HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/5/1994BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 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) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 3 )
Fran B. ;dams ( Dist. 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Richard N. Bird ( Dist. 5 )
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - Rev. Richard Speck
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chas. P. Vitunac
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
7.I. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Certification
1994-95 Fiscal Year
13.E. Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board - Membership Changes
and Alternates
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Adoption E Presentation of Proclamation Designating
April, 1994 as "Fair Housing Month" in I.R.C.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of March 1, 1994
B. Regular Meeting of March 8,'1994
C. Regular Meeting of March 15, 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received E Placed on File in Office of Clerk:
Fellsmere Water Control District Audit Reports
for year ended Sept. 30, 1993
I.R. Mosquito Control District Audit Reports for
year ended Sept. 30, 1993
Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of Seb. Riv. Water Control Dist.
March 2, 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.) :
B. Appointment of Rosemary Sparks to Children's
Services Advisory Committee, representing
Child Care Assoc. of Indian River County
( letter dated March 24, 1994)-
C.
994)
C. Additional Representation on Children's
Services Advisory Committee
( memorandum dated March 28, 1994 )
D. Retroactive Approval for Letter of Support
for Center of Arts Planned Renovation
( letter dated March 22, 1994 )
E. Request for Travel for Alice White to Attend
Seminar for Records Management Liaison Officers
on April 15, 1994
( memorandum dated March 18, 1994 )
F. .. Glendale Trade Center Inc. Is Request for, Final
Plat Approval for a Commercial S/D to be Known
as Glendale Industrial Park
( memorandum dated March 28, 1994 )
G. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated March 17, 1994 )
H. . Award Bid #4062 / Green Acres Water Main
( memorandum dated March 25, 1994 )
B. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CREATING THE MOORINGS STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT
( memorandum dated March 9, 1994 )
2. Emergency Ordinance to Make a Clarifica-
tion Change to the Road Frontage Require-
ment of the County's S/D Ordinance
(memorandum dated March 30, 1994)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Sales Tax Workshop Schedule
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Consideration of the Revised Indian River
County Local Housing Assistance Plan
( memorandum dated March 28, 1994 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.) :
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Administration Building HVAC System Study
Consultant's Report
( memorandum dated March 28, 1994 )
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Professional Engineering Services Agreement
66th Ave. Roadway and Drainage Improvements
( memorandum dated March 16, 1994) ' --
2. Fourth Amendment to Professional Engineer-
ing Services Agreement - Kimball E Assoc.
(memorandum dated March 18, 1994)
H. UTILITIES
1. 11th Court, SW - Water Service
(memorandum dated March 24, 1994)
2. Agreement / I.R.C. and John 8 Connie
Everhart - Water Service
(memorandum dated March 25, 1994)
3. Water Expansion Plan Phase III / Contract
#4, Change Order No. 1 E Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated March 25, 1994)
4. Water Service for 1-95/SR 60 Commercial
Node, Ph. 11, 82nd Ave. Water Main
( memorandum dated March 17, 1994 )
5. final Pay Request / Raintree Corner S/D
( memorandum dated March 21, 1994 )
6. Master Plan Continuing Consulting Services
Agreement for 1994
(memorandum dated March 23, 1994) "-
7. So. Co. R.O. Plant Expansion, Ph. II,
Change Order No. 1
(memorandum dated March 10, 1994)
8. Petition Water Service in Raintree Corner
S/D (54th Ave. So. of 12th St.), Res.. IV,
Final Assessment Roll
( memorandum dated March 16, 1994 )
APR - 5 1994
APR = 51994 �
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MRCHT
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
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE 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.
i � r
Tuesday, April 5, 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, April 5, 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.
Rev. Richard Speck, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, gave
the invocation, and Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Tippin requested the addition of Item 7.I., 1994-95
Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Certificate of Participation.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13.E.,
Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board membership
changes and appointment of alternates.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously added the
above items to the Agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Chairman Tippin read aloud the following proclamation and
presented it to Shirley Tyler, chairman of Equal Opportunity
Housing for the Board of Realtors of Indian River County, who
thanked the Board for participating in efforts to achieve fair
BOOK ' FACE
APR - 5 1994
APR - 5 1994m
BOOK 92 F,,1F 26
housing in Indian River County. She stated that the Vero Beach -
Indian River Board of Realtors is proud of its contribution and
support of the Fair Housing Act and other fair housing compliance
programs.
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING APRIL, 1994
AS "FAIR HOUSING MONTH" ,
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS; the Vero Beach -Indian River Board of Realtors has
hereby petitioned that April, 1994 be designated as Fair Housing
Month; and
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Vero Beach -Indian River Board
of Realtors. to promote the theme for the month of April, 1994 as.
"Fair Housing Opens Doors"; and
WHEREAS, the federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimina-
tion on the.basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status
or national origin and all people•have the right to live wherever
they choose to live; and
WHEREAS•, the Vero Beach -Indian River Board of Realtors is
committed to educating their members, as. well as buyers and
sellers on how to fully comply with fair housing laws. A
person's ability to rent or own should be -limited only by how
much he or she can afford. "Fair Housing" means equal access.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that April, 1994 be
designated -as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
in Indian River County. The Board urges all citizens of the
county to support the Vero Beach -Indian River Board of Realtors
in their efforts to provide fair housing.
Adopted this 5th day of April, 1994.
•. i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,, FLORIDA
19 `
J�Shn W . Tip n, Chai
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March_1, 1994. There were
none.
E
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of March 1, 1994, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 8, 1994. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of March 8, 1994, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 15, 1994. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of March 15, 1994, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in the
Office of the Clerk to the Board:
Fellsmere Water Control District Audit Reports for year ended
September 30, 1993
Indian River Mosquito Control District Audit Reports for year
ended September 30, 1993
Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of
Sebastian River Water Control District held March 2, 1994
B. Appointment of Rosemary Sparks to Children's Services Advisory
Committee, Representing the IRC Child Care Association
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed
Rosemary Sparks to replace Patti Hinton as the
designated representative of the Child Care
Association of Indian River County on the Children's
Services Advisory Committee.
3 BOOK 2,7
L_ APR m 5 1994
APR - 5 l§q
BOOK 92 rnr- 28
C. Additional Representation on Children's Services Advisory
Committee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 28, 1994:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Kenneth R. Macht, Commission Vice -Chairman 11;gR
Date: March 28, 1994
Re: Additional representation on the Children's Services
Advisory Committee
Please approve Patti Hinton being designated as
representing the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC) on the Children's Services Advisory
Committee. She formerly represented the Child Care
Association on this committee.,
Also, please approve a representative of the Junior
Service League of Indian River, Inc. to serve on the
Children's Services Advisory Committee and Jeanine Chapp,
who will be representing the Juvenile Justice Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed
Patti Hinton as the designated representative of the
National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC), and Jeanine Chapp as the
designated representative of the Juvenile Justice
Council, on the Children's Services Advisory
Committee.
D. Retroactive Approval of Letter of Support - Planned Renovation
of the Center for the Arts
The Board reviewed the following letter dated March 22, 1994:
Honorable Carolyn K. Eggert
County Commissioner
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Carolyn:
On behalf of the Center for the Arts, I am requesting your endorsement of an
application to be submitted to the State of Florida's Cultural Facilities Program to
support a planned renovation of the Center. This application will be reviewed by the
Florida Arts Council which will make funding recommendations to the Secretary of
State, with final approval by the Legislature and the Governor. Your endorsement by
letter of this project will play a crucial role in the success of the application.
4
These renovations will improve our collection storage vault, and expand administrative
office space to improve our level of educational services to the community.
The Center plans to forward the grant package to the State in early April.
I am enclosing a sample support letter for your use. I would be most grateful to receive
this letter not later than March 29, 1994.
Thank you so much for your help.
Sincerely
John B. Henry, III
Executive Director
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
retroactive approval to the following letter of
support dated March 25, 1994:
March 25, 1994
The Honorable Jim Smith
Secretary of State
Florida Department of State
Division of Cultural Affairs
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am - writing this letter for the Board of County
Commissioners in support of the Center for the Arts planned
renovation:
These renovations will improve -the collection storage vault
and expand administrative office space to improve the level of
educational services to the community.
We wholeheartedly endorse the Center for the Arts'
application to the State of Florida's Cultural Facilities program
for planned renovation of the Center.
Sincerely,'
Jairm
W .Ti�ian
JWT:aw
5 BOOK 92 PAGE .',?9
BOOK 92 FAGE 30
E. Rectuest for Travel for Alice White to Attend Seminar for
Records Management Liaison Officers on April 15 1994•
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 18, 1994:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Alice E. White, Executive Aide
RE: Seminar for Records Management Liaison Officers
DATE: March 18, 1994
The State Records Management Division is giving a one day seminar
in West Palm Beach on Monday, April 25, 1994, which is geared
primarily for new Records Management Liaison Officers (RMLO.)' I
feel it would benefit me as an RMLO to attend this session. The
registration fee is $40.00 and there is sufficient money in
account 001-101-511-035.43 to pay for this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
out -of -county travel for Executive Aide Alice White
to attend a one -day records management seminar in
West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 25, 1994.
F. Glendale Trade Center Inc - Request for Final Plat Approval
for Commercial Subdivision to be Known as Glendale Industrial Park
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 28, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D SIO HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Keatin , AffiCr
Community Development ire Fr
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICPW
Senior Planner, Cur ent Development
DATE: March 28, 1994
SUBJECT: Glendale Trade Center Inc. Is Request for Final Plat
Approval for a Commercial Subdivision to be Known as
Glendale Industrial Park
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 51 1994.
6
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Glendale Industrial Park subdivision is a 9 lot subdivision of
a ±17 acre parcel of property located in the 800 block of 8th
Street. The subject property is south of 8th Street and situated
between Old Dixie and the FEC railroad (see attachment #2). The
project is, split zoned with a portion being zoned CH (Heavy
Commercial) and a portion being zoned IL (Light Industrial). The
entire site has a C/I (Commercial/ Industrial) land use designation.*
At its regular meeting of March 24, 1988, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the project.
Since that time, all necessary permits have been obtained and all
necessary subdivision improvements have been completed, including
roads, water and sewer utilities, and drainage facilities.
The applicant's agent, Todd Smith, P.E., on behalf of. Glendale
Industrial Park, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval and
has submitted the following: .11
1. A final plat in conformance with the revised and approved
preliminary plat.
ANALYSIS:
There was a considerable amount of time between the applicant's
preliminary plat approval and the applicant's request for final
plat approval. During this period, the applicant applied for and
received a number of site plan approvals and constructed buildings
within the tract of land that constitutes the proposed subdivision.
At present, all building sites within the proposed subdivision have
been built upon with the exception of one building site. The
layout of the existing buildings has required the applicant to
modify the originally approved preliminary plat so that the lots
conform with the existing structures. As a result, the final plat
depicts 9 large lots, while the preliminary plat showed 14 smaller
lots. All of the lots comply with county zoning requirements. As
required, the applicant has submitted as built plans which document
that platting of the project will not create any nonconformities.
All subdivision improvements have been constructed by the developer
and have been inspected and deemed acceptable by the Public Works
and Utilities departments. All subdivision improvements have been
privately dedicated with the exception of the utilities, which have
been accepted by the Utilities department and warranted separately.
Since there are no publicly dedicated improvements with the plat,
there are no warranty and maintenance requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends -that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the Glendale Industrial Park Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for the Glendale Industrial Park
Subdivision, as recommended by staff.
7 BOOK 92 FAGE .31
r APR - 5 1994 -7
BOOK 92 FacE .32
G. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 17, 1994:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�-
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: March 17, 1994
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of County
Commissioners to authorize the 'Chairman to sign so that they can be
recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Satisfaction of Impact Fee Extensions:.
GRAUL PELT TIER
WALLACE WYCHE
2. AlA%North Beach Water Project:
STUBER
3. Blue Cypress Lake Sewer Project:
HANSEN/Blue Cypress Lake Ranch, Inc.
4. Citrus Gardens Water Project:
DEGROOT
5. Club Grove Estates Water Project:
BALL
6. Flora Lake Water Project:
ZITO
7. Rockridge Sewer Project:
MCNAMARA
S. Shady Oaks Water Project:
BLAIS GIBSON
HUDSON, JR. VAN SICKLE
VERSTEEG WARREN (2)
9. Phase I Water Project:
DONNON ELSMORE (2)
PECERE
8
10. Phase II Water Project:
ASHBY, JR. (3)
BRYCE (2)
CARINCI
CAMBIO/DIRAIMO
ELLIS (2)
GRAM
GRELLA
GROGAN, SR. (2)
HALLETT
HERSBERGER
JOHNSON
KIRCHNER
KIRKLAND (2)
LABAT
LOPEZ (2)
MARTIN
MCINERNEY
MONTEITH
PETERSON
SMEDVIG
TUMMOND
WARFIELD
11. Phase III Water Project:
BIN
SLAY, JR.
GEIDE III
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the satisfactions and releases of liens listed in
staff's memorandum.
SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES ARE RECORDED
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
H. Award Bid #4062 - Green Acres Water Main - Utilities Department
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 25, 1994:
DATE: March 25, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid ,#`4062/Green Acres Water Main
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: March 16, 1994
Advertising Dates: March 2, 9, 1994
Specifications Mailed to: Twenty -Three .(23) Vendors
Replies: Six (6) Vendors
BID TAB TOTAL LUMP SUM CORRECTED TOTAL
Driveways, Inc $15,649.00
Titusville, F1.
Treasure Coast Cont. $18,759.49 $16,312.60
Vero Beach, F1.
Tim Rose Contracting $20,841.45 $18,123.80
Vero Beach, F1.
Derrico Construction $23,053.60 $20,044.00
Melbourne, FL
9 900K 9 PAGE ',33
Tri—Sure Corporation
Auburndale, FL
JoBear, Inc
Palm Bay, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
$28,042.75
$28,248.00
$15,649.00
BOOK. 92 F'APE •34
$22,385.00
$27,831.70
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities General Impact Fees
ESTIMATED BUDGET $19,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Driyewa s
Inc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder
meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to
Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement when all the requirements are met and approved
as to form by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#4062 in the amount of $15,649.00 to Driveways,
Inc., as recommended by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
I. ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING CERTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION -
1994-95 FISCAL YEAR
The Board reviewed the following memo dated April 4, 1994:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 4, 1994
SUBJECT: FY 1994/95 ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING
CERTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION
FROM: Joseph A. Baird((
. OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Budget Office received a letter dated March 17, 1994 from the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (FDCA) stating that Indian River County has been allocated $130,141
in grant funds for FY 1994/95, to fund local anti-drug abuse projects. The letter also
requested the Board to serve as the coordinating unit of government in applying for the
funds. The Substance Abuse Advisory Council will be soliciting for and receiving grant
applications as well as evaluating those applications and recommending to the Board what
projects to fund and their funding levels. The Substance Abuse Advisory Council's
recommendations will be brought to the Board for approval in May. The grant's fifth year
will continue to be funded 75% from the state and 25% from the county. The budgetary
impact on the county will not exceed $50,000.
10
r
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board accept the invitation to serve as the coordinating unit of
government in the FDCA Anti -Drug Abuse act Grant Program and authorize the Board
Chairman to sign the Certification of Participation naming Joseph A. Baird, Budget
Director, as the contact person.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Florida Department of Community Affairs Anti -
Drug Abuse Certification of Participation for the
1994-95 Fiscal Year, as recommended by OMB Director
Joseph A. Baird.
PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CREATING THE
MOORINGS STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Dally
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�Afi'1� •p
In the matter —rte �YL ! 02 V�iLe �4-
(�1 c tit. tz-
In the �Court, was pub-
lished In sold newspaper In the Issues o(7n�/ /a 1: , '64 /!2.
Afflant further says that the Bald Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published of
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the sold newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Vero Beach, In sold Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first puhtication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and alflant 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 to the said newspaper.
Bk1Qtp t�art{1•sybscribed before met i qday of/ A.D. 19 IV
��QQ;��jOTq,9
Aly
Co
J mm. Exphes
Una 29.1997
( NOACr30M
Nom.• 2
. OF F1.0 ..,..•:
APR - 51994
64116 of Flo,ldl• My Crmm,kfim ! AP Ju.ro 29, 1lg7
co—WS31on Nu-mr: cC30o572
Signed.
Notary:6ARAARA C SPRAGUF.
11
NOTICE
The
�•�,0 Commissioners * of Indiaan.
River County, FloridaI.fi' e�ebY provides notice of a
Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday.
April 5, 1994, to discuss the fo0owing PfoPosed
or-
dinarice entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COON- ..
TY,. FLORIDA, CREATING THE MOOR-.
INGS STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT. decision which
Anyone who may wish Public
appeaany Apn1 5, 1994,
may be made at the PubAc FI
wiii need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceWings is made, which includes Wiirnony and
"am upon which the appeal is based. 1079705
March 12, 19, 26, April 2, 94
BOOK 92 PACE 35
r SPR - 51994
BOOK 92 FACE ' 36
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 9, 1994:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney-fpo
DATE: March 9, 1994
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - APRIL 5, 1994
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CREATING THE MOORINGS STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT
The attached proposed ordinance would create a street lighting district
for the Moorings area which will further the safety, health and
well-being of all those residing and owning property in the boundaries
of the district.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that the Moorings
Property Owners Association sent letters to 1,114 property owners
in the Moorings; 820 responses were received, with 622 in favor of
establishing a street lighting district.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Betsy Tate, resident of the Moorings, requested that the
County wait until a decision is made on the proposed Publix
supermarket, because lighting will be installed in conjunction with
that project.
Ed Golden, 249 Springline Drive, explained that although he
lives in an area of the Moorings that has street lights, he is in
favor of this proposal and is willing to support it financially.
He felt that street lights throughout the Moorings would make it
safer for pedestrians as well as provide security for residents.
Robert Salmon, 1155 Reef Road, was in favor of street lights
in the Moorings for the same reasons.stated by Mr. Golden.-
Ralph
olden:Ralph Ragette, resident of Reef Road, stated that it is "pitch
black" in the Moorings at night and that street lights are needed
to help monitor what goes on in the Beach area.
Harry Roberts, 1001 Spyglass Lane, emphasized that some areas
of the Moorings are very isolated. He lives on a private road with
street lights, but he is in favor of this proposal because he feels
12
that the Moorings should have a street lighting system that serves
everyone. It is his opinion that the cost of street lighting is
well worth the benefits.
George Shaw, 1060 Reef Road, announced that his home is in the
area adjacent to Floralton Beach, which has street lights. He
stated that the difference between his area and the Floralton Beach
area is literally the difference between night and day, and he felt
that street lights should be installed throughout the Moorings.
DeLoss Blackburn, 300 Harbour Drive, representing Porpoise Bay
Villas Association, was opposed to including Porpoise Bay in the
assessment. He explained that all of the units along Harbour Drive
within Porpoise Bay are one story high, and he felt that light
poles which are 20 feet in height are inconsistent with the
aesthetics of the area. He reported that questionnaires were
mailed to the Porpoise Bay condominium owners, and 82% of those who
responded voted to exclude Porpoise Bay from the assessment. The
property owners in Porpoise Bay are in the process of placing white
fluorescent bulbs in their light posts along Harbour Drive, which
they believe will provide adequate lighting for the area. He
stated that if more lights are needed, the residents of Porpoise
Bay will install them. They do not want to help pay for public
street lights in other areas of the Moorings.
Ralph Church, 1776 Mooringline Drive, spoke in favor of the
street lights. He reported that he is a member of the Board of
Directors of the Moorings Property Owners Association and is
responsible for security. Goldstar Security patrols the area
regularly, and management of Goldstar has recommended that street
lights be installed.
Jack MacLean, 139 Anchor Drive, president of the Moorings
Property Owners Association (P.O.A.), recounted that the Moorings
was developed as a series of individual sections, some with street
lights and some without street lights. The Moorings P:O.A. decided
that the fairest solution was for all the residents to contribute
to the cost of street lights. He stressed that bringing a shopping
center into the Moorings will create a greater security problem,
and street lights will become even more important.
Bernice Hebert, 2006 Windward Way, felt that everybody in the
Moorings will benefit from street lights and should help pay for
them.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
13 BOOK 92 PACE 37
L_ APR - 51994 J
F' APR - 51994
mu 92. muF :38
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to adopt Ordinance 94-7, creating
The Moorings Street Lighting District.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht asked, and Public Works
Director Jim Davis confirmed that the street lights will be in
compliance with the turtle ordinance, and no street lights will be
placed seaward of the dune line.
Commissioner Adams led discussion about the opposition of the
Porpoise Bay residents.
Director Davis responded that the 6 lights originally planned
for Porpoise'Bay have been eliminated. However, Porpoise Bay is
located at the north end of the development, and a number of street
lights will be located on the thoroughfare that must be traveled by
Porpoise Bay residents in order to reach their homes. Since
Porpoise Bay residents will have the benefit of those lights, staff
recommends including them in the assessment.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE 94- 07
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CREATING THE MOORINGS STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the residents of the Moorings have requested that the
County establish a mechanism for providing street lighting service at
crucial locations throughout the subdivision;
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the creation of a municipal
service benefit unit to raise funds through the equitable assessment of
property owners throughout the subdivision is the best available means
of accomplishing the desired goal; and
WHEREAS, the provision of street lighting in the area will further
the safety, health and well-being of all those residing and owning
property within the boundaries of the district,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
14
SECTION 1. Creation of Municipal Service Benefit Unit.
There is hereby established in Indian
River County
the
Moorings
Municipal Service Benefit Unit under the
authority of,
and
with all
those powers conferred by, the Constitution of the State of Florida,
Sections 125.01(q) and 125.01(r) of the Florida Statutes and Chapter
200 of - the the Indian River County Code. The real property included
within the boundaries of this municipal service benefit unit is described
as follows:
The following units of the Moorings, all recorded in
the Public Records of Indian River, Florida:
Unit
One, in
Plat Book 8,
Page
6.
Unit
Two, in
Plat Book 8,
Page
28.
Unit
Three, in
Plat Book 8, Page 63.
Unit
Four, in
Plat Book 8,
Page
72.
Unit
Five, in
Plat Book 9,
Page
98.
Unit
Six, in Plat Book 10,
Page
63.
All of Government Lots 3 & 4, Section 21, Township
33 South, Range 40 East, lying West of A -1-A
Highway. Together with and including that part of
Government Lot 2, in Section 28, Township 33
South, Range 40 East, lying South of Windward
Way.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
SECTION 2 LEVY.
The first non -ad valorem assessment shall be levied for the tax
year 1995- 1996.
SECTION 3. CHAPTER 200 AMENDMENT.
Section 200.07 shall be amended to show the addition of the
"Moorings" district and this ordinance number.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be . unconstitutional, in-
operative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions
of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or
inoperative part.
15 BOOK .92 F'AGF 39
APR - 5 1994
r APR m 51994
snox 912 rrt0
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 5 day of April 1994.
This ordinance was advertised four times in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on March 12, 19, 26, Apri12 , 1994 for a public
hearing to be held on the 5 day of A p r i 1 , 1994, at which time
it was moved for adoption 'by Commissioner Eggert seconded
by Commissioner Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. • Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By/ ;
/ ClieirMdn o pp 1 n
Attest By
Clerk
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida,
this 15thday of April , 1994
Effective date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this 20th day of April , 1994 at 10:00 a.m/p.m. and
filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION CHANGE TO THE ROAD
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing had been advertised as follows:
16
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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being sThe Indian
an Film -hold a g h���r�Of C,,,,ty -
adoption of an GEENCY OFiDINANCto CEE two darr--
Ify to wording of a of the aubdiwsion ordi
name s�tlorh 813.1 (16 3xc). The Proposed ordi-
mmr W would clarify the waft of the cwq,s
road lThe p c heaft that is applied to lot
Lt:`.L— R-- T� P at which the Board at
In the matter of 1rrss rwp� consider adoption the
ordinance r on Tuesday, Ap 5 1994 at
9:00 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers in
to County Administration Building located at 1640 r
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Copies of the Proposed ordinance are avdaw at
the PlpIa�nn" Divislon Office on the seowd floor of
in the. Court, was pub- the CohamtyAdrtnistratim
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which
U ma be made at this mee" wm meed to ensure
lished in said newspaper in the issues of l-z=*:z.. / 9 / � record of the proceedings Is made,
the appeal Is basedand evidence upon which
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETIM MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 223 AT
ADA
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at T 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET. BVG.
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been BOARD_OFloM W. COMMISSIONERS
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun- A� 1 By94. , , 1086103
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.
,23.455)
•••..•11�'b'`Q'7eve�d subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19loft Cc,
s,
.VpTq,Q�•.�G. r74*Wi anager) 3 c n
MaComm
°mmR+res • r",
RARneRe r eoox6llE ItEIT�kft1 tv CD V
29, 1997 tN Pz c C �p r
• • State of Florida. My Commission Exp. lune 29, 1907 [„^ P`
" 0pyy Fl �
(p jkAW72 • Commis' n Number. CC300572 f
=•'9j; •• '[7L1�i•� 4:•: ` ^c' 807
OF FLAB:•`• Ste' y%s;.
�x•••nnrw��"'• Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
Attorney Vitunac advised that emergency ordinances do not
require the Public Hearing to be advertised 15 days in advance. He
further advised that under Florida Statutes, the Board by a 4/5
vote can approve an emergency ordinance.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 30, 1994:
17
L APR - 51994
BOOK 92 PAGE 41
r APR - 5199
BOOK 92 WAGE 42
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
.0, P_/ff i
R5bert'M. Keati g, JAICP
Community D,evveelopmOnt D ctor
FROM: Stan Boling; -AICP
Planning Director
DATE: March 30, 1994
SUBJECT: Emergency Ordinance to Make a Clarification Change to the
Road Frontage Requirement of the County's. Subdivision
Ordinance
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 5, 1994.
BACKGROUND:
•Need for Emergency Action
For over 20 years, the county has required that newly created lots
resulting from lot splits have frontage on a public road right-of-
way or a private platted road right-of-way. This road frontage
requirement is similar to requirements of other counties in central
Florida. Over the years, this requirement has been applied to
hundreds of lot splits and proposed lot splits throughout the
county. Planning staff estimates that this requirement is applied
to lot split proposals on an average of 10-20 times a month.
Therefore, any changes to this requirement would have a significant
impact on a large number of inquiries and proposals and would be a
major departure from a 20 year old standard.
Recently, the wording of this requirement was challenged via an
appeal of staff's interpretation of the LDRs. The essence of the
appeal is that the present wording of the LDRs does not require
lots to have road frontage. Staff will soon be processing this
appeal through the normal appeal process. Both the County Planning
Division and the County Attorney's Office recognize that the
current wording could be interpreted contrary to the clear intent
of the county's road frontage policy. Thus, it is staff's opinion
that the road frontage LDR section needs to be clarified. However,
it is also staff's opinion that, if the appeal is upheld and
staff's interpretation is overturned, the long-standing road
frontage requirement will for all practical purposes be struck -down
and voided unless the county takes emergency action or goes through
the lengthy LDR amendment process.
In staff's opinion, the potential that this important and often
applied requirement could be voided without a full LDR amendment
review poses a danger. This danger can be avoided by passing an
emergency ordinance, as provided by.Florida Statutes Chapter
125.66(3), to clarify the LDR section now being contested by the
appeal.
18
- M
•Effect of Emergency Action
By passing the emergency ordinance, the Board can guarantee that
the appeal will be strictly limited to the applicant's case and
that the road frontage requirement will remain unchanged unless and
until the requirement is fully reviewed via the LDR amendment
process. Staff requests that the Board now consider adoption of
the proposed emergency ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
•Lot Split Regulations
For many years, county regulations have allowed one-time lot and
parcel splits without requiring subdivision approval and platting.
However, such splits are allowed only under the following three
conditions:
1. That the parcel being split has not been split and has not
been the result of a split since July, 1983. (Note: if a
split has occurred since July 1983, then additional parcels
can be created only through subdivision and plat approval.)
2. That the resulting parcels meet all applicable zoning district
lot size and dimension criteria.
3. That each resulting parcel have a minimum amount of frontage
on:
a. a public (county) road right-of-way; or
b. a private platted road right-of-way; or
ce a roadway historically and currently maintained by the
county.
Condition #3, which is the road frontage requirement, is being
challenged. In addition to having been in the county's code for 20
years, this road frontage requirement has been upheld by the county
on the two occasions that the Board has considered requests for
variances from the requirement. In both cases, the Mt. Pleasant
case in 1988 and the Scott Ketchum case in 1992, the Board upheld
the road frontage requirement by denying variances from the
requirement.
The current wording in the road frontage LDR section is written in
a manner that tries to explain negative (prohibited) actions with
positive statements. This manner of wording is generally used in
the-LDRs to avoid the use of double negatives. As asserted by the
applicant, the manner of wording could be interpreted in a way that
renders the requirement meaningless.
*Request for Emergency Action
Because the county has had a road. frontage requirement for 20
years, has consistently applied the requirement to hundreds of
properties, and is continuously called -upon to review proposals and
circumstances to which the requirement applies, emergency action is
needed to ensure that the requirement is maintained unless it is
amended via a thorough review process. Therefore, it is staff's
opinion that an immediate emergency exists that warrants emergency
action by the Board. Under Florida Statutes 125.66(3), the Board
may adopt the proposed emergency ordinance by a four-fifths
majority vote.
19 BOOK 92 FKH 43
��
APR m 5 9994 �
B00W 92 vnr. 44
*Proposed Emergency Ordinance
Based upon coordinated review with the County Attorney's Office,
planning staff proposes an amendment to the road frontage
requirement section of the LDRs [section 913.06(1)(c)] simply to
clarify some existing language. This proposed wording change would
preclude any interpretation of the referenced section in a manner
that would contradict the county's longstanding interpretation and
application of the road frontage requirement. In addition to
adoption of the emergency ordinance, it is staff's opinion that the
Board should direct staff to initiate a proper re -review of the
road frontage requirement. Such a re -review would allow the Board
to re -affirm the requirement and the requested emergency ordinance
in the future or to make modifications to the requirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Declare that an immediate emergency exists, that normal notice
requirements are waived and that enactment of the attached
ordinance is necessary to. ensure continued equitable and
consistent application of a long-standing county regulation
and policy. -
2. Adopt the attached ordinance.
3. Direct staff to initiate review of the county's road frontage
requirement during the next round of land development
regulation (LDR) amendments.
Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this is not a
proposal for a new restriction or a change in an existing
restriction. The purpose of this emergency ordinance is to clarify
the road frontage requirement by rewording that section of the
Code. Any action taken by the Board at today's meeting will not
affect the pending appeal. If this emergency ordinance is not
adopted, however, there is a possibility the long-standing frontage
requirement will be eliminated.
Commissioner Adams asked, and Attorney Vitunac advised, that
emergency ordinances are as legally binding as other ordinances.
He confirmed that the proposed emergency ordinance would not affect
the pending appeal of Mr. Barkett's clients.
Commissioner Macht asked about invoking the pending ordinance
doctrine, and Attorney Vitunac advised that it is preferable to
adopt an emergency ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
20
I
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the property owner who
filed the appeal that precipitated this emergency ordinance,
emphasized that his intent was to apply the ordinance as it
presently exists, not do away with it. In his opinion, the
emergency ordinance as proposed is more restrictive than the'
existing ordinance. He suggested that the Board adopt the
emergency ordinance, but add the phrase "or a roadway currently
maintained by the County or a recorded easement. providing access to
2 or more parcels..."
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Eggert preferred to wait until we review the LDRs
to make a decision concerning the additional language proposed by
Attorney Barkett.
Commissioner Adams agreed that this and other related issues
should be dealt with the next time the LDRs are reviewed. For
example, we are maintaining some roads within the water management
districts that are not County rights-of-way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
recommendations 1, 2 and 3, as set out in the above
staff's memorandum, and adopted Emergency Ordinance
94-8, amending Section 913.06(1)(C) of the Land
Development Regulations (LDRs).
ORDINANCE 94-08
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, .FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 913.06(1)(C) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.- (LDRS), AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes
Chapter 125.66(3), the Board of County Commissioners has waived
normal notice and declared that an immediate emergency exists in
regards to the need to clarify the wording of section 913.06(1)(C)
of the land development regulations (LDRs).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County that the Indian River County
Land Development Regulations (LDRs) be amended as follows:
21 BOOK 92 tAnE 4
APR - 5 1994
mm 92 Fux 46
SECTION 1: Section 913.06(1)(C) of the land development
regulations (LDRs) is amended as follows:
(C) Divide property after December 8, 1973 by any means where a
resulting •lot ® does not have frontage on: a dedicated
public right-of-way, private platted right-of-way (street), or
a roadway historically and currently maintained by the county,
as referenced on the county road grading map, - of at
least:
1. Sixty (60) continuous feet, unless exempted under section
913.06(2), or unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or
curve and meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(C)1
for properties located within the A-1, A-2, A-3, Con -2,
Con -3., RFD and RS -1 zoning districts;
2. The minimum lot width of the zoning district applicable
to **the lot(s) created for properties located within
zoning districts other than those referenced in the above
paragraph 1., unless exempted under section 913.06(2), or
unless the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac or curve and
meets the requirements of section 913.09(6)(c).
Access, ingress/egress, or other easements shall not be
deemed to constitute a publicly dedicated road right-of-
way unless previously dedicated to and accepted by the
county.
Note: Parcels created between September 21, 1990 and
December 4, 1991 are subject to the sixty ( 60) contiguous
feet (rather than a minimum lot width) frontage
requirement, regardless of the zoning district in which
the property is located.
SECTION 2: CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to
"section"., "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY
If any section, part
of this ordinance is for
inoperative or void, such
portions hereof and it
legislative intent to
unconstitutional, invalid
of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
any reason held to be unconstitutional,
holdings shall not affect the remaining
shall be construed to have been the
pass this ordinance without such
or inoperative part.
SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
registered special delivery mailing to the Florida Secretary of
State of a certified copy of this ordinance for filing with the
Department of State of the State of Florida.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 5 day of April ,
1994.
Coding: Words in 1310MIMUN-M type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
22
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 1 day of April , 1994, for the public hearing to
be held on the 5 day of April , 1994, at which time it
was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht I
seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by
the following vote;
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Ken Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IAN„RIVER COUNTY
Jo h W. Tippi , ha rma
ATTEST BY: V
Jeffrey K. B4Lrton,, Clerk
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this Fjth day of April , 1994.
Effective Date: This emergency ordinance was accepted by postal
authorities for registered special delivery mailing the 5th day of
April, 1994.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
L �Le�,(u
William G. Collins, II, Deputy County Attorney
APP OVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Kea g, A
Community Developmen Director
u\c\s\subchng.ord
Coding: Words in 0• type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
23 BOOK .92 FACE 47
4; R Vii; AS
fa
BOOT 92 FINGE 48
SALES TAX WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
The Board agreed to schedule the sales tax workshop for
Thursday, April 28, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.
CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 28, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
IS N HEAD CONCURRENC :
o ert M. -Reatintil 4yCP
Community Developme t Di for
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 28, 1994
RE: CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 5, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 420.907, F.S., the State
Housing Initiative Partnership Program (SHIP), and Rule 9I-37.005,
Florida Administrative Code (FAC), the Board of County
Commissioners approved the Indian River County Local Housing
Assistance Plan (Ordinance #93-13) on April 6, 1993. In June,
1993, the Florida Housing Finance Agency approved the county's plan
and authorized the disbursement of funds.
Due to a recent amendment to Rule 9I-37.005(2), Florida
Administrative Code, local governments now must submit a new Local
Housing Assistance Plan by May 2 of the year in which the approved
Plan expires. Since the county's existing plan expires on June 30,
1994, a new plan must be submitted by May 2, 1994, to be eligible
for the FY 1994-95 allocation of SHIP funds.
According to the new state rules, the county .may submit a multi-
year plan with a time horizon of up to three years. Once a multi-
year plan is approved, the plan may be amended as needed, but need
not be amended until the plan expires.
On March 10, 1994, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
reviewed the revised Local Housing Assistance Plan, made some
changes, and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the revised plan. The attached copy of the revised plan
contains all changes recommended by the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee.
24
s o �
ANALYSIS
Since plan adoption, staff has coordinated with local financial
institutions, builders, contractors, non-profit organizations, and
applicants to implement the local housing assistance program. In
working with the program, the various participants have identified
issues that should be addressed in the. plan revision process.
These issues are:
1. Minor Revisions
Minor revisions to the plan are necessary to clarify the
intent of the plan and better describe the various
assistance strategies. Revisions are also necessary to
update the income, rent, allocation, and estimated SHIP
fund expenditures tables to correspond with new fiscal
year information as well as with actual trends identified
in the'last 4 months by the county. These revisions have
been made in the proposed revised plan and can be
identified by and underlines.
2. Recapture Provision
When the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan *was
adopted in April, 1993, State requirements mandated that
Local Housing Assistance Programs have recapture
provisions identical to those specified in Section 143(m)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Since then,
however, the state has revised its requirement. The
current state rule requires that Local Housing Assistance
programs incorporate a recapture provision, but the rule
allows each participating local government to structure
its own recapture provision. Accordingly, staff has
developed a simplified recapture provision (described on
page 44 of the plan).
As revised, the county's recapture provision provides
that 50% of any profit realized by the sale of an
assisted unit will be recaptured by the program if the
assisted unit is sold within the first year after loan
closing or assumption. That percentage will be reduced
by 5 percentage points each year and will be eliminated
after 10 years.
3. Interest Rate
According to staff research, most local governments
throughout the state charge a low interest rate with no
compounding, and some charge no interest for SHIP loans.
Currently, the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan
reflects a 3% interest rate compounded annually. Staff
and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee propose to
eliminate the compounding provision for SHIP loans. Both
staff and the committee also recommend that no interest
be charged to very low income persons.
4. Affordability Timeframe
Throughout the state, local governments have various
timeframes for maintaining housing affordability. The
county's intention is to maintain housing unit
affordability as long as possible to expand the county's
affordable housing stock. For -that reason, the County's
25
NOW . 12 PACE : 49
r APR m 5 199�
mox 9, 2
current Plan provides for the accrued interest to be
forgiven if the housing unit is retained for more than
twenty years. The intent is to provide an incentive for
people to stay in their units and enhance community
stability. To enhance that incentive and correspond more
closely with the policy of many other local governments,
staff and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
propose that the twenty year provision be revised and
replaced with the following:
• to eliminate any recapture requirement after ten
(10) years of loan closing or assumption;
• to forgive the accrued interest after fifteen (15)
years of loan closing or assumption; however, the
interest applicable to rehabilitation loans on
investor-owned rental units will not be forgiven;
and
• to forgive the loan principal amount after 20 years
of loan closing or assumption.
If a housing unit that utilized County Local Housing
Assistance Program funds is sold before the twenty year
affordability timeframe, the amount of the loan
principal, accrued interest not yet forgiven, and any
applicable recapture of the profit will be payable to the
county. These funds would go back to the affordable
housing trust fund and be used as revolving loan
assistance for other eligible persons.
5. Maximum Loan amount for Downpayment/Closing Cost
Assistance
The current Local Housing Assistance Plan provides that
the maximum loan amount for Downpayment/Closing Cost
Assistance is $4,000 for eligible moderate income persons
and $6,000 for eligible low or very low income persons.
After processing loan applications for very low and low
income persons for four months, program participants have
determined that the amount of assistance should be raised
for very low income and low income persons. Also,
financial institutions have indicated that by raising the
downpayment/closing cost loan amount limits, then it
would be possible for financial institutions to provide
first mortgages without incurring PMI (Private Mortgage
Insurance) costs.
In the revised plan, the maximum amount of downpayment/
closing cost assistance has been increased from $4,000 to
$7,000 for moderate income persons -and from $6,000 to
$10,000 for very low and low income persons.
6. Eligibility
Another related concern is the issue of the -eligibility
of moderate income persons. Current state requirements
allow participating local governments to provide
assistance to any qualifying moderate income person;
however, state rules require that -not more than 40% of
the recipients be from the moderate income group.
26
r M a
An issue- that has arisen is whether moderate income
applicants even need assistance at all. According to
staff research, a number of programs in the state either
restrict or severely limit assistance to moderate income
applicants, and instead target the more needy low and
very low income households. Currently, the County's plan
allows for downpayment/closing cost assistance loans to
be given to any eligible moderate income person. As
_ recommended by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
and reflected in the revised plan, the county would
provide downpayment/closing cost loans only to persons
whose income falls within the first half of the moderate
income range.
ALTERNATIVES
The Board of County Commissioners has three alternatives with
respect to the Local Housing Assistance Plan. These are:
c To adopt the revised plan
c To adopt the revised plan with changes
o To not adopt the revised plan.
Either of the first two alternatives is acceptable. Choosing the
third alternative, however, would cause the county to become
ineligible to receive additional SHIP funds. Staff supports the
first alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
county's Local Housing Assistance Plan and direct staff to forward
the revised plan to the Florida Housing Finance Agency.
Community Development Director Bob Keating discussed the
recommended changes, which are the result of suggestions made by
some lenders and other participants in the State Housing Initiative
Partnership-Progriim (SHIP).
Commissioner Adams asked whether the County assists home
buyers with payment of property taxes. She was concerned that
people would buy a home and then find that they could not afford
the monthly payments.
Director Keating responded that the County does not assist
with monthly costs associated with home ownership. The financing
institutions create an escrow account for taxes and insurance. He
stressed that financial institutions have requirements that
applicants must meet in order to ensure they can afford the home
they are buying. One of the recommended changes in the Housing
Assistance Plan is to establish the same criteria for owner -
financed mortgages. He pointed out that many of the homes
27 Ma 92 FAu 51
L- APR - 51994 J
FF-- -1
APR - 51994
som 92 FACE . 52
purchased have been in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. The home
buyers were making monthly rent payments, but were unable to
accumulate funds for the down payment and closing costs. The
County's objective is to make it possible for people to buy a home
by assisting them with those costs.
Commissioner Eggert commented that one requirement is that
total housing costs cannot exceed 30% of the total income in the
household.
Commissioner Adams asked whether there is any way to prevent
people from buying houses and then renting them out.
Director Keating responded that we try to monitor this, but it
is difficult -to prove.
Commissioner Macht questioned the requirement that people who
receive this assistance must split a portion of the profit with the
County if they sell their home less than 10 years after buying it.
Commissioner Bird thought that people should be able to move
into a nicer home if their circumstances improve after several _
years, and he felt that the recapture provision might be counter-
productive.
Commissioner Macht was opposed to the 2nd and 3rd provisions
under Item 4 relating to forgiveness of principal and interest,
because that involves taking tax money from one person and using it
to forgive the debt of another person.
Commissioner Adams wondered how the County can replenish the
trust fund if we forgive the interest and principal.
Further discussion ensued regarding the loan repayment and
recapture provisions.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, seconded by
Commissioner Eggert, to adopt Resolution 94-48,
approving the County's revised local housing
assistance plan for the 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-
97 fiscal years, and providing for the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) requirements,
with the following change: Remove the 2nd and 3rd
provisions under Item 4 relating to forgiveness of
principal and interest.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird preferred to eliminate the
recapture provision after 5 years instead of 10 years.
28
COMMISSIONER ADAMS AMENDED HER MOTION TO PROVIDE FOR
THE RECAPTURE OF 50% OF THE PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF
A DWELLING AFTER 1 YEAR OR LESS, REDUCING THE AMOUNT
BY 10% PER YEAR FOR 5 YEARS, AND ELIMINATING ANY
RECAPTURE REQUIREMENT AFTER 5 YEARS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO 94-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVING THE COUNTY'S REVISED LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FY 1994-95, FY 1995-96, AND FY
1996-97 AND PROVIDING FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP) REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, describes the State
Housing Initiative Partnership program (SHIP), which has been'
established to increase the amount of affordable housing within the
State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, On April 6, 1993, Indian River County approved
ordinance number 93-13, establishing the Local Housing Assistance
Program; and
WHEREAS, the approved Local Housing Assistance plan expires on
June 30, 1994; and
WHEREAS, according to Rule 9I-37.005(2), Florida
Administrative Code, Local Governments must submit a new Local
Housing Assistance Plan by May 2, 1994 to be eligible for FY 1994-
95 SHIP funding; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 1994, the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
approved the revised plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners
considered the adoption of the revised 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 Local Housing Assistance Plan
for FY 1994-95, FY 1995-96, and FY 1996-97 is hereby approved
by the Board of County Commissioners
29 �DDK 92 FADE 53
� :APR - 5194 �
r SPR -5 B9QA
5og 92 PAGE 54
Resolution 94-48
Section 3. _
The Board of County Commissioners directs staff to submit a
copy of the Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan
to the Florida Housing Finance Agency by certified mail.
Section 4.
The only change to the maximum and average cost per unit is
for Downpayment/Closing Cost/Principal reduction assistance
loans. The maximum* amount of the Downpayment/Closing
Cost/Principal reduction assistance loan will -be $10,000, and
the average amount will be $9,000.00
Section 5.
The County shall continue utilizing ten percent (10%) of
available SHIP funds for administration of the SHIP program.
Section 6. -
The County's recapture provision will be based on the Table
provided on the revised Local Housing Assistance Plan.
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
�Le
Vice Chairman,
Kenneth R.
Macht
ALe
Commissioner,
Richard N.
Bird
ALe
Commissioner,
Carolyn K.
Eggert
ALe --
Commissioner,
Fran B. Adams
ae
The Chairman thereupon declared the
resolution
duly passed and
adopted this 5 day of April , 1994.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County
B,
Y
r,
r .-,?ohn W. Tippin, Chairman.
Attest by:
Jeffrey K. Barton,'`"���r"�
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
William G. Collins, II
Deputy County Attorney
30
— M
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING HEATING. VENTILATION. AND AIR CONDITIONING
(HVAC) SYSTEM STUDY - CONSULTANT'S REPORT
General Services Director Sonny Dean gave the following
presentation:
DATE: MARCH 28, 1994
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
..A
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING HVAC SYSTEM STUDY
CONSULTANT'S REPORT
BACKGROUND:
On January 4, 1994, the Board authorized staff to proceed with an
amendment to Gee and Jenson's present contract with the County, to
study and report on the condition of the Heating, Ventilation, Air
Conditioning (HVAC) system installed in the County Administration
Building. The primary purpose of this study and report was to
analyze the existing HVAC systems, to point out existing problems in
the building and to recommend solutions that will remediate these
problems. They were to also provide an estimated cost for this work.
At the regular Board meeting on April 5, 1994, the consultant will
give an oral overview of the report and be prepared to answer any
questions the Commission may have.
A copy of the report is provided for your perusal.
Mr. Philip Grinell, senior vice president of Gee & Jenson,
gave a brief history of his company's extensive experience in
dealing with air quality issues. He reported that the evaluation
of the County's Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
system resulted in the following observations:
1. The system has gone through a number of modifications over the
years.
2. This building was not designed for as many people as now
occupy it, nor was it designed to have all the corridors and
partitions that were added after the building was constructed.
The equipment has been placed under a lot of stress.
3. Humidity control and the ability to introduce a proper amount
of outside air into the building are serious problems.
4. Filtration and air movement are inadequate.
A complete report of Gee & Jenson's evaluation of the County
Administration Building's HVAC systems was distributed to the
Board, including the following conclusions and recommendations:
31 Bp � 92 ponE 55
L- APR -51994
r
APR m 1994
boar. 92 FACE .56
9. CONCLUSIONS
We have concluded from our investigation and study that the existing HVAC systems in this
building are not capable of maintaining acceptable indoor air quality by today's standards for the
following reasons:
A. Almost all of the air handling systems have inadequate outdoor air flowing into the building
as prescribed by ASHRAE 62-1989. Some of the air handling systems have no outdoor air
connections. If outdoor air connections were added these units would not have the
capability to remove the additional moisture.
B. None of the air handling systems have any type of positive humidity control such as reheat
or face and by-pass damper. Humidity readings taken throughout the building were 68%
or greater. These readings were taken in February when there was not much sensible load
but without positive humidity control, these units will not remove enough moisture from
the air at any time during the year.
C. None of the air handling systems are equipped with adequate filters required by today's
standards. Current acceptable practice is to install high efficiency filters in all air handling
systems. The existing air handling units do not have the capacity of receiving or
functioning with high efficiency filter.
D. All air handling systems have or have had standing water in the condensate pans. When
built, these units were not available with fully drainable pan.
E. In areas where above ceiling fan coil units (three story area) are the only source of cooling
there. inadequate air circulation. These units are very old and are left from the original
hospital building (possibly 30t years old).
F. Chilled water temperature being circulated is 51°Ft not cold enough to accomplish the
necessary dehumidification. This is caused by controlling the chiller from return water
temperature a trial modification made to reduce the cost of electricity.
G. Resistance to chilled water flow in many of the fan coil air units and the air handling units
is so high that the unit coils do not receive enough chilled water flow. This probably
caused by scale build-up or undersized pipe in the original design.
H. Since part of the system is four pipe (have a hot water coil and a chilled water coil) and
part is two pipe (having a combined coil) the change over from cooling to heating is very
difficult This makes it impossible to maintain conditions during seasonal changes.
I. A large percentage of the ductwork contains dirt and must be cleaned or replaced.
J. Chilled water system is not fully redundant and only two small old chillers back up the
existing chilled wathr system.
In view of the foregoing, it is not considered practical or in most cases possible to retrofit the
existing -system to a condition that will maintain adequate indoor air quality.
32
- M
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend a complete retrofit of the HVAC systems in this building due to the conditions of
the existing systems as set forth under Section 9 conclusions.
Our recommended retrofit would consist of: '
A. One 11) new centrifuged chiller of the heat recovery type of approximately 175 ton capacity.
The new chiller would be complete with new cooling tower, chemical treatment system,
chilled water pumps, condenser water pump, and cooling tower. The existing 200 ton
chiller would be kept as a redundant source of cooling.
B. Install approximately eight 18) new roof top air handling units. These units would be of the
variable air volume type and would have chilled water coils, pre -filters (30/30), hi -efficiency
filters 180%). The units would be designed to take in the prescribed outdoor air 120
dm/person) and to control humidity. The actual number of air handling units would be
determined by the details of the final design, however it is felt that three 13) units on the
three story portion four (4) on the one story portion and one (1) unit for the two (2) story
portion will probably be required to best suit the loads and the phasing requirements.
C. Install a new system of chilled water piping from the new chiller to the new roof top units.
This system would in general run across the roof tops and thence connect to the coils in
the new units.
D. ' Connect the new chiller, new pumps, cooling tower and air handling units to the electrical
system. Revise service panels as required to support the new electrical loads.
E. Install new ductwork, hot water piping, variable air volume terminal control boxes and
temperature control one zone at a time making each zone operational upon completion.
F. See recommended system diagram in Appendix V.
G. Start-up the total system and make operational.
The work as set forth above is by nature traumatic in nature since a percentage of the work must
occur in and above the ceilings of occupied spaces. Phasing of the work will have to be worked
out in detailed to ascertain if a plan can be established that is suitable -to this county officials
having jurisdiction.
Our suggestion of a phasing plan would be as follows:
A. Leave all existing systems operational.
B. Install new chiller, new pumps, and new cooling tower leaving existing chiller, pump, and
cooling towers operational.
C. Install new roof top air handling units.
D. Install new chilled water piping from the new chiller to all new roof top air handling units.
33 BOOK, 92 FACE , 57
L_A PR - 51994 J
ASR - 5 1994
BOOK 92 FACE 58.
E. Install new ductwork, variable air volume control boxes, hot water piping remove all existing
mechanical piping, ductwork and equipment associated with existing systems and complete
one zone at a time.
F. Change over another zone from old system to new system as each zone is completed:
G. After all zones are complete tie in existing chiller to new system where it will serve as a
standby.
H. Test and balance each new zone.
I. Commission each new zone.
J. Decommission all existing equipment and systems no longer required for the operation of
the building.
Our preliminary estimate of the cost of this retrofit includes the installation of a new addressable
fire alarm system and a new fire sprinkler system. The reason for the inclusion of this work is that
it can best be done when ceilings are down for ductwork installation. It should be realized that the
costs are developed without the benefit of detailed plans and are subject to change when detailed
plans are available.
1. New HVAC system as described herein and as shown by the schematic in Appendix V
$450,000.00
2. Ceiling work necessitated .by the installation of new ductwork and the installation of new
ceiling tiles - general work of cleaning, cutting and patching.
$160,000.00
3. New Addressable Fre Alarm System $60,000.00
4. New Fre Sprinkler System $150,000.00
5. Electrical Work to Connect New HVAC System $80,000.00
6. Total Contract Work $900,000.00
7. Engineering Fees $90,000.00
8. Total Cost $990,000.00
9. Contingency at 15% 148.500.00
10. Grand Total Cost $1,138,500.00
Mr. Grinell summarized that the County Administration Building
has not reached the point where mold and mildew are growing
everywhere, which would require the building to be vacated. The
maintenance crew has been doing a good job, but the system is under
stress and a decline is under way. He compared the building to a
sponge that is slowly soaking up moisture due to the high humidity,
and at some point it will reach the saturation level. He
encouraged the Board to take action before this becomes a crisis.
34
- M
Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding the cost of
changing the chiller to comply with Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) requirements, which must be accomplished by the end of fiscal
1995.
Mr. Lee Kendrick, project manager at Gee & Jenson, estimated
the cost at $80,000. The chiller could be expected to last another
5 or 6 years, but the chiller's capacity will be reduced by
approximately 20% *when it is retrofitted to accommodate the new
refrigerant, which may render it inadequate to serve the building.
Commissioner Bird led discussion about funding a project of
this magnitude. r
Administrator Chandler explained that staff is considering the
possibility of recommending the use of sales tax revenue. He
pointed out that another problem is that sections of the building
will have to be shut down for a minimum of 2 weeks for each
section. One reason staff requested a postponement of the sales
tax workshop was to allow more time to deal with these issues.
Commissioner Macht felt that it would be in the best interests
of the taxpayers in this county to treat this as a capital project
and finance it with sales tax revenue.
Commissioner Adams asked whether staff will present all the
alternatives to the Board, which would include doing nothing,
retrofitting the existing chiller for the new refrigerant,
following the recommendations of Gee & Jenson, or constructing a
new building.
Administrator Chandler responded that the cost might increase
significantly if we wait for the problem to become a crisis. He
advised that an analysis of various alternatives will be prepared
for presentation to the Board.
Mr. Grinell reminded the Board that it is necessary to comply
with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) any
time major renovations are made.
Administrator Chandler stated that the County has taken a
proactive approach to complying with ADA requirements, and that
should not be a problem.
Chairman Tippin wondered why we have all these problems with
air quality that did not exist in earlier times.
Mr. Grinell explained that years ago most buildings had
terrazzo, tile, or wood floors rather than carpeting; they had
plaster instead of drywall; and they did not have spongy ceiling
tiles and -other materials that soak up moisture from the air. He
commented that carpeting tends to hold debris that can contribute
to indoor air quality problems. For that reason, many architects
are encouraging organizations to use hard flooring rather than
35
a 92 PnE 59
APR - 5 1994
900K 92 FADE sa
carpeting wherever possible in new construction. Another factor
that has contributed to air quality problems is that buildings were
made airtight as a result of the energy crisis in the late 1970s.
Air handling systems have gone through substantial changes since
that time in order to deal with those problems.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted
the consultant's report and directed staff to
research available alternatives for presentation to
the Board.
CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS ON FILE
IN THE COUNTY COMMISSION OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT - 66TH AVENUE ROADWAY
& DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - CARTER ASSOCIATES INC.
Public Works Director Jim Davis commented from the following
memo dated March 16, 1994:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Professional Engineering Services Agreement -
66th Avenue Roadway & Drainage Improvements
DATE: March 16, 1994 FILE: 48.AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
s As approved by the Board in December, 1993, staff has negotiated
the attached engineering services agreement with Carter
Associates, Inc., Vero Beach, which provides for professional
engineering and related services described as roadway and drainage
improvements to 66th Avenue between 5th Street SW and 4th Street W
for a not to exceed fee of $25,460.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends authorization for the Chairman to execute the
attached agreement. Funding to be from Road Impact Fee funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the engineering services agreement with Carter
Associates, Inc., for a not -to -exceed fee of
$25,460, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT -
CR -512 KIMBALL AND ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 18, 1994:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM:
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
SUBJECT:
Fourth Amendment to Professional Engineering Services Agreement Kimball and
Associates
DATE:
March 18, 1994
Indian River County entered into an agreement with Lloyd and Associates in 1988 for the
engineering services associated with the improvement of CR 512 from Roseland Road to U. S. 1.
The firm has undergone ownership changes and in Dec. of 1993 the new owners decided to
withdraw from the Vero Beach area. The firm is still in business in Pennsylvania, however. One of
the principals in the Vero Beach office, Mr. Wayne Westerman, has remained in business here in
Vero Beach to finish some of the larger ongoing projects for Kimball and Associates. Recently the
county permitted the subletting of this agreement to Mr. Westerman. The county and the consultant
wish to modify the agreement to delete part of the work for bridges, which are not required in the
current drainage design under Project I and to increase Project II by the amount decreased for
Project I for a second cross street and environmental permitting issues dealing with Project H. The
net result is a zero increase in the fee for this agreement The current amount of the agreement is
$272,775.32.
Approve the Fourth Amendment to the contract and direct the Chairman to execute the amendment
on behalf of the Board.
37 8M92 E 101
L_ APR = 51994 J
mox 92 . FaUE 62.
Reject the Fourth Amendment and renegotiate the amendment with the consultant.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as a fair and equitable agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Fourth Amendment to the Professional Engineering
Services Agreement for CR -512 Corridor Improvements
with Kimball and Associates, with no increase in
fee, as set out in staff's memorandum.
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER SERVICE TO 11TH COURT SW
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 24, 1994,
with attached letter:
DATE: MARCH 24, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRA;��PINT
DIRECUT SERVICES
PREPARED H. D. OS R, P. .
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 11TH COURT, SW WATER SERVICE
BACKGROUND
A resident of 11th Court, SW has requested water service due to
"undrinkable water, which smells like rotten eggs" (copy of owner's
request attached).
ANALYSIS
Currently, a water main exists within several hundred feet of the
property referred to in the above paragraph. It is proposed that we
provide water service now under the labor contract and later tie
into the proposed Water Expansion Plan, Phase V. The estimated cost
is $5,000 labor and $4,010 materials. Payment will be made from the
impact fee fund. A temporary service agreement is being obtained
from the owner.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the water
line installation.
38
d
'o zo
C�,�urascsL ...cuG�-�-✓�
d
G��czi�iL�•GU�'K�'�GGC�sv . //n�"'�'' al' �C (/
eZ44w,�
azty
ev
+Gl
39 moo 92 PAGE 63
6._ APR - 5 199 J
500K 92 PAGE 64
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved a
water line installation to provide service to 11th
Court S.W. at a total cost of $9,010, payment to be
made from the impact fee fund, as recommended by
staff.
AGREEMENT WITH DRIVEWAYS, INC., FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT - JOHN D. AND CONNIE M. EVERHARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 22, 1994:
DATE:
MARCH 25, 1994
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI Y VICES
PREPARED AND
JAMES D. CHAS T
ONT
AND
MANAGER OF ASSE PROJECTS
STAFFED BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
AGREEI4ENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
JOHN D. AND CONNIE M. EVERHART
WATER SERVICE
BACKGROUND
John D. and Connie M. Everhart have requested that temporary service
be installed from the water line on Oslo Road to service their
property at 776 11th Court, SW, Vero Beach, Florida 32962, prior to
the installation of a planned water main on 11th Court, SW, during
the construction of Water Expansion Plan, Phase V.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide water service to Mr. and
_ Mrs. Everhart until such time that a water line is constructed on
11th Court, SW, by assessment. They agree to pay all fees required
to make this connection. They further agree to participate in the
assessment and to reconnect to this water line as required by
IRCDUS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. and
Mrs. John D. Everhart on the Consent Agenda. --
40
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
an agreement with John D. and Connie M. Everhart,
providing temporary water service to their property
at 716 11th Court, S.W., with all fees to be paid by
Mr. and Mrs. Everhart, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER EXPANSION PLAN PHASE III - CONTRACT #4 - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 25, 1994:
DATE: MARCH 25, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G
DIRECTOR 0
PREPARED H. D. 11DU1[E' - DSTER; -P. E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
WATER EXPANSION PLAN PHASE III/CONTRACT #4
SUBJECT: IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -15 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
On May 11, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved the subject project in the amount of $142,723.75. On
September 21, 1993, the contract was awarded in the amount of
$106,269.55. Construction of the subject project has been completed,
and the contractor, G.E. French Construction,"Inc., has made
application for final payment. Change Order No. 1, is also included
(see attached).
ANALYSIS
All Indian River County requirements have been met and final
certification has been submitted to the Department of Environmental
Protection.
The original contract price was $106,269.55. Change Order No. 1, which
reduces the contract price by $7,866.55 results in a final contract
price of _$98,403. The change order was necessary due to less
restoration required since Public Works was paving the roadways
immediately following the water line installation. The contractor has
previously billed $79,772.89 leaving a balance of $18,630.11.
41 BOOK 92 PAPE 65
APR - 51994 J
��M
ROOK 92 PAGE 66
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends: (1) approval of -Change
Order No. 1, and (2) approval of the payment request of $18,630.11 as
payment in full for services rendered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 with G. E. French Construction
and final payment in the amount of $18,630.11, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER SERVICE FOR I-951SR-60 COMMERCIAL NOTE, PHASE II, 82ND AVENUE
WATER MAIN (FROM OSLO ROAD TO STH STREET)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 17, 1994:
DATE: MARCH 17, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE FOR I-95/S.R. 60 COMMERCIAL NODE,
PHASE II, 82ND AVENUE WATER MAIN (FROM OSLO ROAD
TO 8TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -04 -DS
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the Department of Utility Services successfully constructed
a water transmission main along Oslo Road to I-95. The Indian River
County water master plan indicated the need for connecting the newly
constructed water transmission main to an existing water main at the
intersection of 82nd Avenue and 8th Street. This interconnection
provides a complete looping of the system, as .well as providing
pressure balance and an alternate water source for the
Commercial/Industrial Node along the Route 60 corridor.
ANALYSIS
The interconnection consists of construction of approximately two
miles of 16 -inch water main. The construction involves five canal
crossings. The preliminary estimated cost of the project is
$485,700.00, which includes construction cost,. -as well as surveying,
in-house engineering design, permitting, bidding, administration
during construction, and inspection. Attached are three surveying
proposals with costs:
tlMa
1.
Carter and
Associates
$
4,300.00
2.
H. F. Lenz
Company
$
7,400.00
3.
Masteller,
Moler and Reed, Inc.
$
5,540.00
Funding for this project will be paid from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize the commencement of the project. Also the Department
recommends execution of the agreement with Carter and Associates to
do surveying for the County on this project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with Carter and Associates in the
total amount of $4,300, for surveying services
associated with the above project, as recommended by
staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RAINTREE CORNER SUBDIVISION - FINAL PAY REQUEST - BID NO. 4019
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 21, 1994:
- DATE: MARCH 21, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
PREPARED -ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAY REQUEST
RAINTREE CORNER SUBDIVISION
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -93 -08 -DS
IRC BID NO. 4019
On November 9, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners awarded the subject project to Timothy Rose Enterprises
in the amount of $24,018.00 (see attached agenda item).
43 BOOK 92 RIGE . 67
APR - 5199A J
r SPR - 5 1994
B00K WE 6Q
ANALYSIS
The original contract amount of the project was $24,018.00. The
project has been completed and accepted per Indian River County
Utilities Specifications. It has been cleared for service by the
Department of Environmental Protection.
The final pay request, including the ten percent retainage of Payment
No. 1, is $2,401.80.
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached final pay request to Timothy Rose
Enterprises.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
final payment to Timothy Rose Enterprises in the
amount of $2,401.80, as recommended by staff.
FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MASTER PLAN CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR 1994 -
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 5
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 23, 1994:
DATE: MARCH 23, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAMACCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL GINEER
BY: DEP.ARUTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEI4ENT
FOR 1994
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 5
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. MP -91 -18 -ST
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 1994 our yearly Master Plan continuing services
agreement expires, and we are now coming to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval of a second year of service (see attached
agenda item and minutes). The proposed scope of services is as
follows:
1. Model updates as required to investigate impact of new
development, as requested.
44
2. Investigate transmission main rerouting scenarios as required
by development changes.
3. Provide addenda -to the Master Plan based on various development
scenarios.
4. -Review model files, if needed.
See attached work authorization for details.
ANALYSIS
This work authorization for continuing services in 1994 is allowed
per the original contract with Brown and Caldwell. Work
Authorization No. 5 is proposed with an upper limit of $30,000.00
for 1994. Funding for Work Authorization No. 5 will be from the
impact fee fund; however, investigation for developments may be
recovered as part of the permitting process of those developments.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work
Authorization No. 5 with Brown and Caldwell as submitted.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 5 with Brown and Caldwell in
a not -to -exceed amount of $30,000.00, as recommended
by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 5 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT EXPANSION, PHASE II - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated March 10, 1994:
45 800F 92 ma 69
L_ APR - 51994 J
APP ® 5 1994
�aaK 92 -`aGE 70
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFE
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
MARCH 10, 1994
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL S ICES
WILLIAM F. Mc
CAPITAL PRO E NEER
DEPARTMENTL ITY SERVICES
SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT EXPANSION, PHASE II
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -31 -CO
On November 10, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Wharton -Smith, Inc., in the
amount of $2,345,000 for the above -referenced project (see attached
agenda item and minutes). We are -now before the Board requesting
approval of Change Order No. 1 with Wharton -Smith, Inc., in the
amount of $6,740.85 (addition). -
ANALYSIS
Please see the attached spreadsheet entitled Proposed Change Order
No. 1 for a specific breakdown of deductions and additions to the
contract. The proposed price modifications are due to minor
changes, which were necessitated during construction of the first
part of the project. Changes of this nature are typical of any
retrofit project such as this and amount to only 0.29% of the total
project cost. (For additional details of change order, see attached
back-up.) Funding for this change order will be from Account No.
474-000-169-134.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Change Order No.
1 with Wharton -Smith, Inc., as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 with Wharton -Smith, Inc., in the
amount of $6,740.85, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION WATER SERVICE IN RAINTREE CORNER SUBDIVISION (54TH AVENUE,
SOUTH OF 12TH STREET) - RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
The Board reviewed the final memo dated March 16, 1994:
DATE: MARCH 16, 1994
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
JAMES D. CHAS
MANAGER OF AS
DEPARTMENT OF
CES
PROJECTS
SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE IN RAINTREE CORNER
SUBDIVISION (54TH AVENUE, SOUTH.OF 12TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -08 -DS
RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
On August 17, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution III, No. 93-144, for the
preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project.
Construction of the project has been completed. We are now ready to
begin customer connections and request the Board of County
Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll (see attached
minutes and Resolution III).
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for an estimated cost of $37,247.70,
which equated to $0.098649 per square foot of property assessed.
The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $33,209.88, which
equates to a cost of $0.087956 per square foot.
The staff of the Department of,Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve adoption of Resolution IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-49, certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of water service in connection with the
Raintree Corner Subdivision (54th Avenue, South of
12th Street), as recommended by staff.
47
APR - 5 1994
wK 92 P �F 71
APR - 5 1994 -7
BOOK 92 PAGE 72
As Built (Final Reso.)
Raintree Corner
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 4 9
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF
WATER SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAINTREE CORNER
SUBDIVISION (54TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF 12TH STREET), AND
SUCH. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT] PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND
DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
determined that water improvements for properties located within the
area of the Raintree Corner Subdivision (54th Avenue, south of 12th
Street) are necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, August 17, 1993, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed
appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advis-
ability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission
adopted Resolution No. 93-144, which confirmed the special assessment
cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project
in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 93-144,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I� OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 93-144 is modified as follows: The completion date
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 8% per annum may be made
in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from
the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of
this resolution.
48
3.
4.
M
The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
93-144 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand
confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against
the property against which such assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
93-144, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian
River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its
validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner —Eggert, and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 5 day of Apr i 1 , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
By
•"�� �`--"`.�`"«'"�_'` . John W. Ti�i
f i
Jeffrey K -Barton, Clerk Chairman
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD- MEMBERSHIP
CHANGES AND ALTERNATES
Commissioner Eggert explained the State of Florida requires us
to provide a list of members of the Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) and alternates. She asked the
Board to approve the list of members which was distributed to the
Board. She reported that the TDLCB has been talking with
respresentatives of Yellow Cab Company about having someone from
that company participate as a representative of private industry.
She also mentioned that the Florida Department of Transportation
has appointed Nancy Bungo and Toby Wright as member and alternate,
replacing Kent Rice and Christine Heshmati, respectively.
49 goof 92 FACE 73
L- APR -5 199 J
r APR - 51994
�Roow 92 rmu 74
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the following list of Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board members and alternates:
Name (MPO/DOPA): Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32962
The Metropolitan Planning Organization/Designated Official Planning Agency name; above hereby
certifies to the following:
1. The membership of the Local Coordinating Board, established pursuant to Rule 41-
2.012(3), FAC, does in fact represent the appropriate parties as identified in the
following list; and
2. The membership repreErents, to the maximum extent feasible, a cross section of the local
communi
SIGNATURE • nn . l . ` DATE: /f�� r
REPRESENTATION
MEMBER'S NAME
ALTERNATE'S NAME
TERM
1.
CHAIRMAN
Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
1995
2.
ELDERLY
Jerry Ashcraft
1996
3.
DISABLED
Mae Arnold
Neil F. Duval
1997
4.
CITIZEN ADVOCATE
Dr. Harry Hurst
1996
5.
CITIZEN ADVOCATE/USER
Leland Gibbs, Jr.
1995
6.
VETERAN SERVICES
Vincent McCann, Jr.
Ronald Lester
1997
7.
COMMUNITY ACTION
Pearl Jackson
Annette Johnson
1995
8.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Kathleen Geyer
Dr. Paul Adams
1995
9.
FOOT
Nancy Bungo
Toby Wright
1996
10.
FDHRS
Frank Mueller
1997
11.
FDLES
Carolyn Samuel
Donald Hinkle
1996
12.
FDEA
Kasha Owers
Elizabeth Hubbard
1996
13.
FAHCA
Elizabeth H. Sehon
Beverly Sawyer
1997
14.
STATE COORDINATING COUN.
Wayne McDonough
Richard Saliba
1997
15.
PRIVATE TRANSP. INDUSTRY
Search In Pro ress
16.
MASS/PUBLIC TRANSIT
INDUSTRY
N/A
. v %= %6L&ULWwuesr.UnT.
50
W
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:28 a.m.
ATTEST:
<: ; �'\ '/- Q),
J. arton, Clerk
(r 7
Jahn W. Tippi hairman
51 a � 92 wil '15