Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/14/1995MINUTES "TACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman ( Dist. 3 ) Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird ( Dist. 5 ) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) John W. Tippin ( Dist. 4) 9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - None James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS PAGE DELETED - 11 C - Administration Building Space Needs 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 14, 1995 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Received E Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions for February, 1995 Seb. Riv. Water Control Dist. Minutes of Quarter- ly Meeting of Board of Supervisors, 12/7/94 Seb. Inlet. Tax Dist. Comm. Tentative Commission Meeting Schedule Seb. Inlet Tax District Multi -County Map of District's Portions of Brevard and I.R.C. B. Occupational License Taxes Collected, Feb., 1995 ( memorandum dated March 3, 1995 ) C. Resignation of Anthony J. Donadio from Old Court- house Ad Hoc Committee ( letter dated March 6, 1995 ) D. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes Properties Purchased for County Use ( memorandum dated March 1, 1995 ) 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ): E. Resolution Supporting Preservation 2000 Funding ( memorandum dated March 7, 1995 ) F. Final Plat Approval for Preservation Pointes Phase II ( memorandum dated March 7, 1995 ) G. Purchase of Truck Mounted ( Palletized) Pavement Paint Striping Machine to Replace Damaged Striping Machine, B.A. #010 ( memorandum dated March 7, 1995 ) H. Old Courthouse Renovation Grant Consultant Selection ( memorandum dated March 6, 1995 ) I. Budget Amendment #011 ( memorandum dated March 8, 1995 ) S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS Request to Adopt Fair Housing Ordinance and Approve Various Policies, Procedures, and Plans Related to the Community Development Block Grant Application Submittal ( memorandum dated March 7, 1995 ) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS Michael O'Haire's Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Decision to Approve the Rebel Ranch Sand Mine Administrative Permit Use Request ( memorandum dated March 8, 1995 ) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Humane Society Funding Request ( backup provided separately) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Illegal Dumping / Code Enforcement ( memorandum dated March 7, 1995 ) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None C. GENERAL SERVICES Administration Building Space Needs ( memorandum dated March 2, 1995 ) D. LEISURE SERVICES None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.) : E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Approval of Maintenance Map for Sunrise St. (46th Ave.) in Wabasso ( memorandum dated March 7, 1995 ) 2. Right -of -Way Acceptance - Whitfield S/D in Wabasso ( memorandum dated March 8, 1995 ) 3. Resurfacing and Reconstruction of 66th Avenue ( Lateral "A" Road) Between 33rd St. and 45th Street ( memorandum dated March 8, 1995 ) H. UTILITIES 1. Roseland Water Main, Ph. IV, Change Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request ( memorandum dated March 6, 1995 ) 2. North U.S. #1 Water Main (City of Seb. ) Change Order No. 4 ( memorandum dated March 2, 1995 ) 3. State Road 60 - South Gravity Sewer Final Pay Request (memorandum dated March 3, 1995) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT B. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd): E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT Agreement for Architectural/ Engineering Services with Edlund 8 Dritenbas Architects, P.A. - Northwest Co. Emerg. Services Station ( memorandum dated March 3, 1995 ) B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 2/14/95 2. Second Extension of Contract with Universal Waste S Transit, Inc. ( memorandum dated March 2, 1995 ) 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. Tuesday, March 14, 1995 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. DELETION FROM THE AGENDA Chairman Macht requested the deletion from today's agenda of item 11.C., Administration Building Space Needs. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously deleted item 11.C., Administration Building Space Needs, from the agenda. APPROVAL OF M]NUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 14, 1995. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 14, 1995, as written. 1 March 14, 1995 Bo®K P,� 14,547 X0,0 �:4,�: CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Adams requested the removal of Item 7.G. for discussion. A. Reports The following reports have been received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: • Report of Convictions for February, 1995 • Sebastian River Water Control District, Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of Board of Supervisors, 12/7/94 • Sebastian Inlet Tax District Commission - Tentative Meeting Schedule • Sebastian Inlet Tax District Multi -County Map of District's Portions of Brevard and I.R.C. B. Occupational License Taxes Collected, February 1995 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1995: TO: Board of County Commission FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collec SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: March 3, 1995 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $3,242.86 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of February, representing the issuance of 128 licenses. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the report. C. Resignation of Anthony T. Donadio from Old Courthouse Ad Hoc Committee The Board reviewed a letter of March 6, 1995: N March 14, 1995 A .7r, \ O �n.. �4O�L ti O�/L `SAl March 6, 1995 IO AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, P.A. ECTURE . PLANNING. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Mr. Ken Macht Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: OLD COURTHOUSE AD HOC COMMITTEE Dear Mr. Macht, STAiB Tfn'd ;.• r Adrn:nistrat©r w t=s►�a;�r,P I am regretfully submitting my resignation from the Old Courthouse Ad Hoc Committee. Having been selected to be the county's consultant for the Old Courthouse Architectural Survey & Grant Writing, I feel it necessary that I resign, so as not to have a conflict of interest. I have enjoyed my short term on the committee. Please call on me if I can be of any help in the future. Thank you. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the resignation of Anthony J. Donadio from the Old Courthouse Ad Hoc Committee. D. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes on Properties Purchased for County Use The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 1, 1995: March 14, 1995 L M BOOK 94 P,ti.0 549 r BOOK 9 {� , tP TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS k>. FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: March 1, 1995 RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TAXES PROPERTIES PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE The County recently acquired some right-of-way, and, pursuant to Section 196.28,. Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done by resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached resolution cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently acquired. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-44 cancelling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly -owned lands, pursuant to Section 1.96.28, Florida Statutes. Re: R/W - Fifth St., SW (E of 20th Ave.) Parcel #23-33-39-00001-0050-00010.0 Timber Ridge, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 95- lel A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes; recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and March 14, 1995 4 RESOLUTION 95-44 WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in O.R. Book 1049, Page 1517, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for right of way purposes on Fifth Street, SW, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 14 day of March , 1995. IQ!e •` . L �Bn, lerk C tarto enti reed �w th Legal Description 5 March 14, 1995 BOARD OF LINTY COMM IONERS INDIAN IVER COUNTY, TRIDA., B_ Kenneth R. acht, Chairman indim River Ca Approved Date I Admin. �� 3 Legal 3 Budge, •, ,. Y,. Dept. Risk Mgr. BOOK 94 P':UU-551 F L�! 1 1 4 . , 1 It, THIS INDENTURE made this day of January, 1995, between TIMBER RIDGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION Grantor, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION the mailing address of which is: 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantee. WITNESSETH that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The North 50.00 feet of the South 80.00 feet of Tract 8, Section 23, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, filed in Plat Book 2, Page 25, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. LESS AND EXCEPT the West 456.00 feet thereof, and the East 30.00 feet thereof, now lying in Indian River County, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: Begin at the Southeast corner of Tract 8, Section 23, Township 13 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision filed in Plat Book 2, Page 25, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; thence S 89°54'22" W along the South line of Tract 8, 871.03 feet, thence N 0010'36" W along the East line of the West 456.00 feet � of Tract 8, 30.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue N 0010.36" W along the East line of the West 0 456.00 feet of Tract 8, 50.00 feet, thence N 89"54122" E, 841.37 feet, thence S 0004'-6" W 50.00 feet, thence S 89°54122" W, 841.16 feet to the Point of Beginning. 4 m t�ir �a The Grantor's interest conveyed herein is all the right, p`► r+ title and interest the Grantor has pursuant to Warranty LU E c Deed dated October 25, 1994 and recorded October 27, 1994 o a a in Official Record Book 1037, Page 2844, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. The real property conveyed herein is conveyed to Grantee for the express purpose and with the understanding by the Grantee that it will be used for public right-of-way purposes. SUBJECT to real estate taxes for 1995 and subsequent years. TOGETHER : with all tenements, hereditaments appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. March 14, 1995 and O co v O� �D co Ln cn rrn ca N J a �o AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: . V !). I Name:_ s 1y A#,/ ✓ Jt-sjjjS 1 - Name s c. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY acknowledged before me this J. Mustapick; President Corporation, on behalf of th to me or produced identification. (Notary Seal) This document prepared by: WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, ESQ. Collins, Brown & Caldwell 756 Beachland Boulevard Vero Beach, FL 32963 TIMBER RIDGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPO TION BY: • Andre J. Mustapi President Aprrn"rp AS TO FORM AP0 Cr^,L sur C►E: X,Y: Charles P. VitunaC County Attorney th t the foregoing instrument was day of January, 1995, by Andrew of Timber Ridge, Inc,. —a, Flo ida e corporation, who is fper`sonally knoin w ---- -"as l Notary Public --" Name: _ J;9 JU 021x- 1, - C / /('6_ My commission expires:' - Chartered 7 March 14 1995 t " 3 � C��lOft � P�4��E ���r 7 v� CID "OFFICIAL SEAL" Sandra L. Young My Commission Expires 6/3/96 Commission #CC 205387 March 14 1995 t " 3 � C��lOft � P�4��E ���r 7 v� CID Boa 94 m,,554 E. Resolution Supporting Preservation 2000 Funding The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE: CP Community FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,lAICP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: March 7,1995 RE: Resolution Supporting Preservation 2000 Funding It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 14, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Preservation 2000 (P2000) was enacted by the State in 1990 as a ten year, $3 billion environmental lands acquisition program. For the first five years of the program, funding has been subject to re - appropriation on a yearly basis due to the lack of a permanent funding source. So far, funding for P2000 has come from documentary stamp revenues. Without a permanent funding source, the continuance of the P2000 program is in question each fiscal year. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a leading proponent of the P2000 program. On February 27, 1995, Government Relations Associate Sarah Campbell of TNC contacted the County requesting that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution supporting sixth year appropriation of funding for P2000. TNC is also urging local governments to support the designation of a permanent funding source for the remaining years of the program. The Board adopted a similar resolution in February, 1994, supporting P2000 funding for the past year (Resolution No. 94-32). ANALYSIS The P2000 program is the single most important opportunity for the County to obtain matching funds in implementing the county approved environmental lands acquisition bond referendum. P2000 funds are the primary monies of the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program, the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program, and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) land acquisition program, among others. P2000 funds will potentially be used in the acquisition of virtually all of the county LAAC sites presently under consideration. 8 March 14, 1995 To date, P2000 funds have been approved under various state programs to fully or partially fund the acquisition of 10 sites under review by LAAC, and funding for other project sites is anticipated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution in support of sixth year appropriation of funding for P2000, and in support of the State designating a permanent funding source for the remaining years of the program. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 95-45 urging the continued appropriation of funding for Preservation 2000. Resolution No. 95 -.45 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA URGING THE CONTINUED APPROPRIATION OF FUNDING FOR PRESERVATION 2000. WHEREAS, the citizens of Indian River County have advanced environmental land preservation efforts with voter approval to locally fund a county wide preservation program; and WHEREAS, Preservation 2000 is a ten-year program designed to acquire and therefore save Florida's best remaining natural land, and is the State's most comprehensive land protection program; and WHEREAS, Florida's population growth and conversion of natural areas continue to threaten our natural systems; and WHEREAS, Preservation 2000 offers an opportunity for funding partnership between Indian River.County and the State to protect environmentally significant lands and support the implementation of our county comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, Indian River County recognizes the importance of Preservation 2000 in enabling the implementation of conservation goals, growth management and comprehensive land use plans; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners hereby urges the Legislature of the State of Florida to . A. Appropriate funding for a sixth series of Preservation 2000 bonds. B. Designate a permanent funding source for the remaining years of the Preservation 2000 program. Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. F] March 14, 1995 BOOK 9 4 iv ,,U555 BOOK 94 PAGL-55-6 No. 95-45 THE RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams — e Commissioner John W. Tippin�y—e Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert !{ye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Reye The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 14 day of March Attest: Je K. Batonu. nn b- Mbx' E •l. \-\6'\p2000res.hcc March 14, 1995 , 1995. BOARD OF SiOUNTY CO SSIONERS INDIAN VER LINTY, ORIDA By enneth acht Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM ANDLEGAL UFFICIENCY 8Y TERRENCE P. O'BRIEN ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY 10 F. Final Plat Approval for Preservation Pointes Phase H The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: i _. - - 4 R bort . Kea n AICP Community Develop ent i ector THROUGH: Stan BolingICP Planning Director FROM: Eric Blad/ Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: March 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval for Preservation Pointes Phase II [PD-92-12-006/IRC #95010109-001] It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 14, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Preservation Pointes Phase II subdivision contains 16 lots, and is the final phase of a 34 lot subdivision within the boundaries of Timber Ridge, a planned residential development (PRD). The overall 9.41 acre site (Phase I and II) lies along the north end of Timber Ridge Trail and is immediately south of the western portion of Dixie Gardens Subdivision. The subject property is zoned RM -6, Multi -Family Residential (up to 6 units per acre), and has a land use designation of L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units per acre). The proposed density for the project is 3.61 units per acre. On October 8, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for Preservation Pointes (Phase I and Phase II), and a land development permit waiver (Phase I and II) was subsequently issued. The developer, Andrew Mustapick, is now requesting final plat approval for Preservation Pointes Phase II, and has submitted the following: 1. A plat in conformance with the originally approved preliminary plat, and 2. A certificate of completion for all required subdivision improvements consistent with the Timber Ridge PRD. it March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 Pv,L.557 BOOK FFA"-- 558 ANALYSIS: The Preservation Pointes Phase I plat included 18 platted lots, a tract reserved for Phase II, and a preservation tract for Preservation Pointes wetlands and native upland set-aside area (see attachment #3). The proposed Phase II plat will create 16 lots by replatting the vacant tract in Phase I. All required subdivision improvements for development of Phase II were constructed and approved during the construction of Phase I. A certificate of completion has been issued by the Public Works Department for required subdivision improvements in Preservation Pointes (Phase I and Phase II). Since no improvements are being dedicated to the county, no warranty and maintenance agreement and bond are required. Consequently, the developer has complied with the appropriate requirements to obtain final plat approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the Preservation Pointes Phase II plat. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for the Preservation Pointes Phase II plat. G. Pavement Paint Striping Machine - Budget Amendment #010 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1995: -- - - - - -I- - - ------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator C THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Christopher R. Mora, P.E. County Traffic Engineer DATE: March 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Purchase of Truck -Mounted (Palletized) Pavement Paint Striping Machine to replace damaged striping machine Budget Amendment #010 naaaaaaaaaaanaaaannnnanaanananaaoaaaaananaaaaaanaaannanaanaaaana DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On October 11, 1994 the Kelly -Creswell walk -behind paint striping machine was damaged in an accident. Although some parts are salvageable, the paint machine cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Since the accident, the Traffic Engineering Divisions, 12 March 14, 1995 painting operation has been disabled. As directed by the Purchasing Division, Traffic Engineering staff secured three written quotes to replace the damaged equipment on an emergency basis. They are listed as follows: VENDORRp ICg Kelly -Creswell $22,795.00 Linear Dynamics $22,765.00 EZ -Liner Industries $26,718.00 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Although the lowest bidder is Linear Dynamics, the machine provided by Kelly -Creswell more completely meets our pavement marking maintenance needs. Also, the delivery date is approximately 45-120 days sooner than the lowest bidder. Furthermore, the county can salvage parts from the damaged Kelly - Creswell paint machine for equipment maintenance which results in a savings to the county. Traffic Engineering staff proposes to secure the new palletized striping machine from Kelly -Creswell for $22,795.00. RECOMMMMATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase of the new palletized striping machine from Kelly -Creswell for $22,795.00 and the attached budget amendment. Funding to come from transportation fund contingencies. Commissioner Adams asked how the old machine was damaged and Administrator Chandler advised that a cable snapped and it fell off the truck and staff did not know why it happened. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the purchase of the new palletized striping machine from Kelly -Creswell for $22,795 and Budget Amendment #010, as recommended in the memorandum. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bain OMB Director Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name 1. EXPENSE TRANSPORTATION FUND/Traffic Engineering/Machinery and Equipme i Reserve for Contingency BUDGET AMENDMENT: 010 DATE: March 7. 1995 Account Number I Increase I Decrease 111-245-541-066.49 111-199-581-099.91 $22,795 1 $0 $0 $22,795 For truck mounted pavement paint stripping machine in the amount of $22,795 to replace the I one involved in an accident. 13 March 14, 1995 BOOK 04 FAGS �60 H. Old Courthouse Renovation Grant Consultant Selection The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1995: DATE: MARCH 6, 1995 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: OLD COURTHOUSE RENOVATION GRANT CONSULTANT SELECTION BACKGROUND: On February 28, 1995, the Board approved the priority list of prospective firms as submitted and authorized staff to proceed with negotiations as outlined in the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) to hire a firm for the subject project. ANALYSIS: Staff met with Mr. Tony Donadio, of Donadio and Associates and negotiated a price not to exceed $34,500. This price is inclusive of all cost associated with the grant writing. FUNDING: Budget for this project is $40,000. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of a contract with Donadio and Associates and requests authorization for the Board Chairman to execute all documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved a contract with Donadio and Associates in an amount not -to -exceed $40,000, as recommended the the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 14 March 14, 1995 I. Budget Amendment #011 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 1995: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 8, 1995 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 011 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph tBair OMB Dctor '�t/_ DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. The Main Library has received donations totaling $2,868. This entry allocates the donations. 2. The North County Library has received donations totaling $1,673. This entry will allocate the donations. 3. This entry will allocate the proceeds of the State Aids Grant as approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the Board meeting of March 7, 1995. 4. At the meeting of March 7, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved the purchase of 11 five drawer lateral files for the Clerk's office at a total cost of $4,428. 5. The Board of County Commissioners approved the receipt of the 1994/95 EMS County Awards Grant in the amount of $47,785 at the September 20, 1994 meeting. This entry allocates the funding. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 011. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 011, as recommended by staff in the memorandum. 15 March 14, 1995 boa 94 PAf R" TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director boa 94 P,�u 563 BUDGET AMENDMENT: 011 P7 3 ._ j .' Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/Main Library/Donations 001-000-366-095.00 $1,544 $0 Books Donations 001-000-366-103.00 $1,324 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Main Library/Books 001-109-571-035.45 $2,868 $0 2. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/N. County/Donations 001-000-366-097.00 $1,063 $0 Book Donations 001-000-366-100.00 $610 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/N. County Library/Books 001-112-571-035.45 $10673 $0 3. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/State Library Aid -General 001-000-334-710.00 $35,970 $0 Main Library/Books 001-109-571-035.45 $24,470 North County Library/Books 001-112-571-035.45 $10,000 $0 North County Library/Audio Visual 001-112-571-035.48 $1,500 $0 4. REVENUE COURT FACILITIES/Cash Forward 106-000-389-040.00 $4,428 $0 EXPENSE COURT FACILITIES/Other Operating Supplies 106-309-516-035.29 $4,428 $0 5. REVENUE , EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/ EMS Grant 114-000-334-290.00 $47,785 $0 EXPENSE - EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT/ ALS/Other Machinery and Equipment 114-253-526-037.24 $15,995 $0 Other Furniture and Equipment 114-253-526-037.23 $1,100 $0 Vehicles 114-253-526-037.26 $24,500 $0 Other Operating Supplies 114-253-526-037.31 $6190 $0 16 March 14, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING - FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE ADOPTED; POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PLANS RELATED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION APPROVED The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: VM IWACN PRUS JOURNAL Pubnalwd oan„ Yore f�adr, I-&. W.. Q.#'. "oda., COOM OF WMAN RIVER: STATE OR ROMA Brion Nr undwWw rd Arthofty OatsonMh appesrod J. J. Senuratin • Jr. was an am "O aW helsouseroaa" — d Ma Van 6ast:h Pro>s..blettN, a da ly Owspow pueaahsd d Vero eateft In mitt RAW County. Florift t"111 the anachad copy of admUse nWtt, b" a�J.' . —in Court. was Pub xaftsd a and newsoq W m do iaeuas d l / .;' 'tt• . •% – Afftwo Vara 8�t. uin aeW Iho m R� a W Vero Seam Preea'Joumal te a na+rapaw PubliShed al Count. Florida. a.d that tiro said MW892 W has herefolme pun aemuroat * PUWWtea n sad Inman RAW Cama. Ron" Baan"and tas Dean puttered ae saeerd elan mad mattW ai Iha aOst o}lice m Vero Beach. m saN fr�n RAW Cam• t.FbrWL.far■aWrodat WWy Wnrat Weee" the fast MWIratfon at tno aftdwd copy of ad.erVsOOMW anal aRIWd IwdtW sora ttaf he has neitnW Nd nor Manned any PWson. lrm Or aanWaRon purr mart eoa. rebate. eomymsaimt or refund for the purpose a1 sou". WSd. aarlroana" for WAWAIIon in Rro sad rynroaapW- _ i swam to Wd p bwribW tWore an Vas .. def' aF G.. _ :7"'. N !•"�-- Ifeuameaa UWW Wl ISEAU NMICE-RAW IEARM HMO Of hNrarlr b WOW the -d Isr i cit d Pft M.rhinarnn� fogy a a�+oft0 'Stec,., S dehJs. 1War�a. or W Pq" dab*w desle&hq eR u>oewU amid h dleaflrhetorp hos• V h the Sala or rentd of of W • b Won" ow se In ft r ardeXCepfktrla: '�PqVio � am to as ve desigr>s� 9�d Pis wd &ffa d such e Oft Pr!R q selbn upon a detapr�rt' or San of k" ei+tl ' 1 rte rarq of OOlr�le Wd /esm alerllq at rhe txooes thereof bq Qte ooadmkvstretor; pow 1r a OU mpFsl . or fete tC prol+d r vlda for DenaVes far *Wbn d such dherioe� P d A P k Itsve aR epporit hm" at which Da 11 m in UttB1R4t of _ stilq to be heard. r be held by ftW MW Cmnrf. Fiffift h ale (iaWIY � tndR Man awrOm d the Camtq ft""don W int I F I of 1NO 251h Sheat. Vara Beech. Fir ads an tuafap. hf irch N. 1945, attUSS1m my dMI which meq be made of M! nieet�g wi need e are that a vatotWn reoad of die pooee4r p meds. wrtkit it k W tes6motgt and atladm t# which the sopor to based IM f e+�A� oortla 1 to oar �At l wilt Mefft Act (AOA) CowdnaW d 5V -W eetensbn 223 at beast IB ham it aftee oft Mm mWCOMWOwdwq babnes r gBr�-sacen+sah R Meft Ch*mm Feb. 24. IM . .11774 Community Development Director Memorandum of March 7, 1995: 17 March 14, 1995 Bob Keating reviewed a BOOK f _ 5(65 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator Zrt ION HEAD CONCURRENCE 4,44 M. Kea in(enttrector Community Develop FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S' -,, Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: March 7, 1995 RE: REQUEST TO ADOPT FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE AND APPROVE VARIOUS POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PLANS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of March 14, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On December 20, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners authorized public works and community development staff to apply for a CDBG neighborhood revitalization grant for the Colored School Subdivision and Whitfield Subdivision target areas. The Board also authorized staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare the CDBG application and administer the grant. Finally, the Board committed budgeted petition paving funds to be used as a match for the grant. The county's CDBG consultants, Clark, Roumelis and Associates, Inc., have now started to prepare the CDBG application. One of the first CDBG required activities occurred on February 28, 1995, when the Board of County Commissioners formally chose the neighborhood revitalization grant category and activated the existing CDBG citizen advisory committee. Also, at that time the Board established March 21, 1995, as the date for the second public hearing. Prior to submittal of the CDBG application, the Board must take several actions which are required as part of a CDBG application submittal. According to state rules, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will not grant a CDBG contract unless the receiving jurisdiction has adopted the ordinances, plans, and policies identified below. Adoption of some of these ordinances and policies also directly benefits the county by providing the county more points for its application. That, in turn, can increase the county's chances of being awarded a CDBG grant. Following is the list and a brief description of ordinances, policies, and plans that the Board must adopt: Fair Housing Ordinance The Fair housing ordinance will explicitly prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, 18 March 14, 1995 � � r ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age consistent with the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-20 and 24 C.F.R. part 100. This ordinance also designates and identifies unlawful discriminatory housing practices in sale or rental, financing, brokerage services, and advertising in connection to housing. • CDBG Anti -displacement and Relocation Plan This plan establishes guidelines and procedures to ensure that the county will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that activities undertaken through the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will not cause unnecessary displacement or relocation of homeowners in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1979, as amended, 49 C.F.R. Part 24, and 24 C.F.R. Part 570.606. In the case of unavoidable relocations, the county will provide reasonable relocation assistance to the affected persons or families. Section 504 Compliance Policy The Section 504 Compliance Policy establishes procedures and guidelines that shall be used to effectuate compliance with non-discrimination based on handicap in conformance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and with 24 C.F.R. part 8. On September 15, 1992, the county approved the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan. Also, on January 26, 1993, the county approved its ADA self- evaluation plan. Physical improvements to make the county -owned facilities handicapped accessible have been completed. • Citizen Participation Plan for the CDBG Programs and Projects The Citizen Participation Plan sets guidelines for providing citizens with information concerning the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and obtaining feedback from citizens in conformance with Section 104(a)(3) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Procurement Policies and Procedures for CDBG programs and projects The Procurement policies establish guidelines and procedures for the purchase or procurement of personal property, supplies, equipment, and services in conformance with state and federal regulations, 24 C.F.R. Section 85.36, Section 287.055, F.S., and Rule 9B-43, F.A.C. • Section 3 and Affirmative Action Policy This policy establishes guidelines to ensure elimination 19 March 14, 1995 BOOK 9 P,r,[: 56C E�OOK Fr - 94 P4rL567 of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, or handicap. Also, the policy includes procedures for hiring minority contractors, and quantified goals for minority employees in conformance with the requirements of all applicable state and federal equal opportunity laws, regulations, and executive orders. In federal or state funded projects, this may include: Florida Small and Minority Business Act; Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title VIII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended; Executive Order 12559; the Federal Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Executive Order 11063; Executive Order 11246; Executive Orders 11375 and 12086; and Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Action of 1968. • Policy for Non-violent Civil Rights Demonstration This policy prohibits the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within the county against any individuals engaging in non-violent civil rights demonstrations and enforces applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrances to or exits from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations in conformance with Section 516 of Public Law 101-140, more specifically known as "The 1990 HUD Appropriation Act." County staff has coordinated with the Sheriff's Department regarding the adoption of this policy. The Sheriff's Department has indicated that they have no objection to adoption of this policy. Acquisition Plan for CDBG Programs and Projects This plan sets guidelines regarding acquisition of real properties such as easements or rights-of-way associated with a CDBG program or project in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970, as amended. Adoption of this policy is not required as part of the CDBG application submittal. This policy, however, will be required if, as part of the project, acquisition of any easement or right-of-way is needed. ANALYSIS Of the eight above referenced ordinances, plans, and policies, four relate solely to the CDBG program. These are: C CDBG Anti -displacement and Relocation Plan O CDBG Citizen Participation Plan O CDBG Procurement Policies and Procedures C CDBG Acquisition Plan So the effect of adopting the above referenced plans and procedures will be minimal. Since those plans and procedures will affect only the current CDBG program or subsequent CDBG programs, those plans and procedures will not significantly affect the county. NEI March 14, 1995 The remaining ordinances and policies, however, can affect the entire county. Although those ordinances and policies represent new local regulations, the referenced ordinances and policies all relate to existing federal laws. Those ordinances and policies also must be in place for the county to receive various other types of federal grants besides Community Development Block Grants. Since the county has adopted its Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) self-evaluation and transition plans and made all necessary structural changes, approval of the Section 504 compliance plan will not result in additional cost to the county. Regardless of this policy, all future structures must be accessible to handicapped people. Adoption of the fair housing ordinance will not cost the county any money, although enforcement may involve minor costs. This ordinance will prohibit discrimination in housing related activities. Adoption of Section 3 and the Affirmative Action policy will cost little to implement. This policy, however, will set quantitative goals for hiring full-time employees. The proposed Non-violent Civil Rights demonstration policy should not have any cost associated with it. The Sheriff's Department has indicated that they do not have any objections to the county adopting this policy. The referenced ordinances, policies, plans, and procedures are requirements for all local governments obtaining CDBG funds. Consequently, many local governments throughout the country have adopted similar plans, policies and ordinances. In fact, the City of Sebastian is also applying for CDBG funds during the current grant cycle and is presently in the process of adopting similar plans, policies, and ordinances. The Board of County Commissioners can opt not to adopt the referenced plans, policies, and ordinances. If the Board does not adopt the referenced plans, policies, and ordinances, however, the county will be ineligible to receive the $750,000,00 in CDBG funds for which it can apply. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the following ordinances, policies, procedures, and plans. (A copy of the Indian River County Fair Housing Ordinance is attached. Copies of the remaining attachments are on file in the Board of County Commissioners Office). C Indian River County Fair Housing Ordinance C Anti -displacement and relocation plan G Section 504 compliance policy O Citizen Participation plan O Procurement policies and procedures C Affirmative action policy C Non-violent civil rights demonstration policy a Acquisition plan 21 March 14, 1995 94 pAu 568 boa 94 PnL Director Keating predicted the program would not require a substantial amount of staff time. Commissioner Eggert, strongly supportive of affirmative action, no discrimination, and true equal opportunity employment, said the sections of the document on Procurement Policies and Procedures and the Affirmative Action Policy seemed discriminatory to her and she wondered whether all of that had to be said. Buck Clark, president of Clark, Roumelis and Associates, the County's consultants on the CDBG program, briefed the Board on DCA and HUD policies with respect to minority and female hiring preference and emphasized that the County was required to set quantifiable goals. Commissioner Eggert reiterated that the way it was worded seemed very discriminatory, and Mr. Clark allowed that she was not the first elected official to make that comment. Administrator Chandler reviewed the County's policy which was more generalized in nature and non-discriminatory, but lacking in mandated quantifiable goals. He summarized staff's consideration of the program and indicated they were cognizant of the current nationwide debate on reverse discrimination. Nevertheless, quantifiable goals are a specific requirement when pursuing CDBG grants. Discussion ensued on discrimination issues. Commissioner Bird shared Commissioner Eggert's concerns, but, after having recently spent time with Deputy County Attorney Will Collins, wanted to broaden the concerns to include ramifications for the future. He asked Attorney Collins to express any trepidation he felt. He also opposed the County Administrator being the point man for all discrimination hearings and asked Attorney Collins to address that as well. Deputy Attorney Collins noted that, in making the application, the statement of assurances referred to 57 different Federal laws, Executive Orders, Treasury Circulars, OMB Circulars, and while he looked through the list, and read those available to him, he considered he could give assurances of compliance with about 6 or 7 and observed that it was impossible to comply with some simply because they were specific to State agencies. He speculated we might be in compliance with about 90% of those applicable to local governments; it was the other 10% that, at some later date, might be a problem. He was not too familiar with the Davis Bacon Act, since he believed it dealt only with contractors who received Federal money and the County has not done that. He understood that 22 March 14, 1995 the contractors would be required to pay the prevailing wage in the region; however, the County's practice to go with "lowest responsible bidder" was not -the same thing. Chairman Macht explained that the Davis Bacon Act would require us to pay the prevailing wage scale of Cocoa, Florida, which had been negotiated by a union contract there, and which bore no relationship to economic conditions in Indian River County. Commissioner Eggert agreed with Commissioner Bird's "strings attached" comments and recalled the County had pulled out of Farmers Home by rebonding. Commissioner Bird reminded the Board that Mr. Clark's firm was retained to write the grant. He hoped that it had not been written so broadly just to give us the best ranking/best chance of acquiring the grant. He further hoped we were not "selling our soul to the devil" by agreeing to things that we had no idea of whether we were able to comply and running the risk of having to pay it back. Mr. Clark, in order to assure the Board, provided a lengthy, detailed explanation of his extensive experience with the program, the administration of the program, its practical operation, and the comprehensive services provided by his company. He pledged that, if, during its life, the CDBG program were challenged, his company would work with the County Attorney to make sure it was resolved appropriately; that was part of what they got paid to do. Administrator Chandler wanted to make sure it was clear that if the procurement policies were applicable to all of the County's contracts and purchasing in the future, there was no way it could be done. If it was confined to CDBG and related contracts, and although it would involve a lot of red tape, he felt we could live with it. He acknowledged there would be a Davis Bacon Act provision in any bid written for CDBG-related projects. Commissioner Bird asked about the $750,000 figure, and Administrator Chandler advised it was the maximum amount for which we could apply, based on our size and other factors. Commissioner Bird then asked how the $750,000 related to the program plan, and Administrator Chandler advised that an additional $160,000 would come from the petition paving program. Water hook up funding would come through the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program (approximately $200,000). Commissioner Bird hoped that when everything was completed we would find we had received full value for the dollars expended. 23 March 14, 1995 u/� pp p` UO04 Boa 94 FACUe 571 Administrator Chandler advised that staff had deliberated over how much staff time would be required and had determined it would depend on the extent and nature of complaints received, and if great, he might have to come back to the Board. Initially, he would be the person to receive complaints. Commissioner Bird noted that while the ordinance required an administrator for the program, as far as he was concerned the County Administrator was paid to do bigger and better things than take discrimination complaints. He wanted the duties to be delegated to some other staff person. Chairman Macht felt more basic questions were appropriate, such as whether we could afford to accept the grant, what was the desirable outcome, and why did we want to do it. Mr. Clark advised that in other counties, the Deputy County Attorney usually was designated for any complaints; however, it had been his experience that no complaints were received. He further pointed out that whether we apply or not, the fair housing law mirrors the Federal and State laws already in place. Commissioner Bird commented that it seemed to be another layer of bureaucracy, and Chairman Macht emphasized that the ordinance has the effect of law and restated his question, "What is the desirable outcome?" Administrator Chandler recalled requests for paving from the people living in the proposed project area and how staff had tried to determine a funding source for the project. Since the normal petition paving process and a MSTU were not viable solutions, CDBG met the objectives of paving streets and installing water lines in the two Wabasso subdivisions. Commissioner Eggert declared it was a much needed project, and Commissioner Adams felt that this was the only way to provide the needed services to the project area. She agreed it was never easy dealing with government but they needed to remember the major impact on the neighborhood and the people it would help. It is a widely -used and well-established funding program with which Mr. Clark's firm is very familiar. She emphasized the need for being aggressive and moving forward with things that needed to be done and supported the program. Mr. Clark recounted the pre -planning work done in this very low income area of 97 homes to determine what could be done for the $750,000. He reported that they had never bid a project that did not come in at least under budget. The project will provide paving and drainage, water, and fire hydrants. He predicted the 24 March 14, 1995 neighborhood would not look or be the same, but would be many times better; they would be very proud of the results and would receive maximum benefit for the expenditure. He recommended they approach it in a very business -like manner with one general contractor. Commissioner Bird asked how long it would be before the final sign -off on the project, and Mr. Clark reported it normally took 20-30 days to finish paperwork after the contractor completed his work. Commissioner Bird wanted the designated administrator to be one of the Assistant County Attorneys and would not support the ordinance if it was the County Administrator. Commissioner Eggert asked if we could just put "or his designee" and that would take care of it, because the County Administrator may want to designate Community Development or some other department or person. Commissioner Bird commented that the (County) attorneys don't work directly under the Administrator, they work for the Board, and the program administrator may want some support from the Board. Commissioners Eggert and Adams agreed that an Assistant County Attorney should act as the administrator under this ordinance. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, Vero Beach, concerned citizen, commented that this was a "hidden or camouflaged funded mandate," as opposed to an unfunded mandate. Sam Elliott, Vista Royale, was concerned about the ordinance and its impact on the 55 -and -older HUD Act at Vista Royale, and Attorney Vitunac assured him it would exclude subdivisions like Vista Royale. Prompted by Mr. Elliott's questions, Deputy Attorney Collins confirmed that he had checked with the consultant and a clause had been included in the proposed ordinance (Section 4, paragraph (3)h.) to address his concern about retaining the 55 and over exemption: Bar any person from restricting sales, rentals,leases or occupancy to persons over age 55, to the extent allowed by state or federal law. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. 25 March 14, 1995n :. BOOK -94, PAGE BOOK 94 FACE 573 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-07, a Fair Housing Ordinance, and approve various policies, procedures, and plans related to the Community Development Block Grant application submittal, as recommended. Under discussion, Chairman Macht stated he had a very hard time with the ordinance for all the reasons stated in the hearing as well as others. While he understood the good effects and the importance of doing it, he defined his concerns citing a recent hearing when residents of another area emphasized they could not afford to have water brought to their neighborhood. Now the Board is voting to provide service to another neighborhood without charge, and he believed that was the worst form of discrimination. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Bird reminded Mr. Clark that, in voting in favor of this ordinance, he was placing a lot of faith in him, his company, and the representations he had made today that this evil they conjured up was not as evil as first thought, and it would go away upon completion of the project and the final signoff. Mr. Clark gave his personal assurances that the Board would be happy with the project. Executive Aide Alice White asked for a clarification of the motion and if it was as amended by Commissioner Bird's request that the program administrator be an Assistant County Attorney. Chairman Macht responded to the affirmative. 26 March 14, 1995 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR A DECLARATION OF COUNTY POLICY TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, ANCESTRY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, MARITAL STATUS, FAMILIAL STATUS, HANDICAP, OR AGE; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; DESIGNATING AS UNLAWFUL CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICES IN THE SALE OR RENTAL OF HOUSING AS WELL AS IN ADVERTISING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IN THE FINANCING OF HOUSING, AND IN BROKERAGE SERVICES RELATED TO HOUSING; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN ADMINISTRATOR TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND PRESCRIBING THE GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF SUCH ADMINISTRATOR; PRESCRIBING ACTION UPON A DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND AUTHORIZING THE PROMULGATION OF FORMS AND REGULATIONS; MAKING PROVISION FOR THE FILING OF COMPLAINTS AND RESPONSES THERETO, AND THE PROCESSING THEREOF BY THE ADMINISTRATOR; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL REMEDIES; INFORMATION; PROHIBITING UNTRUTHFUL COMPLAINTS OR FALSE TESTIMONY; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF SUCH ORDINANCE. SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is the policy of Indian River County, in keeping with the laws of the United States of America, to promote through fair, orderly and lawful procedure the opportunity for each person so desiring to obtain housing of such person's choice in this County, without regard to race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age, and, to that end, to prohibit discrimination in housing by any person. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. The terms as used herein shall be defined as follows: a. Administrator - That person appointed by the County Commission pursuant to Section 6 hereof; b. Age - Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the word age as used herein shall refer exclusively to persons who are 18 years of age or older; C. Discriminatory housing. practice - An act that is unlawful under Section 4 hereof; d. Family - One or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling; e. Handicap - A person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, or who has a record of having, or is regarded as having, such physical or mental handicap, or a person who has a developmental disability as defined in F.S. 393.063; f. Familial Status - Is established when an individual who has not obtained the age of 18 years is domiciled with: (1) a parent or other person having legal custody of such individual, or (2) a designee of a parent or other person having legal custody, with the written permission of such parent or other person; 27 March 14 1995 Baa 4 pw 574 BOOK 4 PA:- 575, ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 g. Housing or housing accommodation - Any building, structure, or portion thereof, mobile home or trailer, or other facility which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof, mobile home or trailer or other facility; h. Lending Institution - Any bank, insurance company, savings and loan association or any other person or organization regularly engaged in the business of lending money, guaranteeing loans, or sources of credit information, including but not limited to credit bureaus; i. Owner - Any person, including but not limited to a lessee, sublessee, assignee, manager, or agent, and also including the County and its departments or other sub -units, having the right of ownership or possession or the authority to sell or lease any housing accommodation; j. Person - One or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mortgage companies, joint stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, or public corporations, including but not limited to the County or any department or sub -unit thereof; k. Real Estate Agent - Any real estate broker, any real estate salesman, or any other person, employee, agent, or otherwise; engaged in the management or operation of any real property; 1. Real Estate Broker or Salesman - A person, whether licensed or not, who for or with the expectation of receiving a consideration, lists, sells, purchases, exchanges, rents, or leases real property, or who negotiates or attempts to negotiate any of these activities, or who holds himself or herself out as engaged in these activities, or who negotiates or attempts to negotiate a loan secured or to be secured by mortgage or other encumbrance upon real property, or who is engaged in the business of listing real property in a publication; or a person employed by or acting on behalf of any of these; M. Real Estate Transaction - Includes the sale, purchase, exchange, rental or lease of real property, and any contract pertaining thereto; n. Rent - Includes lease, sublease, assignment and/or rental, including any contract to do any of the foregoing, or otherwise granting for a consideration the right to occupy premises that are not owned by the occupant; o. Respondent - Any person against whom a complaint is filed pursuant to this ordinance; P. Sale - Includes any contract to sell, exchange, or to convey, transfer or assign legal or equitable title to, or a beneficial interest in real property. F-3 March 14, 1995 ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 SECTION 3. UNLAWFUL HOUSING PRACTICES. (1) Unlawful housing practices - Sale Advertising in connection therewith. or Rental and Except as provided in Section 4 hereof, it shall be unlawful and a discriminatory housing practice for an owner, or any other person engaging in a real estate transaction, or for a real estate broker, as defined in this ordinance, because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age: a. To refuse to engage in a real estate transaction with a person or otherwise make unavailable or rent housing to any person; b. To discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions or privileges of a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith, or because of such person's exercise of his or her right to free association; C. To refuse to receive or to fail to transmit a bona fide offer to engage in a real estate transaction from a person; d. To refuse to negotiate for a real estate transaction with a person; e. To represent to a person that housing is not available for inspection, sale, rental, or lease when in fact it is so available, or to fail to bring a property listing to such person's attention, or to refuse to permit him or her to inspect the housing; f. To steer any person away from or to any housing; g. To make, print, publish, circulate, post, mail, or cause to be made, printed, published or circulated, any notice, statement, advertisement or sign, or to use a form of application or photograph for a real estate transaction or, except in connection with a written affirmative action plan, to make a record or oral written inquiry in connection with a prospective real estate transaction, which indicates directly or indirectly an intent to make a limitation, specification, or discrimination with respect thereto; h. To offer, solicit, accept, use or retain a listing of housing with the understanding that a person may be discriminated against in a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; i. To induce or attempt to induce any person to transfer an interest in any housing by representation regarding the existing or potential proximity of housing owned, used or occupied by any person protected by the terms of this ordinance; J. To make any misrepresentations concerning the listing for sale or rental, or the anticipated listing for sale or rental or the sale or rental of any housing in any area in the County for the purpose of inducing or attempting to induce any such listing or any of the above transactions; 29 March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 PAu 576 Boa 9 N P",GE ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 k. To retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any person because of his or her opposing a practice declared unlawful by this ordinance, or because he or she has filed a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or conference under this ordinance; 1. To aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce any person to engage in any of the practices prohibited by the provisions of this ordinance, or to obstruct or prevent any person from complying with the provisions of this ordinance, or any conciliation agreement entered into thereunder; M. To compel any unlawful practices prohibited by the provisions of this ordinance; n. Otherwise to deny to, or withhold, any housing accommodations from a person; o. To promote, induce, influence or attempt to promote, induce or influence by the use of postal cards, letters, circulars, telephone, visitation or any other means, directly or indirectly, a property owner, occupant, or tenant to list for sale, sell, remove•from, lease, assign, or otherwise dispose of any housing by referring as a part of a process or pattern of inciting neighborhood unrest, community tension, or fear of racial, color, religious, nationality or ethnic change in any street, block, neighborhood, or any other area, to the race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap or age, of actual or anticipated neighbors, tenants or other prospective buyers of any housing; p. To cause to be made any untrue or intentionally misleading statement or advertisement, or in any other manner, attempt as part of a process or pattern of inciting neighborhood unrest, community tension or fear of racial, color, ancestry, national origin, religious, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age, or ethnic change in any street, block, neighborhood, or any other area, to obtain a listing of any housing for sale, rental, assignment, transfer or other disposition where such statement, advertisement or other representation is false or materially misleading, or where there is sufficient basis to judge its truth or falsity to warrant making the statement, or to make any other material misrepresentations in order to obtain such listing, sale, removal from, lease, assignment, transfer or other disposition of said housing; q. To place a sign or display any other device either purporting to offer for sale, lease, assignment, transfer or other disposition or tending to lead to the belief that a bona fide offer is being made to sell, lease, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of any housing that is not in fact available or offered for sale, lease, assignment, transfer or other disposition. (2) Unlawful housing practices - Financing It shall be unlawful and a discriminatory housing practice for any lending institution, as defined herein, to deny a loan or other financial assistance to a person applying therefore for the purpose of purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing or maintaining housing, or to discriminate against such person in the fixing of W March 14, 1995 ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 the amount, interest rate, duration, or other terms or conditions of such loan or other financial assistance, because of the race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age of such person or of any person associated with such person in connection with such loan or other financial assistance or for purposes of such loan or other assistance, or of the present or prospective owners, lessees, tenants or occupants of the housing in relation to which such loan or other financial assistance is to be made or given; provided, that nothing contained in the subsection shall impair the scope or effectiveness of the exceptions contained in Section 4 of this ordinance. (3) Unlawful housing practices - Brokerage Services It shall be unlawful and a discriminatory housing practice to deny any person access to or membership or participation in any multiple listing service, organization, or facility related to the business of selling or renting housing, or to discriminate against such person in the terms or conditions of such access, membership or participation because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age. (4) Nothing in Section 4 hereof shall be construed to require any person renting or selling a dwelling to modify, alter, or adjust the dwelling in order to provide physical accessibility except as otherwise required by law. SECTION 4. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS. (1) Nothing contained in Section 3 hereof shall prohibit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit charitable or educational institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by, or in conjunction with, a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting or from advertising the sale, rental or occupancy of housing which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons. Nor shall anything in this ordinance prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodging which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodging to its members or from giving preference to its members. (2) Nothing in Section 3 hereof, other than subsection (g) of subsection (1) thereof, shall apply to: a. Any single-family house sold or rented by an owner; provided that such private individual owner does not own more than three such single-family houses at any one time; provided further that -in the case of the sale of any such single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with respect to such sale within any twenty-four month period; provided further that such bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on such owner's behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or any rights to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three such single-family houses at any one time, provided further that the owner sells 31 March 14, 1995 RooK 94 Pau,578 BOOK 94 mc579, ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 or rents such housing: (1) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesperson, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting housing, or of any employee or agency of any such broker, agent, salesperson, or person, and (2) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of subsubsection (g) of subsection (1) of Section 3 hereof, but nothing in this provision shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title; or b. rooms or units containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as such owner's residence, provided that the owner sells or rents such rooms or units: (1) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent or salesperson, or of such facilities or services of any person in business of selling or renting housing, or of any employee or agency of any such broker, agent salesperson, or person, and (2) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of subsubsection (g) of subsection (1) of Section 3 hereof, but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title. For the purpose of this subsection (2), a person shall be deemed to be in the business of selling or renting housing if: (1) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as principal, other than in the sale of his own personal residence, in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in three or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any housing or any interest therein; or (2) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as agent, other than in the sale of his own personal residence, in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in two or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any housing or any interest therein; or (3) he is the owner of any housing designed or intended for occupancy by, or occupied by, five or more families. (3) Nothing in Section 3 hereof shall be construed to: a. bar any person from restricting sales, rentals, leases or occupancy, or from giving preference, to persons of a given age for bona fide housing intended solely for minors; b. make it an unlawful act to require that a person have legal capacity to enter into a contract or least; C. bar any person from advertising or• from refusing to sell or rent any housing which is planned exclusively for, and occupied exclusively by, individuals of one sex, to any individual of the opposite sex; d. bar any person from selling, renting, or advertising any housing which is planned exclusively for, and occupied exclusively by, unmarried individuals to unmarried individuals only; 32 March 14, 1995 ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 e. bar any person from advertising or from refusing to sell or rent any housing which is planned exclusively for married couples without children or from segregating families with children to special units of housing; f. bar any person from refusing to sell or rent any housing to unmarried individuals cohabiting contrary to law; g. bar any person from refusing a loan or other financial assistance to any person whose life expectancy, according to generally accepted mortality tables, is less than the term for which the loan is requested. h. Bar any person from restricting sales, rentals, leases or occupancy to persons over age 55, to the extent allowed by state or federal law. SECTION 5. ADMINISTRATOR - AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (1) County Commission to Appoint. The authority and responsibility for administering this ordinance shall be vested in the County Commission who shall appoint the Deputy County Attorney as the administrator. (2) General Powers and Duties. The administrator shall: a. Receive written complaints as hereinafter provided in Section 6 relative to alleged unlawful acts under this ordinance when a complainant seeks the administrator's good offices to conciliate; b. Upon receiving a written complaint, make such investigations as the administrator deems appropriate to ascertain facts and issues; C. Utilize methods of persuasion, conciliation, and mediation or information for adjustment of grievances; d. Establish, administer or review programs at the request of the County Commission and make reports on such programs to the County Commission; e. Bring to the attention of the County Commission items that may require the County Commission's notice or action to resolve; f. Render to the County Commission annual written reports of his activities under the provisions of this ordinance along with such comments and recommendations as he may choose to make; g. Cooperate with and render technical assistance to federal, state, local, and other public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions which are formulating or carrying on programs to prevent or eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practices covered by the provisions of this ordinance. (3) Determination of Probable Cause. Whenever the administrator determines that there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of the provisions of this ordinance, but only after having fully processed the 33 March 14, 1995 bow 9 4 F,�,E 5 S I Boa 94 ptfASI ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 complaint in which such violation is alleged in the manner hereinafter provided, he shall refer the matter, along with the facts he has gathered in his investigations, to the proper County, State or Federal authorities for appropriate legal action. (4) Promulgation of Forms and Regulations. The administrator shall promulgate, publish and distribute the necessary forms, rules, and regulations to implement the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. COMPLAINTS (1) A person who claims that another person has committed a discriminatory housing practice against him may report that offense to the administrator by filing an informal complaint within sixty (60) days of the date of the alleged discriminatory housing practice and not later. (2) The administrator shall treat a complaint referred by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or the Attorney General of the United States under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Public Law 90-284, as an informal complaint filed under subsection (1). (3) An informal complaint must be in writing, verified or affirmed, on a form to be supplied by the administrator and shall contain the following: a. identity and address of the offending party; b. date of the offense and date of filing the informal complaint; C. general statements of facts of the offense including the basis of the discrimination (race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, or age); d. name and signature of the complainant. (4) Each complaint shall be held in confidence by the administrator unless and until the complainant and the offending party(ies) consent in writing that it shall be public, or until it becomes a "public record" within the meaning of Florida Statute 119.07(3)(t), (5 ) Within fifteen (15 ) days after the filing of the informal complaint, the administrator shall transmit a copy of the same to each respondent named therein by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thereupon, the respondent(s) may file a written, verified, informal answer to the informal complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of receipt of the informal complaint. (6) An informal complaint or answer may be amended at any time, and the administrator shall furnish a copy of each amended informal complaint or answer to the offending party(ies) or complainant, respectively, as promptly as practicable. (7) The administrator shall assist complainants or offending parties when necessary in the preparation and filing of informal complaints or answers or any amendments thereto. 34 March 14, 1995 s M M ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 SECTION 7. PROCESSING COMPLAINTS (1) Within thirty (30) days after the filing of an informal complaint, the administrator shall make such investigations as he deems appropriate to ascertain facts and issues. If the administrator shall deem that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred and can be resolved by conciliation, he shall attempt to conciliate the matter by methods of initial conference and persuasion with all interested parties and such representatives as the parties may choose to assist them. Conciliation conferences shall be informal and nothing said or done in the course of the informal conference with the individuals to resolve the dispute may be made public or used as evidence in a subsequent proceeding by either party without the written consent of both the complainant and the offending party(ies). The administrator or any employee of the administrator who shall make public any information in violation of this provision shall be deemed guilty of a violation of a County ordinance and shall be subject to penalty as set forth in Section 11 of this ordinance. (2) If the parties desire to conciliate, the terms of the conciliation shall be in writing in the form approved by the administrator and must be signed and verified by the complainant and the offending party(ies) and approved by the administrator. The conciliation agreement is for conciliation purposes only and does not constitute an admission by any party that the law has been violated. (3) If the administrator deems that there is not probable cause to believe that a particular alleged discriminatory housing practice has been committed, the administrator shall take no further action with respect to the alleged offense. (4) If the administrator, with respect to any matter which involves a contravention of this ordinance: a. fails to conciliate a complaint after the parties in good faith have attempted such conciliation; or b. determines that the violation alleged in the complaint cannot be resolved by conciliation, he shall notify both the complainant and the offending party(ies) within thirty (30) days of the failure or the determination, and he shall proceed as provided in Paragraph (3) of Section 5 hereinabove. SECTION 8. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES. The procedures prescribed by this ordinance do not constitute an administrative prerequisite to another action or remedy available under other law. Further, nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to modify, impair or otherwise affect any right or remedy conferred by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of Florida, and the provisions of this ordinance shall be in addition to those provided by such other laws. SECTION 9. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION. The administrator may conduct educational and public informational activities that are designed to promote the policy of this ordinance. SECTION 10. UNTRUTHFUL COMPLAINTS OR TESTIMONY. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person knowingly and willfully to make false or untrue statements, 35 March 14, 1995 Boa 94 P, tGL 5 2 Bou 94 PAGE ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 accusations or allegations in a complaint filed hereunder or to give false testimony concerning violations of this ordinance. SECTION 11. PENALTY. Any person who violates any provisions of this ordinance shall be subject, upon conviction, to a fine up to but not exceeding the sum of Five Hundred Dollars (;500.00), or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held illegal, invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court or regulatory body of competent jurisdiction, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. The County Commission hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one of more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared illegal, invalid or unconstitutional, and all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknowledgement that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. The above and foregoing ordinance was read and approved at a duly convened meeting of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners of Indian River, Florida, this 14th Day of March, 1995. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 24th Day of February, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the 14th day of March, 1995. The ordinance was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman, Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 14 day of March , 1995. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County By: Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman W March 14, 1995 ORDINANCE NO. 95-07 Attest by: f rey .K. " rton, C erk Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 22ndiay of March 1995. Effective date: Acknowledgement from the Department of -StaLto received on this 24th day of March A,1995, at 1 .55 SmAN/p.m. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins, II Deputy County Attorney u\v\s\irco2.fho Intm Arva Ca Acgroved Date Aamin 0S 3100S Legal <<•�� _c�-� Buaget Dec t. 2 ; t Risk Mgr. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -MICHAEL WHAIRE'S APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE REBEL RANCH SAND MINE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT USE REQUEST The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Obert M. K a in, AI Community De��1velo went irector FROM: Stan Boling,�AICP Planning Director DATE: March 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Michael O'Haire's Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Decision to Approve the Rebel Ranch Sand Mine Administrative Permit Use Request 37 March 14, 1995 BOOK 9a �E BOOK 9 PA4585 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 14, 1995. BACKGROUND: On January 12', 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved (with conditions) an application for an administrative permit use to conduct a sand mining operation to be known as the Rebel Ranch sand mine (see attachment #1). The site of the proposed operation is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and is approximately 1/4 mile west of 74th Avenue S.W. between 1st Street S.W. and 5th Street S.W. (see attachment #2). As proposed,48.5 acres of the 120 acre site would be used for various mining operations, including: a hydraulically dredged sand mine pit, haul driveways, buffers, spoil areas, and dry sand storage areas. The proposed Rebel Ranch sand mine project is located in the A-1, agricultural district and is an allowable use subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission granting administrative permit use approval. According to LDR Chapter 971, an administrative permit is one which normally would not have an adverse impact on its surroundings when carefully regulated in scale, duration, or nature. Administrative permit use approvals require submittal of an approvable site plan meeting all site plan criteria, zoning district criteria, and criteria set forth in the regulations for the specific use. Based on its review, the Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or deny such requests. According to LDR Section 971.04(4), the Planning and Zoning Commission is also allowed to attach to its approval "...any reasonable conditions, limitations or requirements which are found necessary..." to mitigate adverse impacts. In accordance with a positive staff recommendation for conditional approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Rebel Ranch sand mine request with conditions relating to access, posted bonds to guarantee reclamation work and ensure haul road maintenance, concurrency, wetlands resource permitting, traffic, and a limitation on hours of operation. On February 10, 1995, attorney Michael O'Haire, on behalf of Mr. Samuel P. McCall and Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Hughes, homeowners whose residences lie on either side of the proposed mining operation (see attachment #3), appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. Subsequently, Mr. O'Haire submitted the review fee for such appeals, and staff began processing the appeal in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 971 and Chapter 902 of the county's land development regulations (LDRs). Under these procedures, the Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. •Proposed Mining Operation The proposed mining operation is described in detail in staff's report to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is included as part of attachment #1. Some of the main characteristics of the proposal are as follows: 1. The area of development is now mainly citrus grove, with no impact on native uplands areas and little impact on wetlands. 2. Although most of the mining and stockpiling areas are located on a 40 acre portion of the subject project adjacent to 1st Street S.W., 1st Street S.W. will not be 38 March 14, 1995 used as part of the operation's haul route. Instead, 5th Street S.W. will be improved and used by the applicant. The haul route for the project involves the use of 82nd Avenue, which currently functions as a truck route for citrus trucks and landfill traffic. 3. The required 150' setback from the mining pit to perimeter property boundaries is provided, and mounded spoil areas and on-site driveways are proposed to be located between the pit and adjacent properties to the east and west. Because the mining operation site abuts only agriculturally designated property, no buffers are required. The applicant, however, indicates that some existing citrus trees will be left standing along the site's east and west perimeters. ANALYSIS: Sand mining operations are necessary for development in the county since almost all developments, from single family homes to large commercial projects, require fill. Although mining operations are necessary, the county's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs restrict mining operations to the county's agriculturally designated/zoned areas. Mining operations are restricted to these areas for several reasons. First, mining operations require large areas of land where sand, marl, or fill material is available in large quantities. Such areas are readily available in the agricultural zoning districts. Second, agricultural areas are the lowest density areas in the county. Therefore, locating such operations in agricultural areas limits the number of residences that could be potentially impacted and places such uses in areas where the existence of large parcels tends to result in greater setbacks between adjacent uses (e.g. residences from mining operations). Third, where mining operations are proposed outside of the Urban Service Area in an agriculturally designated area (such as the proposed Rebel Ranch mine site), it is likely that the area will remain agricultural and low in density for the life of the sand mine operation. Thus, it would be unlikely that, over time, residential development would locate adjacent to the mine in a manner that could increase potential incompatibilities between the mining operation and new residences. Fourth, mining operations are similar in intensity to many of the agricultural operations allowed in all of the agricultural districts. Although all activities in these districts are characterized by significant expanses of open space, many allowable and appropriate agricultural activities can be intensive in terms of equipment use, maintenance activities, and hours of operation. General farming, citrus production, livestock raising, fish farms, kennels and animal boarding, and nurseries are all allowable agricultural activities that can be intensive in nature. It is staff's position that, like other intensive agricultural activities, mining is an appropriate use in the agricultural zoning districts. It should be noted that in addition to sites located in agricultural zoning districts, the LDRs allow mining activities, for a maximum period of 2 months, where such activity is incidental to an approved development project. An example of such incidental mining activity is where a lake is proposed for a development and the material removed during the creation of the lake is transported off-site for fill material. 39 March 14, 1995 bou FA.;L BOOK 94 FArUE87 *Specific Reasons for the Appeal At the January 12th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, attorney O'Haire expressed concerns about the proposed sand mine. Those concerns related to water impacts, traffic, aesthetics and compatibility. All of the issues raised by attorney O'Haire are addressed by the county's LDRs, and staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission considered these issues in their review of the project. Despite requests from staff, as of the writing of this report, Mr. O'Haire has provided no data or specific information to support his appeal generally or to support specific concerns or specific reasons for his appeal. 1. Water impacts. Although no paved surfaces are proposed, stormwater aspects of the site plan have been reviewed by county engineering staff and by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). The SJRWMD has issued a stormwater permit (see attachment #5) and county engineering will issue a county stormwater permit as soon as the applicant documents to county engineering that the submittal to St. John's is the same as the submittal reviewed by the county. Thus, SJRWMD and county stormwater regulations have been satisfied by the proposal. These regulations require that projects provide adequate stormwater treatment and retention/detention as well as avoid or mitigate stormwater impacts on surrounding properties. Section 934.05(5) of the "Excavation and Mining" chapter of the county's LDRs states that mining projects shall have "... no significant adverse off-site impact on groundwater quality or groundwater levels". As stated in staff's report to the Planning and Zoning Commission, county staff do not have the expertise to evaluate groundwater impacts. Therefore, county staff relies on the expertise of the SJRWMD and the St. John's review and permitting process. Since St. John's has reviewed and issued a permit for hydraulic dredging on-site (see attachment #6), staff concludes that a mining operation in accordance with the St. John's permit would have no significant adverse off-site impact on groundwater quality or groundwater levels. Therefore, the proposed project, as permitted, meets the Chapter 934 groundwater requirements. According to the St. John's permit, a monitoring well, monthly sampling, and reporting to St. John's on a bi-annual basis (January and July), are all conditions of the permit. 2. Traffic Impacts. County traffic engineering staff have reviewed the site plan and a traffic impact statement prepared for the applicant. This review focused on project impacts in terms of the volume of trips generated/attracted by the project and the capacity of the existing road system. It is estimated that the project will generate/ attract 108 daily trip ends and 13 peak hour trip ends that will primarily impact 82nd Avenue and Oslo Road. The county's traffic concurrency system indicates that the affected segments of 82nd Avenue and Oslo Road can handle from 370 to 578 additional peak hour trip ends and still function at an acceptable level of service. Therefore, staff anticipates that the project would use up less than 4% of the remaining available capacity on any affected segment of 82nd Avenue or Oslo Road. At the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission, traffic engineering also evaluated the type of vehicles (sand trucks) that will be using 5th Street S.W. and 82nd Avenue. After review of the application, traffic engineering staff 40 March 14, 1995 approved the project traffic statement and indicated that impacts resulting from anticipated mining operation traffic are adequately addressed (see attachment #7). As approved, the site plan requires improvements to the segment of 5th Street S.W. from the mining site's access driveway to 82nd Avenue, as well as installation of a paved apron at the 5th Street S.W./82nd Avenue intersection on the east side of 82nd Avenue. Since 82nd Avenue functions as a truck route for citrus and vehicles using the landfill, it is an appropriate haul route segment for fill vehicles. 3. Aesthetics and Compatibility. Although no buffers are required by the LDRs for the subject project, there will be a 150' setback between the mining pit and perimeter properties. Within the 150' setback, spoil mounds will be created between the pit and perimeter properties. Though not required, the applicant has indicated that existing citrus trees are to be preserved along the site's east and west perimeters to provide buffering. In the area of the site, 1st Street S.W. is used to access several large parcels upon which residences are located. To avoid mixing truck traffic with this "residential" traffic, the mining operation will use only that segment of 5th Street S.W. west of the project entrance to access 82nd Avenue. To further reduce potential conflicts with surrounding residents, the Planning and Zoning Commission restricted the mine's hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. These restricted hours match the hours usually applied to mines located adjacent to residential zoning districts. *Board Review of the Appeal: Guidelines. Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the review of this appeal. Under 902.07, the Board of County Commissioners is to make findings in the following four review areas: 1. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? 2. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? 3. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? 4. Did the reviewing' official (Planning and Zoning Commission) fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? In staff's opinion, the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of these four areas in its decision to conditionally approve the Rebel Ranch sand mine. 1. There appears to be no contention in terms of the procedural review of the application. Pursuant to standard site plan procedures, LDR review requirements applicable to the mining proposal and corresponding site plan were applied. In addition to normal procedural requirements, staff contacted and had meetings with concerned surrounding property owners throughout the review process. Concerned area residents were 41 March 14, 1995 goo 94F,,_`► L 'A present at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Planning and Zoning Commission considered concerns expressed by residents in its decision to conditionally approve the project. Also, it should be noted that the normal procedures for processing an appeal have been followed, including regular mail notice to adjacent property owners of the March 14, 1995 Board appeal hearing. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in regards to review procedures. 2. The proposal was not reviewed in an arbitrary manner; rather, it was reviewed in accordance with the general and specific criteria that apply to administrative permit use requests. As indicated in staff's report to the Planning and Zoning Commission (see attachment #1), all of the specific land use criteria and Chapter 934 regulations applied to mining proposals are satisfied by the request. Furthermore, on the basis of a general review requirement for administrative permit use compatibility, the Planning and Zoning Commission restricted the hours of the proposed mining operation. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission ensured that specific and general LDR requirements were satisfied, and did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in its review and approval of the mining proposal. 3. As outlined in this report and as evidenced by staff's report to the Planning and Zoning Commission, issues relating to the effects of the proposed development on surrounding properties were presented to and considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Water impacts, traffic, and compatibility issues were discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and were addressed in accordance with the LDRs and permits or approvals from the St. Johns River Water Management District and county traffic engineering. To date, no evidence regarding adverse project impacts has been presented by Mr. O'Haire. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare. 4. As previously stated in this report, the comprehensive plan and LDRs allow a mining operation use on the subject site. The LDRs address various aspects of the Rebel Ranch mining proposal, including: buffers, setbacks, traffic impacts and access, road impacts, site reclamation, stormwater management, water quality, environmental impacts, and concurrency. Staff's report to the Planning and Zoning Commission and this report document satisfaction of applicable LDR requirements. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission's discussion and review of the contested issues (water impacts, traffic, and aesthetics and compatibility) were guided by the LDRs. The evidence considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that the LDRs would be satisfied with the conditions included as part of the Commission's action to approve the mining request. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to evaluate the applicant's request in light of the LDRs and comprehensive plan. In summary, it is staff's opinion that the Planning and Zoning Commission adequately and appropriately considered the sand mine proposal along with all other evidence and concerns expressed by area residents. Furthermore, it is staff' opinion that the Planning and Zoning Commission's conditional approval ensures that 42 March 14, 1995 771 the proposal will meet applicable county LDRs. Lastly, it is staff's opinion that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of the previously described review areas, and that its decision was properly made. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1 • Make a finding that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in any of the four review areas as outlined in LDR section 902.07. 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to conditionally approve the Rebel Ranch sand mine operation. 43 March 14, 1995 BOOK 04Faiak. ,:�� E4 co I I r V jr c V 31amcm ................... ................... ................... . ............ .......... < HAUL ROUTE SEE DETAIL '25' TO 30* GRADED ROAD) TYPICAL 1c PWIPMED 62nd Air -r now" wq .. $-T--7�F ---------- 5th ST SW 10, Q-0-\# AN A EXISTM GWIW 1031030�P I�VSTCS-M-Wxl A - (40 BUTYM)W LF )D(4' VIK) • W -M V - 2.13* ACINES )WO 'I Ist ST. SW r.- 1• An 4 IDIS ow ................... ................... ................... . ............ .......... < HAUL ROUTE SEE DETAIL '25' TO 30* GRADED ROAD) TYPICAL 1c PWIPMED 62nd Air -r now" wq .. $-T--7�F ---------- 5th ST SW 10, Q-0-\# AN A EXISTM GWIW 1031030�P I�VSTCS-M-Wxl A - (40 BUTYM)W LF )D(4' VIK) • W -M V - 2.13* ACINES )WO 'I A A QW, ardwrw� HYDRAULICALLY DREDGED SAND MINE it .1 Lyj?RAL ZOW DETAIL; Ir 7or K�GE AREA ................... ................... ................... . ............ .......... < HAUL ROUTE SEE DETAIL '25' TO 30* GRADED ROAD) TYPICAL 1c PWIPMED 62nd Air -r now" wq .. $-T--7�F ---------- 5th ST SW 10, Q-0-\# AN A EXISTM GWIW 1031030�P I�VSTCS-M-Wxl A - (40 BUTYM)W LF )D(4' VIK) • W -M V - 2.13* ACINES )WO 'I Community Development Director Bob Keating gave a broad overview of sand mining and correlated it to the Comprehensive Plan and regulations. County Attorney Charles Vitunac announced that, because of the Snyder case, testimony from staff would be taken under oath. He also advised, for the record, that he had resumes from Messrs. Keating and Boling, showing their qualifications, and he would like to present them as experts on planning and zoning matters. He asked that all of County staff, and anyone else (residents) who planned to testify, stand and take an oath. (OATH WAS ADMINISTERED TO THOSE STANDING.) ROBERT M. BEATING, AICP DIRECTOR, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. EDUCATION Bachelor's Degree (BA) University of South Florida Major: Political Science Master's Degree (MS) Florida State University Major: Urban and Regional Planning EXPERIENCE - Community Development Director, Indian River County Over 11 years - responsible for all County planning, building, and code enforcement activities - Chief, Plan Coordination Section, East Central Florida " Regional Planning Council, Over 5 years - responsible for land use planning activities - Associate, Milo Smith and Associates City Planning Consulting Firm, 2 years AFFILIATIONS - American Planning Association (APA) - American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) 45 March 14, 1995 BOOK 9UL Boa 94 PAu. 9 E. STAN BOLING, AICP DIRECTOR, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Education: *Bachelor's Degree (BA) in Urban Studies, University of Florida, 1982 *Master's Degree (MAURP) in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida, 1984 Employment: *Planning Intern City of Gainesville 1983-1984 *Planning Division Planner Indian River County 1984 -present Organizations/Associations: *Phi Beta Kappa, member *American Planning Association, member *American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), member *First Covenant Church; member, youth leader, chairman of building committee *Young Life of Vero Beach, leader Resident of Vero Beach: 10 years Planning Director Stan Boling detailed the specifics of the project site, the appeal issues, traffic studies, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) conditions, LDR requirements, St. Johns River Water Management District permitting process and groundwater monitoring requirements, and other information in the memorandum using maps and other visual aids. Director Boling presented the guidelines for the review of the appeal as provided in LDR Section 902.07, and advised that the Board was to make findings in the following four review areas: 1. Did the reviewing official (PZC) fail to following the appropriate review procedures? 2. Did the reviewing official (PZC) act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? 3. Did the reviewing official (PZC) fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? 4. Did the reviewing official (PZC) fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? Director Boling summarized staff's position that the PZC had not failed in any of the above review areas and recommended denying the appeal and upholding the PZC's decision to conditionally approve the Rebel Ranch sand mine operation. 46 March 14, 1995 Directors Keating and Boling responded to questions from the Board concerning furrows in the groves which had been determined to be "wetlands"; the amount of the road bond required; status and potential for designation of 82nd Avenue as "Citrus Highway"; duration of the sand mining permit; hours and days of operation and restrictions; and how many other sand mines were currently operating in the county. Michael O'Haire, attorney representing homeowners in the area, handed the Board members exhibits and advised them he wished to tell them about people. He briefed them on their task and the law and stressed the definition of the administrative permit use. Mr. O'Haire went on to speak of the families, the proximity of the proposed dredging operation to each of them and theorized the impact on their harmonious life styles. He explained the hydraulic dredging process sounds and spoil materials in relationship to the homeowners he represented. (Exhibit 1 on next page) 47 March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 P' uL 594 KMOF 3*1 F. 1.4 11.1 AVE a —Wwl� ti March 14, 1995 ami *T utlov\ VmMJ U90f VU- UTAGY. MIT=•U"Ttr4vg I 'r sean►r V39Immd 'D evollva 9 *4 Som r 48 BOOK 94 PAGE 595 rs ig 2 C March 14, 1995 ami *T utlov\ VmMJ U90f VU- UTAGY. MIT=•U"Ttr4vg I 'r sean►r V39Immd 'D evollva 9 *4 Som r 48 BOOK 94 PAGE 595 rs ig 2 C Mr. O'Haire referred to Exhibit 2, a letter of July 27, 1994, to Jenkins Trucking, Inc., from Planner Eric Blad, pointing out paragraph 8: Verify and document (i.e. Indian River County Environmental Health Unit (HRS), S.J.R.W.M.D.) to planning staff that the mining operation will not adversely affect the water quality of existing potable and irrigation wells adjacent to the subject site. Mr. O'Haire emphasized that Mr. Hughes' household potable water well is located immediately adjacent to the proposed operation. Mr. O'Haire directed attention to Exhibit 3, a traffic estimation, which PZC had during their consideration of the matter, and interpreted the number of daily trips based on Exhibit 4 to be one 16-1/2 cubic yard dump truck every 4 minutes on 82nd Avenue, which he characterized as a lot of very slow, heavy and dangerous traffic. IF EXHIBIT Serving Florida JOB PHA -5 � 1 - 14A t et2 SHEET NO. _ OF Since loll CALCULATED BY G DATE '7/12 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. CHECKED BY ' DATE CO,%5UL.TING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 1708 21St STREET. VERO BEACH. FL 32960 407.562.4191 FAX 407.562.7180 c 8 EG RPS �J!' H = — AVERA -c' f#N1-/MIL PJAIGY ✓'EHZeZE .TkzPS _ YOL KMS DF O-ye,4 /A -T,<44) = 6 65, Dao f D V RA 7SOA1 OF o PewA7TDAJ = 3 + yQ rs (5Zwtr'yr-\ (5 d`'r/wIC� ( 3 Yrs = 750 dQys /AMQER or" LOA P5- PER, tAY = (665,.Ooo C Yl7bo day = 8:5) C Yld4 y O WAP TRUCK CAPAC.TT Ir' 2,51Sr1AATEb TRsP ENAS PER OA = FS, Ti 1iA. T r', 4, A, 4..` T — 49 March 14, 1995 Boa 94 PA,E 5t 6 B009 94 PvH 97 'O`er 04 - 54 trips initiated x 2 = 108 total trips to and from site per day (including Christmas, New Years, 4th of July, etc. ) Not over 24 hours, but over!ght hour day of operations. Thus, 108 = 8 =13.5 trips per hour. 60 minutes divided by 13.5 = a trip every 4.44 minutes. Add in holidays and you have a 16.5 cubic yard dump truck every 4 minutes. Mr. O'Haire cited Exhibit 5, page 6-6, Vol. 1, Florida Environmental and Land Use Law, concerning the two types of water regulated in the state. GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECnON I. SCOPE This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the statutory and regulatory authority of the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to regulate and protect groundwater quality. This chapter also briefly discusses groundwater regulatory efforts by federal agencies and other government agencies. Private remedies are not addressed. The requirements of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) involving hazardous wastes in groundwater are discussed in Chapter 11 of this manual. i II. BACKGROUND A. The Resource Historically, groundwater has been a high quality, inexpensive, and readily available source of potable water in Florida. This state is one of the few in the nation that depends almost totally on groundwater to supply its drinking water needs. Groundwater supplies half the water used for agriculture, industry, and electric power generation. Florida's dependence on groundwater will increase along with increases in population and industrial development. For an extensive discussion of Florida's groundwater resources, see FERNALD & PATTON, WATER RESOURCES ATLAS OF FLORIDA (Florida State University 1984). B. The Problem Because of Florida's hydrogeology, groundwater aquifers are highly susceptible to pollution by human activity. Once contaminated, groundwater presents particularly difficult problems of monitoring and cleanup. Groundwater 50 March 14, 1995 EXHIBIT 5 (continued) is generally slow-moving, with velocities in the range of five to 50 feet per year. As a result, large amounts of a contaminant can enter an aquifer and remain undetected until a water well or surface waterbody is affected. Contaminants in groundwater, unlike those in surface water, often move in a plume with relatively little mixing or dispersion, so that concentrations remain high. These plumes of relatively concentrated contaminants move slowly through the aquifer and are typically present for years — sometimes for decades or longer — making the resource virtually nonrenewable. There is little opportunity for chemical or biological transformation or degradation of contaminants. Moreover, because an individual plume may underlie only a very small part of the land surface, the plume may be difficult to detect by aquifer -wide or regional monitoring. Groundwater monitoring also is expensive because multiple test wells must be drilled to define the affected areas once a source of pollution is identified. Even after groundwater contamination is detected, successful restoration may be complex, expensive, and unpredictable because of difficulties in containing the contaminants, removing the contaminated groundwater from the aquifer, developing treatment technologies to strip away pollutants, and disposing of contaminants extracted from or left in groundwater that has been withdrawn or treated. March 1991 6-6 Mr, O'Haire maintained that SJRWMD has no expertise in and does not concern itself with groundwater pollution and has no personnel who deal with that issue; it is not their function nor their job. He called the SJRWMD's approval a "snare and a delusion and no protection to anyone." Concerning Exhibit 6, Mr. O'Haire called attention to #26 and questioned what kind of protection a single monitoring well would provide to the neighboring wells of the proposed sand mining operation. .26i..'.' DISTRICT APPROVED., MONITOR .WELL-.* MUST - BE INSTALLED ' PRZOR "TO eE53Nl#iI#��:AiNiH.fi T z-NELBOURH.E rFIELD;; OFn.gF" MifST-­8E CONTACTED ONE-WE'EK`;`PR208 TO : WELL::INSUf_L,A'TIONZ ._ Mr. O'Haire summarized that he was speaking to the issues of public health, safety, and welfare and quality of life and stressed that the Zoning Code defined the proposed sand mining operation as an industrial use, which did not belong in the area. He suggested that the PZC had erred and that the Board could be told it would be a garden after the mining was completed, but that had not occurred in any similarly permitted area, and people have invested their lives in their homes there. He maintained that the developer's 51 March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 PAGE 598 11 ma 94 FAG,C 599 - method was not compatible with what was already in place out there and asked the Board not to permit an experiment in this family neighborhood, since there were other areas where sand mining could be done without impinging on the lives of residents. Commissioner Adams asked where the monitor well would be drilled, and Director Boling responded that the site was still to be determined. Commissioner Eggert inquired how far Mr. Hughes' drinking water well was from the property line, and Mr. O'Haire thought it was about 201. Mr. O'Haire advised that he wanted Stephen Hughes and his neighbors to address the Board and also Mr. Al Davis, a professional engineer. Stephen Hughes, 7805 1st Street SW, expressed concerns about the safety, health, and air quality for his family with regard to the proposed sand mining operation. His property is 170' wide x 1320' long which will be impacted on two sides by the operation, specifically by the trucks. His house is 35' from the property line and his drinking water well is approximately 20' from the existing fence line. Mr. Hughes asked the Board to consider who was liable when his drinking water goes bad. He wanted the applicant to pay for monitoring his water on a monthly basis. He also wanted dust from the trucks to be monitored and the private testing laboratory to be approved by the homeowners. He wanted a time limit on the sand mining operation and hoped that by the time his 10 -year-old son graduated from high school he would no longer have a sand mine next door. Mr. Hughes questioned zoning and wanted security on the site. He has had serenity there for the last 12 years and he is the newest resident in the neighborhood. He asked about the hours of operation of the hydraulic pump and whether he could continue to open his windows. He hoped trucks and machinery would be restricted to at least 300' from his property as he had situated his house that distance from the street. With respect to the bonds, he requested that they be required for the entire 120 acres and not just for where they would be digging, that is the restoration bonds should include the spoil area. He questioned the entrance from 5th Street SW and had physically measured Mr. Beutell's fence line to the edge of 5th Street SW, where it goes into an existing ditch, and it measures 201. When it is enlarged to 20' for two-way traffic, he predicted the berm would erode into 52 March 14, 1995 the canal. He invited Board members to the site and to his home to see what is there. In closing, Mr. Hughes asks if the applicant will mine all 120 acres for the next 30 years. Alien A. Davis introduced himself as a Florida registered professional engineer since 1960 from Deland, Florida, appearing on behalf of his son-in-law, Stephen Hughes. Mr. Davis addressed technical issues in addition to and in conjunction with Mr. Hughes' pleadings. They really wanted the sand mining relocated away from homes; however, if it is to remain there, the element of pollution is a very real thing. He advised of extensive experience with similar pits and described in detail the hydraulic method versus total excavation by mechanical means. He maintained there would be a deleterious effect on the adjacent groundwater, and was quite concerned that the contaminant would affect Mr. Hughes' drinking water well adversely very quickly. He requested an independent lab, approved by the applicant and the homeowners, to test, at the applicant's expense, the wells in the area and the monitoring well to see what was really taking place with the groundwater. From his experience, the SJRWMD was pretty good at surface water, but he thought they were not really adept at being able to test or control groundwater. Concerning the traffic element, Mr. Davis advised he had 22 years experience with DOT and warned of traffic congestion on 82nd Avenue created by the slow-moving trucks entering the traffic pattern. He suggested the County's Engineering Department lay out acceleration and deceleration lanes where the trucks would be travelling and impose some additional traffic controls. Mr. Davis concluded that a five -story berm, which would be adjacent to Mr. Hughes' home, was a very real concern and requested a 300' buffer from the house to provide some relief. Mr. Davis offered to respond to questions from the Board, but there were none. Mildred Griffith stated that she lives on the corner of 74th Avenue and 1st Street SW and owns land down to 5th Street SW, immediately adjacent (at the south end) to the proposed mining operation and her daughter runs cattle on the property. Her family sold the 80 acres to Mr. Koehler some time ago. She was concerned about the real dangers of noise and air pollution from the dredging and trucking operations and other equipment and flying sand. She recalled that, at the PZC meeting, Mr. Koehler said, "Well, sometimes we have to be ugly before we can be beautiful." She 53 March 14, 1995 MOK In PAGE; POP boos 94ec asked if any of the Board would like to come out and live next to "ugly" for the 2-5 years or additional time it may be extended, maybe 10, 15, 20 years. When she went to apply for her agriculture tax exemption, she learned that an application for tax exemption for Mr. Koehler's property had also been made. No cattle have been on the property since July 31, 1994; it is not agricultural. She wondered if we can believe Mr. Koehler will do what he says he will do when the sand mining concludes. Bill Cazer, president of the Indian River Property Owners Association, was concerned about the amount of traffic which would be created on 5th Street SW, right across from their subdivision with approximately 45 homeowners and young drivers. They would be totally happy if the project was disapproved completely. However, if the Board chooses to approve it, they would appreciate the traffic being rerouted back to 74th Street and out by the dump, which already has a caution light, and eliminate the traffic hazard on 82nd. The trucks could go south on Oslo Road, rather than in front of their subdivision. There are already a lot of fruit haulers on 82nd. He agreed that there has to be some sort of time limit on it; the mining can't go on abusing people for the next 10 years. Philip Hite, who lives at the Airdrome, asked the Board if they would want a sand mining operation project next to their homes. He objected to the impact of traffic on residents of the Airdrome and the neighbors of the project. He predicted noise and danger to the kids and school busses and a diminution of property values. He asked the Board to take the time to go out and ride through the Airdrome community and put themselves in one of their homes, and think what they are going to be faced with, and asked whether they would like it. Sam McCall, 7575 1st Street SW, on the east border of the proposed mining operation, did not want a sand mine for a neighbor. Until he received a letter from the County the other day, he was never contacted about today's meeting; no one had ever contacted him. He predicted the water table would be affected as a result of the sand mine. He reasoned that agricultural zoning means you have to grow something, but a sand mine grows nothing. He thought it was wrong to allow a mining operation in agricultural zoning; it should be moved to light industry or another compatible zoning. The County's law says a sand mine should be 1,000 feet from a subdivision which does not have access to County water. Sand mining started in Indian River County in 1963 in agricultural zones 54 March 14, 1995 and since then there has been an increase in population. Monitoring one well cannot guarantee all the wells in that many acres. He characterized sand mining as unsightly, noisy, and nasty. He requested that it be turned down and suggested the County Attorney write up new laws to take it out of the agricultural zoning and put it in other zoning, because the problem will not go away. Commissioner Adams asked where his well was in relation to the project, and Mr. McCall advised it was between the subject property and his home. He also has a deep well halfway between that. William Ford, Indian River .Airdrome, after being sworn, pointed out that when 49th Street was being used to truck fill from a sand pit to Grand Harbor it was nearly demolished in one year. He was concerned that the taxpayers would have to pay to maintain 82nd Avenue. Currently there are citrus trucks, commercial carriers/ trailers, and residential traffic, and adding sand mining trucks will result in failure of the road. He was also concerned about sand blowing against his home if the sand pit is allowed. Mr. Ford urged the Board, if they approve the sand pit, to consider directing the traffic to the east and out on Oslo Road where there are no families, children, and school busses. Roy Pinder, Indian River Airdrome, after being sworn in, raised other concerns like the senior citizen traffic from the mobile home parks along 82nd Avenue. He predicted trucks from the sand pit will increase the potential for serious accidents out there. Mildred Griffith, rose again to say she was not happy about any traffic coming to 82nd or sending traffic out 74th because they are going to be building a home there soon. She did not want a sand pit there. George Beutell, 5000 16th Street, Vero Beach, favored the project. His family owns 80 acres to the west with 1/2 mile frontage on 82nd Avenue, and also have frontage on 5th Street SW. He thought 5th Street SW was appropriate to use for the trucks because it is underused now. He felt it came down to the rights to use the property, and emphasized that they have complied with the County's rules and regulations. He felt if it was not allowed, it would be taking away their basic right to use their property. Attorney Vitunac interjected, reminding the Chairman that this procedure was an appellant's case, not a public hearing, and Mr. O'Haire had to finish his presentation on the appellant's behalf and then the appellee would be heard. Mr. O'Haire summed up the law and again pointed out the 55 March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 FADE 60 PF - Boa 94 PAGI0 County's definition of administrative permit use and commented on the Board's power according to the Land Development Regulations to control the location of uses: He declared there was only one basis for appeal that applied: Did the PZC fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation, or public health, safety and welfare? He suggested they did not. Mr. O'Haire granted that the Board had heard a lot of emotion from the people, but they also had heard facts about the effects of a mining operation, and trucks, and that it was the wrong neighborhood. Chairman Macht announced that it was now time for the Board to hear the case of the appellee. Dean Luethje, engineer from Carter Associates and representing the applicant, Jenkins Trucking, Inc., informed the Board that Brian Jenkins, the owner, was unable to be present due to previous commitments out of town, so he would be addressing some of the comments. He thought the owner of the property, Mr. Koehler, also might like to comment. Mr. Luethje continued that SJRWMD claimed the furrows in the citrus groves were the only "wetlands" they would be destroying and they had mitigated for those furrows around the lake, as required and permitted by the County. They also had a permit from the SJRWMD. Mr. Luethje then advised that the height of the spoil area had been stated at 501, but that was from sea level. Actually, the fill would rise only approximately 27 feet high from ground level. Mr. Luethje wished to address the groundwater issue and agreed with Mr. Davis' description of the hydraulic mining operation. He added, however, that the water table elevation would not be changed. The big issue seemed to be the quality of the water and he disagreed with the statement that SJRWMD had no expertise in groundwater. As a registered engineer in Florida, Mr. Luethje believed they do have some knowledge in groundwater. He had discussed the project three or four different times with Rich Burklew in the Melbourne office who said there was no way they could contaminate the neighboring wells. They have required that a geologist be retained to monitor the installation of the monitoring well and probably will require that a hydrologist also look at the aspect of the well. The exact location of the well has not been determined and it may be that it will be located closer to the lake. The excavation of the lake will be over 350' from the March 14, 1995 56 nearest well, or over 355' from Mr. Hughes' shallow well, which he assumes is 80' to 100' deep. The monitoring well will be watched by the geologist, the hydrologist, and SJRWMD, and he felt sure that if anything went wrong, they would cease the operation. While he was not a geologist or hydrologist, he was familiar with the principles of water filtering. Next, Mr. Luethje addressed the noise and air quality issues. He reminded the Board that the PZC had restricted the operating hours to 5 days a week from 7 AM to 5 PM. He recalled that Mr. Jenkins had, at the PZC meeting, given air quality information as required by OSHA for the truckers and watering equipment to keep the wind from blowing the silt. In conclusion, Mr. Luethje restated the PZC's findings, that the permit was for a temporary use, renewable annually. He agreed the land use was agriculture with agricultural zoning, but it bordered immediately north of the Oslo Road commercial industrial park. If it had to be put into an industrial classification, he guessed they could rezone it and put it into the industrial area. They have met all the rules, have all the permits from the County - the County's right-of-way permit for access onto 82nd, the wetlands permitting, the site plan approval, SJRWMD rules and permits - and have received unanimous approval from the PZC. Finally, he asked the Board to consider allowing the project to be constructed and stood ready to respond to any questions. Responding to Commissioner Adams question, Mr. Luethje described how the slurry goes down the v -shaped ditch. She asked the hours that the hydraulic pump would operate and Mr. Luethje advised it fell under the PZC's restrictive hours of operation. Commissioner Adams asked if there would be a public hearing every year for renewal purposes, and Director Boling advised it was done administratively to make sure they were complying and the bonds were still good; it could be renewed until the mining operation was completed. Chairman Macht offered that it could be terminated only for cause, and Director Boling advised there had been a few occasions in the past where permits were not renewed. Commissioner Eggert inquired what the thinking was in recommending 82nd versus 74th for traffic, and Mr. Luethje responded that they definitely planned to use 5th Street SW to not affect the immediate neighbors and it was the closest. Mr. Jenkins also operates another pit at Corrigan Ranch, NW intersection SR -60 and I-95, and all north customers would be supplied from that pit. I&A March 14, 1995 HOOK u ( PSG Boa 94 PAGi 605 The subject pit would supply his customers to the south down to Oslo and then east. Commissioner Adams asked if 74th was paved, north of Oslo, and the answer was "no." She reasoned that was probably why the routing was on 82nd, being the shortest route to a paved road, and Mr. Luethje agreed that was probably the theory. Mr. Beutell asked to finish his remarks and recalled that 82nd Avenue was the bypass before I-95 was built, so a truck every 4 minutes was a lot less traffic than the previous bypass use. He has owned 80 acres to the west of the subject property since early 1960 and does not have a problem with the sand mining. Chairman Macht closed the hearing portion of the procedure. Commissioner Eggert asked if any special consideration was given to monitoring the Hughes well, and Director Boling said no. Chairman Macht asked the reason behind the regulation that says a sand mine could not- be located closer than 1,0001 to a subdivision, and Director Keating advised that was not exactly correct. The regulation says that no dewatering associated with a sand mine can occur within 1,000' of a platted subdivision that does not have centralized water, so there will not be a draw down of the water table. The thinking was that with dewatering there's a draw -down and it can affect a certain distance and he believed they had gotten expert evidence that 1,0001 would be a safe distance to protect wells in those subdivisions. Chairman Macht asked what would be protected, the supply or pollution, and Director Keating responded it was the quantity. Commissioner Adams perceived that a couple of things were at issue. Her real concern was that it was an administrative permit use in the A-1 zone which allowed a use which imposed undesirable elements in a secluded neighborhood. She believed in property rights but this is one of those borderline property rights, a permitting use by condition only, and not grandfathered in with the use of the property. She was also concerned with the neighbors and the water issue and did not know how we or SJRWMD could assure or guarantee anything. Commissioner Eggert also voiced concern about the Hughes well. Commissioner Bird agreed and said his main problem with it was the one review criteria on the basis of the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation, or 58 March 14, 1995 public health, safety, and welfare. He realized they had met all the tests of the rules and regulations and if they were proposing it on the southern 80 acres, he believed he could not find much justification to deny it, because there was sufficient buffering there between that area and the existing homes. However, he could not in good conscience, considering all the factors, approve the chosen site. He felt it had to have an adverse affect upon the people living immediately adjacent to it. Commissioner Bird wanted to see the plan reconfigured to move the mining part of it away from those residences, to the southern part, and, then, perhaps, he would look at it completely differently. He realized they had spent a lot of time, effort, and expense to come this far in conforming with regulations and he felt badly that it would be denied after having gone through all that, but he thought we ought to consider in the future some minimal distance, even in the agricultural zones, from existing residential units, that without the written consent of the owners of the units, within so many feet of a proposed mining operation, that it would not be approved. He agreed that there was a lot of land, and many property owners might be looking for ways of generating money from their properties, and sand mining might be one of them, but he felt they should consider some kind of buffering. Commissioner Tippin agreed absolutely with Commissioner Bird's comments. He, too, might consider it if it were being proposed on the southern part of the property, but not as it was being proposed. Chairman Macht viewed it very differently, feeling there were risks of living in an agricultural area because other operations associated with agricultural uses might be just as great a nuisance. What set it apart for him was there was nothing in the agricultural zoning that said that you could put a spoiling next to another man's property. He agreed that the zoning was inappropriate and that something needed to be done to identify certain areas to tell people up front that a sand mining operation can or cannot occur there; like moving next to an airport. He agreed that the appellant ought to be upheld. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to adequately consider the effects on 59 March 14, 1995 booK 94 PK E 606 BOOK 9 PAGE 607 the neighbors' public health, safety and welfare, and approved the appeal. Chairman Macht commented that staff did exactly what their professional requirements indicated they should do. This was a policy matter and if fault was to be found for leading anybody down a primrose path, it was right here at this table and he accepted the blame on behalf of his colleagues. EXHIBITS PRESENTED BY MR. O'HAIRE ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: • Exhibit 1 - copy of map of subject area • Exhibit 2 - copy of letter to Jenkins Trucking, Inc. dated 27 July 1994 from Planner Eric Blad • Exhibit 3 . - copy of Carter Associates,Inc. estimated average annual daily vehicle trips • Exhibit 4 - truck trips estimate per every 4 minutes • Exhibit 5 - copy of Florida Environmental and Land Use Law, page 6-6 (3/91) • Exhibit 6 - copy of SJRWMD Permit #4-061-0138 issued 9/13/94 to Jenkins Trucking Inc. (& items 23- 28) • Definition of administrative permit. March 14, 1995 HUMANE SOCIETY FUNDING REQUEST Administrator Chandler reviewed the memorandum of March 8, 1995: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 8, 1995 FILE: SUBJECT: Humane Society Funding Request FROM: mes E. Chandler REFERENCES: /County Administrator As a result of the fiscal constraints, funding allocation to non-profit organizations for FY 94/95 were held to the same level as the prior year. The Humane Society had requested a $106,000 increase from $127,000 to $233,000. During the various budget sessions the Humane Society presented and explained the basis for their budget request. Although the funding remained the same, the Board provided that any dog license revenue, in FY 94/95, beyond the $13,000 projected would be allocated to the Humane Society. The new law became effective this fiscal year and the revenue projection was believed to be very conservative. As of March 2nd, the revenue from dog licenses was $11,708. If collections continue at the current rate, total revenue may reach $27,300, which would be an additional $14,300 to the Humane Society. Additionally, staff was to meet with the Humane Society with an objective of developing a formula that could be used as the basis for FY 95/96 and subsequent annual allocations. The recommendations were to be presented to the Board prior to formulation of the FY 95/96 budget requests. Staff has met on a number of occasions with Joan Carlson and various Humane Society representatives since November. In the process they provided data and information regarding their programs, revenue and expenses. As a result, staff concurs that an increased allocation is justified and establishing a unit price per animal would be a reasonable basis for future allocations. However, we have not been able to arrive at mutual agreement on a first year unit price. The Humane Society had advised that $40 per animal was the minimum first year requirement. Based on the actual number of animals received in FY 93/94 (6,039) the current year $127,000 allocation equates to $21.09 per animal. The $40 per animal would amount to an increase of $114,560 (90.2%) next fiscal year and would be the initial base amount that future allocations would be predicated on. The number of animals and an escalator would be applied to that unit price for future allocations. In considering that requested unit price, staff analyzed the Humane Society expenses and revenues from FY 89/90 through the current years budget ( Exhibit I) . For that period, shelter and administrative expenses increased by $166,347 (55.59%) and $43,365 (63.87%) respectively for a total of $209,712 (57.12%). Initial cost analysis presented by the Humane Society to arrive at a per animal cost incorporated both areas and has since been modified to include only shelter expenses. Correspondingly, the current county animal control budget of 61 March 14, 1995 Bw 94 PAa 608. Boa 94 PARC 60 $209,822 is $14,638 (7.47%) above the FY 89/90 budget. During this time frame the county allocation to the Humane Society increased from $70,412 to $127,000 or 80.37%. Income from other sources has not increased at the same rate or in some instances decreased. As a result, the Humane Society advises that revenue is not sufficient to offset the operating expense levels and at the same time set aside funds in amounts projected as necessary for future facility expansion. As of September 30, 1994, the Plant Fund was $150,929 and the Quasi -Endowment Fund was $258,268 ( Exhibit 11) . Based on these factors, staff concurs that an increase allocation is justified. However, as will be elaborated on further, considering the county's revenue uncertainty and very preliminary FY 95/96 expense projections, staff does not recommend the $40 unit price for FY 95/96 and as such, the initial base for subsequent allocations. Staff recommends a FY 95/96 increase of $55,073. That amount would equate to offsetting the audited deficit for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994 ( Exhibit 111) . The corresponding per animal unit price would be an increase from $21.03 to $30.15. Staff is of the opinion that this unit price with an escalator, such as consumer price index (CPI), is equitable considering the economic climate and county fiscal constraints. Additionally, if the number of animals increases, the county allocation would also automatically increase. In arriving at the recommendation, staff had also developed and considered a phased or three year contractual agreement approach ( Exhibit IV) similar to that proposed by the Humane Society in their February 28, 1995 letter. The differential between the two being the per animal cost in each of the next three fiscal years culminating in $40 per animal and the Humane Society proposal to initiate $30 per animal for the balance of this fiscal year which is an additional $45,000 above the $127,000 budgeted and the potential $14,300 from license fees. In the final analysis, staff believes if viewed solely as an individual expense such an approach may be reasonable, particularly in better economic times. However, in the context of the overall county tax budgets, considering the revenue uncertainty, other priority expenses, and the difficulty in committing automatic expense increases of this magnitude to others, staff could not recommend this approach. During the last several years there has been very little tax budget revenue growth. In fact, for the current fiscal year, the MSTU and Emergency Services District tax bases actually decreased. As a result, in this economic climate, long range programs have had to be adjusted and/or deferred and expenses, including positions, cut. Next fiscal year, assuming the economy continues to improve, optimistically some revenue growth is anticipated, but not dramatic. However, as reported to the Board at the February 14 preliminary budget meeting, even at this early date a minimum of an additional $1.3 million is required to meet present obligations such as courthouse security and a northwest emergency services station, regardless of any other increases that may be submitted for consideration with the total budget. In view of the preceding, staff believes we must continue to be fiscally cautious at this time and as such finds it difficult to recommend significant fixed multi-year program expense increase commitments whether it be the Humane Society, BCC department, or another non-profit organization. Nevertheless, staff does recognize the financial dilemma of the Humane Society and the service provided for the County. It is on that basis staff is recommending the projected $55,073 increase for next fiscal year, prior to receipt of and consideration of any other budget requests. If the economy were to continue to improve and correspondingly the ability to realistically project revenue growth, a more long term commitment to fixed increases at the rates requested may be reasonable. M March 14, 1995 Administrator Chandler provided clarification for Commissioner Bird's question concerning a difference between two figures relative to income on the sale of tags ($14,300 vs $1,000) explaining that it was due to an "above and beyond" projection. Commissioner Eggert questioned figures for future facility expansion, feeling that was a capital expense for which ordinarily donations were pursued, and asked if that was being considered as part of the cost per dog. Administrator Chandler replied that currently the Humane Society is having to allocate donations to offset their operating expenses. David Radabaugh, Humane Society's administrative aide, referred to the deficits on Exhibit I in the profit/loss columns and Exhibit II quasi -endowment figure in the last column. If the two figures were considered, they would be shaky ground very quickly. OMB Director Joe Baird pointed out their fund balance figure was increasing and explained that quasi -endowments were endowments received by the Humane Society and earmarked by their Board. Joan Carlson, executive director of the Humane Society, explained that actually the Board of Directors created the quasi - endowment fund to insure future solvency, not only for capital improvements, but also for costly contingencies. Ms. Carlson continued that when they sat down for their long-range planning, they wanted to be able to provide continued and better future services. They found that many of the private dollars raised were being used for Animal Control housing of lost pets and unwanted animals and, because mandatory holding times are governmental responsibility, they felt they needed to ask the County to pay for a greater percentage of those costs in the future. They were not asking for anything above the basic housing of the animals for five days (strays) and some longer (court cases) and two days on owned animals. Ms. Carlson felt that their adoption and foster programs and education and sterilization assistance should be priorities for use of donations, and if the County commits to continue funding the basic services, it would enable them to do some planning and a capital campaign. They would be assured that the basic operating fund was there to continue services. Commissioner Adams inquired what the County was required to do by State law, and Administrator Chandler explained the required responsibilities: collection of animals and ultimate disposal (housing and holding for 5 days). 63 March 14, 1995 Boos,Fa E ,� BOOK 94 Fpaft Chairman Macht asked if it was totally impractical to try to recover some of the costs from the owners of animals and Administrator Chandler advised of current redemption and "penalty" fees and a resultant income of approximately $6,000. Over a year ago, staff presented the possibility of increasing the fees, making a greater penalty for multiple offenders, but the Board felt that if the increases were too much, there was a possibility people would not claim the animals. It remains an alternative. Chairman Macht summarized that it was the taxpayer who had to pay for irresponsible citizens, to the tune of nearly a half a million dollars for animal control. Administrator Chandler pointed out there was only a 7.4% increase ($209,000 current budget) in the Animal Control operating expense. Commissioner Adams observed that the number of animals had remained rather constant and it seemed to her they should be paid at least at cost for the mandatory five days, because if the Humane Society was to not do it, then the County was looking at a greater responsibility/ cost for animal care. Money was the only issue; she did not know the solution. OMB Director Joe Baird explained that he was recommending, based on their 1993/94 audited numbers, to increase the fee to $30/animal which should bring them to a break-even situation. He continued that it is a difficult situation because the County is not experiencing a growth of revenues either, yet the expense demands continue. It was a tough decision to even recommend a $55,000 increase when other agencies were not increased. Commissioner Bird summarized the complicated situation, that staff was recommending that the FY 95/96 year allocation be increased by $55,073, to bring the cost per animal up to $30.15 even though the Humane Society is saying their basic cost of providing services to animals for the County is around $40. He understood the Humane Society is asking that the $40/animal figure be attained within a certain prescribed number of budget years or time, and staff is saying it was very difficult to guarantee that because of budget unknowns. If everyone could agree that $40/animal is a reasonable figure to strive to attain, then we will work towards attaining that goal. While we cannot commit to reaching that goal in one year or two years, we would work together to try to attain it. Commissioner Eggert and Chairman Macht agreed with Commissioner Bird's summarization and that a future budget commitment could not be made. 64 March 14, 1995 Administrator Chandler interjected that the recommendation is for next fiscal year, but their letter had asked for $30/animal for the balance of this fiscal year, or another $45,000. Mr. Radabaugh rose to address a couple of things that he believed were being missed a little bit. He recounted that Mr. Baird had used the term "catch up, break even", but last year their operating costs for the shelter were $442,000. Dividing that by the number of animals handled, the cost per animal would be approximately $70. In negotiations with Administrator Chandler, the Humane Society has proposed to do it for $40/animal. He asked the Board to keep in mind that was less than it was costing, that it was mandated by state statute, and they were asking for leeway in order to plan ahead. Commissioner Adams asked if we have a contract with them to provide the service, and Administrator Chandler replied there was a contract that goes way back. Ms. Carlson thought the contract went back to 1982. She went on to advise that she was committed to quality care for the animals and animal protection, but underwriting and subsidizing basic care makes it impossible to do other things, like expand the facilities, provide sterilization assistance and other programs to help reduce the unwanted animals in the community, and thus create a situation where there are fewer animals for government to worry about. If they continue to exhaust private funding on basic care, sooner or later, they won't be able to do a good job. That has happened in other communities and then government has the responsibility of building and operating an animal control shelter program. Commissioner Eggert inquired if they could legally contract for more than a year, and County Attorney Vitunac reported it was done all the time, "subject to annual government funding"; it's a standard clause. He suggested a long-term lease subject to their appropriations budget. Administrator Chandler related that was the route he felt was best, but with the uncertainty of revenues, he did not want to create false hope if it could not be done in the future. Commissioner Adams commended the Humane Society for showing their books and putting everything out in the open and felt the Board had an obligation. She did not want the County to be in the business of taking care of animals and did not want the Humane Society to have to shut down because they couldn't afford to continue. March 14, 1995 Booz 9 4 PA, f, E'014 BOOK 94 PAGE 61 3 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams to take the additional $45,000 for this year out of the contingency. MOTION DIED for lack of a second. Commissioner Eggert wanted to know how much was left in contingency and Director Baird advised that the contingency, due to the jail, was getting down to very low levels and this would be paid out of the general fund. He suggested that we start looking at other ways of paying for these services like having the cities pay their share. He also pointed out that all the non -profits have been in to see him, Council on Aging, Fellsmere Ambulance, Humane Society, because they're all in the same predicament and having to cut expenses out of their budgets. Commissioner Eggert thought what she was hearing was that taking $45,000 out of the budget right now was a very difficult thing for them to do, as much as they sympathized, especially when we did not know what was going to happen the rest of the year. Administrator Chandler thought another thing needed to be cleared up; that the $45,000 would be in addition to the $14,000 if we achieve that. Administrator Chandler explained that on the dog tag revenues, they would get everything in excess of the $13,000 and it was projected that $14,000 would be their portion. Mr. Radabaugh pointed out that it cost them money to issue licenses; they get $1 for each, but it also costs them for labor, etc., and the amount of money projected, $14,000, would just about pay for the cost to do paperwork. Ms. Carlson interjected they need to have a commitment for the basic service. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams to continue funding $30/animal for this fiscal year and that we commit to $35/animal for next year. Commissioner Bird asked what that was in dollars for this year, and Administrator Chandler estimated an additional $45,000 for the balance of this fiscal year. Commissioner Tippin asked when the additional funding would begin, and Commissioner Adams said April 1. Chairman Macht asked if her motion was staff's recommendation and Commissioner Adams said it was not. March 14, 1995 MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved $30 per animal for the balance of this fiscal year ($45,000) commencing 4/1/95 with the hope we can do at least the same next year. Commissioner Adams asked how many animals were picked up annually by Animal Control and Administrator Chandler advised it was about 1/3 of the total that came in or about 2,000. Emergency Services Director Doug Wright advised that his department was in the process of making some revisions to the existing animal control ordinance with respect to fees and asked for direction from the Board. They have discussed not waiving the fee on a first offense. He believed it would really help enhance the revenue if veterinarians would sell licenses as required in several other counties in the state. Chairman Macht suggested a survey of surrounding counties to see what they do. Director Wright said they'd done that many times and had previously submitted amendments which were not favorably considered, but they will be glad to bring it back. Commissioner Bird asked whether individuals paid anything when they brought pets in and Ms. Carlson responded that there was no charge, since animals were also brought in when found by private citizens and law enforcement. Organizations have found if they charge, animals are dumped or brought in as "strays" and then the animals have to be held for the mandatory five days instead of attempting to adopt it out or euthanatizing it, and it actually ends up costing more. County Attorney Vitunac reminded them that the mandatory five days is by County ordinance, so they could change that if they wished. Chairman Macht asked what Ms. Carlson's reaction would be if they reduced the mandatory time to three or four days, and Ms. Carlson said it was something they could consider, but added that there were other time constraints on holding of animals (mail notification and bite cases) which they would need to discuss with Director Wright. P&A March 14, 1995 Boa 94 BOOK 94 PAGE 615 Chairman Macht asked if they minded getting that discussion underway in the very near future. Commissioner Eggert understood that changes will be considered at budget time. Ms. Carlson asked that, in the budget process, the Humane Society be moved from the charitable donations area and placed under Animal Control, since it is more of a service basis. OMB Director Joe Baird advised he would place them under a new classification in the next budget. ILLEGAL DUMPING/CODE ENFORCEMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1995: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RP4K Community Development Director DATE: March 7, 1995 SUBJECT: ILLEGAL DUMPING/CODS ENFORCZNZNT It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 14, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: During discussion of the Phase VI (Vero Lake Estates) water line assessment project at the February 21, 1995 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the issue of illegal dumping (of trash and debris) was raised. At that time, the Board chairman requested that staff at a subsequent meeting provide the Board with an update and status report of illegal dumping and code enforcement efforts to control the problem. This is the requested update/status report. • Problem Identification Illegal dumping of trash and debris has been a problem in the unincorporated area of the county for many years. Since the county formed its code enforcement board, dumping and junk, trash, debris cases have constantly remained among the violation types cited most often. In fact, there have been 21 junk, trash and debris cases initiated in Vero Lakes Estates alone since October 1, 1991. County -wide since October, 1991, over 600 such cases have been processed. These cases do not include instances of debris dumping on county rights-of-way. r -T] March 14, 1995 From a code enforcement perspective, there are two principal types of junk/debris violations. One involves junk or debris placed upon developed property by a property owner or tenant. This can involve junk vehicles, household garbage, construction debris, landscape debris, or other material kept on the site. The other type of.junk/debris violation involves illegal dumping, where a respondent dumps trash or debris either on someone's private property or on county rights -of -way. There are three major types of illegal dumping. These are: individuals dumping household trash; landscapers/landclearers dumping landscape debris; and builders dumping construction and demolition debris. • Geographic Distribution Illegal dumping is a countywide problem. Areas such as Vero Lake Estates are particular problems. Not only is the Vero Lake Estates area growing at a rapid rate with significant landclearing and construction activity; but a large number of vacant lots with few nearby residences provide good dumping opportunities. Code enforcement staff have found dumping violations in the south county, the central county, and the north county. Even sites on the barrier island have experienced dumping. Usually, dumping occurs on vacant, uncleared properties having some kind of trail or path for vehicle access. Water control district canals, for example, have been used by violators to access sites and dump debris. Not even LAAC proposed purchase sites have escaped dumping; many of these sites have some debris that has been dumped on.them over the years. • Enforcement Enforcement of anti-dumping codes and laws is a difficult task. Unless a person is caught in the act of dumping, it is often impossible to determine who did the dumping. Even when a dumper's identity is known, it is difficult to prove a violation without an eyewitness. Regardless of those constraints, code enforcement staff enforce dumping and junk, trash, debris violations in several ways. These involve: surveillance of potential dumpers and dump sites; analysis of dumped household trash; and citation of owners of property having junk and debris on it. Surveillance Although not done on a regular basis, code enforcement staff have in the past coordinated with the sheriff's department to monitor areas for illegal dumping. Usually, this monitoring/surveillance involves observation of roadways or sites. Targets of surveillance activities are usually landclearers or other commercial type operators with dumptruck loads of debris. To facilitate surveillance, code enforcement staff have obtained radios which can communicate with the sheriff's system. Through this process, a number of dumpers have been caught. In some cases, violators are charged with felony dumping; other times violators are required to clear debris that they dumped as well as any other debris existing on a site. M March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 PAA 616 BOOKPACE 6 - Analysis of Debris Whenever code enforcement staff finds household trash dumped on vacant property or in rights-of-way, code officers search the trash attempting to find mail or other items which may identify the dumper/violator. According to county regulations, such items are prima facie evidence that the named person did the dumping. Although often unsuccessful, the debris analysis has resulted in the identification of a number of violators. When a violator is so identified, the violator is required to clean up the trash or debris that was dumped. In cases where voluntary compliance is not achieved, code enforcement board action is pursued. - Property Owner Citation When junk, trash or debris is found on privately owned, vacant property and the dumper cannot be identified, code enforcement staff then cites the landowner. The landowner is cited because the referenced trash and debris must be removed for health, safety and aesthetic reasons and because the landowner is ultimately responsible for his property. In those types of cases, code enforcement action is usually successful in getting debris removed from property. - Debris Removal From County Rights-of-way As indicated, removal of trash and debris on privately owned property is the responsibility of the property owner. For county right-of-way or other county owned property, it is the county's responsibility to remove junk, trash and debris. To effect removal of debris from county rights-of-way, code enforcement staff coordinates with the road and bridge division of the county public works department. This occurs regularly. Since rights-of-way are easily accessible, a significant amount of trash and debris is dumped in the right-of-way. Consequently, road and bridge has removed such items as discarded furniture and appliances, household trash, landclearing debris, and construction/demolition debris from rights-of-way. ANALYSIS• There are various ways to address the issue of illegal dumping. Currently, the county is mostly reactive and enforcement oriented. This has worked to at least some extent, in that illegal dumping is probably less than it would be without enforcement activities. In this county, large vacant, isolated parcels will exist for many years. Since these areas are conducive to trash and debris dumping, the problem will persist. Given the geographic area involved, there will never be enough code officers or sheriff's deputies to prevent illegal dumping throughout the county. Although enforcement, itself, will not resolve the illegal dumping problem, there are other actions that the county can take to reduce the magnitude of the problem. These are generally activities that make it less convenient or lessen the incentives to illegally dump trash and debris. One action that the county has taken that should limit dumping is the imposition of the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) fee and vie] March 14, 1995 _I the elimination of landfill tipping fees. With respect to household trash, residents pay for its disposal when they pay their SWDD fee. So from a cost perspective, there is no reason to illegally dump household trash. Convenience may be one reason that household trash is illegally dumped. To the extent that transfer stations may not be conveniently located or not be open at convenient times, residents may chose illegal dumping over proper disposal. Changes in transfer station schedules and procedures may reduce some illegal dumping of household trash. Of course, the most effective way to reduce the illegal dumping of household trash is to establish mandatory collection. With mandatory collection, it would typically be more inconvenient to dump trash off site than to leave it on site to be collected. Consequently, mandatory collection could significantly reduce illegal dumping of household trash. With respect to illegal dumping of landclearing and C & D (construction and demolition) debris, there are similar ways to limit the problem. While mandatory collection will not affect those types of dumping problems, more convenient disposal/transfer facilities can help. Regardless, code enforcement will probably always be necessary. This report is for information only. No action is necessary. Commissioner Adams suggested that we need to step up enforcement to combat the dumping in public areas and rights-of- way. Chairman Macht asked that the penalties be greater when the perpetrators were caught, such as putting their names in the newspaper. No action required or taken; for information only. 71 March 14, 1995'4BooK. ph, F BOOK -94 PA. - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SPACE NEEDS (ITEM DELETED FROM AGENDA) MAIN'.CENANCE MAP FOR SUNRISE STREET A46TH AVENUE) IN WABASSO APPROVED The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler, DATE: March 7, 1995 County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P . E . , FILE: 46maint . agn Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approval of Maintenance Map for Sunrise Street (46th Avenue) in Wabasso DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Sunrise Street runs south from CR510, nearly parallel with and abutting a drainage ditch on its west side. This ditch occupies almost the entire width of a 25 foot right-of-way shown on plats of Weona Park and Wabasso Tourist Court. At 85th Street, the dirt road crosses this ditch and proceeds south, now within the right-of-way. The dirt road is used by residents living along and south of 85th Street, east of USi, to access CR510 going east. It is also an access route for grove interests. Attention was drawn to it when the Utilities Department wanted to place a water line loop in it and found that the right-of-way was occupied by the ditch. Indian River County constructed the road, and the Road and Bridge Division has continuously maintained the road for longer than four years. The attached maintenance map is the result of a location survey to determine the boundary. • � 1�1 � � • � a �It :� �,It r Staff recommends the Chairman approve the maintenance map for Sunrise Street(46th Avenue) in Wabasso, so that it can be filed with the Clerk of Court for Indian River County. The only funds expended at this time will be for filing of the map. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the maintenance map for Sunrise Street (46th Avenue) in Wabasso, so that it can be filed with the Clerk of Court for Indian River County. MAINTENANCE MAP IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 72 March 14, 1995 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCEPTANCE - WH URELD SID IN WABASSO The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acceptance - Whitfield Subdivision in Wabasso DATE: March 8, 1995 FILE: WHITF.AGN DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS To qualify for the Community Development Block Grant to pave roads and install water lines in Wabasso, the County must have clear ownership of the rights -of -ways in the Whitfield Subdivision (an unrecorded subdivision north of CR510 between 66th Avenue and 64th Avenue). Mrs. Habakkuk Whitfield and her husband (now deceased) originally developed the area. Mrs. Whitfield, owner of the right- of-ways, is willing to quit claim deed the right-of-ways to the County for maintenance. Since the roads currently need grading and stabilized material, she is requesting that interim maintenance be provided until the grant is hopefully approved and the roads paved. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The approximately one mile of right-of-way for the various streets (86th Lane, 86th Place, 66th Avenue, 65th Drive, 65th Court, 64th Drive, 64th Court, and 64th Avenue - all in Wabasso) meets the 50' wide minimum criteria and are near the County grader routes. There is strong community support for the County assuming maintenance. RECOM4ENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Board accept ownership and maintenance of the roads in Whitfield Subdivision and authorize staff to record the quit claim deed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to accept ownership and maintenance of the roads in Whitfield Subdivision and authorized staff to record the quit claim deed, as recommended in the memorandum. Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert asked if this should be a conditional acceptance in case the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) doesn't go through. 73 March 14, 1995 BOOK 94 FFar 6 BOOK 94 pAu 621 Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that the recording of the deed enhances the score on the CDBG application by 30 points and it probably would qualify anyway under our general acceptance program. Commissioner Adams noted there would be the option of setting up an MSTU to handle it if the CDBG application was not approved. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. RESURFACING AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 66TH AVENUE (LATERAL "A" ROADS BETWEEN 33RD AND 45TH STREETS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 8, 1995: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resurfacing and Reconstruction of 66th Avenue (Lateral "A" Road) between 33rd Street and 45th Street RE: Referenced memo from Terry Cook to James Davis Dated March 2, 1995 DATE: March 8, 1995 On September 13, 1994, the Board approved the FY 94/95 Annual Road Resurfacing Program which included the resurfacing of 66th Avenue between 33rd Street and 45th Street (1.5 miles) for a cost of $72,000. The project included the installation of a "petromat" engineering fabric to be placed over the existing road to eliminate reflective cracking from the existing road pavement through the new asphalt resurfacing. After recent coring the road and additional engineering analysis, staff is of the opinion that a total recycling of the existing base of the road is needed. Many counties (Brevard, Orange and Seminole) as well as the City of Vero Beach, have used the base recycling technology with excellent results. After formal bidding, the Melbourne Beach firm Asphalt Recycling, Inc., has recently entered into a contract with Orange County to perform the base recycling at $1.09 per square yard. In addition, Brevard County has bid and contracted with Mariani Asphalt Company in Tampa, Florida, to supply asphalt emulsion at $0.818 per gallon, which is needed for the work. 74 March 14, 1995 The total cost to reconstruct and resurface the existing 1.5 mile section of 66th Avenue is $93,970.47. Since Orange County and Brevard County bid large quantities of the work (500,000 square yards), staff is of the opinion that the above prices are excellent and Indian River County should piggy -back the Orange County -and Brevard County bids. The additional cost of $21,970.47 can be allocated from Road and Bridge Division's other Road Material account 111-214-541-035.39 ($220,548 available as of February 28, 1995) . If 66th Avenue is closed to through traffic between 33rd Street and 45th Street, the work could be completed in approximately 3 weeks. If traffic is maintained to through traffic, the work will take 6-8 weeks. Staff recommends that the County contract with Asphalt Recycling, Inc. in the amount of $20,734.87 and Mariani Asphalt Company in the amount of $16,769.00 to recycle 66th Avenue between 33rd Street and 45th Street. The asphalt work at a cost of $56,466.60 will be performed by the County's annual resurfacing contractor Dickerson Florida, Inc. Funding to be from Fund 111-214, Transportation Fund Road and Bridge Division. It is also recommended that the road be closed to through traffic while the work is performed. A simple 2 mile detour to 58th Avenue is available using 45th Street and 33rd Street. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation as outlined in the memorandum. 75 March 14, 1995 BON U4ft�1C �ti BOOK 94 PAGE ROSELAND WATER MAIN, PH. IV - CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1995: DATE: MARCH 6, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO' DIRECTOR OF UTIIT,1I ERVICES PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER 9vG�j BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ROSELAND WATER MAIN, PHASE IV CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -06 -DS BACKGROUND On December 6, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the subject project to Tri -Sure Corporation in the amount of $175,612.00 (copy attached). The contract work has been performed and completed. The contractor has submitted a final payment request. ANALYSIS All Indian River County requirements have been met, and final clearance for services has been received from the DEP. Change Order No. 1 (attached) reduced the project by $9,339.00 to the amount of $166,273.00. The previous payment to date was $126,438.30, leaving a balance including retainage of $39,834.70. The contractor has submitted a final payment request in the amount of $39,834.70. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of Change Order No. 1 and approval of the payment request in the amount of $39,834.70 as payment in full for services rendered. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 1 and payment request in the amount of $39,834.70 as payment in full for services rendered, as set out in staff's recommendation. CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 76 March 14, 1995 r NORTH U.S. #1 WATER MAIN (CITY OF SEBASTIAN) CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 - SPEEGLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2, 1995: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SUBJECT: MARCH 2, 1995 JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF TIL Y WILLIAM F � CAIN CES MMINEER LITY SERVICES NORTH US 1 WATER MAIN (CITY OF SEBASTIAN) CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -30 -DS On January 24, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a change order to the above contract to run water lines through the riverfront area in Sebastian. (See attached Commission meeting minutes.) The County Utilities Department now would like to oversize the main 12 -inch line on Indian River Drive to its Master -planned line size of 16 inches. This connection will loop our North US 1 water line with the existing Master -planned line at Wal-Mart, north of the Sebastian city limits. This will eliminate the need to run an additional 16 -inch line through the city in the future. ANALYSIS The County Utilities Department has negotiated a cost increase with the contractor, Speegle Construction, Inc., in the amount of $122,537.80. (See attached Change Order No. 4.) We are, therefore, before the Board of County Commissioners requesting approval of the attached change order. Funding for this additional oversizing will be from the impact fee fund. The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached change order with Speegle Construction, Inc., as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 4 with Speegle Construction, increasing the amount by $122,537.80, as set out in staff's recommendation. CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 77 March 14, 1995 Bou 94 PACE 6-24 Boa 4 PAGE 625 STATE ROAD 60 - SOUTH GRAVITY SEWER - FINAL PAY REQUEST - DRIVEWAYS, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1995: DATE: MARCH 3, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMEN LITY SERVICES SUBJECT: STATE ROAD 60 - SOUTH GRAVITY SEWER FINAL PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -92 -12 -CS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On September 6, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Driveways, Inc., for the above -referenced project. (See attached agenda item and minutes.) The bid amount of the contract was $22,675.00, and the final project cost is the same. The contract is complete and has been accepted by the Utilities Department. We, therefore, request that the attached final pay request for the project be approved. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the final pay request from Driveways, Inc., as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved final pay request from Driveways, Inc., in the amount of $2,762.56, as set out in staff's recommendation. FINAL PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD March 14, 1995 M 78 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the Emergency Services District meeting, the Board would convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:55 p.m. ATTEST: J. arton, Clerk Minutes approved on 4_/1- �1 � 79 March 14, 1995 BOOK 9 F,�GE 626 L- i