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners, John
W. Tippin, sign both copies of the Offer and Acceptance Form and
the first quarter reimbursement form affixed hereto, so that they
may be forwarded to the DEP.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the 1993-94 Litter and Marine Debris Prevention
Grant in the amount of $9,582 from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and
authorized staff to forward the Offer and Acceptance
Form and the first quarter reimbursement form to the
DEP, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF GRANT DOCUMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
16
N. Approval of Bond - Indian River Memorial Hospital Trustee Heidi
Gorsuch, M.D.
The Board reviewed the following letter dated March 3, 1994:
A PARTNERSHIP INCLDDINo
PRomssioNAL AssocIATIONs:
CHESTER CLEH. P.A.
ALAN S. PoLAci mH, 3s., P.A.
Louis B. VouLLE, JR., P.A.
JAXEs A. TAYLOR, III
PAUL. R. BERo
ROBERT GOLDEN
OF COUNSEL
Tam CarmneD IN CIVIL Tam PaAcna
CiLEM, POLACKWICH & VOCELLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 3, 1994
Ms. Alice White, Executive Aide
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Administration Bldg.
1.840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Heidi D. Gorsuch, M.D.
Indian River County Hospital District
Our File No: 2025.0653
Dear Alice:
SUITE 601
UNIVEST BUILDING
2770 INDIAN RIvaE BouLEVARD
VERO BEACH, FLoatDA 92980.4278
(407) 662.8111
FAX (407) 662-2870
Dr. Heidi Gorsuch has been appointed by Gov. Chiles to succeed Dr.
Paul Graham as Trustee to the Indian River County Hospital
District. Accordingly, enclosed are the fully executed Oath of
Office, Acceptance and Bond for Dr. Gorsuch. Please place the bond
for approval before the County Commission on its agenda for the
Tuesday, March 8, 1994 meeting.
Please call my office upon approval so that further arrangements
can be made with Tallahassee.
Very truly yours,
Alan S. PPoolackwich, Sr.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the surety bond for Heidi Gorsuch, M.D., as
recommended by staff.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE PLAN
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
MA
MAR 81994 91 FnUE.919
r MAR R j4�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 Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the Issues of,..
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
SwR;R to and subscribed bef re merthis � day a -Z
�� •'l`� A�W' y z (Buf;ineas Manager)
' MYComm G c
June s pines m = stare a Florida, My commission Exp. June 29, IMF
9
(P N • 0 9) ; Commi% Number: CC300572
72
Or-
OF FLOR�.•.� , sb,red
••nn«Nr••�" Nolanr; BARBARA C. SPRAGUE m Af
BOOK` 9 9907
NOTICE — pUBUC HEARINQ—
Natice of hearing to consider the adoption of 8
CoQ ordinance approving the Indian River County
Afforddable Housing Incentive, plan as recommended -
by
the Indian River County Affordable HousAd-
vfsarY Committee. Ing
A
Pubis bearing at which Interested parties and
Citizens shag have an opportunity to be- heard win
be held by the Board of Coonttyy Commissioners of
itdian River County Florida, in %a County Commis-
slon Ing, located at 1840 Of 25thaStrreeet�Vero ttBeach. FjOr-
Ida on Tuesday, March 8, 1994, at 905 a.m.
A copy of the draft of the Affordable Housing In_C
centive Pian may be obtained by the public at the
Community Development Department located on
the second floor of the county administration build-
ing located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
kia, between the hours.of 8:30 am. - 5:00.p.m. an
weekdays.
which may be de at this mdt�wNneed toben
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is'
made, which includes testimony and evidence er
which the appeal Is based. Pan
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for
this Meett�' must contact the county's Americans
with Disabis Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000
extension • 223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
ndian River County
Board of counttyy Commissioners '
Feb.26,1994
W. tippin, Chairman
1 I ^ 1075483
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 25, 1994:
TO: James E.- Chandler
County Administrator
D IS ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert . Rea i g, CP
Community Development Dir for
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: February 25, 1994
RE: CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVE PLAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 8, 1994.
18
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the recent workshop on affordable housing issues, the Board of
County Commissioners discussed the draft Indian River County
Housing Incentive Plan. Since copies of the draft Housing
Incentive Plan were distributed prior to that workshop meeting,
plan copies have not been sent with this -agenda item. It is now
necessary for the Board to take action on the plan.
According to state requirements, each county or eligible
municipality participating in the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program (SHIP) must adopt an affordable housing
incentive plan within 12 months after the establishment of its
local housing assistance program. In the past ten months, the
Indian River County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has
reviewed local established policies, procedures, ordinances, land
development regulations, and the county's adopted comprehensive
plan and has made specific recommendations to encourage or
facilitate the provision of affordable housing.
During that ten month period, the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee (AHAC) reviewed staff reports on topic areas required to
be addressed in the Housing Incentive Plan. Those staff reports
then served as a basis for the committee to make findings and
recommendations.
On February 10, 1994, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
considered the draft of the Indian River County Affordable Housing
Incentive Plan, made minor changes, and recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the plan.
ANALYSIS
As drafted, the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan indentifies the
potential cost savings associated with recommended incentives,
where appropriate, and provides an estimated adoption timeframe for
each incentive.
With respect to the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan, the Board of
County Commissioners has three alternatives. These are:
c To adopt the plan as recommended by the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee
c To adopt the plan with changes
O To reject the plan.
Either of the first two alternatives is acceptable. Choosing the
third alternative, however, would cause the county to lose its SHIP
funds. Staff supports the first alternative.
RECOM[ENDATION
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and staff recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached ordinance
approving county's Affordable Housing Incentive Plan and direct
staff to forward the plan to the Florida Housing Finance Agency for
their review.
19
BOOK PAU;E 1.
r BOOK 91 Fa F 9?�
-7
MAR � ���
Director Keating recounted that this matter was discussed last
week during the Affordable Housing Workshop. In order to remain
eligible for State funding, the County is required to establish an
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and develop a housing
incentive plan which covers the following 11 areas:
C ERT = F =CAT = ON TO
FLORIDA HODS Z NG F = NANC E AGENCY
RE: Adoption of Incentive Plan for Indian River County
[] All advisory committee meetings and records were open to the
public.
[] Notice of the time, date, and place of the public hearing of
the advisory committee to adopt final affordable housing
incentive recommendations was published in the Press Journal,
a newspaper of general paid circulation in the county.
[] The notice contained a short and concise summary of the
affordable housing initiative recommendations to be considered
by the advisory committee recommendations which could be
obtained by interested persons.
[] The advisory committee recommendations were approved by an
affirmative vote of a majority of the advisory committee
membership taken at a public hearing.
[] The advisory committee made recommendations on at least the
following incentives:
(1) The affordable housing definition in the appointing
resolution.
(2) The expedited processing of permits for affordable
housing projects.
(3) The modification of impact -fee requirements, including
reduction or waiver of fees and alternative methods of
fee payment.
(4) The allowance of increased density levels.
(5) The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing
for very low-income persons and low-income persons.
(6) The transfer of development rights as a financing
mechanism for housing for very low-income persons and
low-income persons.
(7) The reduction of parking and setback requirements.
(8) The allowance of zero -lot -line configurations.
(9) The -modification of street requirements.
(10) The establishment 01— a --process by which a local
government considers, before adoption, policies,
procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions
that have a significant impact on the cost of housing.
(11) The preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned
• public lands suitable for affordable housing.
20
Director Keating explained that a copy of the entire
affordable housing incentive plan was distributed to the Board last
week at the workshop. The objective of the plan is to eliminate
barriers to affordable housing, such as impact fees, parking
requirements, and density and setback requirements. Local
governments are not- required to make major changes in their overall
regulations, but they are required to consider how their
regulations affect affordable housing. When the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee analyzed the 11 areas and how they affect
affordable housing, the Committee agreed with staff that many of
the issues already have been addressed. For example, the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and the Professional Services
Advisory Committee analyzed programs such as impact fees to
determine whether they are necessary, or at least can be modified
to reduce their financial impact on development, particularly on
development of affordable housing. Director Keating discussed a
few of the recommendations in the housing incentive plan, including
density requirements. He reported that the committee has
determined that the County's density requirements are generally
acceptable, and that no action is necessary. He stated that the
committee recommends analyzing proposed County regulations to
determine their possible effect on housing costs. Director Keating
then distributed the following proposed amendment to Recommendation
#2 of the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan:
Addition to the recommendation for methods to expedite permit
processing for Affordable Housing Development Projects (page 6 and
page 76 of the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan.
Recommendation #2: The County should take all necessary steps to
eliminate delays in the review of affordable housing development
projects. Should review delays begin to occur, the County should
institute the practice of prioritizing the review of affordable
housing development projects.
Director Keating explained that subsequent to the last meeting
of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, staff received a
policy statement from the State indicating that a housing incentive
plan must contain specific information on how the permitting
process will be expedited. Staff recommends including the above
language in Recommendation #2 of the housing incentive plan in
response to that directive.
Commissioner Macht thought it would be unfair to give
affordable housing permits priority over other construction.
Director Keating agreed with Commissioner Macht, and he
explained that staff's goal is to process all permits as quickly as
21
�AR1994 BOOK 9� F�1�E.9?e
MAR 81994
Bou .91 pm 9?4.
possible. However, the State requirement is for local governments
to find specific ways to expedite affordable housing projects.
Commissioner Adams felt that most delays are caused when the
County is waiting for applicants to provide missing information.
Commissioner Eggert's opinion was that the State requirements
refer to eliminating delays that are caused by the County rather
than by applicants.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that the permitting process
could be expedited if we had sufficient space in the building for
staff from the various departments to meet and discuss all aspects
of pending applications.
Commissioner Eggert led discussion about the County surplus
land inventory.
Director Keating explained that a requirement of the housing
incentive plan is for local governments to have a provision in the
plan for the sale of surplus property to non-profit organizations
for affordable housing purposes. If the non-profit organizations
are not interested in a particular parcel, the committee recommends
that the property be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds
split evenly between the parks and recreation fund and the
affordable housing trust fund.
Commissioner Bird commented that there are many platted lots'
in the county that are available at reasonable prices. He thought
we should encourage the use of those lots for affordable housing.
Director Keating explained that the State's rationale was to
get County -owned property into private ownership and on the tax
rolls, to bring tax money into the local government and also to
meet some of the affordable housing needs.
Chairman Tippin stated that if County -owned lots have liens on
them for demolition costs, he preferred to use the money derived
from the sale of those properties to repay the County for those
costs.
Commissioner Adams asked, and Director Keating confirmed that
the list of County -owned property is included as page 71 of the
affordable housing incentive plan.
Lengthy discussion ensued about the sale of surplus County -
owned property for affordable housing purposes.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Charles Cox, member of the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, directed the Board's attention to the following
correspondence:
W
Bootstrap Housing, Inc.
Self Help & Affonlable Housing
` Not for Profit Ministry
Tax Exempt M # 65-0360826 .
Chaises W. Cox, Executive Director
407-562-6169
January 28, 1993
Board of County Commissioners
1840 26th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Attn: Mr. James. Chandler, Administrator
P.O. Boz 238
Vero Bea* FL 3296
Dear Mr. Chandler:
We submit the following:
The Farmers Home Administration has a Rural Area assistance program for business
and industry that guarantees, helps, maintains and establishes business and
industry.
There has been proposed the establishment of a manufactured housing industry in
Fellsmere giving work to local people and increasing the tax base for the county and
providing low and affordable cost housing.that meets VA, FHA and the State of
Florida Building Codes.
The State of Florida has a Community Bquity Investment Plan.
The FDIC has contacted me relative to their low cost and affordable program.
Senator Graham has sent me a program that is specially tailored for low cost and
affordable housing as well as the courtesy of his Office in our efforts.
The General Accounting Office, United States Government has sent me a complete
catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance for Low Cost Housing.
The Foundation Directory lists many Florida Foundations. The addition of National
Foundations, Stdte and National, dispenses over One Million Dollars an hour. We
should be actively working to be a receiver.
Seed money for grants and program assistance such as land options, administration,
budget preparation requires skilled and trained grant application writers with the
patience of job to successfully carry to fruition the end product of a grant application
writer.
Many times the trial and error process becomes very burdensome.
Bootstrap Housing, Inc. proposes the following:
The county initiate or invest in a Grant of low interest loan for the following
accomplishment with Bootstrap Housing, Inc.
Training for two grant application writers under the control of the Commissioners.
One to work exclusively for the commission and one to assist non -profits and other
low cost and affordable housing groups.
Furnish office, furniture and necessary fixtures to maintain such endeavor.
Reasonable expenses with same.
W
MAR 81994 .BOOK 91 Fmu,F9?5
R
BOOK 91 FAr,F 926
January 28, 18993
Page 2
Seminar attendance to federal and state seminars related to low cost and affordable
housing.
The above to be reimbursed to the County in the grant application process which has
many times over made returns on the investment.
A tentative budget proposal is attached herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
Vootstrap Housing, Inc.
Charlie Cox, ExecutivA Director
Proposed Budeet for Grant Application Writers
Three day training seminar for 2 persons -
County selection @ $496.00 each ........................... $990.00
Transportation to seminar, 160 miles round
trip each of 2 persons - 3 days @ $.027 ...................... 243.00
Six per diem days ® $26.00 .................................... 160.00
Salary - six mos 2 persons @ 12,376.00 each .................... 24,760.00
Insurance 18% ............................................ 4,466.00
Stationery, telephone, electricity, fax and
stamps for six months ................................ 1,200.00
Advertising and public relations ............................... 900.00
Total ................................................ $32,688.00
Contingencies 6% ...........................................61. 34.40
Grand total ............................................. $34,322.40
Respectfully submitted,
ootstrap Housing, Inc.
Charlie,Cox, Executive irector
He recounted that 6 months later he received the following
letter from Administrator Chandler:
24
M
r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
i
Telephone: (407) 567 -SM
July 26, 1993
Charlie Cox, Executive Director
Bootstrap Housing, Inc.
P.O. Box 2381
Vero Beach, FL 32961-2381
Dear Mr. Cox:
Suncom Telephone: 224-1011
Commissioner Fran Adams asked that I contact you regarding your recent letter.
As you will recall, in response to your January 28, 1993 hand delivered letter,
we met on January 29th. At our meeting. I indicated that there was not a need
for a separate county grant position or training. With respect to your
organization, I .expressed concern about the county's ability to fund the grant
related expense request. ' However, as we discussed,. the Housing Assistance
Program was being formulated at that time in preparation for the future state
funding. It was anticipated the Program would address relationships with
non-profit organizations, as well as the points you raised concerning low Interest
loans and utilization of county property. It was my understanding that
therefore, as a member of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, you would
monitor the progress and pursue the matter from that direction. Obviously I
misunderstood, for which 1 apologize.
In view of the preceding, I have asked Bob Keating to review your request for
possible consideration by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
If you have any .questions, please contact me, and again, I apologize for the
misunderstanding. ,
Sincerely,
mE. Chandler
oet unty Administrator
Mr. Cox contended that although Administrator Chandler
mentioned a meeting in his letter, there was no meeting. He wanted
an opportunity for his organization to work with the County in
writing grant proposals. He gave examples of other counties where
the local government and non-profit agencies are working together
with great success to obtain grant money to build affordable
housing. He argued that there is no partnership in Indian River
County and there is no leverage of funds, despite the fact that the
affordable housing incentive plan says those conditions exist. He
stressed that even though the plan says the County intends to
remove barriers, nothing is being done to eliminate those barriers.
Administrator Chandler stated that he did meet with Mr. Cox on
January 29, 1993.
Commissioner Eggert stated that the affordable housing
incentive plan was set up according to the State's guidelines and
grant money is forthcoming. She emphasized that the County cannot
afford $34,000 for a grant writer at this time.
25
Boor 91 F,nuF 9 2�7
r
MARBOOK 91 PAGE 92#8
Director Keating explained that the term partnership in this
context refers to a process rather than to a group or an
organization. He emphasized that staff met with representatives of
various financial institutions and will be meeting with
representatives of the Press Journal and the Board of Realtors.
Staff is trying to set up a meeting with the Builders' Association.
A home buyers education program is being developed to inform people
about the affordable housing incentive plan. There have been 26
loans approved to date, and staff hopes to approve 4 more loans
this week. We have the $250,000 a year SHIP program, and we have
received several million dollars in grants from the Florida
Community Trust Program during the last few months. We have
obtained an Economic Development Grant.
David Petroni, executive director of the Community Housing
Initiative Trust, announced that the Community Housing Initiative
Trust is a non-profit organization which is actively involved in
the affordable housing program in Brevard County. He stated that
Brevard County has a policy of expediting permits for affordable
housing because timing can be important in obtaining grant money.
Nancy Offutt, from the Vero Beach -Indian River County Board of
Realtors, felt that the private sector should have an opportunity
to participate in purchases of surplus county land at below-market
prices for the purpose of developing affordable housing. She
pointed out that the State legislation provides for the private
sector to be the primary participants in the project, and she did
not understand why the County would make surplus property available
to non-profit agencies but not to for-profit groups at less than
market value.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Macht suggested using the language of the
original statement 2 instead of the revised language.
Commissioner Bird suggested that the property be made
available to the private sector as well as to non-profit
organizations.
Commissioner Eggert suggested we omit the entire phrase having
to do with selling the property at below market prices.
Commissioner Adams pointed -out that the key issue is whether
the developers or the people who rent the property benefit.
Attorney Collins advised that when County -owned property is
offered for sale, it must be sold to the highest bidder, unless the
Commission determines that it is in the interest of the community
to sell it to a non-profit organization for a below-market price:
26
Commissioner Macht felt that we should consider public lands
in the context of the overall benefit to citizens of our county.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned that the State might not
accept the Plan if we remove the statement about prioritizing
review of affordable housing projects.
Commissioner Adams wondered whether it is necessary to include
the word "prioritize," because she was sure that staff would
expedite the permitting process when grant monies were available
and might be forfeited.
Director Keating stressed that the State requires the
affordable housing incentive plan to include provisions for
prioritizing affordable housing.
Commissioner Bird expressed concern about splitting proceeds
from the sale of surplus property, because affordable housing
benefits a few people, whereas parks and recreation benefits the
entire community. He preferred to keep our options open.
Administrator Chandler commented that some County property is
not considered to be surplus. For example, the proceeds from the
sale of the old Courthouse probably will be used towards the cost
of a new building.
Chairman Tippin urged the Board to make a decision on the
language to be used in Statement 2.
Director Keating suggested that we make approval of the use of
surplus County -owned property contingent upon staff coming back in
several years with an analysis of the need for funds for the SHIP
program, depending upon how the program is functioning in terms of
revenue and expenses.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, seconded by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-44, approving the Affordable Housing
Incentive Plan, and unanimously agreed to make the
following changes to the Affordable Housing
Incentive Plan: remove the surplus property list;
revise recommendation #2 on pages 6 and 76 to
include the language set forth in the above addendum
to staff's memorandum; remove the words "non-profit"
and "less than market value" from recommendation #1
on pages 5 and 70; and change Item #3 of the
Inventory section to provide for the County to have
the ability to decide at a later date, based on an
analysis of how the SHIP program is progressing in
terms of revenue and expenses, whether to contribute
50% of the proceeds from the sale of County -owned
surplus lands to the County's Housing Trust Fund.
MAS i��q BOOK 91,.F.+cr 9?9
BOOK 91 FacE 9:30
RESOLUTION NO 94-�[�
A RESOLUTION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVE PLAN;
WHEREAS, The County, on April 6, 1993, adopted ordinance 93-13
establishing the county's Local Housing Assistance Program,
pursuant to section 420.907, Florida Statues and Rule 9I-37,
F.A.C.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 420.9076, F.S., each county
participating in the State Housing Initiative program must adopt an
Affordable Housing Incentive Plan within 12, months after the date
of adoption of its Local Housing Assistance Program establishment
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee held a public hearing pursuant to the requirements of
Section 420.9076(5), F.S., on January 13, 1994 and continued the
public hearing to a time certain date on February 10, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee reviewed
all proposed incentives and made a positive recommendation for
adoption of the Indian River County Affordable Housing Incentive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County- Commissioners, within 90 days
after the date of receipt of the recommendation on the Affordable
Housing Incentive Plan from the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee on the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan, must adopt the
Affordable Housing Incentive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida THAT:
Section 1.
The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
Section 2.
The attached Indian River County Affordable Housing Incentive
Plan is hereby approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Section 3.
The Board of County Commissioners directs staff to submit a
copy of the Indian River County Affordable Housing Incentive
Plan, a copy of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
28
Housing Incentive Plan public hearing notice, a copy of the
Housing Incentive Plan adoption resolution, a copy of the
Florida Housing Finance Agency certification form, and a copy
of the SHIP City/County Affordable Housing Incentive Plan
transmittal summary form to the Florida Housing Finance Agency
by Certified Mail
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Adams ,
and seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman, John W.'Tippin au
Vice Chairman, Kenneth R. Macht aye
Commissioner, Richard N. Bird aLe
Commissioner, Carolyn K. Eggert aye
Commissioner, Fran B. Adams a�+e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 8th day of March , 1994.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian�River County
John W. Tippin, Chairman
Attest by:
Jeffrey K. Barton,
Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING - GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., TRUSTEE, REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES FROM RM -10 TO PRO
The hour of 9:05 .a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this Public Hearing has been advertised as follows:
29
BOCK �� F''m'�F. qqj
MAR 8 199 a
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the matter
In the Court, was pub-
lished in saidnewspaperin the issues of ✓~'uL
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sygr" pnd subscribed befoome tay of � D. 19
'-Qz OTA�•••`9,,�' r jeu s 9nager)
BARBARA C. SPRAGUE, NOTARY PUBLIC,
My Comm. Expires . _ .. .. _ -- - -
June 2a, 1.997
NN.
*•0572
°'••.FGF FL�P�•.
Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
BOOK 9.1 Fa,F 9032
18th T
—Cltv Limits
o
Subjecttx�,,.
"
Property
�►: 3
9
M
N
Ir -1
0
-
IQ th S
• - +:-�
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING �
Notts of hearing to consider the adoption of a
assay ordinance rezoning land from RM -10, MuIN-
MT* Residential Df,trict -(up to 10 unitslacre
to PRO, Professional Office District. The
property Is presently owned by George G.
Trustee. The subject property Is located at the
northeast comer of 17th Street and 4th Aveme,
and contains eppr irately 1.7 acres. The subject .
prWy Res i n iUhres amttneast Vi section of Section `
1, Townlship 33S, Range 39E 4N an being to N-.4
dian Rtvcr Conmty, Florida
A pubs has" at which Won in interest and
dttzere shd have an oppoof Cttinittyy to be heard, w8
'Ian Ribe held w Board
in the counryyCo mrdaot
sign Chambers of the County Administration Build -
Ig, located at 1840 25th'.Street, Vero Beach,, Fla- ,.
Tuesday,
Bo of Camt�ymnissoners
Themay adopt
`another zoning district, other than the district re-
iiiiested, provided it is within the same general use
Anyone j ion
which may bye made at � to appeal g rry road to an- ,
sure that a verbatim record off9the proceedings Is
made, which includes tes", and evidence upon .
which the appeal is based
Anyone who needs a for
this r cont special cotinty.s�Americans '
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator, -at - 587 -MM
extension 408 at. least 48ti hags o, advance of
'Board ofCoCenndsssiors :`9 !
Bir
-
Feb.14,i994-i} `,tl;i 1072057 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 25, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D READ CON A7CE
•
Obert M. R at n , CP
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP S
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachte�
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 1, 1994
RE: George G. Collins, Jr., Trustee, Request to Rezone
approximately 1.7 acres from RM -10 to PRO
(RZON 93-08-0114)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 8, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 1.7 acres, owned by
George G. Collins, Jr., Trustee, from RM -10, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 10 units/acre) to PRO, Professional
Office District. Located at the northeast corner of 17th Street
and 4th Avenue, the subject property is the south 300 feet of an
30
L_ J
approximately 3.5 acre -parcel that extends north to 18th Street.
To meet the dimensional requirements of the PRO district (a maximum
depth of 300 feet measured from the adjacent road), the request
involves splitting the parcel with a district boundary. The
purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to
develop the property with professional office uses.
On January 13, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to PRO.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Both the 3.5 acre parcel containing the subject property and the
property to the west consist of vacant land zoned RM -10, Multiple -
Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre). To the south,
across 17th Street, is the Rockridge Subdivision of single-family
homes, also zoned RM -10.
Since the subject property's east boundary is the border between
the City of Vero Beach and unincorporated Indian River County, the
property to the east of the subject property is within the Vero
Beach city limits. This property is zoned POI, Professional Office
and Institutional District, on the city's zoning map, and consists
of vacant land.
Some mixing of uses is permitted in the POI district. As the name
implies, professional and business offices are permitted, as are
nursing homes, Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and single-
family, but not multiple -family, residences. Beauty and barber
shops are the only retail uses permitted in the POI district.
North of the 3.5 acre parcel containing the subject property, 18th
Street forms a border between the City of Vero Beach and
unincorporated Indian River County. Therefore, land north of the
site, across 18th Street, is also within the Vero Beach city
limits. This land is zoned RM -10, Medium and High Density
Multiple -Family District, on the city's zoning map, and contains
the Oak Park Terrace Condominiums. As with the County's RM -10
district, the City of Vero Beach's RM -10 district allows single -
and multiple -family residential development with densities up to 10
units/acre.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the north, south, and west
are designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county
future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 10 units/acre. Land abutting the subject
property's east boundary is within the City of Vero Beach. This
land is designated RM, Residential Medium, on the city's future
land use map. The RM designation permits residential uses with a
density range of 5 to 12 units/acre.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive on the comprehensive plan. Although a
few native oaks exist on the site, the parcel is dominated by
Australian pine and Brazilian pepper trees; both of these are
considered invasive exotic species. For this reason, the site has
little native habitat value.
According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is
within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood
elevation. requirement of 6 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water
lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis
Plant, and wastewater lines extend to the site from the City of
Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant.
31
MAR 8 1994 BOOK 91 F�co�
BOOK 91 PAGE934
MAR
Transportation System
The property abuts 17th Street which is classified as an urban
principal arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan
map. This segment of 17th Street is a four -lane paved road with
approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way.
Currently, 17th Street is not programmed for expansion.
The Professional Office District
The PRO district is designed to encourage the development of vacant
land and the redevelopment of blighted and declining residential
areas along major thoroughfares in selected areas of the county.
The PRO district serves as a transitional district between
commercial and residential districts.
According to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), the PRO
district shall be limited in size so as not to create or
significantly extend strip commercial development. Specifically,
the regulations state that PRO districts shall have a minimum size
of five acres and a maximum size of 25 acres. However, the
district may be reduced to 2.5 acres if it meets all of the
following criteria:
• The parcel(s) abuts a commercial node; and
• The parcel(s) is located within a substantially developed
area; and
• The parcel(s) is located in an area dominated by
nonresidential uses.
The PRO district is one of only two commercial zoning districts
(the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, is the other) allowed in
areas with residential land use designations. Therefore, the PRO
district is intended to be compatible with residential uses. As
the name suggests, the PRO district is limited almost exclusively
to professional offices. These uses generally produce less noise,
traffic, and lights and fewer impacts than commercial uses.
Besides offices, uses allowed within the PRO district include
single- and multiple -family residential, places of worship, bed and
breakfasts, post offices, libraries, and child care and adult care
facilities.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality;
• appropriateness of the PRO district for the subject
property; and
• specific requirements of the PRO district.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The comprehensive plan and land development regulations also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
32
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use possible
of the subject property given the requested zoning district. For
commercial rezoning requests, the most intense use possible
(according to the county's land development regulations) is retail
commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of
land proposed for rezoning. The site information used for this
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Existing Zoning Classification:
3. Proposed Zoning Classification:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing
Zoning Classification:
t1.7 acres
RM -10, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up
to 10 units/acre)
PRO, Professional Office
District
17 dwelling units (DU)
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under
Proposed Zoning Classification: 17,000 sq. ft. of Retail
Commercial (Shopping
Center in the 5th Edition
- Transportation ITE Manual)
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better on 17th Street and other impacted roads would
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Zoning District (RM -10)
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Condominium/Multiple-Family
2. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 17 DU X 5.86 trip ends/DU = 100
3. P.M. Peak Hour Trip ends: 17 DU X 0.55 trip/DU = 9
a. Inbound: 66% or 6
b. Outbound: 34% or 3
Proposed Zonina District (PRO)
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For 17,000 square foot structures:
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends:
94.7/1000 gross sq. ft.
b. 5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip'`Ends:
12.49/1000 gross sq. ft.
3. Formula for Determining Total New Trip Ends:
Total Square Footage X Vehicle Trip Rate X
Percentage New Trips
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
33
MAR 81994 500K 91 PA.GF 93
4.
5.
6.
Boor 91 PAGF 936
a. Total Average Weekday Trip Ends:
17,000 X 94.7/1000 = 1,610
b. Total P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends:
17,000 X 12.49/1000 = 212
c. Percentage New Trip Ends: 49%
d. New Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 0.49 X 1,610 = 789
e. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 0.49 X 212 = 104
- Inbound: 50% of 104 = 52
- Outbound: 50% of 104 = 52
Peak Direction of 17th Street from Indian River Boulevard to
U.S. 81: Westbound
Traffic Capacity on 17th Street, from Indian River Boulevard
to U.S. #1 at a Level of Service "D":
1,990 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
Existing Traffic volume on this segment of 17th Street:
729 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning is
100. This was determined by multiplying the 17 DU's (most intense
use) by ITE's multiple -family residential factor of 5.86 Average
Daily Trip Ends/DU.
The number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trip ends
associated with the most intense use of the subject property under
the existing zoning is 6. This was determined by multiplying 17
DU's (most intense use) by ITE's multiple -family residential factor
Of 0.55 peak hour trip ends/DU, then taking 668 of that number to
ensure only inbound -trips were counted.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the requested zoning is
1,610. This was determined by multiplying 17,000 square feet of
shopping center use (most intense use) by ITE's shopping center
factor of 94.7 Average Weekday Trip Ends/1000 square feet.
The number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trip ends
associated with the most intense use of the subject property under
the requested zoning is 212. This was determined by multiplying
17,000 square feet of shopping center use (most intense use) by
ITE's factor of 12.49 peak hour trip ends/1000 square feet.
The ITE has determined that 498 of the trip ends associated with
the most intense use of the subject property under the requested
zoning would be new trip ends. Therefore, 498 of the 1,610 Average
Weekday Trip Ends, or 789, would be new. Similarly, 498, or 104,
of the 212 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the requested zoning
would be new.
According to ITE•, 508, or 52, of the New -P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends
would be outbound, and 508 would be inbound. Therefore, the most
intense use of the subject property under the requested zoning
would generate 52 new p.m. peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips. This is 46 more than the six generated by the most intense
use of the subject property under the present zoning.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's Land
Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive five
percent (58) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more
of the project trips, whichever is less.'
34
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 17th Street adjacent to
this site is 1,990 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
a Level of Service "D", while the existing traffic volume on this
segment of 17th Street is 729 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction). The additional 52 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips created by the most intense development of the proposed
zoning district would increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips for this segment of 17th Street to approximately
781.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that 17th Street and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this rezoning. As indicated in this table, there
is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to accommodate the
projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Capacity
Segment
Road
From
To
LOS "D"
1010
S.R. AIA
S. County Line
S. VBC Limits
1320
1020
S.R. AlA
S. VBC Limits
17th at.
1320
1030
S.R. Alk
17th St.
S.R. 60
1060
1040
S.R. AIA
S.R. 60
N. VBC Limits
1120
1110
I.R. Blvd.
4th St.
12th St.
1760
1120
I.A. Blvd.
12th St.
S. VBC Limits
1760
1130
I.R. Blvd.
S. VBC Limits
17th St.
1760
1140
I.R. Blvd.
17th at.
21st St.
1760
1150
I.R. Blvd.
21st St.
S.R. 60
1760
1160
I.R. Blvd.
S.R. 60
W. VBC Limits
1760
1170
I.A. Blvd.
W. VBC Limits
53rd St.
1760
1310
U.S. 1
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
2220
1315
U.S. 1
4th St.
8th at.
2270
1320
U.S. 1
Sth St.
12th St.
2270
1325
U.S. 1
12th St.
S. VBC Limits
2370
1330
U.S. 1
S. VBC Limite
17th at.
2270
1335
U.S. 1
17th St.
S.R. 60
2270
1340
D.S. 1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm Pl.
2300
1345
U.S. 1
Royal Palm P1.
Atlantic Blvd.
2300
1350
U.S. 1
Atlantic Blvd
N. VBC Limits
2300
1355
U.B. 1
N. VBC Limits
Old Dixie Hwy.
2300
1360
U.S. 1
Old Dixie Hwy.
41st St.
2300
1365
U.S. 1
41st St.
45th St.
2650
1370
U.S. 1
45th St.
49th St.
2650
1375
U.S. 1
49th at.
65th St.
2650
1380
U.S. 1
65th St.
69th St.
2650
1385
U.B. 1
69th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
2650
1925
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
1760
1930
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2650
1935
B.A. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2650
1940
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2600
1945
S.R. 60
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
1638
1950
S.R. 60
old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
1638
1955
S.R. 60
10th Ave.
U.S. 1
1638
1960
B.R. 60
U.S. 1
I.R. Blvd.
1638
1965
S.R. 60
I.R. Blvd.
ICWW
1760
1970
S.R. 60
ICWW
S.R. AIA
1760
2020
16th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
830
2030
16th St.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
830
2040
16th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
830
2050
16th St.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
970
2060
16th/17th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
970
2110
17th St.
U.S. 1
,
Z.R. Blvd.
1990
2120
17th St.
I.A. Blvd.
S.R. AlA
1760
2240
12th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
83D
2250
12th St.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
830
2260
12th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
830
35
1994 Bou 91 PA -UE 937
-7 Boor 91 r+ ,F 9:38
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS ^D"
2315
Old Dixie Hwy.
4th St.
8th St.
830
2320
Old Dixie Hwy.
8th St.
12th St.
830
2325
Old Dixie Hwy.
12th St.
S. VBC Td m is
830
2330
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. VBC Limits
16th St.
830
2335
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th St.
S.R. 60
830
2345
Old Dixie Hwy.
41st St.
45th St.
630
2830
20th Ave.
8th St.
12th St.
630
2840
20th Ave.
12th St.
S. VBC Limits
1760
2850
20th Ave.
S. VBC Limits
16th St.
1760
2860
20th Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
1760
2870
20th Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
1760
2935
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
830
2940
43rd Ave.
26th St.
41st St.
630
2945
43rd Ave.
41st St
45th St.
630
3025
58th Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
830
3030
58th Ave.
S.R. 60
41st St.
830
3035
58th Ave.
41st St.
45th St.
630
4850
8th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
830
4860
8th St.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
830
4870
8th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
830
4880
Sth St.
U.S. 1
I.R. Blvd.
830
4950
4th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
630
4960
4th St.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
630
4970
4th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
630
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Msting vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
S egment volume volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1010
253
117
370
950
2
Y
1020
665
85
750
570
3
Y
1030
805
86
891
169
3
Y
1040
890
62
952
168
2
Y
1110
1143
27
1170
590
5
Y
1120
1143
37
1180
580
6
Y
1130
1143
41
1184
576
6
Y
1140
987
58
1045
715
7
Y
1150
987
70
1057
703
8
Y
1160
509
47
556
1204
5
Y
1170
0
37
37
1723
3
Y
1310
1228
46
1274
946
1
Y
1315
1228
91
1319
951
2
Y
1320
1228
92
1320
950
2
Y
1325
1526
108
1634
736
3
Y
1330
1341
116
1457
813
3
Y
1335
1341
116
1457
813
4
Y
1340
1143
96
1239
1061
4
Y
1345
1143
121
1264
1036
4
Y
1350
1309
87
1396
904
4
Y
1355
1309
38
1347
953
3
Y
1360
910
78
988
1312
3
Y
1365
910
45
955
1695
2
Y
1370
910
47
957
1693
2
Y
1375
910
61
971
1679
4 -
Y
1380
910
35
945
1705
5
Y
1385
988
40
1028
1622
2
Y
1925
1012
206
1218
542
2
Y
1930
1040
511
1551
1099
2
Y
1935
612
306
918
1732
3
Y
1940
878
231
1109
1491
4
Y
1945
747
219
966
672
4
Y
1950
747
178
925
713
4
Y
1955
747
146
893
745
8
Y
1960
509
84
593
1045
7
Y
1965
846
109
955
805
8
Y
1970
653
82
735
1025
4
Y
2020
144
108
252
578
1
Y
2030
443
84
527
303
2
Y
2040
477
60
537
293
2
Y
2050
851
80
931
39
2
Y
2060
851
83
933
36
4
Y
2110
680
49
729
1261
20
Y
2120
1179
61
1240
520
5
Y
2240
265
34
299
531
1
Y
2250
448
56
504
326
1
Y
2260
629
36
565
165
2
Y
2315
442
86
528
302
1
Y
2320
517
114
631
199
1
Y
2325
491
120
611
219
2
Y
2330
228
144
372
458
2
Y
2335
228
77
405
525
3
Y
2345
89
15
104
526
1
Y
2830
411
26
437
193
1
Y
2840
386
24
410
1350
2
Y
2850
386
25
411
1349
2
Y
2860
200
20
220
1540
4
Y
2870
265
10
275
1485
4
Y
2935
425
96
521
309
1
Y
36
M M M
Roadway
segment
zxistin P`bemand
Zx st ng
Volume
Vested
Volume
Total
Segment
Demand
Available
segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
2940
396
39
435
195
1
Y
2945
257
20
277
353
1
Y
3025
474
221
595
135
2
Y
3030
523
115
638
192
1
Y
3035
435
24
469
171
1
Y
4850
382
35
417
413
1
Y
4860
382
59
441
389
2
Y
4870
384
50
434
396
2
Y
4880
204
15
219
611
2
Y
4950
219
74
283
337
1
Y
4960
489
64
553
77.
2
Y
4970
533
30
563
67
2
Y
- Water
The subject property is serviced by the South County Water Plant.
With the most intense use allowed under the proposed rezoning, the
subject property would have a water consumption rate of 5.1
Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,275 gallons/day. This is
based upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
Since the South County Water Plant currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day, the plant can
accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed zoning.
- Wastewater
The subject property is within the area serviced by the City of
Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. Based upon the most intense
use allowed under the proposed zoning classification, development
of the property would have a wastewater generation rate of
approximately 5.1 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,005
gallons/day. This is based upon the City of Vero Beach's level of
service standard of 197 gallons/ERU/day. Since the City of Vero
Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity
of more than 1,800,000 gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the
additional wastewater generated by the proposed zoning.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 17,000 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
would be approximately 85 Waste Generation Units (WGU) or 252 cubic
yards of solid waste/year. A WGU-is a waste generation unit
measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste/year.
While WGU's are units of measurement which can be applied to either
commercial or residential uses, WGU's must be considered in terms
of residential units in order to correspond to the county's solid
waste level of service standards. According to the county's solid
waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGUs/unit.
With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic
yards/person/year and the county's average of two persons/unit,
each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 people (2/1.6 = 1.25) and 2.9625
cubic yards of solid waste/year (1.25 X 2.37). To calculate the
total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed
on the subject property under the proposed zoning district, staff
utilized the following formula: Total number of WGU's X 1.25 X 2.37
(85 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 252 cubic yards/year).
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 900,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 3 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste.
37
Box 91 wu-t 939
- Drainage
BOOK 91 Fa GF 940
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
subject property is located within the R-2 Drainage Basin.
Therefore, development on the site would be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard
applies, since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent
with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than the elevation of the 100 -
year flood elevation as shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as defined in a more detailed
study report." Since the subject property lies within Flood Zone
AE, which is a special flood hazard area located within the 100 -
year floodplain, any development on this property must have a
minimum finished floor elevation of no less than 6 feet above mean
sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge standards would apply to any development on the subject
property. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed zoning, the maximum area of impervious surface will be
approximately 48,134 square feet, or.l.l acres. The maximum runoff
volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25
year/24 hour design storm, will be approximately 55,662 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant will be required to retain approximately 10,244 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soils characteristic of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 4.7 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the site's pre -
development rate of 4.7 cubic feet/second, requiring retention of
10,244 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the
property, and requiring that all finished floor elevations exceed
6 feet above mean sea level.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this rezoning request would not be
required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements.
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the
subject request and staff has issued a conditional concurrency
certificate to the applicant.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map; these uses include agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, -objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
38
related decisions. While all comprehensive Plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing
rezoning requests. Policies which are particularly applicable for
this request are discussed in this section.
Unlike most rezoning requests, this request is neither clearly
consistent with, nor clearly inconsistent with, the comprehensive
plan. The staff report provided to the Planning and Zoning
commission before their public hearing on the subject request
identified several policies as inconsistent with the comprehensive
plan. Staff's position at that time was that the request was
marginally inconsistent with the plan. -Re-examination of these
policies reveals that, while the proposed rezoning does not
implement these policies, the request is not inconsistent with
them.
- Future Land use -Element Policy 1.30
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.30 states that the county zoning
code shall contain provisions for a Professional Office District in
medium and low' density residential districts along arterial
roadways to encourage infill development and the redevelopment of
blighted residential areas.
The proposed rezoning generally meets these criteria. The subject
property is located along an arterial roadway, within an area
designated for medium density residential development. The
proposed rezoning may encourage development of the site and,
therefore, infill development since the site is located near the
urban center of the county and in an otherwise substantially built -
out area.
The area of the subject property, however, is not overtly blighted
or in need of redevelopment. While there are older homes in the
Rockridge subdivision, they are well maintained. This neighborhood
is stable and appears likely to remain stable. In contrast, the
vacant land comprising the subject property and surrounding
property is occasionally used by homeless persons. Trails cutting
through the interior of the acreage are littered with food and
beverage containers. These conditions indicate that the area may
be considered somewhat blighted. For these reasons, the requested
zoning is generally consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy
1.30.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5
Future Land Use Policy 2.5 states that the county shall use zoning
regulations to encourage and direct growth into the Urban Service
Area. This policy further states that such regulations shall
promote efficient development and incentives for mixed uses. The
subject request may encourage development of the subject property
by providing the property owners with a wider range of allowable
uses. In addition, the proposed zoning will facilitate mixed use
development since both office and residential uses are allowed
within the PRO district. For these reasons, the requested zoning
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3
Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3 state that the
county will encourage and permit a variety of development patterns
and residential densities, and accommodate a diversity of
lifestyles.
Generally, the county lacks RM -10 zoned land and the multiple -
family development permitted in that zoning district. In fact,
staff's original position was that the subject request would likely
result in office development on the subject property, thereby
reducing the amount of land available for RM -10 type development.
Staff still feels that a rezoning to PRO will decrease the chances
of residential development on the site. Because the PRO district
allows residential uses up to 6 units/acre, however, the rezoning
will not actually reduce the amount of land available for multiple -
family residential development. For this reason, the requested
W
MAR 1 BOOK 91 muF.941
mor.,
MAR 8 1994
zoning is not inconsistent with Future Land Use Element objective
5 and Policy 5.3.
- Economic Development Element Policy 1.4
Economic Development Policy 1.4 states that the county shall
promote the growth of businesses which provide skilled and semi-
skilled jobs with salaries higher than minimum wage. The proposed
zoning will increase the number of professional office sites within
the county. This will facilitate the location of doctors, lawyers,
architects, engineers, accountants, financial advisors, and other
consultants within the county. The promotion of these businesses,
which often create higher paying jobs, is consistent with Economic
Development Element Policy 1.4.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based on this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed zoning district is generally consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surroundina Area
As situated, the subject property is bordered on three sides by
residentially zoned property. To the south, across 17th Street is
the Rockridge Subdivision of single-family homes. This is the area
that would be most impacted by development of the subject property.
There are, however, several factors that somewhat mitigate
potential impacts that could be associated with this request. The
first involves the characteristics of the existing RM -10 district
and the requested PRO district. The PRO district was created for,
and intended to be compatible with, areas designated as residential
by the county's comprehensive plan. In fact, the PRO district is
one of only two commercial zoning districts allowed in areas with
residential land use designations. Because no retail sales are
permitted in the PRO district, there will be fewer trucks, less
activity, reduced hours of operation, and generally fewer impacts
from PRO uses than would occur with general commercial uses. In
terms of allowable uses, PRO is the county's least intense and most
restrictive commercial zoning district.
In contrast, the subject property and the land abutting the subject
property on the north, south, and west, are currently zoned RM -10,
which is the most intense of the county's residential zoning
districts. If the subject property where rezoned to PRO, the most
intense residential district would border the least intense
commercial district. Therefore, in terms of land use intensity and
impacts generated, the request is for the smallest possible
increase.
Additionally, physical separation and buffers will reduce the
impacts of development on the subject property. Office development
on the subject property would have to maintain 20 foot side yard
setbacks and provide a type D vegetative buffer with a three foot
opaque feature along the west property line. With respect to the
Rockridge Subdivision, there is greater physical separation. The
100 foot right-of-way of 17th Street, combined with the required 25
foot front yard setbacks of both the PRO and R14-10 districts,
ensure that there will be at least 150 feet between any structure
on the subject property and any home in the Rockridge subdivision.
For these reasons, the subject request would cause minimal impacts
on surrounding property.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Staff's position is that the proposed zoning change would have no
significant adverse impacts on the environmental quality of the
subject_ property, since no native uplands or wetlands exist on
site. In accordance with Land Development Regulation Chapter 929,
all nuisance exotic vegetation will have to be removed in
conjunction with any site development. Native oak trees existing
on site will be subject to protection as regulated under Chapter
927, Tree Protection and Land Clearing.
40
Appropriateness of the PRO District for the Subiect Property
The appropriateness of the site is a key issue when considering
requests for rezonings to the PRO district. Staff has been (and
still is) ambivalent towards this request since the request was
submitted. The following analysis indicates that the PRO district
is neither clearly appropriate, nor clearly inappropriate, for the
site. Although staff supports the request, the analysis will
discuss several staff concerns that still exist.
Because the PRO district allows non-residential uses to locate in
areas designated as residential on the comprehensive plan, any
request for PRO district rezoning must be reviewed carefully. Not
only is land use compatibility important with respect to a PRO
rezoning, but even more important is the effect that a PRO rezoning
has on the land use pattern. Structured for limited use in
specific situations, the PRO district was not established as an
alternative to expanding commercial nodes through land use plan
amendments; instead, it was established to provide for office type
uses in those areas which are no longer appropriate for strictly
residential uses but also not appropriate for a complete range of
commercial uses. This objective is reflected in the PRO district's
purpose and intent section.
As stated in the county's land development regulations, the intent
of the PRO district is to encourage development of vacant land in
areas which are considered marginally suitable for residential use,
but not suitable for a broad range of commercial uses. Further,
the PRO district is intended to aid in the redevelopment of such
areas when they are deemed blighted or declining. The PRO district
is also appropriate to prevent the anticipated decline of an area.
Accordingly, the PRO district may be established in areas in
transition from residential to commercial land uses.
With respect to the subject request, there are several factors
which indicate that the subject property is correctly zoned and
should remain RM -10. While the county presently has an
overallocation of at least 2500 acres of commercially designated
land, there is a general lack of multiple -family and rental housing
in the county. The area of the subject property, however, is
particularly suited for the existing RM -10 zoning. Located near
the urban center of the county, the site has convenient access to
employment and shopping, as well as cultural and recreational
activities.
There are also, however, several factors which suggest that the
site has the potential to decline under the RM -10 zoning district.
In depth examination of the site reveals some evidence of this
potential. This evidence includes lack of development, use by
homeless persons, and three relatively poorly maintained homes on
outparcels near the subject property. These factors indicate that
the subject request would be consistent with the intent of the PRO
district.
Rezoning the sub3ect property to PRO, however, would not eliminate
these situations. Given the current oversupply of professional
office development, granting the subject request may not result in
new development on the site.
Specific Reguirements of the PRO District
According to the County's Land Development Regulations, the
specific requirements for PRO districts located in areas with
residential land use designations are:
• the district must be located on an arterial or collector road;
• the district must have a maximum depth of 300 feet; and
the district must have a minimum size of five acres and a
maximum size of 25 acres. However, the district may be
reduced to 2.5 acres if it meets the following criteria:
41
MAS 81994 BOOK. 91 RAGUF 943
rBoa 91 Far
MAR 119 944
• The parcel abuts a commercial node; and
• The parcel is located in a substantially developed area;
and
• The parcel is located in an area dominated by
nonresidential uses.
Staff has determined that the subject property meets these
criteria. Under a literal interpretation of the LDRs, the subject
property does not qualify for PRO district zoning since, at 1.7
acres, the site is less than the minimum size required. However,
county legal staff has determined that the City Of Vero Beach's POI
district has a similar purpose and intent as well as comparable'
permitted uses as the county's PRO district. For this reason, the
districts can be considered essentially the same. Therefore,
combining the approximately 9.5 acre POI district that is adjacent
to the site with the subject property's 1.7 acres would result in
an 11.2 acre PRO/POI district, a size which meets the PRO
district's requirements.
CONCLUSION
The request meets all concurrency requirements, will not negatively
impact environmental quality, is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, and will have minimal impacts on surrounding areas. While
the subject property is a good location for RM -10 zoning, the
potential for decline and blight exists. For these reasons, the
PRO zoning district is also appropriate for the subject property
and staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on its analysisf staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property
from RM -10 to PRO.
Director Keating recounted that a previous request to rezone
the subject parcel for commercial use was denied. He explained
that professional office development generally is considered to be
more compatible with residential areas.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney George G. Collins, Jr., trustee of the subject
property, recounted that a request to rezone the property to
commercial use several years ago was denied by a 3-2 vote of the
Board. At that time some of the Commissioners commented that an
appropriate use of the property would be for professional office
development. Mr. Collins was pleased that staff's recommendation,
and the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission, is to
approve the rezoning request. He commented that the north 300
feet of the parcel will remain residential to satisfy the concerns
of residents of Park Terrace.
42
0
r M M
David Gerard, representing the Rockridge Property owners
Association, stated that the residents of Rockridge are not opposed
to an office complex, but they do not want the County to allow
additional commercial development in that area.
Chairman Tippin understood his concern, but he stressed that
the issue being discussed today is this particular rezoning.
Chairman Tippin announced that John M. Brenner, part owner of
the Citrus Financial Center, which is adjacent to the subject
property, had to leave the meeting for another appointment but
requested that the following information be included in the record:
`�—.�Qfte.,jEl.�t ,f��tJLto,�-ftt[1t77=- fyfsulcy_
Qw4<(_-
_
-- -J.µ,J M_ �.
/told.►�_.J��_o
43
MAR 81994 Boa 91 i-AGE9 5
4 RooK1 F;,U
MAR 819 F,946
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 94-4, amending the zoning ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from RM -10 to PRO, for
the property located on the north side of 17th
Street between 3rd Court and 4th Avenue, and
described herein, as recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-4
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -10 TO
PRO, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 17TH STREET
BETWEEN 3RD COURT AND 4TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The south 300 feet of the following described property:
The east 250 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Dr. Richard Bullington's
Subdivision according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat
Book 2, Page 5, St. Lucie County, now Indian River County,
Florida, Public Records. Subject to easements and rights-of-
way.
44
EiI
ORDINANCE NO. 94- 4
Be changed from RM -10 to PRO.
r
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
County Land Development Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 8th day of March, 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 14th day of February, 1994 for a public hearing to be held
on the 8th day of March, 1994 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin ave
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht ave
Commissioner Fran B. Adams a -ye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird _ jp
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert avP
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
A
BY: ,
4Q 4
/ John W. Tippi ; C airman
ATTEST BY:
Je re y K. anon, C k
Acknowledgment by the Department of State t e State of Florida
this 17th day of March , 1994.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 21st day of March , 1994, at 10.00 A.M.
XVX9XAGCX& and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Wi i G. Collins II,,Deputy County Attorney ' /,///, 2'/;
r
14
Robert eat g, ICP
Community Developme t Dftdctor
45
MAR 81994 Boa 9.1 uu 947
HOOK 91 FACE . -7
M
PINE TREE PARK - (RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCROACHMENT) - JANE A. GRAVES, AND
OTHERS, VS. STATE OF FLORIDA. AND OTHERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 24, 1994:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: February 24, 1994
SUBJECT: JANE A. GRAVES, AND OTHERS, VS. STATE OF
FLORIDA, AND OTHERS
Indian River County is a named defendant in the subject law suit. A
copy of the complaint is attached for reference.
This is an action in ejectment and for damages based upon Plaintiffs'
reliance on a plat. Pine Tree Park was platted in June of 1953 by Vero
Beach Associates, Inc. The plat showed a 60 foot road right-of-way
adjacent .to the subdivision, the road being Southern Boulevard (lateral
B-4 County Road) now 4th Street. This road was at one time a state
road and the property abutting this road was subject to a Murphy deed
reservation (100 feet on each side of centerline) . The road was later
turned over to the County including the Murphy deed reservation.
This reservation was apparently overlooked by the engineers who
platted the subdivision and by subsequent title companies who insured
the properties. Over the years a number of houses have been built on
the platted lots and unknowingly have encroached into the County
right-of-way.
These facts recently came to light when one of the Plaintiffs, Jane A.
Graves, tried to sell an undeveloped lot. The staff was asked to agree
to an abandonment of these property rights. It was explained by
County staff that thit, road is a collector road and that the 100 feet will
be needed in the future for expansion; therefore, the statutory
prerequisites for abandonment did not exist.
The owners of property under the above circumstances are in an
unfortunate position; however, 4th Street is a collector road and on the
thoroughfare plan. It will be widened eventually and the right-of-way
is not surplus. The owners have title insurance but apparently it is
inadequate to make them whole.
In view of the forgoing, a number of affected landowners have filed an
action against the County to gain title to this right-of-way property.
Staff is in the process of filing several motions which go to the
Procedural aspects of the filing.
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien gave a brief history
of how the State acquired numerous tracts of land in foreclosure
actions during the 1930s. The State subsequently sold many of the
parcels, but where parcels were located along a state road right-
of-way, 100 feet on each side of the center line was reserved for
future use, known as a Murphy Deed reservation. The subject area
along 4th Street is an example of instances where roads were
transferred to the County, but the County was. not aware of the
46
Murphy Deed reservations. Attorney O'Brien advised that Murphy
Deed reservations exist throughout the county, and there is no easy
method of determining where they are. He emphasized that if we
pursue the lawsuit, we will have to file a counterclaim of
ejectment and we would be throwing people out of their homes.
Commissioner Macht felt that it would have been better for
them to ask the Board for relief before proceeding with a lawsuit.
He emphasized that he had not heard about this problem until it
appeared on the agenda for today's meeting.
Attorney O'Brien agreed, and he stated that one of the motions
will be to ask the Court to dismiss the suit due to the failure of
the plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies.
Public Works Director Jim Davis agreed that the Murphy Act
affects numerous properties that were on State roads at the time
the Act was passed. The County does not have a comprehensive list
of all those properties, but we know that many of them are on
larger tracts and that title companies have not always conducted
adequate research. He stated that staff is anxious to find out the
magnitude of the situation.
Commissioner Bird felt that we should be consistent in our
handling of Murphy Deed reservations.
Attorney O'Brien advised that any action taken by the County
to settle this lawsuit will not create a precedent. However, he
agreed that it is preferable to be consistent.
Commissioner Macht asked whether the County needs this right-
of-way.
ight-
of-way.
Director Davis responded that the County will not need this
right-of-way within the next few years. However, 4th Street has
been planned as a major thoroughfare because it is the only road
that passes under I-95.
Commissioner Macht recommended that we let the Court case
proceed. He asked whether the subject lawsuit is deficient.
Attorney O'Brien responded that staff will file motions on a
number of procedural aspects of the claim. If the case is not
dismissed as a result of those motions, then the County will have
to file an answer and counterclaim. Unfortunately, we would be
required to file an ejection action as part of the counterclaim.
Commissioner Macht stressed that it would be devastating to
wake up and learn one day that you do not own your living room. He
asked whether the County, by issuing the building permits, was
certifying that the parcels were free and clear.
Attorney O'Brien advised that there have been Court cases
where the government was not held responsible.
47
�MAR 8 1994 eooK 91 F.'uGE 949
BOOK .950
William Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, addressed the issue
of whether the property owners would have recourse through the
title insurance companies.
Attorney O'Brien explained that the title insurance coverage
amounts are not enough to cover the value of the people's property.
Attorney Sherman N. Smith, Jr., announced that he represents
ll'of the property owners in the affected area of 4th. Street. He
contended that the State of Florida released this particular Murphy
Deed reservation. He felt certain his clients would win the
lawsuit, but the County has unlimited resources and staff
attorneys, and his clients do not have unlimited resources.
Therefore, he preferred to settle out of Court. He emphasized
that, although there are many Murphy Deed reservations throughout
the county, he did not believe there is another situation exactly
like this in the county. He suggested that the Board authorize a
meeting among the appropriate staff members and himself in an
attempt to resolve this.
Commissioner Bird asked if there was some action the Board
could take to resolve this today.
Attorney Vitunac advised that staff needs to conduct further
research. He asked Attorney Smith if he would be willing file a
motion for voluntary dismissal while County staff conducts its
research. Attorney Smith replied that he would recommend to his
clients that they proceed with the lawsuit.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that the County file the
appropriate motions but delay making a request for a hearing date.
He emphasized that the major question to be asked is, if the County
wins the lawsuit, is whether the Board is willing to force these
people out of their homes.
Commissioner Adams felt that these people have become victims,
and that this problem must be resolved. She asked staff to
research the alternatives and present them at a future Board
meeting. Meanwhile, the lawsuit can proceed.
Administrator Chandler stated that we need to determine
whether there is a way to resolve this dilemma in the best
interests of the County as well as the people who have homes there.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, 'SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to direct staff to respond to
the lawsuit, meet with Attorney Smith to find
alternative ways to resolve the issue, and present
the alternatives to the Board at a future meeting.
48
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams stated that the County
Attorney, Community Development Director Bob Keating, and Public
Works Director Jim Davis should participate in the meeting with
Attorney Sherman Smith.
Sandra Swisher, representing Donna Burd, reported that the
clouds on the titles had been revealed by August 30, 1993, when the
water lines were placed along 4th Street. She asked why this issue
was not addressed at that time.
Chairman Tippin stated that Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto also should attend the meeting with Attorney Sherman Smith.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER MACHT LEFT THE MEETING AT 11:35 A.M. DUE TO ILLNESS.
APPROVAL OF BASE GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND
The Board reviewed the following memos dated February 15,
1994, and March 6, 1994:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, ounty Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: February 15, 1994
SUBJECT: Approval of Base Grant Agreement From the Emergency
Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund
Contract Number 94 -EO -4M-10-40-01-031
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In 1993, the Florida Legislature enacted two significant pieces of
legislation to improve disaster preparedness and response
capabilities throughout Florida. These bills, known as HB 911 and SB
1858, strengthen emergency management planning requirements at all
levels, provide additional funding for emergency management programs,
and implement numerous additional recommendations of the Governor's
Disaster Planning and Response Review Committee.
Included in the new legislation is a funding mechanism created for
local emergency management agencies and other programs in an
Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund. The
funding comes from an annual nonrefundable surcharge of $2.00 per
C,9:
MAR 1994 BOOK �� �t, F O5 .
BOOK
, 9:1 PiUF 952
every homeowner's, mobile homeowner's, tenant homeowner's, and
condominium unit owner's policy, and an annual $4.00 nonrefundable
surcharge imposed on every commercial fire, commercial multiple
peril, and business owner's property insurance policy, issued or
renewed.
The Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency
Management, recently completed the rulemaking and contract
development processes regarding county base funding from the
Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund.
This is the grant fund that Florida Division of Emergency Management
Director Joe Myers and his staff was referring to during his
presentation at the Public Officials Conference for Indian River
County, which was held on February 11, 1994, for all local elected
and appointed officials.
Indian River County has received the above referenced contract
specifying that $70,424 in matching funds is available based on a
formula prescribed by law and detailed in Rule Chapter 9G-19, Florida
Administrative Code, and by certification of the County to employ and
maintain a full-time Emergency Management Director. Although a total
of $71,924 was allocated to Indian River County, a deduction of
$1,500 has been made by the state for communications costs per
Section 9G-19.005 (3), Florida Administrative Code.
Staff proposes to use the grant funds for the following purposes:
1. Create a new Emergency Management position (Planner or
Deputy Coordinator) classified as an exempt grade E-7 with
a salary range of $23,295 - $35,465. Additional expenses
related to the position include benefits of $8,250 (30%)
and vehicle allowance of $3,300 for an estimated total of
$39,050 in personnel costs funded 100% by the recurring
grant. It is anticipated that a mid-range salary ($27,500)
will be required to obtain an individual with EM skills.
2. Office furniture and equipment for new position $1,500.
3. Purchase three (3) fax machines at $400 each or $1,200 for
use in the fax network related to notifying public safety
entities/ schools in the county of emergencies and severe
weather conditions. One fax machine would replace a
Panafax model purchased in 1986 and the other two would be
additional fax machines so incoming messages could be
received while faxing emergency information to agencies or
organizations noted above.
4. Purchase two (2) lap top computers with data modem at
$5,000 each or $10,000. The computers would be used for
the most part in a field environment completing SARA Title
III requirements for the approximately one hundred
hazardous material sites in the county as well as in field
emergencies situations when the emergency services duty
officer is called out after hours and on weekends.
5. Purchase one video projector $2,500 for use in the
Emergency Operations Center. The projector would also be
used in various training environments and available for use
in meetings and emergency services presentations to the
public at various locations throughout the county.
6. Purchase one wide screen television ($3,000) for use in the
Emergency Operations Center. The large screen television
would also be used for meetings and presentations when a
small screen television is unsuitable for large crowds in
the conference room.
50
7, Purchase NEXRAD radar weather computer system for existing
weather software in emergency services for $3,000. This
additional weather equipment will improve and enhance the
ability to scan approaching severe weather conditions. The
additional computer system is needed because satellite and
radar will not work simultaneously with the current system
now being utilized.
The above estimated personnel and equipment expenses total $60,250.
It is proposed that the $10,174 balance of the grant funds remain in
a contingency account and expended upon approval by the appropriate
authority.
A personnel Job Description Questionnaire was completed for this
planned position on May 6, 1993, and the classification was
recommended by the Personnel Director in a memorandum dated July 15,
1993, after completing a review based on the "points" system
currently used by the County.
The matching funds for this grant are currently in place since the
emergency management budget exceeds the amount of the base grant. No
additional funds are needed to qualify for this grant. It should be
noted that funds received from the Emergency Management, Preparedness
and Assistance Trust Fund may not be used to supplant existing funds.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Base Grant includes a scope of work that must be completed during
the term of the grant. It also provides certain computer equipment
(page 8) to be used for satellite communications between the State
Emergency Operations Center and the Indian River County EOC. As
mentioned above and noted in the grant cover letter, a deduction of
$1,500 has already been made by the state for communications costs
per section 9G-19.005 (3), Florida Administrative Code.
The new legislation now included in Chapter 252, Florida Statutes
compels the emergency management agencies to comply with the
following:
1. Work with the Department of Education and local school
board to develop new criteria designed to ensure that new
educational facilities can serve as public shelters for
emergency management purposes.
2. Serve as liaison and coordinator of municipalities,
requests for state and federal assistance during post -
disaster emergency operations.
3. Identify and register persons in need of assistance and
plan for resource allocation to meet identified needs.
Disabled persons must be given the option of preauthorizing
emergency response personnel to enter their homes during
search and rescue operations if necessary to assure their
safety and welfare. Emergency Management agencies must
work with HRS, agencies, community-based service providers,
and home health care providers to inform all their incoming
clients of the registry as part of the intake process.
4. Assist in surveying all schools, and other state,
municipal, and county owned public buildings to identify
those suitable to serve as shelters and those suitable to
be retrofitted for shelters using state funds.
51
MAR 81994 BOOK 91 P& F 953
_ 11OK 91
MAR 8 1994 UE 954
5. Requires the local emergency management agency to review
the comprehensive emergency management plan for all
intermediate care facilities for the developmentally
disabled, facilities serving seven or more people, and
homes serving individuals who have complex medical
conditions. The local emergency management agency must
ensure that, at a minimum, the following agencies and
organizations are given the opportunity to review the plan:
Department of HRS, Agency for Health Care Administration,
the Department of Community Affairs, and appropriate
volunteer organizations. The coordination process is
handled at the local level by the EM agency and all
required reviews must be completed within 60 days.
The new requirements regarding plan reviews noted above is going to
be very time consuming and ongoing since it must be done on an annual
basis. Indian River County now has approximately twenty (20)
facilities that fall within the criteria for the annual emergency
plan reviews and some of the facilities are substantial in size.
It should be noted that an Administrative Rule (9G-20.001) in draft
form is being promulgated which would potentially allow county
emergency management agencies to charge up to $375 for review of a
facility plan and a higher amount if approved by DCA. County
Emergency Management Agencies are authorized to establish their fee
schedules so as to charge any amount less than or equal to, but no
more than, the fees established in the rule. It is recommended that
the revenue generated from plan reviews in Indian River County would
be used to enhance the county emergency management program.
Staff understands that should the Trust Fund grant revenue cease to
be available in the future, that the Board is under no obligation to
-fund the proposed position from other revenue sources.
RECONENDATION
Staff recommends the Board approve the Emergency Management,
Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Base Grant which includes a
new staff position and expenditures for non -capital and capital
equipment as noted, with the balance of the grant funds being
retained in a contingency account for later allocation during the
fiscal year.
Staff also recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the
necessary documents to obtain the funds and approve a budget
amendment to receive and expend the grant funds.
52
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator i^°"" River c° Approved Oate
Admin. 7 _. c
FROM: Doug Wrightxirector Legal ,- 1
Emergency Services Budget = -�
DATE: March 6, 1994 Deft. 3-1 _q
Rlak--
SUBJECT: Amendment of Agenda Item entitled "Approval of Base Grant
Agreement from the Emergency Management, Preparedness and
Assistance Trust Fund Contract Number 94 -EO -4M-10-40-01-031
Staff attended a Base Grant Workshop in West Palm Beach on Thursday,
March 3, 1994, to receive additional information regarding the new
rules which were promulgated (9G-18) as a result of the new
legislation.
Staff was informed at the Workshop that contrary to language included
in the Agreement, the Base Grant is not a matching grant. The state
officials stated the language would be changed in the Agreement next
year. It was noted in the agenda item before the Commission today
that the grant was a matching grant and it needed to be clarified for
the record.
Staff also was informed that if Emergency Management did not have an
Emergency Operations Center that was open twenty-four hours a day,
the new satellite communications computer equipment would be a remote
in a location where it could be monitored for emergency
communications when the EOC was not staffed.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Board approve $2,500 out of the
balance of the Trust Fund Grant for the purchase of computer
equipment to remote the satellite system. Staff would place the
remote system at the E911 Center at the Sheriff's Office although the
equipment would remain the property of the Department of Emergency
Services.
If Board approval is granted, the personnel and equipment expenses
from the $70,424 grant would total $62,750 in lieu of $60,250 as
noted in the agenda item. The unallocated balance of the grant would
change from $10,174 to $7,674.
Staff was also informed that the law and rules do not provide for any
carry over of the grant funds to the next fiscal year. Therefore,
any unused grant funds not expended by the County will have to be
returned and allocated to other counties. Staff intends to expend
the entire grant amount on equipment or. projects that will improve
and expand the Emergency Management program throughout the county.
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright reported that he
attended a workshop regarding this grant in West Palm Beach the day
after he submitted this item for today's agenda. He clarified that
this is a recurring grant and no matching funds are required from
the County, and if funding ceases in the future the position will
be eliminated.
53
MAR 81994 BOOK 91
nor 91 F!,F t@�—7
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting) approved
the Emergency Management, Preparedness and
Assistance Trust Fund Base Grant, as set forth in
staff's recommendation.
GRANT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO WORK ORDER NO. 2 - OSLO ROAD/OLD DI%IE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 1, 1994:
TO: James B. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROJames W. Davis, P.B.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.ES;0
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to Work Order No. 2
Oslo Road/Old Dixie Highway Improvements
DATE: March 1, 1994 FILE: OsloAmn3.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County
to perform professional services for the reconstruction and widening of Oslo
Road. Widening includes a five lane urban cross section from US 1 to Old
Dixie Highway and a three lane urban cross section from Old Dixie to a point
approximately 500 feet west of Old Dixie Highway.
A three lane cross section, expandable to five lane, was proposed west of Old
Dixie because of opposition to the five lane section from adjacent property
owners. These properties have recently been sold and staff recommends that
the five lane section be extended west of Old Dixie.
The attached Amendment No. 3 provides for revising the portion of Oslo Road
west of Old Dixie Highway from a three lane section to a five lane section.
The five lane revisions can be done without the need for additional
permitting, resulting in a one to two week turn around.
Amendment No. 3 also includes limited construction observation services. The
Engineer of Record needs to observe construction in order to provide Final
Certifications to permitting agencies.
Attached is a manhour schedule for revising the construction drawings. The
compensation due the Engineer for this work is $6,457. The compensation due
the Engineer for 40 hours construction observation and final certification is
$3,400. These amounts added to the current Contract amount of $92,407 results
in a new contract amount of $102,264.
54
L
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the attached Amendment No. 3 under Work Order No. 2 between
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Indian River County.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the attached Amendment No. 3.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that Alternative No. 1 be approved whereby the attached
Amendment No. 3 is approved. Funding is from Account 101-156-541-067.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting) approved
Amendment No. 3 to Work Order No. 2 with Kimley -
Horn and Associates, Inc., in the total amount of
$9,857, as recommended by staff.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO WORK ORDER NO. 2 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
EXECUTION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 28, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
FROM: Jeanne Bres
Interim Chie ffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Execution of Traffic Control Device
Construction Contract
DATE: February 28, 1994
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On December 21, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the
traffic control device material and construction bid to American
Lighting and Signalization, Inc. (contractor), Parrish, Florida.
In order for American Lighting and Signalization, Inc., to provide
construction services on an as needed basis for traffic control devices
the attached contract must be executed by the Board of County
Commissioners and the contractor.
55
��� 1994 BOOK 91 F'tv�E 957
�464A
BOOK 91 Far,F 958
It is intended that upon execution of this contract, the Public Works
Director or his designee will authorize a written work order as the need
arises.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request for approval from the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners to execute the traffic control device contract is the
proposal before the board at this time.
RECOMEMMATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request based upon the fact that the Public Works Department has several
pending and future traffic signalization projects that can not be
performed presently by County staff.
Funding will be from individual construction accounts. Various sources
of funding (traffic impact fees) will be utilized dependent upon
project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting) approved
the contract with American Lighting and
Signalization, Inc., to provide construction
services for traffic control devices on an as -needed
basis, as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER EXPANSION PLAN PHASE IV - RESOLUTION TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES FROM FUTURE TAX EXEMPT BORROWINGS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 24, 1994:
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA'
FROM: TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
PREPARED HARRY E.
AND STAFFED ASSISTAN
BY:
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO REI
EXEMPT BORROWINGS
BACKGROUND
SERVICES
OF UTILITY SERVICES
EXPENDITURES FROM FUTURE TAX
Attached is a resolution, which is a requirement in order to be able to
reimburse for funds expended to construct the water expansion plan - Phase
IV.
56
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting early)
adopted Resolution 94-45, establishing the intent of
the Board of County Commissioners to reimburse
certain expenditures in connection with the Phase IV
water main extension project from the proceeds of
future bond issues, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIM-
BURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PHASE IV WATER MAIN EXTENSION
PROJECT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FUTURE BOND
ISSUES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida, (the County) expects to make
certain expenditures in connection with the Phase IV Water Main Extension
Project of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to reimburse itself for said expenditures
from the proceeds of future bond issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The
County
expects to
make certain expenditures in connection with
the
Phase IV
Water Main
Extension Project of the County (the Project) .
The County intends to finance said expenditures by the issuance of one
or more future bond issues. Some or all of said expenditures are
expected to be paid prior to the issuance of said future bond issues.
Therefore, said expenditures will be paid from the Utility Operating
Fund, the Utility Impact Fee Fund, and the Utility Special Assessment
Project Fund of the County. The County intends to reimburse said
funds for said expenditures out of the proceeds of said future bond
57
MAR 8 1994 BOOK 91 PtKA59
r MAR R 199
.Boor 91 �,A;c 96®
RESOLUTION N0. 94-45
issues. The maximum principal amount of said future - bond issues
expected to be used for said reimbursement is $2,400,000. Said
expenditures include without limitation expenditures for the acquisition,
construction, furnishing, and equipping the Project; for reports,
studies, and projections in connection with the Project; for engineering,
surveying, and legal work in connection with the Project; and for other
items directly related to the Project.
2. This resolution shall constitute a "Declaration of Official Intent" within
the meaning of Section 1.103-18 of the federal income tax regulations.
3. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the County is
hereby directed to make a copy of this resolution available for public
inspection during regular business • hours of the Office of the Clerk in
the County
Administration Building, beginning
no later
than
30 days
following the
adoption of this resolution and to
keep the
same
available
for public inspection at such place and during such hours until the date
upon which the bond issues herein mentioned are issued and delivered by
the County.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner A rl a m r ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin a y e
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird a y e
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert a y e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams a y e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 8 t h day of March , 1994.
ttest:
Jeffrey K. arton, Clerk J�
Y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
John W. Tipp'
Chairman
58
WATER EXPANSION PLAN PHASE V - RESOLUTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES
FROM FUTURE TAX EXEMPT BORROWINGS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 24, 1994:
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT R
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASH
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT RE TOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM FUTURE TAX
EXEMPT BORROWINGS
BACKGROUND
Attached is a resolution, which is a requirement in order to be able to
reimburse for funds expended to construct the water expansion plan - Phase
V.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting early)
adopted Resolution 94-46, establishing the intent of
the Board of County Commissioners to reimburse
certain expenditures in connection with the Phase V
water main extension project from the proceeds of
future bond issues, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIM-
BURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PHASE V WATER MAIN EXTENSION
PROJECT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FUTURE BOND
ISSUES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida, (the County) expects to make
certain expenditures in connection with the Phase V Water Main Extension
Project of the County; and
W]
MAR 81994 800K 91 PAU9
-7 800K 9, Fe : !� 19
MAR 8 199
RESOLUTION NO. 94-46
WHEREAS, the County intends to reimburse itself for said expenditures
from the proceeds of future bond issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County expects to make certain expenditures in connection with
the Phase V Water Main Extension Project of the County (the Project) .
The County intends to finance said expenditures by the issuance of one
or more future bond issues. Some or all of said expenditures are
expected to be paid prior to the issuance of said future bond issues.
Therefore, said expenditures will be paid from the Utility Operating
Fund, the Utility Impact Fee Fund, and the Utility Special Assessment
Project Fund of the County. The County intends to reimburse said
funds for said expenditures out of the proceeds of said future bond
issues. The maximum principal amount of said future- bond issues
expected to be used for said reimbursement is $1,800,000. Said
expenditures include without limitation expenditures for the acquisition,
construction, furnishing, and equipping the Project; for reports,
studies, and projections in connection with the Project; for engineering,
surveying, and legal work in connection with the Project; and for other
items directly related to the Project.
2. This resolution shall constitute a "Declaration of Official Intent" within
the meaning of Section 1.103-18 of the federal income tax regulations.
3. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the County is
hereby directed to make a copy of this resolution available for public
inspection during regular business hours of the Office of the Clerk in
the County Administration Building, beginning no later than 30 days
following the adoption of this resolution and to keep the same available
for public inspection at such place and during such hours until the date
upon which the bond issues herein mentioned are issued and delivered by
the County.
60
s � �
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
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 a y e
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert a y e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams a y e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this g t day of M a r r_ h , 1994.
Attest:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
`J'ohn Tipp'
Chairman
WATER MAIN EXPANSION PLAN PHASE VI - RESOLUTION TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES FROM FUTURE TAX EXEMPT BORROWINGS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 24, 1994:
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ERVICES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHE
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT B11itffCOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM FUTURE TAX
EXEMPT BORROWINGS
BACKGROUND
Attached is a resolution, which is a requirement in order to be able to
reimburse for funds expended to construct the water expansion plan - Phase
VI.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached resolution.
61
MAR 81994 BOOK 93. PvH 96*3
MAR BOOK
1994
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting early)
adopted Resolution 94-47, establishing the intent of
the Board of County Commissioners to reimburse
certain expenditures in connection with the Phase VI
water main extension project from the proceeds of
future bond issues, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 4 7
9i F -F 964
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIM-
BURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PHASE VI WATER MAIN EXTENSION
PROJECT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FUTURE BOND
ISSUES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida, (the County) expects to make
certain expenditures in connection with the Phase VI Water Main Extension
Project of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to reimburse itself for said expenditures
from the proceeds of future bond issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County expects to make certain expenditures in connection with
the Phase VI Water Main Extension Project of the County (the Project) .
The County intends to finance said expenditures by the issuance of one
or more future bond issues. Some or all of said expenditures are
expected to be paid prior to the issuance of said future bond issues.
Therefore, said expenditures will be paid from the Utility Operating
Fund, the Utility Impact Fee Fund, and the Utility Special Assessment
Project Fund of the County. The County intends to reimburse said
funds for said expenditures out of the proceeds of said future bond
issues . The maximum principal amount of said future - bond issues
expected to be used for said reimbursement is $2,500,000. Said
expenditures include without limitation expenditures for the acquisition,
construction, furnishing, and equipping the Project; for reports,
62
RESOLUTION NO. 94-47
studies, and projections in connection with the Project; for engineering,
surveying, and legal work in connection with the Project; and for other
items directly related to the Project.
2. This resolution shall constitute a "Declaration of Official Intent" within
the meaning of Section 1.103-18 of the federal income tax regulations.
3. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the County is
hereby directed to make a copy of this resolution available for public
inspection during regular business hours of the Office of the Clerk in
the County Administration Building, beginning no later than 30 days
following the adoption of this resolution and to keep the same available
for public inspection at such place and during such hours until the date
upon which the bond issues herein mentioned are issued and delivered by
the County.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
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 a y e
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird a y e
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert a y e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams a y e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 8th day of March , 1994.
Attest:
1: �tQ�
Jeffrey K. arton, Clerk
•000~
63
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
I John W . Tipprin
Chairman
1�9�M'Jr.BOOK F 965
FF -MAR 8 1994 BOOK
SLUDGE/SEPTAGE FACILITY TRUCK SCALES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated February 24, 1994:
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF CES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASH
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: SLUDGE/SEPTAGE FACILITY TRUCK SCALES
BACKGROUND:
On October 19, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved the work
authorization for Camp, Dresser & Mckee, Inc. to prepare the site plan, performance
specifications to assure standardization of equipment (compatible with landfill scales)
and documents for solicitation of Request for Proposal for the installation of weighing
scales at the sludge/septage facility. The Request for Proposal required the
furnishing and installation of equipment per the performance specifications for a
turnkey truck scale and computerized weighing and data collection/accounting system
for tracking incoming sludge and septage for customer accounts at the facility.
ANALYSIS:
The Consultant has completed the site plan, performance specifications to assure
standardization of equipment, and prepared the Request for Proposal for submittal to
qualified vendors. The Department requested the Consultant submit the Request for
Proposal to Dickey Scales, the vendor who provided the scales for the landfill system,
to assure standardization of equipment. The Department believes that with
standardization that reduced testing, maintenance and repair costs can be achieved.
The Department has received Dickey Scales' response to the Request for Proposal.
The Department and Consultant have reviewed the response to the Request for
Proposal and have determined that the submittal meets the requirements set forth in
the request. The Department and Consultant have met with Dickey Scales and
negotiated the price of $65,914.00 to perform the requirements set forth in the
Request for Proposal (attached). The Department has compared the negotiated price
with the bids received for the landfill system in 1991 and the current bid is lower
overall than the 1991 landfill bid. Funding for this project will be from existing funds in
the Sludge/ Septage Construction Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the request
to sole source and to authorize the execution of the attached contract with Dickey
Scales to provide the services set forth in the Request for Proposal.
64
Director Pinto was pleased to report that staff was able to
negotiate a better price for these scales than the 1991 price,
which was $78,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting early)
approved the contract in the amount of $65,914.00
with Dickey Scales for sludge/septage facility truck
scales, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOMINEE FOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE EQUITY STUDY COMMISSION MEMBERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 4, 1994:
Chairman Tippin nominated Pete Clements.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
DATE: March 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Nominee for Occupational License Equity
Study Commission Members
I would like to place the name of Amy Zwemer in
nomination for the above-named commission. She is a CPA and
an A to Z Computer Consultant. Her phone number is
569-4519.
CKE/jlm
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht having left the meeting early)
approved the appointment of Pete Clements and Amy
Zwemer to the Occupational License Equity Study
Commission, as recommended by staff.
65
MAR 8 1994 BOOK JPa6; 967
BOOK
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the
Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. . Barton, Clerk
66
John W. Tipp ` , °hairman
- M