HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/1995= MINUTES,miiTTACHED �=
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 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
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2. INVOCATION - Rev. Joe Brooks
Twentieth Ave. Church of God
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Item 7-I, add Proclamation for National Blue Ribbon week.
2. Item 7-J, add FRMA seminar approval.
3. Item 13-D-1, add discussion of utility policies, Comp Plan, economic
development and affordable housing.
4. Item 13-D-2, add discussion regarding Public Health Department, District
15.
5. Item 13-A-3, add discussion regarding Indian River Garden Club Flower
Show.
6. Item 9-B, defer.
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of February 28, 1995
B. Regular Meeting of March 7, 1995
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 8 Placed on File in Office of Clerk - -
to the Board:
Fla. Inland Navigation District -
1995 Public Facilities Report
B. Proclamation Designating April, 1995 as Fair
Housing Month in Indian River County
C. Consideration of a Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Purchase of a Fiscal Impact Model and
Authorization for Staff to Initiate the Process
of Selecting a Consultant
( memorandum dated March 27, 1995 )
D. Release of Easement
( memorandum dated March 27, 1995 )
k oy4_ 748e
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
E. Request for Approval and Signature on Section 8
Contributions Contract FL -132 and Forms
( memorandum dated March 27, 1995 )
F. CLSI/GEAC Automation Contract
( memorandum dated March 24, 1995 )•
G, Award Bid #5043/Riding Lawn Mower
(memorandum dated March 28, 1995)
H. Traffic Control Device Ledger
( memorandum dated March 27, 1995 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -
I.R. FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
Request by Michael O'Haire to Address the Commission
Re: Indian River Farms Water Control District's
Permit and Interlocal Agreements with I R C
( letter dated March 23, 1995 )
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. New Hope Ministries, Inc.'s Request for
Special Exception Use Approval for a Place
of Worship and Private School
( memorandum dated March 22, 1995 )
2. Indian Partnership Request to Rezone
Approximately 13.3 Acres from A-1 to RM -8
( memorandum dated March 17, 1995 )
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Request by Frank Zorc to Address Commission
Regarding Erosion Control District
( letter dated March 28, 1995 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None - -
C. GENERAL SERVICES
1._ Administration Building Space Needs
( memorandum dated March 2, 1995 )
( postponed from meeting of 3/28/95)
2. Award Bid #5046/South Regional Effluent
Reuse Pumping Station
( memorandum dated March 23, 1995 )
3. Award Bid #5047/South Regional Effluent
Reuse Transmission Main
( memorandum dated March 16, 1995 )
4. Award Bid #5035/82nd Ave. Water Main
( memorandum dated March 22, 1995 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
1995/96 Budget Workshop/ Hearing Schedule
( memorandum dated March 29, 1995 )
F.
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. District 2 Traffic Impact Fee Allocation
to City of Vero Beach for AIA Improvements -
Budget Amendment 015
( memorandum dated March 24, 1995 )
2. Agreement for Construction of Golf Course
Tunnels Beneath Highland Drive and 6th Ave.
Requested by Indian River Country Club
( memorandum dated March 29, 1995 )
H. UTILITIES
1. Petition for Sewer Service / 129th Street
(A Portion of I.R. Acres S/ D) Between Old
Dixie and Riverside Drive
( memorandum dated March 24, 1995 )
2. Developer's Agreement withSoutheast
Interstate Services, Inc. for Water Line
Construction
( memorandum dated March 23, 1995 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MRCHT
1. Request for Joint Meeting Re: Prevention
of Teenage Pregnancy
2. A Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, to the Florida Legislature
in Support of the State Funding
Criminal Justice Costs
B. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS - -
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
r- 060k Ll - 7 4S C
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1.
Approval of Minutes - Meeting
of 2/21/95
2.
Approval of Minutes - Meeting
of 2/28/95
3.
Approval of Minutes - Meeting
of 3/7/95
4.
Office 8 Maintenance Building,
C.O. #1
( memorandum dated March 27,
1995 )
5.
Award Bid #5050/Electro Magnet Separator
( memorandum dated March 28,
1995 )
6.
Award Bid #5048/Trommel Screen
( memorandum dated March 28,
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.
April 4, 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, April 4, 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 P. J.
Jones, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order. Reverend Joe
Brooks of Twentieth Avenue Church of God gave the invocation, and
Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert, requested four additions to today's
Agenda:
1. Item 7-I, Proclamation for National Blue
Ribbon Week.
2. Item 7-J, FRMA seminar approval.
3. Item 13-D-1, discussion of utility policies, Comp Plan,
economic development and affordable housing.
4. Item 13-D-2, discussion regarding Public Health
Department, District 15.
Chairman Macht requested the following changes:
1. Item 13-A-3, discussion regarding Indian River Garden
Club Flower Show.
2. Item 9-B, defer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously made the
above changes to the Agenda.
Boa 94
ir. L
APRIL 49 1995 1
BOOK 94 FAa�. I 0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 1995. There
were none.
ON -MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28,
1995, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 7, 1995. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 7, 1995,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested that Items 7-C, 7-F and 7-G be
pulled for discussion.
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board:
1. Florida Inland Navigation District 1995 Public
Facilities Report.
B. Proclamation/Fair Housing Month/April, 1995
The Board reviewed the following Proclamation:
APRIL 49 1995 2
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it in the goal of the REALTORS Association of Indian
River County tt .romote the theme for the month of
April, 1995 as 'Fair Housing Opens Doors"; and
WHEREAS, the year-long campaign is. a public awareness
campaign aimed- at the citizens of Indian River
County; and
WHEREAS, the campaign will educate individuals and families,
who currently rent or want to trade -up, about the
value of home ownership; and
WHEREAS, the campaign will inform the public about financing
opportunities and homes available within their price
range; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the theme "Fair Housing Opens Doors" is
to welcome buyers to the market and show them that
buying a home is one of the most'important invest-
ments Americans make; and
WHEREAS, real estate activity in the United States con-
tributes enormously to our economic and social well-
being; and
WHEREAS, home ownership is the foundation of this country's
prosperity, and it allows citizens to put down roots
and -develop a commitment to community development:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that
the month of April, 1995 be designated as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
iri Indian River County, and the Board urges all
citizens of this county to take advantage of the
currnt market conditions and say "Fair Housing
Open:eDoors in Indian River County."
Adoptedt a day of April, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
— - 0ex )'.7 gwAZ�1_
enneth R. Mac t, Chairman
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
April, 1995 as Fair Housing Month.
C. Fiscal Impact Planning Model - Request for Proposals/Selecting a
Consultant
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 1995:
BOOK 751
APRIL 4, 1995 3
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ON HEAD CONC NCE:
obert M. Re n AtDector
Community DevelopTent
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP 45;2'•fi ,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 27, 1995 -
RE: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR
PURCHASE OF A FISCAL IMPACT MODEL AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
STAFF TO INITIATE THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A CONSULTANT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 4, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
One of the work products required by the county's current contract
with the Economic Development Administration is the acquisition of
a fiscal impact model. The function of the fiscal impact model
will be to assess new development and alternative planning
scenarios and to project revenues, costs, and net balances.
Through the RFP process, the county will be seeking the services of
a consultant to provide a marginal cost fiscal impact computer
model and training services. To select and hire a consultant to
provide a fiscal impact model, the county must develop a request
for proposals and then solicit proposals from consulting firms.
On March 28, 1995, the Economic Development Council approved the
attached draft request for proposals and recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the RFP and authorize staff to
initiate the process of selecting a consultant.
ANALYSIS
A copy of the draft RFP for acquisition of a fiscal impact model is
attached to this agenda item. The most important part of the draft
RFP is the scope of services section. That section details the
characteristics of'the requested fiscal impact model.
In preparing the draft RFP's scope of services, county planning
staff coordinated with county budget and finance staff as well as
other local staff persons. Based on this input, the draft scope of
services has been modified. To ensure that the proposed RFP and
scope of services is acceptable to EDA, a copy was sent to EDA
staff. EDA staff has approved the draft RFP and has granted the
county permission to enter into a contract for the acquisition of
a fiscal impact model.
As proposed, the fiscal impact model will benefit the county's
economic development program. Not only can the model assist
planning staff in assessing the projected costs and revenues from
proposed development projects, but the model can assist the county
in its capital improvements programming. The fiscal impact model_
may also serve as a basis for structuring a reasonable, cost
effective incentive program for the county.
APRIL 49 1995 4
i
To proceed with the RFP process, staff needs authorization from the
Board of County Commissioners.. Even though the fiscal impact model
project was incorporated in the EDA grant program, the Board still
must authorize staff to proceed with the RFP process. _
ALTERNATIVES
With respect to the attached request for proposals for acquisition
of a fiscal impact model, the Board of County Commisssioners has
three alternatives. These are:
• To approve the RFP as proposed;
• To approve the RFP with changes;
• To reject the RFP.
Either of the first two alternatives will ensure that the county
will fulfill its obligation as part of the contract with the
Economic Development Administration. The thikd alternative will
jeopardize the county's contract with the Economic Development
Administration. Staff supports the first alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Economic Development Council recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the attached draft Request For
Proposals and authorize staff to initiate the process of selecting
a consultant to develop a fiscal impact model or customize an
existing model for the county.
MOTION WAS MADE ®by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the draft
Request for Proposals and authorize staff to
initiate the process of selecting a consultant to
develop a fiscal impact model or customize an
existing model for the County, as recommended by
staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked for an explanation
of anticipated costs of consultants and how this would assist the
County.
Director Keating explained that this is part of the EDA grant,
from which the County has received $75,000 per year with a $25,000
match by the County. The total program cost is $200,000. There
were a number of activities such as: an economic development
strategy plan, an economic base study, and provision of funds to
the Council of 100 and the Chamber of Commerce. The fiscal impact
model is another part of the EDA grant program. $40,000 has been
budgeted for the activity which includes a consultant providing
either a pre -built model or building a model, and consistent
monitoring and training of staff to calibrate the model to make it
BOOK 94 r-nL _153
"RM 49 1995 5
BOOK 94 F -At, 754
representative of the local area. In-house staff and
representatives of the City of Vero Beach have gone over the RFP
and have provided* assistance. The anticipated benefits are
critical looks at proposed projects, land -use scenarios, estimated
revenues and costs over a period of time. This would also be a
good tool to use in evaluating economic development incentives.
This proposal has been presented to the Economic Development
Council, who unanimously approved and recommended the proposal to
the Board.
Commissioner Adams felt it is a very exciting plan and offers
incredible potential and benefits to the County.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
D. Release of Easement/Mehlman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 1995:
TO: Board,of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorneyfo
DATE: March 27, 1995 -
SUBJECT : Release of Easement
The County has received a request for release of easement from
Paul and Karen Mehlman (copy attached), The County has never had
any interest in the easement sought to be released (see attached
memorandum from Charles A. Cramer) .
The structure on the Mehlman property encroaches into the
easement and, apparently, the title company will not insure title unless
the County releases whatever interest it may have in the
easement -which is none.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to execute the attached quit claim deed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Release
of Easement and, Quit Claim Deed,, as recommended by
staff.
RELEASE AND DEED ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF -THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
APRIL 49 1995 6
E. -Section 8 Contributions Contract FL -132 and Forms/IRC Housing
v
Agency
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 1995:
TO: 7be Hm=ahle Manbe= of the DATE: 3/27/95 FILE:
Board of County Commssioners
71H OUCH: Mimes E. Q=XUAW
Canty AdWni trator
FROM: Gamble
Executive : `-
SUBJECT: axpmt for approval and Signature
on Section 8 Arnmal Contributions
Contract FL -132 and farms.
REFERENCES:
It is re x 0 mended that the data presented be, given fonml consideration
by the County Comw ssion.
The D%mrtm nt of Housing and Urban Developiment has forwarded an wiginal and
four (4) copies of the Consolidated Ammal Contributions i ons Contract ( ACC )
which has been amended to include both the Certificate and Vaucher pxogr-�.
The documentation required by HW for .their final approval and execution of
the c13ntracts is submitted for consideration and approval of the Board of
County ['rani_—moi oneL'3.
(1) Original and fair (4) copies of ACC FL -132 including di ng Eelibits A
and B. Original signatures are required an all copies of the
Contract and no change in its fa at is permitted.
(2) Fbnn HUD -50671, Certification for Contracts, Grants, Ioans and
Cooperative Agreellrts .
(3) Standard Fbnn (SF) -LLL, Disclosure of Iobbying Activities. _
We respectfully request the County cmmission to authorize its Charman to
execute these Contracts and fonts fon- tranam ttal to the :lacksanville Office
of HID.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans &
Cooperative Agreement, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
BOOK 94 PAUL 755
APRIL, 41 1995 7
L - -A
Boa 94 uu 756
F. CLSI/GEAC Automation Contract/Library Services
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24, 1995:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER; COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT O�
GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CLSI/GEAC AUTOMATION CONTRACT DATE: 3-24-95�(�
FROM:' MARY D. POWELL, LIBRARY SERVICES DIRECTO kv
BACKGROUND:
The Board of County Commissioners approved the library
system automation upgrade. Attached are four copies of the
additions to the original contract of November 21, 1989.
This is a "sole source" purchase.
ANALYSIS:
The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners'
signature is required on all four contracts to expedite
the shipment and installation of the equipment.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff respectfully requests that the Board authorize its
Chairman to sign the contracts and return to the Library
Services Director for appropriate distribution.
Commissioner Adams wanted to verify that all of the equipment
is going to the central site and the "remote" site, which she
wanted to verify is computer language for the North County site.
Director Dean advised that the monies are $200,000 for the
main frame, the system with the inventory and catalogue, which will
be on-line constantly with the North County site. The remote site
language simply refers to a site away from the main frame. The PCs
are being bid and the bid will be brought back to the Board on the
actual equipment for the North County site.
Commissioner Adams also questioned whether the training will
be for the central location only, and Director Dean responded that
there will be some from each location, as well as 2 people who will
work between both the North and South County sites.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Amendment
to the Agreement for the Sale of Data Processing and
the License of Software and GEAC Maintenance
Agreement, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
APRIL 49 1995 8
G. Bid #5043/Riding Lawn Mower/ hilities Department
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 28, 1995:
DATE: March 28, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director RB
Department of General Servi s
ff
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Award Bid #5043/Riding Lawn Mower
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: February 1, 1995
Advertising Dates: January 18, 25, 1995
Specifications Mailed to: Nineteen (19) Vendors
Replies: Seven (7)
Statement of "No Bid" Six (6)
BID TABULATION
Pippin Tractor
Ft. Pierce, F1
Robinson Equipment
Mims, F1
Live Oak Lawn Supply
Sarasota, Fl
Vero Lawn Mower
Vero Beach, F1
KT Mower & Equipment
Ft. Pierce, Fl
Commerce Mower Center
Vero Beach, F1
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
UNIT PRICE ALTERNATE BID
$4,975.00
$4,990.00
$5,439.20
$6,374.93
$7,345.00
$8,094.00
$4,975.00
$6,224.93
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Other Machinery & Equipment
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
$7,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Pippin Tractor
as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder
meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to
Bid. -
Commissioner Adams questioned whether the County is already.
using Gravely riding lawn mowers or if this is a different type,
and Director Dean replied that this one will beused in Hobart Park
and was the low bid on the bid list.
APRIL 49 1995 9
BOOK 9 4 PttiGE 7z")-8
Commissioner Adams inquired again if the Gravely was one we
are already using, and Director Dean responded in the affirmative.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #5043 to Pippin Tractor in the amount of $4,975,
as recommended by staff.
BID #5043 WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
H. Traffic Control Device Ledger
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 27, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Christopher R. Mora, P.E.
County Traffic Engineer
GYV--
SU13JECT: Traffic Control Device Ledger
DATE: March 27, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Public Works Director is to provide a Traffic Control Device
Ledger update for ratification by the Board of Commissions as
specified by Section 312.18 of Indian River County Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS & FUNDING
It is recommended that this ledger update be approved. There is no
funding impact generated by this action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-53 approving traffic control devices
authorized by the Director of Public Works, pursuant
to recommendations by staff.
APRIL 49 1995 10
_ RESOLUTION NO. 95-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has directed the
director of public works to maintain a ledger reflecting the
traffic control devices in the unincorporated area ( Section 312.18,
Indian River County Code); and
WHEREAS, the code requires this ledger to be presented to the
Board of County,Commissioners for approval; and
WHEREAS, the ledger has been presented and is attached as
Exhibit "A" to this Resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
The Board of County Commissioners hereby accepts and approves
the traffic control device ledger which is Exhibit "A" to this
resolution.
The resolution was moved to 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 Adams Aye
Commissioner. Richard Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 4 day of April , 1995.
Attest:
J frey K. Ba on, Clerk
APRIL 49 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4nBeth R. Macht
Chairman
11
Boa 759
GOOK 9 Fa . I�q FFd
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit a A"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC'WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER -MARCH 1995
APRIL 49 1995 12
TRAFFIC SIGNALS MAINTAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LOCATION
#
LOCATION
I
HIGHLANDS / US
43
SR 60 20 ST / 14 AVE
2
OSLO / US 1
44
19 PL / 20 AVE
3
OSLO / OLD DIXIE
45
SR 60 / 20 AVE
4
OSLO / 20 AVE
46
SR 60 / 43 AVE
5
OSLO/27 AVE
47
SR 60/58 AVE
6
4 ST / USI
48
SR60 / 82 AVE
7
4 ST / OLD DIXIE
49
SR 60 / 90 AVE
8
4 ST / 27 AVE
501
21 ST / IR BLVD
9
8ST/USI
51
21ST/14 AVE
10
8 ST / OLD DIXIE
52
23 ST / USI
11
8ST/6AVE
53
23 ST/14 AVE
12
8ST/20 AVE
54
26 ST/USI
13
8 ST / 27 AVE
55
26 ST / ST LUCIE
14
8ST/43 AVE
56
26 ST/43 AVE
15
12 ST / IR BLVD
57
37 ST / USI
16
12 ST / USI
581
37 ST / IR BLVD
17
12 ST / COMMERCE
59
37 ST / 10 CT
18
12 ST / OLD DIXIE
60
41 ST / 43 AVE
19
12 ST/6AVE
61
45 ST/USI
20
12 ST / 20 AVE
621
45 ST / 43 AVE
21
12 ST 27 AVE
63
510 USI
22
12 ST 43 AVE
64
510/512
23
15 PL/USI
65
512/USI
24
16 ST / OLD DIXIE
661
512 / BARBER
25
16 ST / 14 AVE
67
512 / FLEMING ST
26
16 ST / 17 AVE
68
OLD DIXIE / USI
27
16 ST / 20 AVE
69
ROSELAND / USI
28
16 ST / 27 AVE
701
ROYAL PALM BLVD / IR BLVD
29
16 ST / 43 AVE
711
SEBASTIAN HIGH SCHOOL
30
17 ST / IR BLVD
72
USI / 11 AVE
31
17 ST / USI
73
MAIN / USI, SEBASTIAN
32
17 ST'/ 6 AVE
74
SCHUMANN / USI, SEBASTIAN
33
ITST / 10 AVE
75
JACKSON -ST / US 1, SEBASTIAN
34
IR BLVD / BRIDGE
75
SUB -TOTAL
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
SR 60 WB 20PL / COMMERCE'
SR 60 EB 20 ST / COMMERCE
SR 60 EB 20 ST / USI
SR60 / IR BLVD
SR 6020 ST/6AVE
SR60 WB 20PL / USI
SR 60 20 PL / 11 AVE
SR60 19 PL / 14 AV
APRIL 49 1995 12
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit " AN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY •
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER -MARCH 1995
TRAFFIC SIGNALS UNDER DESIGN
OR CONSTRUCTION
:::LOCATION
TYPE
1 510 AIA
2 512 / ROSELAND
3 53ST / USI
4 CR51G / 66 AVE
5 CR512 / DELAWARE
6 CR512 / EASY ST
6 SUB -TOTAL
81 ITOTAL OF ALL SIGNALS
FLASHING BEACONS MAINTAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LOCATION
TYPE
1
HIGHLANDS/ OLD DIXIE
4 WAY RED BEACON
2
HIGHLAND / 6 AVE SW
STANDARD BEACON
3
OSLO / 43 AVE
4 WAY RED BEACON
4
OSLO / 58 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
5
OSLO / 74 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
6
OSLO / 82 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
7
41 ST / 58 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
8
41 ST / 66 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
9
45 ST / OLD DIXIE
STANDARD BEACON
10
45 ST / 58 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
11
87 ST / USI
STANDARD BEACON
12
510 / OLD DIXIE
STANDARD BEACON
13
510 / 58•AVE
I WAY RED BEACON
14
510 164 AVE
STANDARD BEACON
15
510 / CURVE
WARNING BEACON
16
512/507
STANDARD BEACON
17
512 / CYPRESS
STANDARD BEACON
ST. EDWARDS / AIA
STANDARD BEACON
118
19
MIRACLE MILE/USI CURVE
WARNING BEACON
2D
S CAROLINA /'CR507
1 WAY RED
94 mu 76
APRIL 49 1995 13
BOOK 94 PAGE 762
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit s An
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER -MARCH 1995
SCHOOL BEACONS MAINTAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
:> LOCATION
21 CITRUS / 4ST
22 CITRUS / 27A V
23 MIDDLE 7
24 SEBASTIAN MIDDLE
25 DODGER TOWN
26 SEBASTIAN
271 ROSEWOOD
28 OSCEOLA
29 VERO BEACH
30 FELISMERE
31 THOMPSON
321 GLENDALE
33 HIGHLANDS
33 SUB -TOTAL
114 GRAND TOTAL OF ALL ELECTRIC
DEVICES
APRM 49 1995 14
s �
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit 'An
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER—SPEED LIMIT ZONES
MARCH 1995
BOOK 9 4 ; PA,, L 7 63
APRIL 49 1995 15
SPEED
ROADWAY
FROM
To
LIMIT
OSLO
INDIAN RIVER
us I
35
OSLO
us I
58TH AVE.1
. . . . . . .
45
OSLO
59TH AVE
82ND AVE
55
OSLO
82ND AVE
WEST
35
STH ST SW
43 AVE
27TH AVE
30
IST ST SW
43 AVE
27TH AVE
35
2 ST
20TH AVE
OLD DIXIE
30
4TH ST
us. I
43RD AVE
35
4TH ST
43RD AVE
58TH AVE
45
4TH ST
58TH AVE
74TH AVE
35
STH ST
IR BLVD
OLD DIXIE
30
8TH ST
OLD DIXIE
27TH AVE
40
8TH ST
27TH AVE
90TH AVE
45
12TH ST
IR BLVD
6TH AVE
30
12TH ST
6TH AVE
usl
30
12TH ST
usl
OLD DIXIE'
30
12TH ST
OLD DIXIE
20TH AVE
35
12TH ST
20TH AVE
43RD AVE
35
12TH ST
43RD AVE
59TH AVE
40
12TH ST
59TH AVE
66TH AVE
35
IffH ST
IR BLVD
usl
45
16TH ST
us]
20TH AVE
30
16TH ST
20TH AVE
..
5 8TH AVE
30
26TH ST
43RD AVE
59TH AVE
35
26TH ST
58TH AVE
66TH AVE:
............
30
33RD ST
58TH AVE
66TH AVE
40
41ST ST
usl
66TH AVE
35
45TH ST
usl
43RD AVE
35
45TH ST
43RD AVE
...66TH
AVE
45
49TH ST
usl
33RD AVE
30
49TH ST
33RD AVE
58TH AVE
45
65TH ST
usl
OLD DIXIE
40
65TH ST
OLD DIXIE
66TH AVE
45
69TH ST
INDIAN RIVER
OLD DIXIE
35
69TH ST
OLD DIXIE
92ND AVE
45
BOOK 9 4 ; PA,, L 7 63
APRIL 49 1995 15
BOOK 94 F'Afuc 764
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit "A"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER -SPEED LIMIT ZONES
MARCH 1995
M SPEED
ROADWAY FROM TO LIMIT
73RD ST
»
US
CEMETERY RD.
35
77TH ST
usl
74TH AVE
45
CR510
SRA IA
US
40
CR510
usl
58TH AVE
40
CR510
58TH AVE
66TH AVE
35
CR510
66TH AVE
500'E of 90TH AVE
..
55
CR510
66TH AVE
500'E of 90TH AVE
TRUCKS 45
CR510
500'E of 90TH AVE
.....
CR512
.....
45
CR512
SR60
W FELL CTY LMT
55
CR512
SR60
W FELL CTY LMT
TRUCKS 45
CR512
W FELL CTY LMT
E FELL CTY LMT
...
30
CR512
E FELL CTY LMT
195
55
CR512
195
SEB RIVER
TRUCKS 45
CR512
195
SEB RIVER
55
CR512
SEB RIVERLOUISIANA
......
49TH ST
.....
35
CR512
LOUISIANA
INDIAN RIVER
35
ROSELAND RD
IR DRIVE
US. 1
30
ROSELAND RD
USI
125TH PL
35
ROSELAND RD
125TH PL
CR 512
45
37TH ST
»
IR BLVD
usl
35
IR BLVD
53RD ST
US
45
6TH AVE
ust
21ST ST
30
IR DRIVE
N US[
S US
30
OLD DIXIE
N USI
500'N OF 45TH ST
45
OLD DIXIE
500'N OF 45TH ST
S usl
..
35
OLD DIXIE
20TH ST
SEMINOLE
30
OLD DOM
SEMINOLE
S COUNTY LINE
35
20TH AVE
17TH ST SW
OSLO RD.
30
20TH AVE
OSLO RD
IST ST SW
45
20TH AVE
IST ST SW
20TH ST
35
43RD AVE
S COUNTY LINE
13TH ST
45
43RD AVE
13TH ST
2700 BLOCK
35
43RD AVE
2700 BLOCK
4000 BLOCK
45
43RD AVE
4000 BLOCK
49TH ST
35
58TH AVE
S COUNTY LINE
ATLANTIC BLVD
45
APRIL 49 1995 16
771
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit 'An
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER—SPEED LIMIT ZONES
MARCH 1995
BOOK 94 70"J"
"RM 49 1995 17
SPEED
ROADWAY
FROM
TO
LIMIT
58TH AVE
ATLANTIC BLVD.
26TH ST
35
59TH AVE
26TH ST
45TH ST
45
58TH AVE
45TH ST
200'S 75TH ST
55
59TH AVE.
. . . .
200'S 75TH ST
200'S 81ST ST
45
58TH AVE
200'S 81ST ST
CR510
35
66TH AVE
SR 60
26TH ST
35
66TH AVE
26TH ST
45TH ST
45
66TH AVE
45TH ST
77TH ST
55
66TH AVE
45TH ST
77TH ST
TRUCKS 45
66TH AVE
77TH ST
SEB CITY LIMIT
45
CR507
CR512
SOUTH CAROLINA
30
CR507
SOUTH CAROLINA
N COUNTY LINE
55
CR507
SOUTH CAROLINA
N COUNTY LINE
TRUCKS 45
BOOK 94 70"J"
"RM 49 1995 17
BOOK 9 4 PaCC 766
RESOLUTION 95-53
Exhibit "A"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE LEDGER- SCHOOL SPEED ZONES
MARCH 1995
NOTE: SCHOOL SPEED ZONES ARE APPROXIMATE SCHOOL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
ALL SCHOOL SPEED LIMITS ARE 20 MPH
SCHOOL
LOCATION
DAYS
EFFECTIVE
AM PM
HOURS HOURS
ELEMENTARY
BEACHLAND
SR 60 BEACHLAND BLVD
N/A
CTI'RUS
4TH STREET
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
27TH AVE
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
DODGERTOWN
43RD AVE
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
FELLSMERE
CR512
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
GLENDALE
8TH STREET*
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
HIGHLAND
6TH AVE SW
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
J A THOMPSON
18TH AVE SW
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
OSCEOLA MAGNET
6TH AVE
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
PELICAN ISLAND
SCHUMANN DRIVE
N/A
ROSEWOOD
16TH STREET
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
SEBASTIAN
CR512
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
VERO BEACH
12TH STREET
*
7:45-9:00
2:35-3:35
MIDDLE
GIFFORD MIDDLE SIX
45TH STREET
*
7:25-8:25
2:30-3:15
GIFFORD MIDDLE SEVEN
45TH STREET
*
7:25-8:25
2:30-3:15
SEBASTIAN RIVER MIDDLE
CR512
+
6:55-7:55
1:35-2:35
HIGH SCHOOL
VERO BEACH HIGH SCHOOL
16TH STREET
N/A
VERO BEACH JUNIOR HIGH
19TH STREET
N/A
WABASSO SCHOOL
US 1
N/A
SEBASTIAN RIVER
CR510
* STANDARD SCHOOL SCHEDULE AS NOTED ONATTACHED SHEET
N/A NO SCHOOL SPEED LIMITS
+ ENTRANCE WARNING BEACON
APRIL 49 1995 i8
I. Proclamation/National Blue Ribbon Week
The Board reviewed the following Proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect is a serious and growing problem
affecting more than three million of our nation's children
annually and of children locally; and
WHEREAS, the social malignancy called child abuse and neglect
respects no racial, religious, class, or geographical
boundaries and, in fact, has been declared a national
emergency; and
WHEREAS, there is an evident need to increase public awareness of
the problem of child abuse; and to address this issue, the
Exchange Club of Vero Beach is distributing Blue Ribbon pins
to the general public as a symbol to remind us all that child
abuse is a tragedy which..affects each and everyone of us; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Exchange Club of Vero Beach have made a
commitment- to make Vero Beach/Indian River County a better
place to live for all of us through their focus on preventing
child abuse:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
April 2-8, 1995 be observed as
NATIONAL BLUE RIBBON WEER
in Indian River County to kick-off the month of April,
National Child Abuse Prevention Month. The Board urges all
citizens of this great county to support the efforts of
the Exchange Club of Vero Beach and itR fight against
child abuse. -
Adopted .ki.gA4_day of April, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN IVER• COUNTY, FLORIDA
Kenneth Macht, Chai n
BOOK 94 77
APRIL 49 1995 19
BOOK 9-4 mu'L768
Toni Gibson, President of the Exchange Club of Vero Beach,
noted that April is Prevent Child Abuse month. As prevention of
child abuse is one of the Exchange Club's main thrusts, she asked
everyone to wear a blue ribbon in recognition of prevention of
child abuse and presented blue ribbons to each of the
Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the week of April 2 - 8, 1995 as National Blue
Ribbon Week.
T. FPJAA Seminar/Alice White
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 31, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Alice E. White, Executive Aide
DATE: March 31, 1995
SUBJECT: FRMA Seminar, June 1-2, 1995
I would like to attend the attached seminar in St. Petersburg
Beach. There will be a great deal of discussion regarding
electronic imaging, which seems to be what the future holds for
handling of records.
Inasmuch as I am a member of the Florida Records Management
Association, the registration fee will only be $50.00.
I respectfully request permission to attend the above seminar.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Executive Aide Alice White
to attend the Florida Records Management Association
Seminar to be held at St. Petersburg Beach, Florida,
on June 1-2, 1995.
APRIL, 4, 1995 20
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT/PERMIT AND
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a letter of March 23, 1995:
LAW OFFICER OF
O'HAIRE, QUINN. CANDLER & 014AIRE
MICHAEL O'MAIRE
JEROME O. Ou1NN
RICHARD 6. CANDLER
SEAN OP 8.
March 23, 1995
Ms. Margaret Gunter
Administrator's Office
Indian River County
1890 25th Street'
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Ms. Gunter:
3111 CARDINAL DRIVE
VERO BEACH. tLORIDA 32063
P. O. BOX 4375
VERO BEACH, PLORIDA 32064
(407) 831.6900
rACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS:
(407)231-0720
�lq p 1995
w
ADAIO��tpsS
�s
This is to request that I be placed on the agenda for the County Commission
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 28th, for purposes of addressing the
Commission regarding the Indian River Farms Water Control District's Permit and
Interlocal Agreements with the County for location of various utilities by the County
In District right-of-way.
Sin rely,
MICHA O'HAIRE
MOH /pkm
cc Indian River Farms Water Control District
Michael 0' Haire, attorney for Indian River Farms Water Control
District, advised that he is appearing at the request of the Board
of Supervisors of the Indian River Farms Water Control District.
His objective is to clear the air and, hopefully, mend some fences.
About a month ago the matter of the use of the District's right-of-
way for placement of fiber optic cable along the main canal running
from the jail to the new courthouse came before the Board and he
believed some erroneous information was given to the Board and that
information needs to be supplemented. The two Boards have gotten
along very well in the past and he feels it is incumbent on us to
try to clear up any misunderstandings. He thought the primary
issue was that the Board felt blindsided by the District's charges
for use of the right-of-way when utilities or other facilities are
located in the right-of-way, and he wanted the Board to understand
that the charge is nothing new. When the contractor requested
Som X94 w,A_ 769
APRIL 49 1995 21
BOOK 94 PA. LL 7 0
permission to locate the fiber optic cable in the District's right-
of-way, he was informed there would be a charge, just as the City
of Vero Beach is also charged. Apparently, the contractor did not
bring the charge to the County's attention. The second issue is
use of the District's right-of-way for location of capital
structures. These permits are on an annual, renewable basis, with
probably thousands of permits in hundreds of miles of right-of-way.
Most of the lands used to be agricultural but are now becoming
urbanized and the demand has increased so that the District is
under constant pressure. The District drains 50,000 acres of land
into the lagoon and is under pressure to retain more and more
water. It is likely that the District's canals and ditches will
have to be deepened and widened to increase the holding capacity to
impound the water before being discharged, which creates a very
real possibility that all utilities belonging to everyone will have
to be relocated. This is the basic explanation for why the permits
are terminable and renewable every year. Mr. O'Haire understood
the reluctance to place capital improvements in such a temporary
area; however, the Board should look at the cost of acquiring a
right-of-way to locate the utilities and then weigh that against
the risk of having to relocate. The charge is not a profit for the
District and amounts to only $27,000-28,000 in a 7 -figure budget.
Mr. O'Haire then introduced David Gunter, president of the Board of
Supervisors of IRFWCD, and advised that they are both here to
answer any questions the Board might have.
Commissioner Eggert explained that the fee had been perceived
as a maintenance charge rather than an annual usage fee, and Mr.
O'Haire responded that, in the case of overhead power lines, there
are maintenance charges.
Commissioner Adams believed the problem came about because the
contractor had not disclosed the fee to the County at the time of
the contract. She felt the District should have wanted the County
to assume some responsibility for fees and put it in writing at the
time of the original agreement.
Mr. O'Haire felt that the person applying for the permit is
told what the conditions are and if that person neglects to inform
the other party to the agreement, that would not be the fault of
the District.
David Gunter, chairman of the Board of Supervisors of IRFWCD,
advised the Board that the permit had been signed by General
APRIL, 49 1995 22
-Services Director Sonny Dean. He also advised there is a clause
which says the lease charge starts on January 1 after the year of
completion of the project.
Commissioner Adams inquired if the lease is paid in arrears,
and Mr. Gunter responded that it is payable in advance but there
are no charges for the year during construction. The District
accepted responsibility for the misunderstanding in that they had
previously dealt with the Utilities Department who realized that
this fee is associated with all in-line utilities, and they had
assumed that the General Services Department was also aware of the
charges.
Commissioner Adams then asked if the clause at the bottom of
the application which says: 'permission, when granted, will be
subject to the standard proviso set forth on the reverse hereof'
was the clause Mr. Gunter was referring to. Commissioner Adams
felt that the County would be better off to have the line on its
own right-of-way rather than pay $50,000 to relocate it. She
believed that a meeting with the District Board might improve the
working relationship as she felt there was not much productive
communication between the two Boards.
Mr. Gunter explained that the District Board simply wants to
reserve the right legally to get the County to move its utilities
on their rights-of-way if the regulatory agencies force them to do
something. They must have a legal vehicle such as the lease in
case next year they have to ask the utility to move.
Chairman Macht felt that it is very difficult for the County
to live with 30 days' notice as the optic cable carries the 19th
Judicial District court proceedings. He was not sure 30 days would
give the County time to make an alternative plan.
Mr. Gunter explained that most of the District's problems are
utility related. The District bids out utility mowing and if there
are buried utilities or power lines, they mow 4 times a year. The
District requires the utility to clear and level the right-of-way
and they want it to stay clear and level as it costs more to clear
if it is allowed to grow up. The mowing and maintenance fees, plus
internal administration and legal costs for the District, are
covered by the fees and the fees are annual only because the
District does not want to end up in court caught between the
regulatory agencies and the -utility agency.
BOOK 94 f'Au ��A
APRIL 49 1995 23
BOOK 94 F,tL, 772
Chairman Macht inquired what the County's position would be if
it came to something like eminent domain, and Attorney Vitunac
responded that when two public bodies, each with eminent domain,
are in a dispute, they balance the public interest and the body
with the higher public value would get the right to use the land.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if the District has any long
range plan that would give the County an idea of what to expect,
and Mr. Gunter replied the District just doesn't know. The
District is in the process of going through a consumptive use
permit with St. Johns River Water Management District right now and
was asked at a planning meeting about the possibility of increasing
storage.
Commissioner Tippin expressed his feeling that we need more
cooperation between government boards and advised that he had
learned a lot after the last meeting. He felt that both Boards
need to instruct all applicable staff to communicate more and be
sure all the facts are in so that the Boards can work closely
together and not have these misunderstandings.
Commissioner Bird felt that the Boards have had good
relationships over the years and advised that the County's
department heads feel the arrangement with the District is very
advantageous and cost effective even if there is a risk we would
have to relocate the cable. He pointed out that we run the same
risk by putting in our own right-of-way; as long as the charges are
fair, reasonable, and consistent, it is a savings to the County to
retain the agreement and pay our fair share.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
Permit and Interlocal Agreement with Indian River
Farms Water Control District, changing the 30 day
notice provision to 120 days.
Under discussion, Mr. Gunter reiterated that the District is
not going to ask the County to move the cable unless the District
is forced to do so by someone else. He reminded the Board that
the County has all of Kings Highway on a District right-of-way from
the main canal bridge just south of Oslo, pavement and all. The
District's right-of-way runs'20 feet west of the center line and
they do not charge the County for that. They are now running into -
a problem as the DoT is widening the road and wants to put up
APRIL 49 1995 24
guardrails. That is an example which justifies a lease. They are
not trying to be hard to get along with, just attempting to
maintain the integrity of the District.
MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
Permit and Interlocal Agreement with Indian River
Farms Water Control District as is and authorize the
Chairman to execute same.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams felt that it would
behoove the County to move the cable and put it on a County right-
of-way. She believed that the $50,000 charge to move the cable to
a City right-of-way with no lease involved would be a better deal
for the taxpayer and stated that she could not support the
agreement under these conditions.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner
Adams dissenting).
AGREEMENT WILL BE ON FILE IN'THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NEW HOPE NIINISTRIES INC./SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE
APPROVAL FOR PLACE OF WORSHIP AND PRIVATE SCHOOL
The hour of 9:05 A.M. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows: VERO WADI PRESS40MMAL
Psbflsl»r setly
Neel •'►
A-1
as
R3-3 7 , ae-sl
em
e
mamor COUNT
111b1 � RardrOO 11 1
APRIL 49 1995
VW0 Med. Iwdlew over cmmfy. /lerme
MM' V OF MIOIAN MVM WATE CW FUMMA
"11111, ow
eVM 111111 Ub11 11raMlaw M — Pffou" eye Meeh Presa• ad J. J. l4ehewmnn, Jr. w.be on ealh
r VMO •ea6b 111111d1w IMgr '��• • �' ^ei"'°� puhpahad
CeerN►. pbrMa; IMaI Mu MiaWred eeplr eI adre►Ihlenlenl, b11hq
E
IeNwrlWlerel-�'I//�d�"r_Et�L�g�
M N111 Court, waa pt&
owl
AMW hp111M Mlra IM! NIe "M Vele Bear,1Mr ac Jourrul M a nr!wapeper p�dlttahed N
• 1t1s Se11eh, M111Nd t/dt11r1 alr11r Ceenlp, fhpMa• amt IMI thlr aeM newq gar ha+ 1~01ere
e
111s11 �111,IeeMey p0b8111111d M MrM "Ib m 9119" CnnM►, 1 Irnlde. each &HY and has hese
eIM11/11d MI MkOnd gibes 11W1 wr11thn H the peal 011,:01 M Vero O01ach. In aaM Inman MM Crr w
ly ibllda lel M par,111 d 0111 YMa neat Pref edhq the Ihal IK'" Tanen Of IM alhwhnd Cony e1
Mrd aI11aM 111►IM► ep11 "M he has negher pMd ler Menaced ow pmol, lien
N 11elperall0e 1111' dlc11ee11, Mwe. OP"PONaalon or re,1HrM ler the pmpone el cnturinp lhla
j,,{,,� .101 pebik111111e hl l!a MNd lwr"HRM I
AedbiE116sd law Iw11 pd11—r/� V. d" el Ji��A.
r' � r�� is . t (•
IaIb_'..MrI.... 1, .,•i6uauMa!
nide d 14M...1y..-....
•I�����..r•� - 1La..r NJrbM ��C1 �i,:.�.. �l� �6 73
25 .�.,�r
BOOK 94 PAGE 7 7 4
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 22, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONC ENCE:
'11Obert Kea i , A
Community Devel mere irector
146
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP DATE: March 22, 1995
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP•:fotk\
Senior Planner, Current Development
SUBJECT: New Hope Ministries, Inc. 's Request for Special Exception
Use Approval for a Place of Worship and Private School
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 4, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Mosby & Associates, Inc. has submitted applications for major site
plan and special exception use approval on behalf of New Hope
Ministries, Inc. for a place of worship and private school. The
applicant submitted separate special exception use applications:
one for the place of worship and one for the private school.
Although the Planning and Zoning Commission considered these
requests separately, the applicant is requesting that the Board of
County Commissioners consider both special exception use requests
jointly, and approve both uses at one time.
The subject property is located on the south side of Cemetery Road
approximately 1,800 feet west of Old Dixie Highway, and is zoned
RS -6. The RS -6 zoning district requires special exception approval
for a place of worship and for a private school. On the subject
property there is an existing single family residential structure
which has been converted from a house to a place of worship. The
applicant has indicated that this occurred without county approvals
within the last five years. The school was established more
recently without county approval. The school serves approximately-
35
pproximately35 students in grades 1-12. According to the applicant, the
students will be drawn from the local area.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested
uses based on the submitted site plan and suitability of the site
for those uses. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or
deny the special exception uses. The county may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to
ensure compatibility of the uses with the surrounding area.
The Planning and Zoning Commission separately considered the
special exception use requests for the place of worship and for the
private school. At its January 26, 1995 meeting, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board
conditionally approve the place of worship request. At its March
9, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted -7-0 to
APRIL 49 1995 26
l
recommend that the Board approve the private school. Subject to
the Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception
uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the major site
plan for the place of worship, and staff approved the
administrative approval site plan for the private school. If the
Board of County Commissioners approves the special exception use
requests, the site plans will become effective.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Property: 107,205 sq. ft. or 2.46 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Residential Single Family
District (up to 6 units per acre)
3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per
acre)
4. Building Area:
5,658
sq.
ft.
Proposed Phase I:
Existing:
2,552
sq.
ft.
(school)
Proposed Phase I:
4,800
sq.
ft.
(church)
Proposed Phase II:
3,900
sq.
ft.
(church)
Total:
11,252
sq.
ft.
5. Impervious Surfaces:
Existing:
5,658
sq.
ft.
Proposed Phase I:
25,324
sq.
ft.
Proposed Phase II:
7,402
sq.
ft.
Total:
38,384
sq.
ft.
Note: There is a portion of the site which will be
constructed as stabilized parking. This area has not been
counted as impervious area, but cannot be credited toward open
space.
6. Open Space: Required: 40.00%
Provided (at build -out): 49.29%
7. Phasing: The, first phase will include part of a new
sanctuary, the school facility, approximately half of the
parking improvements, and the landscaping and drainage
improvements necessary to service these improvements. Phase
I site improvements will serve both the church and school
improvements. Phase II will consist of a sanctuary expansion,
the remainder of the parking, and related site improvements.
-
A pavilion may be built in either phase.
8. Parking for Church:
Phase I Required: 50 spaces
Phase I Provided: 55 spaces
Phase II Required: 100 spaces (total build -out)
Phase II Provided: 100 spaces (total build -out)
BOOK .F'rti.,;�
-75
APRIL 49 1995 27
Boa 94 1 tL 776
9. Parking for Private School:
Required: 7 spaces (paved)
Provided: -10 spaces (paved)
Note: The school will share with the church the parking
spaces provided with Phase I construction of the church. The
traffic engineer has approved the shared parking proposal.
Since the school is used on a regular basis, the seven spaces
must be paved.
10. Traffic Circulation: Presently, a dirt driveway connecting to
71st Street (paved) serves the converted single family
residential structure. The applicant is proposing 2 two-way
driveways; one at the east end and the other at the west end
of the property. The public works director has approved the
2 proposed driveway connections to 71st Street. The driveways
will form a two-way loop system through the proposed parking
lot. All of the driving aisles,- 6 standard spaces and 4
handicap spaces, will be paved. These paved spaces will
satisfy the county's parking requirements for the school. The
remainder of the parking spaces in Phases I and II will be
stabilized grass, as app"roved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the church site plan.
11. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department and a Type "A"
permit must be obtained by the appiicant.
12. Landscaping Plan: The landscape plan meets all Chapter 926
requirements, but does not meet a certain buffer requirement,
as described below.
The specific land use criteria for schools and places of
worship require that a Type "C" buffer be provided along the
east, south, and west boundaries of the site, which is where
the site abuts residentially designated property. The
submitted site plan shows the required Type "C" buffer along
only the east site boundary.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the buffer requirement
along the site's south and west boundaries, where the site
borders the cemetery owned by the Winter Beach Cemetery
Association. It is the applicant's position that a cemetery
does not need to be buffered from a private school or a place
of worship. The current LDRs, however, do not allow such a
waiver and do not exclude buffer requirements where adjacent
cemeteries are involved.
In staff's opinion, the basis of the applicant's request has
some merit, and staff is drafting an LDR amendment which would
not require a buffer between cemeteries and places of worship
or schools. It is staff's position, however, that the buffet
must be required under the present LDRs, and that, in the
event of an LDR change favorable to the applicant, the site
plan can be modified at a later date. Therefore, a condition
needs to be attached to any site plan approval stating that,
prior to site plan release, the site plan be revised to show
the currently required buffer and that approved plans and
buffer improvements may be modified in the future if the
buffer requirements are changed.
13. Utilities: The project will be serviced by an on site well
and septic tank system. These utility provisions have been
APRIL 49 1995 28
approved by the Department of
Environmental Health.
Utility Services and
14. Environmental Issues: The environmental planning section has
indicated that there are no substantive environmental issues.
15. Dedications and Improvements: Since there is only 50' of
right-of-way for 71st Street, the county's LDRs require the
applicant to dedicate 5' of property for 71st Street right-of-
way (or easement) to satisfy the 60' local road minimum
standard. The public works department has indicated that
either a 5' dedication of additional right-of-way or the
granting of a 5' drainage and utilities easement would be
acceptable. The applicant has agreed to grant a 5' wide
easement. The easement will need to be granted prior to site
plan release.
16. Specific Land Use Criteria: The following land use criteria
apply to schools and places of worship: ,
Places of Worship
a. No building or structure shall be located closer than
thirty (30) feet to any property line abutting a
residential use or residentially designated property;
b. Access shall be from a major thoroughfare unless
otherwise approved by the public works department;
C. Any accessory residential use, day care facility or
school upon the premises shall provide such additional
lot area as required for such use by this section and
shall further be subject to all conditions set forth by
the reviewing procedures and standards for that
particular use. Accessory residential uses may include
covenants, monasteries, rectories or parsonages as
required by these regulations;
d. Type "C" screening shall be provided along all property
boundaries where the facility is located adjacent to a
single-family residentially designated property. Type
"D" screening shall be provided along all property
boundaries when the facility is located adjacent to a
multiple -family residentially designated property.
Schools
e. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near
thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local
residential streets in residential subdivisions.
Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating
adjacent to major arterial roadways; _
f. For the type of facility proposed, the minimum spatial
requirements for the site shall be similar to standards
utilized by the Indian River County school board and the
State.of Florida;
g. No main or accessory building shall be located within one
hundred (100) feet of any property line not adjacent to
a street or roadway. No main or accessory building
shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any property
line abutting a local road right-of-way that serves a
single-family area;
Boa 94 rt, 777
APRIL 49 1995 29
POOK 9[A;C 778.
h. The applicant shall submit a description of anticipated
service area and projected enrollment, by stages if
appropriate, and relate the same to a development plan
explaining:
1. Area to be developed by construction phase;
2._ Adequacy of site to accommodate anticipated
facilities, enrollment, recreation area, off-street
parking, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation
on-site including loading, unloading and queuing of
school bus traffic;
i. No rooms within the school shall be regularly used for
the housing of students when located in a single-family
residential district;
J. The facilities shall have a Type "C" buffer in the A-1,
A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3 and RS -6 districts;
k.The facilities shall have a Type "D" buffer in all other
residential districts not listed in subsection f above.
17. Concurrency: The applicant has obtained an initial
concurrency certificate for both phases which includes the
place of worship and the private school.
18. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
RECOMMENDATION:
Vacant, single
Cemetery/RS-6
Vacant/RS-6
Cemetery/RS-6
family home/RS-6, RM -6
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant the special exception use requests for
the place of worship and the school, with the following conditions:
1. That prior to site plan release:
a. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict the
Type "C" buffer along the south and west property lines.
In the future, the approved site plan and buffers may be
modified in accordance with any approved LDR buffer
modification.
b. The applicant must grant a 5' wide drainage and utility
easement along the project's 71st Street frontage.
Director Boling reviewed the project for the Board and advised
that the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval.
Commissioner Eggert commented that it has been her experience
that there is no problem with buffering between a church and a
cemetery, but there can be a problem with buffering between a
school and a cemetery with regard to protection of the cemetery -
rather than the school.
APRIL 49 1995 30
M M
171
Director Boling stated that is the type of issue staff is
addressing in the LDR amendments; such as options in lieu of
buffering, as different uses do have different types of
requirements. They would like to give some more flexibility in the
regulations.
Commissioner Bird inquired whether there was anyone from the
church at the meeting because he wanted to be sure they were aware
that the railroad crossing at 71st Street (Cemetery Road) might be
eliminated at some point in the future by Florida East Coast
Railway. 44th Court would remain as an access road, however.
Steve Cooper, of Mosby & Associates, the project engineer, was
not aware of the proposed closing.
Commissioner Adams inquired if the local neighbors had been
notified of the proposed uses and wanted to know if the school and
church were being used currently.
Director Boling responded that the church and the school are
presently operating out of the existing building but a new building
will be built for church use.
Commissioner Adams believed staff also needs to consider
buffers between compatible businesses, as cemeteries do lose
ownership or change. Commissioner Adams also inquired whether the
church and school have been ordered to cease and desist until the
permits have been taken care of.
Director Boling responded that code enforcement action
generally is to bring the entities into compliance and they are
usually allowed to proceed without code enforcement fines.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. -There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously granted
the special exception use requests for the place of
worship and the school with two conditions: 1)
prior to site plan release, the applicant revises
the site plan to depict the Type "C" buffer along
the south and west property lines; and 2) the
applicant grants a 5 foot wide drainage and utility
easement along the project's 71st Street frontage,
as recommended by.staff.
BOOK 94 PALUE 1
APRIL 49 1995 31
Boa 94 7SO
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP/REZONING REQUEST
The hour of 9:05 A.M. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
to
VERO NIACN MU -JOURNAL
Pubflsirwd De"V
Vers Rsselr. Miffs" Rlvw Couvelr..florlder
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Befers the omlarstpned authority personally appeared J. J. satnnnann, Jr. who an oath
gra pal he N ftabm" MORRISOr of the Vero Bench I+ress•Journai, a daily newspaper published
d Vero Baaeh On Indian Rhrer Cetmhr. Ftorldtt: pal pa shushed Copy of adve lisemart, bebop
In the matter of '
In the Cart, was ppb.
Nahed In said tow aper M Ila issues
01161W—OW—Win ja'pa y
Afilent further says that the said Vero Beach Press Journal M s mmwsps" published et
ir IsI! a ria timid of County CenMaslass W .
=04.Flo; lle h IM Canty
Yero Btaeh. M sold 1111118" Rim County, Napkin. and that the Said newspaper has heratolore
been
don ��Cetsoafy. Curcio-
thoCeusy Admibtrallon Ihdd•
eonftnuously puhltshsd In said Indian Riva CM"ly, Fhxlds. each dally and has been
entered
I4 buried st tm situ Bbed Ywe Beady, Ftr-
TMTJ .dAprl�sl� N 9OS s m
ens second etas mall matter of ere prat office in Vivo Beath, In sold Indian River Coun.
yr, F'lorldo, ler a period of one year nevi pecedrag the first puftntallon of the etlar:tnrd copy of
e11 a pwf*nl: Md slfiant farther says that ha has nelpar paid nw promised eery person. firm
wmom awiq Cow " amov
of eerpaspan say discount, rebels. cc 1Ssbn of rotund for the purpose of secuAT IMC
4lsaled pavlded e OR MM Its emw gwsd uss
to elf
aftwIlssnaM ter pubpptbn M Ohs said newspaper. �� �/% /�,a
l(�w&—D.
M � al to an,y
Brsero is sad spbscaibnd haloes me Ibis �� � L daof 19 4
;i •:. f 1 TT—�----
sue tbal a w,rtielltr issued d puemedrga b
std evtlenee upon
upped
$'`)"t
k'.7yi� • r' W %I .. ` .' r T A
wtiali h�
Aviles who rseds a special am ro dnbn le►
a� stS Irelel DO.et1 ft at" -a mviiewe
T4• . i+ : c nti•tut+:a r: ^rr+ .rv. n a (Busbtese Manager►
•, -e�,� S4Ae t/ 1 Y•.•.,, /!p 1,
MIA flbebilw Ad (ADA) Caadaslw N fR7•1000
�i
• J ' i 1�{ ' r
wdesbn 719 ai ' bsel N hoes Is adrwss d
nrastp
-.
• • A
:fkU-.
F ,r .
l,•
IV—
Mrtalil t MoftOiaaert tifl�S2
.. t x�`r::1� •� •' twr ,r.tur: "Ar.
•'•1.r ��M�H,••
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 17, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DgMTNENT HEAD CON URRENCE
Obert N. Keftrhp, A /J
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP +`
Chief, Long -Rance Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 17, 1995
RE: Indian Partnership Request to Rezone Approximately 13.3
Acres from A-1 to RM -8 (RZON 94-12-0109)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 4, 1995.
APRIL 49 1995 32
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 13.3 acres located on the
west side of 90th Avenue, south of 26th Street. The request
involves rezoning the subject property, owned by Indian
Partnership, from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre).
The purpose of the request is to secure the zoning necessary to
develop the subject property with multiple -family uses.
On February 9, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to RM -8.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of a ten acre northern parcel and a
3.3 acre southern parcel. Both parcels contain one vacant single-
family house. The southern parcel also contains a detached garage.
Although both buildings on the southern parcel appear to have been
legally established when they were built, they are currently
nonconforming since they encroach into the parcel's required side
yard under the A-1 zoning district.
The subject property and properties to the north, south, and west
consist of agriculturally zoned wooded areas. West of the subject
property is Paradise Park, Unit 3. That subdivision was platted
prior to the existence of zoning regulations in the county and has
never been developed. East of the subject property is the
partially developed Paradise Park, Unit 2 which is zoned RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all surrounding properties are designated
M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future.land use
map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities
up to 8 units/acre.
Environment
The subject property consists primarily of pine flatwoods that have
been invaded by several species of exotic/nuisance vegetation.
Based on a cursory review, the site does not appear to contain
Jurisdictional wetlands and is not in a flood hazard area.
Utilities and Services
Although the site is within the Urban Service Area of the county,
neither water nor wastewater lines extend to the site at this time.
Transportation System
The property abuts 90th Avenue which is classified as a collector
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of
90th Avenue is a two-lane unpaved road with approximately 65 feet
of public road right-of-way. There are no plans to expand this
segment of 90th Avenue.
OX
APRIL 49 1995 33
Boos 94 PAUU 782
AMALYS7S
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requestsp conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district.
The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as
follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Existing Zoning Classification:
3. Proposed Zoning Classification:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing
Zoning Classification:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed
Zoning Classification:
- Transportation
±13.3 acres
A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
RM -8, Multiple -Family
Residential' District (up
to 8 units/acre)
2 single-family units
106 single-family units.
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better on S.R. 60 would not be lowered. The site
information used for determining traffic is as follows:
APRIL 49 1995 34
s
Existing Zoning District
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Residential
2. For Single -Family Units:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
3. P.M. *Peak Direction of S.R. 60, from I-95 to 82nd Avenue:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(2 X 1.01 X .65 X .60 = 1) -
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(2 X 10.1 = 20)
Proposed Zoning District
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Residential
2. For Single -Family Units:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
c. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. ' Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 40%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 60%
3. P.M. Peak Direction of S.R. 60, from I-95 to 82nd Avenue:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(106 X 1.01 X .65 X .60 = 42)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(106 X-10.1 = 1,071)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of S.R. 60, at a Level of
Service "D": 1,650 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of S.R. 60: 1,114 peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips
5M A L 7 �
APRIL 49 1995 35
BOOK 94 PALE. 7b
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning
district is 20. This was determined by multiplying the 2 units
(most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor of
10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning
district is 1,071. This was determined by multiplying the 106
units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
Of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
P•m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
Peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on S.R. 60 is westbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing zoning district was
calculated to be 1. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed under the existing zoning district (2) by
ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to determine the
total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% will be
inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 75% will
be southbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the requested zoning district, the total
number of units allowed under the proposed district (106) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (107). Of these
trips, 65% (70) will be inbound and 35% (37) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, 60%, or 42, will be westbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning
district would generate 41 more peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips than the 1 that would be generated by the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing zoning
district (42 = 1 = 41).
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
Capacities for -all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service -Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
APRIL, 4, 1995 36
The traffic capacity for the segment of S.R. 60 adjacent to this
site is 1,650 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level
of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on this
segment of S.R. 60 is 1,114 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction). The additional 42 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips created by the most intense use of the subject property under
the proposed zoning district would increase the total peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of S.R. 60
to 1156.
Based on the above analysis, staff has determined that S.R. 60 and
all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed zoning classification. As indicated
in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments
to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
TO
Capacity
LOS "D"
1220S
I-95
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
7,63D
1230N
I-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2,710
1910E
S.R.
60
C.R. 512
I-95
1,030
1910W
S.R.
60
C.R. 512
I-95
1,030
1915E
S.R.
60
I-95
82nd Avenue
1,650
1915W
S.R.
60
I-95
82nd Avenue
1,650
1920E
S.A.
60
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
2,210
1920W
S.R.
60
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
2,210
1925E
S.R.
60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
1,170
1925W
S.R.
60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
1,170
1930E
S.R.
60
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
2,650
1930W
S.R.
60
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
2,650
1935E
S.R.
60
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
2,650
1935W
S.R.
60
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
2,650
1940W
S.A.
60
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
2,330
BOOK 94 PAUL 785
APRIL 49 1995 37
BOOK 94 Fait 789
Segment
Roadway
Capacity
Segment
Road
From
To
LOS
"D"
2210E
12th Street
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
600
2220W
12th Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
830
2450N
27th Avenue
12th Street
S. VB City Limits
830
2460N
27th Avenue
S. VB City Limits
16th Street
830
2470N
27th Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
24805
27th. Avenue
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
830
2930N
43rd Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
2930S
43rd Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
2935N
43rd Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
830
29355
43rd Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
830
3010N
58th Avenue
4th Street
8th Street
690
3015N
58th Avenue
8th Street
12th Street
690
3020N
58th Avenue
12th Street
16th Street
690
3025N
58th Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
3030N
58th Avenue
S.R. 60
41st Street
830
30305
58th Avenue
S.A. 60
41st Street
830
30355
58th Avenue
41st Street
45th Street
690
30405
58th Avenue
45th Street
49th Street
690
31205
66th Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
690
31305
66th Avenue
26th Street
41st Street
650
31405
66th Avenue
41st Street
45th Street
690
3320N
82nd Avenue
4th Street
12th Street
690
3330N
82nd Avenue
12th Street
S.A. 60
690
3330S
82nd Avenue
12th Street
S.R. 60
690
4320E
45th Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
650
4330W
45th Street
58th Avenue
Ord Avenue
690
4420W
41st Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4430W
41st Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4830W
8th Street
58th Avenue
Ord Avenue
630
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand
Determination
12205
914 60
974
1656
3
Y
1230N
990 105
1095
1615
3
Y
1910E
359 118
477
553
1
Y
1910W
346 121
467
563
2
Y
1915E
784 410
1194
456
10
Y
1915W
1114 375
1489
161
42
Y
1920E
1045 290
1335
875
9
Y
1920W
971 269
1240
970
36
Y
1925E
945 316
1261
509
8
Y
1925W
991 303
1294
476
32
Y
1930E
985 620
1605
1045
4
Y
1930W
1147 605
1752
898
16
Y
1935E
1102 405
1507
1143
2
Y
1935W
1156 390
1546
1104
8
Y
1940W
896 297
1193
1137
2
Y
2210E
84 10
94
506
2
Y
2220W
85 26
111
719
2
Y
2450N
234 25
259
571
2
Y
2460N
303 24
327
503
2
Y
2470N
225 31
256
574
2
Y
24805
428 Y7
445
385
2
Y
2930N
667 60
727
103
4
Y
29305
505 60
565
265
1
Y
2935N
340 106
446
384
1
Y
29355
413 107
520
310
4
Y
-
3010N
191 25
216
474
1
Y
3015N
191 33
224
466
4
Y
3020N
191 50
241
449
4
Y
3025N
423 229
652
178
8
Y
3030N
538 132
670
160
2
Y
30305
388 143
531
299
8
Y
30355
436 43
479
211
6
Y
3040S
355 30
385
305
2
Y
3120S
188 9
197
493
4
Y
31305
132 7
139
511
2
Y
31405
132 7
139
511
1
Y
3320N
102 15
117
573
2
Y
3330N
171 43
214
476
3
Y
333OS
230 39
269
421
1
Y
4320E
236 19
255
395
2
Y
APRIL 49 1995 38
M M
M
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment segment Project Concurrency
Segment volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
4330W
230
20
250
440
2 Y
4420W
146
30
176
454
1 Y
4430W
146
45
191
439
2 Y
483OW
89
51
140
,490
2 Y
- Water
A 106 unit residential use on the subject property will have a
water consumption rate of 106 Equivalent Residential units (ERU),
or 26,500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service
standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County water lines do not
currently extend to the site. If the subject property connects to
county water lines, the property will be serviced by the South
County Water Plant which has a remaining capacity of approximately
2,300,000 gallons/day and would be able to accommodate the
additional demand generated by the most intense use allowed under
the proposed zoning.
- Wastewater
A 106 unit residential use on the subject property will have a
wastewater generation- rate of 106 Equivalent Residential units
(ERU), or 26,500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater lines
do not currently extend to the site. If the subject property
connects to county wastewater lines, the property will be serviced
by the West County Wastewater Treatment Plant which has a remaining
capacity of approximately 420,000 gallons/day and would be able to
accommodate the additional demand generated by the most intense use
allowed under the proposed zoning.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by a 106
unit residential development on the subject site will be
approximately 170 Waste Generation Units (WGU) or 322 cubic yards
of solid waste/year. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement
equivalent to 1.896 cubic yards of waste/year.
According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential
unit generates 1.6 WGUs. With the county's adopted level of
service standard of 2.37 cubic yards/person/year and the county's
average of 2 persons/unit, each WGU is equivalent to 0.8 people
(1.6/2 = 0.8) and 1.896 cubic yards of solid waste/year (0.8 X 2.37
= 1.896). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for
the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the
proposed zoning district, staff utilized the following formula:
Total number of WGUs X 0.8 X 2.37 (170 X 0.8 X 2.37 = 322 cubic
yards/year).
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 900,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 3 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on this analysis, staff determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.
Boos 94 mu 787
APRIL 49 1995 39
BOOK 9 PGS
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the
Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD). Since the site
is located within the IRFWCD, development on the property will be
prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in
a 24 hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site under
the proposed zoning, the maximum area of impervious surface will be
approximately 405,544 square feet, or 9.3 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, will be approximately 411,820 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant will be required to retain approximately 315,262 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. Considering the soils characteristic of
the subject property, staff estimates that the pre -development
runoff rate is 75 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in 24 hours, and
requiring retention of 315,262 cubic feet of runoff for the most
intense use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed zoning classification
indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained.
The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated
with the proposed development of the property and the existing
surplus acreage by park type.
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has- been_
satisfied for the subject request.
APRIL 4, 1995 40
s
LOS
Project
.-JAcres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
Acres
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
1.22
189.844
Community (north)
3.0
0.73
19.843
Beach
1.5
0.37
67.353
River
1.5
0.37
28.350
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed zoning. Therefore, the concurrency test has- been_
satisfied for the subject request.
APRIL 4, 1995 40
s
® � s
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezoning requests must also be consistent
with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
Land Use Map. These include agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian
River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are the following policies and objectives.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.14 states that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1, land use designation is intended for
residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition,
that policy states that these residential uses must be located
within an existing or future urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as
M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within
the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would permit residential uses no denser than 8 units/acre, the
proposed request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy
1.14.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that Indian River County
will reduce the number and length of trips by implementing a land
use pattern which places employment centers near residential areas.
The subject property is located near the S.R. 60 and I-95
commercial/industrial node. As that node continues to develop,
demand for nearby multiple -family housing will be generated. By
accommodating that demand for multiple -family housing, the subject
request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3
Future Land Use Element Objective 5 and Policy 5.3 encourage varied
densities and development patterns to accommodate a diversity of
lifestyles. Most of the residentially designated land near the
subject property is platted for single-family development. - By
permitting additional development options on the subject property,
the subject request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 5
and Policy 5.3.
- Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5
Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5 address the use
of incentives, including increased densities, to reduce the cost
per housing unit and to encourage the provision of affordable
housing. By allowing increased density on the subject property,
the request would implement Economic Development Element Policies
8.1 and 8.5.
600K 4 789
APRIL 49 1995 41
i �a
Boa _; PAUL, 79 '
- Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2
Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 states that the county will provide
higher densities along major transportation corridors in order to
facilitate future mass transit provision. Since the request is for
the county's second highest density and the subject property is
located within one half of a mile from a major transportation
corridor, the request implements Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2.
While the referenced policies and objectives are particularly
applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and
objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated
the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and
objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the
request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staf f Is -position is that multiple -family residential development is
appropriate for the site and that such development would be
compatible with surrounding land uses. Located near the S.R. 60/
I-95 commercial/ industrial node, the subject property is
particularly well suited to meet the demand for multiple -family
housing generated by development within that node. In effect, the
proposed rezoning would increase the opportunity for people to live
near their place of employment.
Although a single-family subdivision is located to the east of the
subject property, the single family area is separated from the
subject property by 90th Avenue. Besides the 90th Avenue physical
separation, the county's land development regulations provide that
development of a multiple -family residential project on the subject
property will be adequately buffered from the nearby single-family
subdivision. Where a multiple -family project in the RM -8 district
adjoins a single-family district, the county's land development
regulations require that the multiple -family project provide either
a six foot high opaque type D buffer or a three foot high opaque
type C buffer.
Separation distance is another factor that works to mitigate
potential impacts. LDR mandated front setbacks of 25 feet in the
RM -8 district and 20 feet in the RS -6 district combine with the 65
feet of public road right-of-way for 90th Avenue to ensure that
there is at least 110 feet between buildings in the adjoining
districts.
For these reasons, staff feels that development under the requested
RM -8 zoning district would not result in incompatibilities with the
surrounding area.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
The proposed rezoning from A-1 to RM -8 would not result in an
increase in potential adverse environmental impacts associated with
site development. Since agricultural use is largely exempt from
county permitting, the county, in fact, has more opportunity to
regulate impacts associated with residential development than
impacts associated with agricultural use.
Residential development of the property will be subject to a number._
of environmental permits, including land clearing and tree removal
APRIL 49 1995 42
_permits. The county's native upland plant community set-aside
requirement may apply to portions of the subject property.
Prior to residential development of the site, the applicant would
be required to complete an environmental survey to determine
whether any jurisdictional wetlands exist on the site. That survey
would have to be approved by the county's environmental planning
staff.
Any jurisdictional wetlands on the parcel, as applicable, are
protected by federal, state, and county regulations. For these
reasons, no significant adverse environmental impacts associated
with this request are anticipated.
CONCLUSION
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency
criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental
quality;, The subject property is located in an area deemed suited
for medium -density residential uses and meets all applicable
rezoning criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property
from A-1 to RM -8.
Director Keating reviewed the project for the Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
Chairman Macht noted that he had received a communication in
opposition to the project which will be a part of the record as
follows:
March 27, 1995
Mr. John Wachtel,
Senior Planner
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th St. IV
Vero Beach, Fl. 32960 �, MAR 1995
GOMMUMITY T
� IfEVE1.OPVIENT DEPT �!
CO
Dear Mr. Wachtel, p
Reference is made toour certified le
y letter dated March 17, 1995.
We are opposed to a large apartment complex so close to our property. We see no reason to
change the zoning of this property. The high density allowed under the new zoning will fracture
the residential environment which surrounds the area and significantly increase the traffic along
90th avenue creating further safety concerns. We also believe that such a large apartment
complex would deter or slow the development of the commercial zone south of the proposed
rezoning.
BOOK 9FAf C 791APRIL 4, 1995 4 3
BOOK 94 PAGE 792
There is enough trespassing, dumping and vandalism which has occurred in the past on our
property with only residential development in the area.
I do not believe it was the intent of the comprehensive development plan to allow large apartment
complexes in this area and request that such a complex not be allowed there.
Please advise me in writing the results of the meeting and procedure for appealing any decision.
Sincerely,
6v3 �
Ed Walker
Box 536
Vero Beach, Fl. 32961-0536
Phone: 407-355-3078
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 95-09 amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from A-1 to RM -8 for the
property located on the West side of 90th Avenue,
South of 26th Street.
ORDINANCE NO. 95-09
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH
AVENUE, SOUTH OF 26TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
Interest and citizens were heard;
"IUL 49 1995 44
NOW, THEREFORE,
ORDINANCE 95-09
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The north 13.33 acres of the south 20 acres of Tract 1,
Section 3, Township 33S, Range 38E, according to the last
general plat'of lands of the Indian River Farms Company
subdivision recorded in plat book 2, page 25, of the public
records of St. Lucie Couhty, Florida; said lands now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida; and subject to
easements, and restrictions of record.
Be changed from A-1 to RM -8.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 4th day of April, 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 14th day of March, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on
the 4th day of April, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner gird
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht jAvN�_
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams YP
Commissioner Richard N. Bird AXP
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert As,
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ai,P
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF
BY:
ATTEST BY
.C.
b®oK 94 PACE 793
APRIL, 4, 1995 45
Boa 94 PAGE 794
ORDINANCE 95-09
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this day of. , 1995.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this day of , 1995, at
A.M./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
G.
rva.. .a. aNGa4;aay,
Community Developm
II, Deputy Coun
r
D a
tor
Attorney
EROSION CONTROL DISTRICT/FRANK ZOR
Deferred.
ADM MSTRATION BUILDING SPACE NEEDS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 2, 1995:
DATE: MARCH 2, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TBRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SPACE NEEDS
BACKGROUND:
In January of this year, staff presented a recommendation to the
Board for selection of an architect/engineering firm to proceed
with renovation plans associated with the Administration Building
HVAC system and relocation of certain offices to help relieve over
crowding in the building. The building renovations were results of
a space' needs assessment performed by staff to review the
Administration Building space as it was presently being utilized
and formulated various alternatives to maximize the use of all
available buildings. This proposal was presented last year at the
one cent sales tax budget session and funded.
At the January meeting, staff requested authorization to select a
architect to proceed with the proposed renovations, however, the
Board instructed staff to review the proposal and possibly develop
another proposal to keep all their departments on the
Administration Building site.
APRIL 4, 1995 46
Chart A depicts the square footage that is presently assigned to
the affected departments and their predicted needs in 1995.
CHART A
DEPARTMENT
PRESENT
1995
Utilities
4,987
8,527
Emergency Services
2,380
13,760
Animal Control
800
(Inc.in Emg.Serv.)
Risk Management
750
750
Personnel
1,078
1,622
Data Processing
2,000
3,000
Central Services
672
672 -
Finance
3,414
3,235
Chart B depicts the various "County owned facilities" and their
respective square footage.
CHART B
STRUCTURE SQUARE FEET
Old State Attorney Building 6,075
Courthouse Annex 14,332
Old Health Building 6,151
Administration Building Storage Space 2,176
ALTERNATIVE I
This alternative would allow the Courthouse Annex building to be
renovated and move Utility Services into that facility. Then
expand Emergency Services into the old Utility Services area.
This would allow Utilities to have approximately 12,158, net square
feet. Although VOA indicated in their report Utilities would need
8,527 square feet in 1995, it is felt the need could exceed the
estimation due to their rate of growth.
Renovation cost for this alternative is estimated at $402,364 plus
architect and engineering cost of about $28,636 for a total of
$431,000. Included in this cost is an elevator and drive -up
window. Furnishings are not included in this figure, however, they
are estimated to be $50,000 to $60,000 depending on the amount of
space renovated and amount of present furnishings that are used.
APRIL 49 1995
47
BOOK 9 PAu 79
BOOK 94PAGE 796
The next part of this alternative is to expand Emergency Services
into the old Utilities Space. This would provide them with an
additional 4,987 square feet of new space. Adding in the First
Floor Conference Room would give them a grand total of 8,767 square
feet of usable space. VOA indicated that Emergency Services would
need 13,760 square feet of space by 1995. Included in that total
is 5,600 square feet for an EOC that included executive offices,
living facilities, mechanical room, office for law enforcement, and
a conference room.
Cost to renovate the old Utilities space to meet Emergency
Management's needs is estimated at $22 per square foot or about
$110,000 total. Monies for furnishings is unknown in that
personnel to be moved into the new space already have furniture.
Some,of the considerations in this alternative would be:
1. Inconvenience for people obtaining various development permits
with Utility Services being five blocks away from the Building
and Planning Division.
2. Cost of remote Token Ring computer, equipment ($15,000) and two
dedicated telephone lines ($100. per month).
3.
Does not
address our long term space needs.
4.
Provides
a drive -up
facility and sufficient parking.
5. EOC will remain in Administration Building.
6. Less expensive than Alternative II.
In conjunction with this Alternative and Alternative II the
following moves could be made to relieve other space need problems.
1. Renovate the storage area located on the first floor of
Administration Building and move Data Processing into that space.
This would provide them with about 2,176 square feet of usable
space. VOA indicated they would need 3,000 square feet by 1995.
Putting them on the first floor would eliminate some of the
structural problems that have and will continue to exist due to
weight being placed on the floor where they are presently located.
It would also allow us to "customize" an area for their specific
needs.
Estimated cost to renovate and move into this space approximately
$66,000.
2. Move Risk Management into a portion of the old Data Processing
area. Approximate cost to be $3,000.
3. Move mail room into the old Risk Management space.
Approximate cost to be $3,000.
4. Tax Collector to expand into the old mail room and adjoining
spare office area. He could move his mailing operations and
bookkeeping there. Cost is estimated at $3,000.
5. Expand Personnel into the Tax Collector's present bookkeeping
space. This would give them a much needed additional office. -Cost
estimated at $1,000.
APRIL 49 1995 48
w
r
6. Move the Tax Collector's and Property Appraiser's storage into
the area presently occupied by Animal Control. Should this not
suffice we would need to find some off-site storage.
Total estimated cost for Alternative I is $617,000, excluding
furnishings, which was budgeted in fiscal year 1994/95 Sales Tax.
ALTERNATIVE II
This alternative would be to renovate the Courthouse Annex, move
Emergency Services into that facility and expand Utilities into
their old location.
Emergency Services would then have a total or 14,332 square feet of
space as compared to VOA's estimated need of 13,760 square feet in
1995. Doug Wright has informed this office that he would like to
combine the Fire Service administration from Station 1 into the
additional space and relocate MED I into Station 1. This would
allow the old MED I building to be taken out of service which is in
bad need of repairs.
Estimated cost to renovate the Courthouse Annex building to meet
Emergency Services' needs is approximately $50 per square foot or
about $800,000. This would include an emergency generator and
elevator.
The next step in this alternative is to expand Utility Services
into what is now Emergency Services. This would give Utilities an
additional 2,380 square feet of space which equates to a total -of -
7,367 square feet. Included in this alternative is the moving of
SWDD personnel to their new building at the landfill site. This
amount of space is taken into consideration and deducted from
Utilities' requirement.
Cost to renovate the old Emergency Services space to meet the needs
of Utilities is estimated to be at $25 per square foot or
approximately $60,000. Furnishings for*the space is estimated to
be an additional $15,000.
Some of the considerations in this alternative would be:
1. The structural soundness of the Annex Building may or may not
be good as the Administration Building.
2. The Annex has roof top air conditioners that could pose a
problem in intense hurricane type weather.
3. This alternative would not provide Utility Services with a
drive -up window or accommodate short time parking for those
customers who desire to go in the office and pay their bills.
4. Will require additional funding above Alternative I.
5. The EOC,would be away from the Administration Buildings and
would cause a problem in coordination and communicating during
the time of an emergency.
6. Does not address our long-term space requirements.
7. Will provide Emergency Services with sufficient space.
Total estimated cost for this alternative is $936,000. which
includes the moving and renovating of other offices as described
under Alternative I, excluding furnishings.
BOOK 94 PA.U..797
APRIL, 49 1995 49
F_
BOOK 94 PACS 798
ALTERNATIVE III
A number of assumptions have been made in developing this
alternative. They are based on information obtained from staff,
other personnel and available records. These assumptions should be
verified by qualified experts in the applicable disciplines, to
determine whether they are valid and the cost estimate are real.
This alternative is a two phase project. It is designed to keep
all operations under the same roof. Specifically the present
Administration Building site.
Phase one is to add a 4th floor to the portion of the present
Administration Building that was designed to accommodate that
construction. This would provide approximately 12,000 additional
square feet.
Relocate the following personnel and Offices to the new floor:
OFFICE
County Administrator
General Services
Attorneys
Personnel
Data Processing
Risk Management
Management & Budget
TOTAL
PRESENT SQUARE FEET
940
348
1,183
840
2,321
360
956
6,948
Along with this phase would be to relocate the mail room to part of
Risk Management's present office space.
Renovate all the space vacated on the first floor to meet the needs
Of Utility Services. Included in the renovation would be to
enclose the courtyard located north of the Administrator's office
to include two floors which would equate to approximately 9,000
square feet of space and allow construction of a drive -up facility.
The VOA study indicated Utilities would need 8,500 S.F. in 1995.
If the courtyard addition were limited to one floor it would reduce
the total area to about 8,000 square feet.
Included in this alternative would be to renovate the space vacated
by Utilities and relocate Emergency Services in that space as
discussed in Alternative I.
Moving OMB to the 4th floor would give Public Works some much
needed additional space.
Total estimated cost to complete this phase of Alternative III, is
approximately $1,765,000.
This scenario would equate to approximately 97,800 square feet of
space compared to 135,554 square feet, the VOA study recommended by
1995. However, it is important to note that the VOA study was
keyed on the estimated increase in personnel for the various -
departments during a period of time. That actual increase in
personnel has not occurred, as of this date.
APRIL, 49 1995 50
M
The second phase of this alternative is keyed on what the School
District intends to do about additional space for their
administrative operations. They presently occupy approximately
20,000 square feet of space, in the east wing of the Administration
Building complex.
Staff met with Roger Dearing, School District Superintendent in an
effort to determine how and when they were going to address their
administrative space needs problem. He stated that they definitely
need more space for their operations. However, a specific analysis
had not been prepared to date. In the general discussion
alternatives ranged from relocating this operation in another
building, to staying in their present location and expanding should
the Board of County. Commissioners move out.
However, should the School District decide to vacate their present
location, County Administration could move into that area. This
20,000 square feet of additional space could possibly prolong new
construction of an additional wing. That would have to be
evaluated at the time, the -move takes place.
If the district moves, a modified version of one of the options
suggested by VOA could be implemented. That is to demolish the
wing presently occupied by the School District, construct a multi
story wing, and renovate the remaining portion of the old
Administration Building. The exact size of this new wing and
number of stories would be determined at the appropriate time,
since square footage had been added with 4th floor and court yard.
If the School District remains in their present location a new wing
could be located to the east of the present building. The exact
size would be determined at the appropriate time
Incorporated into any of these alternatives would be the HVAC
renovations that are scheduled. The Architect/Engineer that is
hired would be charged with the task of evaluating which ever -
alternative selected and recommend the appropriate modifications.
Alternative III could greatly change what was originally
recommended by the consultant for renovations to the Administration
Building HVAC system.
If Alternative III is pursued available budgeted dollars would not
cover the projected cost. Therefore, staff would recommend that
all the surplus buildings, old Health Clinic, Courthouse Annex, and
State Attorney Building, be sold to off -set some of the additional
cost of this Alternative.
Storage that was originally scheduled for the old State Attorney
building would have to be addressed. This could be remedied by
using part of the renovated old courthouse should that project take
place. I _
Long range Alternative III may be most cost effective. However, in
developing Alternative III a lot of assumptions were made as
related to construction cost and structural feasibility.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that a professional architect/engineering firm be
hired under the guidelines of the Consultant's Competitive
Negotiation Act (CCNA). Once engaged, part of their scope of work
would be:
Bou 94 FACE. 799
APRIL 49 1995 51
PAUIE 8'00
1. Verify the accuracy of assumptions made in Alternative III and
ascertain the anticipated cost.
2. Evaluate the various alternatives for either a long term or
short term basis and present those findings along with a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
3. DeteYmine the most practical and economical way to renovate
the Administration Building's HVAC systems as recommended by the
Gee and Jenson report. Prepare plans and specifications to
accomplish the recommended work.
Director Dean presented the alternatives to the Board and.
explained that the recommendations are based on each department's
space needs and an effort to relieve overcrowding. Staff is
requesting that one of the alternatives be approved for
commencement with the HVAC renovations recommended by the Gee &
Jenson air quality report. $617,000 has been budgeted which would
cover the cost to relocate the Utilities Department to the old
courthouse annex building. The cost to relocate the Emergency
Services Department to the old courthouse annex building would be
approximately $936,000. The Board indicated at a January meeting
that they would prefer all staff to remain under one roof. In late
January, Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann indicated he would like to
stay where he is. Staff also was advised by Property Appraiser
Nolte that he will do whatever the Board decides but will need the
same amount of square footage. Dr. Roger Dearing of the School
District advised he had not had time to make any definitive
estimates but is sure the School Board will need to expand. Based
on the information gathered, staff has developed and is
recommending Alternative III. The total estimate is $1,765,000 for
the first phase of Alternative III and staff is recommending
selling the surplus buildings to help alleviate the additional
costs. The State Attorney's building was appraised in 1991 at
$375,000; the old courthouse annex building was reappraised in 1994
at $300,000; the old health department building has not been
appraised but is valued by the property appraiser at $481,000.
Staff feels Alternative III is the most cost effective, long range
plan. However, qualified experts with expertise in the field are
needed to evaluate staff's assumptions and staff is recommending
hiring a professional architectural/engineering firm with a scope
of work to include verifying the accuracy of assumptions made in
Alternative III and ascertaining the anticipated costs. The
various alternatives also need to be evaluated for long or short-
term viability and determination should be made as to the most
practical and economical way to complete the renovation of the HVAC
system in the Administration Building, dependent upon the
alternative chosen.
APRIL, 49 1995 52
M
Chairman Macht added that he also had a conversation with Dr.
Dearing at the School Board who indicated the School Board has no
plans in the next 10 years to move from the current building; a
recent conversation with Tax Collector Zimmermann indicated that he
plans to move to a stand-alone building within the next year. Dr.
Dearing had also indicated an interest in the State Attorney's
building for use as an adult education building.
Commissioner Eggert felt that it is important to keep the
various departments together because so many projects require close
communication between the departments. She also would like to see
the environmental health department brought into the Administration
Building.
Commissioner Tippin questioned adding a 4th floor and Director
Dean explained that the original plans were drawn with the ability
to accommodate an additional floor in that area.
Chairman Macht reiterated that Tax Collector Zimmermann has
advised that he has plans to lease a building in the very near
future. He emphasized that Mr. Zimmermann should be allowed to
speak for himself but the impression given was that he would like
to lease a building and move his department in the near future.
Commissioner Adams questioned how much space would be
available if the Tax Collector's office was moved, and Director
Dean advised that department occupies approximately 4,000 square
feet.
Commissioner Tippin questioned the difference between the cost
to move the Utilities Department and the cost to move Emergency
Services, and Director Dean responded that there would be
additional renovations required to move Emergency Services, such as
adding a generator and meeting their requirements for staffing and
keeping people overnight.
Administrator Chandler added that part of the cost would be
creating an emergency operating center.
Director of Emergency Services Doug Wright explained that a
large portion of the additional funds would be designated for
relocating all types of communications equipment, as well as
satellite weather equipment.*
"PIM 4, 1995 53
f
Boa 94 PAGE 802
Chairman Macht felt that it would not make sense to move
Emergency Services as that would add an element of risk.
Director Dean also noted that Mr. Wright had indicated he
would like to move Medical 1 to Fire Station 1, bring all the
administrative staff in with him, and dispose of the property at
Medical 1.
Chairman Macht felt it would be in the best interest of the
County to consider Alternative III. Whatever the Board decides,
there should be at least a 15 -year life to the plan; otherwise it
would not be in the best interest of the taxpayers. If the School
Board should move in 5 to 10 years, additional expansion room would
be available at practically no cost. If they don't move, an
expansion on the east side of that building also would be very
economical.
Commissioner Bird stressed that the Board should look at
parking needs whatever the alternative chosen. He felt that a real
disservice is being done to the public that has to use this
building with available parking being as removed as it is,
especially Tax Collector Zimmermann's office.
Administrator Chandler explained that parking needs have been
considered and if the Utilities Department took over the first
floor area of the administration building, consideration has been
given to the circular drive-through and perhaps short term parking
of 5 to 10 minutes. He again cautioned the Board that verification
is needed for the estimates supplied by staff.
Commissioner Bird cautioned about adequate parking for the old
courthouse and annex. At this point, both buildings are sharing
one parking lot.
Chairman Macht noted there are 2 or 3 available lots across
the street from those buildings which could be utilized for
parking. He stressed that the old courthouse annex building is a
very substantial building.
Administrator Chandler commented that both the State
Attorney's building and the old courthouse annex building are very
good, marketable buildings, but he was under the impression that
real estate will not do much in the next several years.
APRIL 49 1995 54
Commissioner Eggert questioned the cost of hiring a
professional architectural firm, and Director Dean advised that
they usually use 8% of the construction estimate as a ballpark
f igure .
Chairman Macht pointed out that it will be a paid -for facility
when the renovations are completed, with no bonds to be sold or
taxes to be increased.
Commissioner Adams felt that, regardless of the alternative
chosen, we are still looking at a 2 to 3 year process and we still
need to solve the problem of better access for the public in paying
utility bills., She suggested a temporary drop box and felt that
$10,000-12,000 for a cubicle would not be as costly as the problems
currently being experienced.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative III, as recommended by staff.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board request staff to
investigate and bring back recommendations within 30
days for a drop box for payment of utility bills.
Under discussion, Chairman Macht reminded the Board that he
had mentioned several times that the City of Vero Beach has offered
to collect utility payments for the County at its drive -up for a
very small fee which seemed to him to be more practical as.a_short
term solution.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
BOOK 94 PAGE 803
APRIL 49 1995 55
BOOK 94 PAGE 804
BID #5046/SOUTH REGIONAL EFFLUENT REUSE PUNTING STATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 23, 1995:
DATE: March 23, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directo�.
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid 15046/South Regional Effluent Reuse
Pumping Station
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND -INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Advertisement Mailed to:
Replies:
Statement of "No Bids"
Prime Construction
Orlando, FL
JoBear, Inc
Palm Bay, FL
Florida Design Contractors
Lake Park, FL
Encore Construction
Altamonte Springs, FL
TLC Diversified
West Palm Beach, FL
Hall Contracting
Clearwater, FL
Strickler Brothers
Ft Myers, FL
Stormwater & Underground
Titusville, FL
February 23, 1995
1-24, 31, 2-4, 14, 21, 1995
Twenty Seven (27) Vendors
Ten (10) Vendors
-0-
BID TOTAL
$412,000.00
$434,985.00
$438,100.00
$439,874.00
$444,910.00
$461,974.33
$517,153.00
$531,000.00
Martin Paving $539,500.00
'Vero Beach, FL
John J Kirlin $646,000.00
Ft Lauderdale; FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $412,000.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Impact Fees -
474-000-169-218.00
$450,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Prime
construatiaa Or -Am Inc as the lowest, most responsive
and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set
forth in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney.
APRIL 4, 1995 56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #5046 to Prime Construction Group, Inc. in the
amount of $412,000, as recommended by staff.
BID #5046 WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
BID #5047/SOUTH REGIONAL EFFLUENT REUSE TRANSMISSION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 16, 1995:
DATE:March 16, 199
f -
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Adm istrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Direct
jj
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Managerjki�
SUBJ: Award Bid #5047/South Regional Effluent Reuse
Transmission Main - Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: February 23, 1995
Advertising Dates: 1-24, 31, 2-41 14, 21, 1995
Advertisement Mailed to: Twenty Seven (27) Vendors
Replies: Seven (7) Vendors
Statement of "No Bids" -0-
VENDOR
BID TOTAL
McGrand and Associates
$1,800,178.27
Blane, MN
Martin Paving
$1,866,512.06
Vero Beach, FL
Stormwater & Underground
$2,030,040.20
Titusville, FL
Hall Contracting
$2,054,484.41
St Petersburg, FL
Derrico Construction
$2,064,076.65
Melbourne, FL
JoBear, Inc
$21110,734.92
Palm Bay, FL
Speegle Construction
$2,137,000.00
Cocoa, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
$1,800,178.27
BOOK 94 PAGE 805
APRIL 49 1995
57
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Impact Fees -
474-000-169-261.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
$1,875,767.40
Staff recommends --that the bid be awarded.to NaGrand
Associates as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth
in the -Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board award Bid #5047
to McGrand & Associates in the amount of
$1,800,178.27.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams expressed concern that
McGrand & Associates has had problems with surface restoration and
the surface restoration in this project is allocated at $142,000.
She also noted a $66,000 difference between the first and second
vendors and stated she would like to see the County go with a local
company. She understood that McGrand & Associates has an agent in
Florida now and is licensed in Florida, but nevertheless is a
Minnesota company.
Steve Snoberger, project engineer of Carter Associates,
advised that when the bids came in, they had been requested to
review them and, as a part of that review, they contacted Dale
Kemp, the chief inspector on a current Sebring project, and William
Keckman, a Highlands County engineer, who both stated that McGrand
is an excellent pipe layer but has been experiencing problems with
restoration.
Commissioner Adams reminded the Board that restoration had
been a problem in the past and that the County had expended
additional monies and labor in attempting to solve the problems.
She felt she would be more comfortable with a local firm.
Commissioner Bird asked to hear from the Utilities Department
Director and Director Terry Pinto responded that the firm who is
going to do the better restoration would be his choice and that he
has nothing other than the reference check from the engineer to go
by.
APRIL 49 1995 58
Commissioner Eggert inquired if the reference supplied by the
engineer was a concern to the Board, and Commissioner Bird
commented that the County has had positive experiences in the past
with Martin Paving on restoration.
COMMISSIONER EGGERT WITHDREW HER MOTION TO AWARD BID TO
McGRAND AND SUGGESTED INSTEAD THE BID BE AWARDED TO MARTIN PAVING.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #5047 to Martin Paving in the amount of
$1,866,512.06, due` to restoration problems with
McGrand & Associates. (See Following Motion)
After discussion' -6f several other items, the Board agreed to
reconsider Bid #5047 awarded to Martin Paving.
Commissioner Adams felt that the matter should be tabled for
more information due to the revelation by the County Attorney that
Martin Paving has filed suit against the County for $300,000 on the
new courthouse building.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if this item should be postponed
for one week, two weeks, or a time certain, and Commissioner Tippin
said that he would be happy to act on the problem right now. He
felt that the engineer had given the County a letter of
recommendation and, as long as McGrand & Associates has agreed to
the terms and the County has emphasized that it is particularly
concerned about the restoration aspect of the project, then the
County should go with McGrand as the low bidder.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board award Bid #5047
to McGrand and Associates (instead of Martin Paving)
in the amount of $1,800,178.27, as recommended by
the engineer.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird felt that, unless you have
pretty compelling evidence against the low bidder, the bidding
process is damaged when someone other than the low bidder is
chosen.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
900K 94 PaGe 807
APRIL 4, 1995 5 9
L 'A
�ooK 94 PACE 80
BID #5035/82ND AVENUE WATER MAIN
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 22, 1995:
DATE: March 22, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director��!
General Services 11
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #5035/82nd Avenue Water Main
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Advertisements Mailed To:
Replies:
Statement of "No Bid"
VENDOR ORIGINAL
TOTAL _
Derrico Construction 539,155.00
Melbourne, FL
JoBear, Inc
Palm Bay, FL
Tri -Sure Corp
Auburndale, FL
Driveways, Inc
Titusville, FL
540,880.00
556,775.00
575,718.00
Speegle Construction 587,000.00
Cocoa, FL
RK Contractors
Pt St Lucie, FL
Martin Paving
Vero Beach, FL
Strickler Brothers
Ft Myers, FL
589,795.00
595,505.00
595,561.00
Treasure Coast Cont. 648,846.00
Vero Beach, FL
February 8, 1995
January 6, 11, 18, 1995
Thirty -Two (32) Vendors
Nine (9) Vendors
-0-
IRRECTED AMEMDED
TOTAL TOTAL
430,430.00
469,640.00
482,375.00
458,520.00
467,950.00
507,495.00
592,905.00 481,860.00
470,511.00
534,556.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $430,430.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS 472-000-169-220.00 Utilities General
Impact Fees
ESTIMATED BUDGET $442,745.00
APRIL 49 1995 60
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Derrico
Construction as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder for the modified project scope as
further outlined in the departmental recommendation and
analysis. (Exhibit A)
In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#5035 to Derrico Construction in the amount of
$430,430, as recommended by staff.
BID #5035 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
_"' (CLERK TO THE BOARD
J
1995-96 BUDGET WORKSHOPMEARING SCHEDULE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 29, 1995:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 29, 1995
SUBJECT: 1995/96 BUDGET WORKSHOP/HEARING SCHEDULE
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Staff has listed below the proposed 1995/96 budget workshop and hearing dates for the
Commissioner's to set a calendar so we can plan the budget schedule in advance and notify the
Constitutional Officers, state agencies, non-profit agencies and all interested parties.
July 7 Q 14, 1995 Board of County Commissioners to receive "Budget Pack".
Friday
July 11 or 18, 1995 BEGIN SCHEDULED BUDGET WORKSHOP
Tuesday
September 6, 1995 Public Hearing on TENTATIVE budget and proposed
Wednesday millage rate at 5:01 p.m.
September 14, 1995 FINAL budget hearing at 5:01 p.m.
BooK 94 P,,f,F.8B"9
APRIL 49 1995 61
Boa 94 PAS EB1®
Chairman Macht inquired if a preliminary workshop could be
scheduled sometime in May.
Director Baird reminded the Board that one of the problems on
the expense side is that a lot of the required information comes
from state agencies which are going through the legislative process
during that time and we will not have those figures available. In
addition, figures on state revenues and ad valorem tax will not be
available until June 30, but we could have a workshop based on the
information we do have. Director Baird inquired about the Board's
goals for this year, and Commissioner Tippin commented that
frugality is still in.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
July 7, 1995 as the date for receipt of the "Budget
Pack"; July 11, 1995 as the scheduled Budget
Workshop; as recommended by staff; and directed
staff to set up a preliminary workshop during May,
1995.
DISTRICT 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ALLOCATION/CITY OF VERO
BEACHWA MPROVEMENTS/BUDGET AMENDMENT 015
The Board reviewed•a Memorandum of March 24, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: District 2 Traffic Impact Fee Allocation to City of Vero Beach
for AlA Improvements - BUDGET AMENDMENT 015
REF. LETTER: Steve Maillet, CVB Director of Finance, to Jim Davis dated Feb.22, 1995
DATE: March 24, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 11, 1993, the Board approved District 2 Traffic Impact Fee (T.I.F.) Funding in
the amount of $300,000 for AlA Widening'Improvements south of Beachland Blvd. The
City of Vero Beach Public Works Department staff has managed the project. The DOT -
funded construction, however, the City retained the engineering firm of Keith and
Schnars, Inc., to provide design and construction inspection services. The project is now
complete. The total cost of roadway design and inspection was $580,951.55. The City
is now requesting reimbursement from the District 2 T.I.F. Fund. The balance of the
Fund as of Feb. 28, 1995 was $976,310.17.
APRIL 49 1995
Currently, liquidated damages are being withheld from the contractor due to the project
not being completed on time. Litigation is pending. Of the requested $580,951.55,
$336,468.42 is for design related costs.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
If all payments requested by the City is approved, approximately $395,358.62 will be
available for widening improvement to AIA in the Moorings area. This project is
expected to commence July 1995. No other projects are anticipated in District 2 in the
near future. The recently completed County Traffic Modeling Project has determined
that South AIA will need two additional lanes by the year 2020. The Florida DOT will
be asked to fund that project. The alternatives presented are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve payment to the City in the amount of $336,468.42 at this time
until litigation is complete. The additional request for $244,483.13 can be -
considered at a later date.
Alternative No. 2
Approve the entire request.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The Public Works Department staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding in the
amount of $336,468.42 to be from District 2 T.I.F. Fund. Approval of the attached
Budget Amendment #015 is also requested.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board approve payment
to the City of Vero Beach in the amount of
$336,468.42 with funding from District 2 Traffic
Impact Fees, and approve Budget Amendment 015:
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird questioned the basis for
withholding the $244,000, and Administrator Chandler responded that
the amount originally estimated for the project was $300,000. Due
to problems with the project the final bill is $580,000. Public
Works Director Jim Davis is recommending that we pay $336,000 which
is tied to the design and withhold $244,000 until we see the result
of litigation on liquidated damages with the contractor. If they
are successful, they may be able to offset some of the expense.
Director Davis has spoken with the City and they do not have any
objections at this time.
County Engineer Roger Cain explained that the County, City and
State are in a cooperative effort to do these improvements and
$336,000 of the funds are related to design and construction
inspection and are not in dispute.
®o0K 94 Far, 8-11
APRIL 49 1995 63
BOOK 94 PAu812
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A Bair
OMB Director
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 015
DATE: March 27, 1995
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENDITURES:
ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES/DISTRICT 2
Construction in Progress
101-152-541-066.51
$336,469
$0
REVENUE
ILROAD
IMPROVEMENT FEES/Cash Forward
101-000-389-040.00 1
$336,469
$0
GOLF COURSE TUNNELS BENEATH HIGHLAND DRIVE AND 6TH
AVENUE/INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 29, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Construction of Golf Course Tunnels
Beneath Highland Drive (23rd Street SW) and 6th Avenue
SW Requested by Indian River Country Club
REF. LETTER: Keith Pelan, Urban Resource Group, to Jim Davis dated
Mar 20, 1995
DATE: March 29, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Developer of the Indian River Club located along 23rd Street
SW(Highland Drive) in Vero Beach. Highlands is requesting a license
agreement to allow construction of three below grade golf cart
tunnels, two beneath Highland Drive and one beneath 6th Avenue SW.
Staff is in support of the tunnel crossings since they would
provide safer crossing of the County road by golf course traffic.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The attached agreements have been prepared by the Public Works
Department and developer. They are similar to those agreements
between the County and Grand Harbor for the tunnel crossing beneath
Indian River Blvd. The alternatives presented are as follows:
1995
� r �
Alternative No. 1
Approve the attached license agreements. In -addition,
the developer wishes to close Highland Drive and 6th
Avenue during construction. A short detour route using
6th Avenue, Sunset Drive, and 21st Street (less than %
mile) will be utilized. In addition, the work will be
undertaken this summer when traffic volumes are less than
annual average conditions. The proposed closing has been
fully discussed with Emergency Services and no problems
are foreseen. Two additional accesses to Vero Beach
Highlands (20th Avenue and 17th Lane SW) are available
for use, as well as the short detour. Closing the road
for approximately 60 days will allow for quicker
construction.
Alternative No. 2 _
Approve the agreements, but do not permit the roads to be
closed to traffic.
Alternative No. 3
Deny approval of the agreements.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING -
Due to long term safety -benefits, staff recommends Alternative No.
1. No county funding applicable.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board approve
Alternative 1, as recommended by staff and authorize
the Chairman to execute the Agreements.
Under discussion, Chairman Macht wondered if a time limit
should be set for closure of the roads and County Engineer Roger
Cain advised that they will be recommending 60 days to the
contractor.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
BOOK 94 P�cF 81.3
APRIL 4, 1995 6 5
BOOK 94 PAGE 814
SEWER SERVICE/129TH STREET BETWEEN OLD DIM AND
RIVERSIDE DRIVE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 24, 1995:
DATE: MARCH 24, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF WYYTSEIRVICE
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAI
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSESTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR SEWER SERVICE
129TH STREET (A PORTION OF INDIAN RIVER ACRES
SUBDIVISION) BETWEEN OLD DIXIE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -95 -08 -CS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received from the residents of 129th Street, an
area between Old Dixie and Riverside Drive, north of Sebastian
city limits, requesting the County to provide sewer service. This
project design was completed in 1991 by Kimball -Lloyd and Associates
prior to Sebastian's pulling out of the County's utility system. At
that time, the entire project was put on hold. We are now coming to
the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin
assessment and construction of a portion of this project as
described above (see attached petition and tax map).
ANALYSIS
A petition was mailed to the petitioners' representative on March
15, 1995 and returned March 21, 1995. Eleven owners, or 850 of the
13 lots to benefit from the assessment project have signed the
petition. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the
assessment project. This project is to be paid through the
assessment of property owners along the proposed sewer line route.
In the interim, financing will be through the use of impact fee
funds. Bidding and contract services will be provided by the
Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the above -listed project authorizing the Department to proceed
with the above -referenced special assessment project as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the 129th Street between Old Dixie and Riverside
Drive petition for sewer service and authorized
staff to proceed with the special assessment
project, as recommended by staff.
APRIL 49 1995
- SOUTHEAST INTERSTATE SERVICES. INC./ ER LINE
CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 23, 1995:
DATE: MARCH 23, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. P
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY RVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. MICA
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJ GINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT O LITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHEAST INTERSTATE
SERVICES, INC., FOR WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION
BACKGROUND
Attached is a proposed developer's agreement with . Southeast
Interstate Services, Inc., (Wendy's Restaurant) for reimbursement of
oversizing off-site utility construction. The 12 -inch water main
routing is required to complete a loop in our existing water system
on State Road 60, east of 90th Avenue. (Please see attached
location map and aerials.)
ANALYSIS
The developer's agreement is for the construction of approximately
775 LF of 12 -inch" water main at a total estimated project cost of
$22,272.63. Reimbursement for this work is based on hydraulic
proportional -sharing of the line with Wendy's portion at $4,454.53
and the County's portion at $17,818.10. (For details of the
developer's agreement, please see attached.) The line crosses four
other parcels of property, which will also contribute to the costs
in the future through the County's line extension charge. The
construction of this line will benefit the County's distribution
system and, therefore, is viewed by the Utilities Department as
beneficial. Funding for this project will be through the impact fee
fund initially with future cost recovery as described above.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached developer's
agreement as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Agreement
with Southeast Interstate Services, Inc., as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
APRIL 49 1995 67
PREVENTION OF TEENAGE PREGNANCY
The Board reviewed a letter of March 21, 1995:
STATE OF FLORIDA
LAWTON CHILES, GOVERNOR
- FLORIDA DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COUNCIL
DR.JOHN DEWITr, CHAIRPERSON
K. JOSEPH KRIEGER, EXECU77VE I
This past fall a Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Summit was held which brought together individuals and
organizations with expertise in the area of teenage pregnancy from both the public and private sectors.
One of the goals of the Summit was to recommend policy changes in state law, rule or procedure to
increase the effectiveness of=public's
e pregnancy prevention efforts. As a way of implementing this goal, it
was decided that an increase awareness of the -magnitude of the problem and its
consequences was needed.
As a first step, an annual Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Awareness Week resolution to be adopted by
state polic7makers was recommended, along with the recommendation that in conjunction with the
resolution s adoption by the state legislature, communities be encouraged to conduct awareness building
activities during the designated week (April 23rd through April 29th). A draft of the resolution is
attached. The draft, which was prepared by representatives of several of the concerned organizations, is
presently being sent to bill drafting. Senator William H. Turner and Representative Lois Frankel have
agreed to sponsor the resolution in the legislature. The draft is being sent to you at this time so that, if
you wish to join this effort, you will be able to begin building interest in your community and, perhaps,
persuade some of the appropriate entities, such as your school board and city/county commissions, to also
adopt a corresponding resolution.
In the near future, you will receive- a- packet of materials on additional .awareness building activities that
can be used in your community during Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Week. We hope you will join in.
If you would like to discuss building awareness of this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at 904-
922-6709 or Pat Weitzel at 904-487-9461.
Very truly yours,
4 Debra Dowds
Attachment Public Policy Coordinator
DVD:PW:am
820 East Park Avenue ■ Suite 1-100 ■ Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2600
(904) 488-4180 Fax Number (904) 922-6702
APREL 4. 1995 � .
March 21, 1995
Joyce Johnson -Carlson
485 Newport Drive
Vero
Beach, FL 32968
Dear Sir/Madam:
This past fall a Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Summit was held which brought together individuals and
organizations with expertise in the area of teenage pregnancy from both the public and private sectors.
One of the goals of the Summit was to recommend policy changes in state law, rule or procedure to
increase the effectiveness of=public's
e pregnancy prevention efforts. As a way of implementing this goal, it
was decided that an increase awareness of the -magnitude of the problem and its
consequences was needed.
As a first step, an annual Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Awareness Week resolution to be adopted by
state polic7makers was recommended, along with the recommendation that in conjunction with the
resolution s adoption by the state legislature, communities be encouraged to conduct awareness building
activities during the designated week (April 23rd through April 29th). A draft of the resolution is
attached. The draft, which was prepared by representatives of several of the concerned organizations, is
presently being sent to bill drafting. Senator William H. Turner and Representative Lois Frankel have
agreed to sponsor the resolution in the legislature. The draft is being sent to you at this time so that, if
you wish to join this effort, you will be able to begin building interest in your community and, perhaps,
persuade some of the appropriate entities, such as your school board and city/county commissions, to also
adopt a corresponding resolution.
In the near future, you will receive- a- packet of materials on additional .awareness building activities that
can be used in your community during Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Week. We hope you will join in.
If you would like to discuss building awareness of this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at 904-
922-6709 or Pat Weitzel at 904-487-9461.
Very truly yours,
4 Debra Dowds
Attachment Public Policy Coordinator
DVD:PW:am
820 East Park Avenue ■ Suite 1-100 ■ Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2600
(904) 488-4180 Fax Number (904) 922-6702
APREL 4. 1995 � .
Chairman Macht announced a meeting regarding prevention of
teenage pregnancy to be held by the Children's Services Advisory
Committee, in cooperation with the Indian River County School Board
and others, at the School Board Chambers, to be televised at 7:00
p.m. on April 27. Invitations have been issued to the Board of
County Commissioners, the City Councils of Vero Beach, Fellsmere,
and Sebastian, the Town Council of Indian River Shores, and the
State Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department will be
represented. He asked the commissioners to put this on their
calendars.
Commissioner Eggert questioned whether this was a Board
meeting, and Chairman Macht responded that this is a joint meeting
of all of the bodies mentioned. There would be no need for any
action to be taken by the Board as a body as it is an optional
meeting, but he wanted the commissioners to be aware of the date
and time.
CREW NAL TUSTICE COSTS/STATE FUNDING
Chairman Macht asked for the Board's cooperation in passing a
resolution to be presented to the Legislative Delegation attempting
to alleviate the County's burdensome expense in operating the state
court system.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-54 to the Florida Legislature in
support of the State funding criminal justice costs.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE FUNDING CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COSTS.
WHEREAS, over the years the state has been phasing out its funding for
special public defenders; and
WHEREAS, as a result of this, the counties finance more of the state
court system costs today than the state does; and
WHEREAS, because the county's escalating costs are putting a tremendous
burden on the general fund; and
WHEREAS, the counties can no longer support the state's courts without
seeing a total eclipse of other necessary services;
APRIL 45 1995 69 BOOK 94 PAu 817
800K 94 PAS - 818
RESOLUTION 95-54
NOWr THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COONTY, FLORIDA, that the Board urges the Florida Legislature
and the Governor of the State of Florida to enact legislation which would
provide for:
I. A uniform accounting system of court costs by all counties.
2. Complete state funding of the constitutional guaranteed right to counsel
by paying for the cost of special public defenders.
3. Complete state funding of Article V of the constitution.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams ,. and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman'Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bifid Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 4 day of April, 1995.
ta�
Jre K. Barto Clerk
BOARD OF CO TY COMMI IONER3
INDZ-Kenned�h�19RU
COUNTY, F IDA
By
Macht
Chairman
INDIAN RIVER GARDEN CLUB/FLOWER SHOW
Chairman Macht announced that this Sunday, April 9th, at 11:00
a.m., at the new courthouse, the Indian River Garden Club will
present the very first, historic use of that building by the public
rather than by*the County in holding the annual Flower Show. He
issued an invitation to the public and to the Commissioners and
hoped everyone would be able to attend.
APIUL 49 1995
M a M
--DISCUSSION RE: UTILITY DEPARTMENT POLICIES/ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT/AFFORDABLE HOUSING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Commissioner Eggert stated that she felt the Board needs an
overall view of the Utilities Department plans for the coming year
as they relate to changes in the Comp Plan. She also expressed her
concerns for the Economic Development Council. Some people had
been told that they didn't have to pay impact fees until building
permit time, only to find that now with the application to DEP for
capacity, they are being asked to pay impact fees. She felt the
County needs a clarification of those regulations. Also, the
Affordable Housing grant has been used to pay some of the liens and
some SHIP funds are being used to pay connection fees and things
like that, and she felt that's something we need to address.
People also are having problems completing projects due to the way
the water flow is figured and because of the cost of the County's
impact fees. She felt that the Board should request either a
meeting or workshop as the Economic Development Council is
finishing its strategy plan and the Affordable Housing Advisory
committee is talking about various matters. She does not want to
go riding down the road and off a cliff because she is alone out
there and the Board does not agree with the direction taken. She
also wanted to discuss economic incentives to help bring business
to the County. There is a report coming from EDC which is a
strategy plan suggesting different approaches but it does not
address water hook ups; it goes to the marketing plan to bring
industry into the County such as tax incentives, payment of SHIP
funds and liens, etc. She also felt the Board needs to have a
meeting regarding how much support should be given to affordable
housing projects and how the County should go about supporting
those projects.
Commissioner Bird suggested a separate workshop for each topic
and expanding the agenda for the date the reports are submitted.
Administrator Chandler advised that it would be good to
provide a general overview of utilities and its relationship to the
Comp Plan inasmuch as we are all but finished on the major
assessment programs in the County. There is one small area still
to be done that ties into the Comp Plan and there has been some
discussion about wastewater sewers. The intent had been to modify
the Comp Plan using 1997 changes. He suggested a general overview
on where we are.
BOOK" 94 Pv F 81 9
APRII, 49 1995 71
BooK 94 p4u RL 0
Commissioner Eggert suggested a strategy and marketing meeting
on these topics in 2 months time, with the utilities overview
included, which would move us right into some of the tax incentives
and affordable housing concerns.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to see invitations
issued to people in industry to take part in the workshop as the
Commissioners are all contacted by them saying how much some of the
impact fees and other systems are hurting their ability to do their
projects and to supply affordable housing. He hoped that some of
them would participate in the workshop.
Commissioner Eggert suggested we may need to contact DEP to
see if there is a way to get them to be a little more helpful. She
questioned when to start the base charge that upsets a lot of
people when they have to pay it for months and months before they
even start to build. She will bring the workshop back before the
Board to set up a definite date for sometime in the next 2 months.
Chairman Macht commented that he had broader and deeper
concerns.about some of the aspects of our utilities system. As an
addendum to what Commissioner Eggert is proposing, he would like to
discuss some policies relating to relationships with consultants.
He felt Vero Lake Estates was a classic example of poor planning.
It is one thing to assess a development that has more or less
similar lot sizes, but when you get into areas where you have
acreage, it is not a good idea to put in a project that would have
the effect of practically bankrupting some people who had an
intention of developing their property. One of the aspects
Commissioner Eggert mentioned is the impact fees and their impact
on affordable housing and he would like to know how we stack up
with other comparable governmental agencies throughout the state.
Are we charging too much? Are our policies uniform? He suspected
that we will find that we are probably in better shape than most
counties, but he would like to find out.
Commissioner Eggert felt as far as the Vero Lake Estates
decision is concerned, the planning came from a different point of
view, for a different reason and in different times. She believed
that a few years makes a lot of difference in how we look at some
of these things. _
APRIL 49 1995 7
M � 0
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT/DISTRICT 15
Commissioner Eggert stated that a bill is going to the Florida
House and Senate right now to pull public health out of HRS. She
emphasized that public health has been a good solid thing that was
separated from HRS, then put back with HRS, and then taken away
again. Her concern is that they are taking $20,000,000 and they
want to take it out of the public health trust fund, which is money
that should go to services for people. They want to rebuild a new
bureaucracy with it and she has a big problem with that. State
Senator William "Doc" Myers managed to get the bill through
committee. State Senator Patsy Kurth did vote against the deletion
of District 15 that we worked so hard to have formed so that we
could be split off from Palm Beach. Commissioner Eggert hoped the
House will defeat the bill. Evidently the bill is between 10,000
and 14,000 pages long and. they will not duplicate it, even for
legislators, so nobody knows 100% what's in it. The House bill is
much shorter. If the Board shares her concern for health services,
especially for our children, preventive health services and the
shift of funds that could go from services to the formation of a
a
department, she would like the Board to write the proper
representatives, senators and Governor Lawton Chiles asking them to
veto the bill.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board approved a letter to
the Legislators and Governor in opposition to the
bill --(to be prepared by Commissioner Eggert).
(NOTE: Comm. Eggert telephoned each of the
legislators instead of writing a letter.)
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, 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 11:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. arton, Clerk
Z,,� -- - - - �� �/ �
'Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Minutes Approved: �5 - 1!:::)
BOOK 94 FvA F 8? l
APRIL 4, 1995 73