HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/18/1995=MINUTES JWTACIIED �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
0
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 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 Mist. 2 )
John W. Tippin ( Dist. 4 )
9:00 A.M.
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Deleted
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - Rev. Jim Foxworth
20th Ave. Church of God
3. PLEDGE'OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
aDDITIONS
TO
THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
�4N Ar�rtmtat'�aUK--c31
13-A-3
Date change
for Teen Pregnancy Meeting
13-A-4
Disc. of
letter re: DEP requirements
13-B-2
Comment
on Unfunded Mandates
13-D-1
Parking
- North County Library
13-D-2
Set date
for utility. strategy plan and Incentive meeting
13-B-1
Send"to
P&R Committee
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Check to Indian River County by
Paul Tritaik of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
B. -Second Quarterly Recycling Award
(memorandum dated April 6, 1995)
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 6 Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: Report of Convictions, March 1995
B. Proclamation Designating April 23-29, 1995 as
Crime Victims' Rights Week in Ind. Riv. Co.
C. Proclamation Designating May. 1 - 7, 1995 as
Law Week In Indian River County
D. Occupational Licenses Collected During Month
of March, 1995
(memorandum dated April 5, 1995)
E. Resignation of John Holmes from Public Library
Advisory Board
(memorandum dated April 6, 1995)
R 4 B'5-7 4
6-q4- 95-7
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
F. Brandon Capital Corp.'s Request for Final Plat
Approval for Village of Lexington at Lake -in -
the Woods
(memorandum dated April 10, 1995)
G.. Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Conceptual
Approval Agreement for State Cost -Share to
Acquire Sebastian Highlands Scrub Lots
(memorandum dated April 5, 1995)
H. Request for Approval of Extension Addendum to
Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Acquisition
Agreement for the Wabasso Scrub LAAC Site
(memorandum dated April 5, 1995). .
I. Request for Board Approval of a "Phase II" FIND
Grant Application for Improvements at the Oslo
Riverfront Conservation Area
(memorandum dated April 5, 1995)
J. Award IRC Bid #5054 / KDB-6 Base Station
for Emergency Services/Fire Department
( memorandum dated April 10, 1995 )
K. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
Properties Purchased for County Use
(memorandum dated April 6, 1995)
L. Revision of the County's Disciplinary Procedures
( memorandum dated April 11, 1995 )
M. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment # 016
(memorandum dated April 12, 1995) _
8. CONSTI'T'UTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Proposed Purchase of Korangy Property
(memorandum dated March 30, 1995)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp.'s Request for County
Financial Assistance with the Indian River
Mall Project
.(memorandum dated April 12, 1995)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Authorization for Staff to Negotiate with
Ericsson GE for the Purchase of the 800 MHz
Simulcast Trunked Communications System from
an Existing County Contract
(memorandum dated April 6, 1995)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
C. GENERAL SERVICES
Old Health Department Building
(memorandum dated April 6, 1995)
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
4th Street Widening E Intersection Improvements
Amendment No. 1
( memorandum dated April 11, 1995 )
H. UTILITIES
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT
-1. Discussion of the Future of Medevac and
Emergency Services in Four County Area
(letter dated April 12, 1995)
2. Discussion of State Sesquicentennial
Committee Operations
(no backup provided)
B. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS
Sebastian River Little League Association
(memorandum dated April 11, 1995)
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN
L- HV* 9 Y -8s7 c J
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE
MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING-
MAY
EETING-MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR *AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
L71
Tuesday, April 18, 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 18, 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 Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator
Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Macht requested the following additions to the
Agenda:
7-N Appointment of Jack Chestnutt to LAAC
13-A-3 Change of meeting date for Teen Pregnancy Meeting.
13-A-4 Letter from FDEP re requirements for SWDD wetlands
mitigation proposal.
Commissioner Adams requested the following changes:
Deletion of 13-B-1 - Sent to Parks & Rec. Committee.
Addition of 13-B-2 - Comment on unfunded mandates.
Commissioner Eggert requested the following additions:
13-D-1 - Additional parking/North County Library.
13-D-2 - Set date for utilities, strategy plan and
incentive meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the above changes to the Agenda.
1 Bou 94 f'A�;�:
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 FA,u �L 859
PRESENTATION OF CHECK TO IRC BY PAUL TRITAIK OF U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Paul Tritaik of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented a
check to Indian River County in the amount of $18,941 and read
aloud the following letter dated March 23, 1995:
M., AdRrimstrator
United States Department of the Int�rey
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Personnel
errs c a Public lyork%
Community Dav:... _--
�� MAR 2 3 1, Utiiitios
a��en.. � MAR_-----
Or'Jlil _
tn ti . E ►tF3h"Pa�yirienct �Eoanrfe�
c�
t Rick CIEt.
,4 Othar .
8
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is pleased to present rd ia►, R;ver
County/Parish its refuge revenue sharing payment in the amount of $ i I., 9 I . oo . This
payment for fiscal year 1994 (October 1, 1993 - September 30, 1994) is authorized by the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978, Public Law 95469. Funds credited to the National
Wildlife Refuge Fund are derived from income generated nationally on Service lands, such as
oil and gas revenues, sale of timber products, gravel, grazing. receipts, and other products.
The Act authorizes payment to counties in which Service -owned lands are located, based upon
the following methods of computation, whichever is greater:
(1) Three-fourths of 1 percent (0.75 percent) of the fair market (appraised)
value of fee lands located within the county/parish.
(2) Seventy-five cents per acre of the fee lands located within the
county/parish.
(3) Twenty-five percent of net receipts collected by the Service for certain
activities permitted on fee lands located within the county/parish.
This year's fund did not contain sufficient receipts to make full payment to counties as computed
above. Although Congress, as authorized, did appropriate additional funds, the amount
appropriated was not sufficient to provide for a full entitlement • payment. The amount of
payment for fiscal year -1994 represents 77.1 percent of the total entitlement.
In addition, the reason that payments to certain counties have significantly increased or decreased
from last year's may be due to reappraisals or the acquisitiod -6f additional lands.
If you need additional information, please contact Supervisory Realty Specialist Gerald Vits, or
Realty Specialist Charlotte Underwood at telephone 1-800-419-9582.
2
APRIL 18, 1995
Sincerely yours,
7-
/_e- &24f��
Noreen K. Clough .
Regional Director
� s �
SECOND QUARTERLY RECYCLING AWARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/95:
DATE: APRIL 6, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
�SjOOLLI. D WASTE DISPOSAL DIST
FROM: SAM ROHLFING, RECYCLING COORDINATOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTERLY RECYCLING AWARD
BACKGROUND
As we discussed late last year, the recycling awards presented to
a person or entity who displays a superior interest and
participation in and furtherance of recycling are now quarterly.
They are to be presented at a regular BCC meeting by the BCC
chairman and are to include a framed certificate and additional
appropriate gift items (recycling canvas bag, coffee mug, donated
gift certificate to dinner.)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes that the second quarter award' be presented to
Dennis Green, Vero Beach Public Works Director, for his
initiation of and commitment to the city's business recycling
program. We request that this award be given during the BCC
meeting April 18, 1995. Information on the recipient for use by
the presenter is attached.
On behalf of the community, Vero Beach Mayor Warren Winchester
presented the Second Quarterly Recycling Award to Dennis Green,
Vero Beach Public Works Director, who expressed his appreciation
for receiving the award but added that he felt it was something
deserved by all of Vero Beach.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Report
Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, March 1995
3 BOOK FAGf
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 FAGS: 861
B. Proclamation - Crime Victims' Rights Week
PROCLAMATION
0
WHEREAS, one violent crime is committed in America every 15
seconds; and
WHEREAS, thirty-five million Americans fall victim to violent
crime each year in the United States and are rapidly
becoming a majority; and
WHEREAS, crime victims play an indispensable role in bringing
offenders to justice and, thus, preventing further
violence; and
WHEREAS, as a nation devoted to liberty and justice for all,
America must plant the seeds of justice to protect and
rgstore crime victims' rights; and
WHEREAS, harvesting justice over the past two decades has been
accomplished in part by the millions of survivors of
crime, their families and advocates whose commitment and
s irit has persevered while confronting an increasingly
violent nation; and
WHEREAS. Indian River County is joining forces with victim service
programa, criminal justice officials and concerned
citizens throughout Indian River County to observe
National Crime Victims' Rights Week:
NOW, THEREFORE, •BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the
week of April 23-29, 1995 be designated as
CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board reaffirms' its commitment to
address victims' rights and criminal justice issues during 1995 and
throughout the year.
Adopted this 18th day of April, 1995.
4
APRIL 18, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY CO[MMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
IENLNETH R. CHT, CHAIRMAN
C. Proclamation -Law Week
.PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS, May 1 is LAW DAY in the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, the Unites States of America has been the citadel of
individual liberty and a beacon of hope and opportunity
.for more than 200 years to many millions who have
sought our shores; and
WHEREAS, the foundation of individual freedom and liberty is the
body of law that governs us; and
WHEREAS,, the Constitution of the United 'States of America and
the Bill of Rights are the heart of that body of law,
which guarantees us many freedoms including freedom of
religious belief, freedom to have and to hold property
inviolate, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech,
freedom of press, freedom of petition, and due process
of law among others; and
WHEREAS, this year marks the 38th annual nationwide observance
of LAW DAY, and the Congress of the United States and
the President by official proclamation have set aside
May 1 as a special day for recognition of the place of
law in American life; and
WHEREAS, the County of Indian River recognizes May 1 - 7, 1995
as LAW WEEK with "E Pluribus Unum - Out of Many, One"
as a national theme:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that the week of May 1 - 7,
1995 be observed as
LAW WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board calls upon all
citizens, schools, businesses, clubs, and the news
media to commemorate the role of law in our lives.
of April, 1995,.. -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
XNDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
5 BOOK 94 pm,- 862
APRIL 18, 1995
BDOK 94 FAv 863
D. Occupational Licenses Report - Month of March 1995
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/5/95:
iffi�IORANDDS
TO: Board of County Commission
FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collec
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: April 5, 1995
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $3,738.81 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of March, representing the issuance of
151 licenses.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted
the Occupational License Report for March, 1995.
E. Resignation of John Holmes from Public Library Advisory Board
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert -
DATE: April 6, 1995
SUBJECT: Resignation of John Holmes from the
Public Library Advisory Board
Please accept the resignation of John Holmes from the
Public Library Advisory Board due to reasons of health.
John has served on this Board for many years and has
contributed a great deal to the betterment of our County
libraries. He will be sorely missed.
6
APRIL 18, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted,
with regret, the resignation of John Holmes from the
Public Library Advisory Board.
F. Final Plat Approval - Village of Lexington at Lake -in -the -Woods
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Pak
Robert M. Kea ing, AICP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Bolin AICP
Planning Director
FROM:John W. McCoy, AICP 21, to
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: April 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Brandon Capital Corp.'s Request for Final Plat Approval
for the Village of Lexington at Lake -in -the -Woods
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 18, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Village of Lexington is a 37 unit subdivision of a 14.69 acre
parcel of land located in the southern portion of the Lake -in -the -
Woods development, just east of the Fountains of Vero. The subject
property is zoned RM -61 Residential Multi -Family (up to 6 units per
acre) and has a land use designation of L-2, Low Density 2 (up to
6 units/acre). The density of the subdivision is 2.52 units/acre.
The applicant received site plan approval to construct 26 attached
duplex units and 11 detached units. At the June 23, 1994 Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant also received
preliminary plat approval to "plat over" the site planned
development.
The developer, Brandon Capital Corp., subsequently obtained a land
development permit and has completed construction of all required
subdivision improvements. The developer is now requesting final
plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat
and development site plan; and
2. A certificate of completion for all required improvements.
7 600K`i Fret
APRIL 18, 1995
0
BOOK N�t�i�r.
ANALYSIS:
The LDRs allow developers to "plat over" site plan projects to
provide for the fee simple transfer of property beneath individual
units. Normal subdivision lot dimension and roadway requirements
are waived for "lots" created by such plats. The approved site
plan controls the development of the project, including setbacks
and separation between structures, while the plat delineates common
areas and creates lots that can be sold to unit owners.
All required improvements have been completed by the developer with
the exception of streetlighting, which will be bonded -out for
future construction. The cost estimate for streetlighting has been
approved by the county engineer, and the contract for construction
and cash escrow agreement has been approved by the County
Attorney's Office. The developer has obtained a certificate of
completion certifying that all required improvements are complete
and acceptable, with the exception of the streetlights. All
proposed subdivision improvements are to be privately dedicated
with the exception of the utilities, which is separately warranted
through the Department of Utility Services. Therefore, no warranty
and maintenance agreement is required. All requirements of final
plat approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to sign the contract
for construction of required improvements, and approve the final
plat.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval to Brandon Capital Corp. for
Village of Lexington at Lake -in -the -Woods and
authorized the Chairman to sign the contract for
construction of required improvements.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
8
APRIL 18, 1995
G. Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Conceptual Approval Agreement --
Acquisition of Sebastian Highlands Scrub Lots __ rmc
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/5/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE WENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert N. eat g, AI
Community Devel pment irector
FROM: Roland N. DeBlois,02CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: April 5, 1995
RE: Florida Communities
Agreement for State
Highlands Scrub Lots
Trust (FCT) Conceptual Approval
Cost -Share to Acquire Sebastian
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 18, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In September 1994, county staff, as authorized by the Board of
County Commissioners, submitted an application to the Florida
Communities Trust (FCT) program for 50% acquisition funding of the
Sebastian Highlands scrub lots, as well as a scrub industrial tract
owned by Atlantic Gulf Communities (AGC). To address an FCT
project contiguity issue, the application was subsequently modified
to include only the Sebastian Highlands scrub lots.
Funding Approved
On January 12, 1995, the FCT Governing Body held a public hearing
in Tallahassee regarding fourth -year -cycle FCT grant applications.
The purpose of the hearing was to finalize the scoring and ranking
of each submitted project. As a result of the scoring, the
Sebastian Highlands Scrub lots ranked sufficiently to receive State
cost -share funding.
Conceptual Approval Agreement
Since the January 12th FCT hearing, FCT staff has visited the
Sebastian Highlands scrub site with county staff to verify site
conditions as represented in the project application. In
accordance with State procedures, the next step is for the FCT
Governing Body and the County Commission to execute a "Conceptual
Approval Agreement" for the project. Because the project is
located within the City of Sebastian, the City Council must also
execute the agreement for full approval.
9 BOOK 94 Pt1GE t.�
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 866
FCS staff has transmitted the attached Conceptual Approval
Agreement to county staff relating to the subject property. The
Agreement was approved by the FCT Governing Body at its meeting on
March 10, 1995, and is presented herein for the Board's
consideration.
ANALYSIS
The agreement consists largely of standard language and conditions
pursuant to Rule 9K-41 Florida Administrative Code, the rule which
sets forth Florida Communities Trust program procedures.
The agreement consists of eight main sections, as follows
(paraphrased):
I. General Conditions
II. Requirements Prior to Initiation of Negotiations
III. County Obligations Relating to Project Plan Approval
IV. Project Site Acquisition Requirements
V. Obligations as a Condition of Project Funding
Vi. Obligations Relating to Use of Bond Proceeds
VII. Disallowable Activities/Remedies
VIII. Site Specific Management Plan Conditions
The General Conditions section of the agreement contains standard
language pertaining to timing and coordination of steps between
the County and FCT.
Requirements Prior to Initiation of Negotiations outlines a number
of steps and time frames including the requirement that the County
provide a resolution to FCT, with information confirming such
things as property owners being.willing sellers, and the County's
ability to provide the local match.
Under this section of the agreement, the County has the opportunity
to choose whether the County or FCT will be the responsible party
for all negotiation and acquisition activities. These activities
include overseeing appraisals, surveys, title reports, and
environmental audits. The execution of a multi-party agreement is
required only if the County opts to be the responsible party for
negotiation and acquisition activities.
If the County opts for FCT to be the responsible negotiating party,
then the land acquisition consultant contracted to assist with the
overall county environmental land acquisition program
(FloridAffinity) will not be involved with acquisition activities
relating to the project.
It is staff's position that the County should opt to be responsible
for negotiation and acquisition activities for the project. County
responsibility for these activities will expedite the acquisition
process, and thus provide timely relief to Sebastian Highlands lot
owners burdened with federal mitigation requirements.
County Obligations as a Condition of Project Plan Approval outlines
County documents required prior to FCT disbursement of State funds,
including a statement of total project costs, a signed agreement
for acquisition, and a management plan consistent with the criteria
and conditions within the Conceptual Approval Agreement.
Acquisition Requirements relates to State requirements regarding
transfer of title procedures.
Obligations as a Condition
of project property once
adopted management plan,
approval is first obtained.
APRIL 18, 1995
of Project Funding ensures that any use
acquired will be consistent with the
or, if changes are proposed, that FCT
10
Obligations Relating
County to notify FCT
that may affect State
with respect to legal
to the Use of Bond Proceeds requires the
if any use of project property is proposed
bond proceeds used in acquiring the property,
and tax consequences.
Disallowable Activities/Remedies provides that the County will
cease any "disallowable activities" on the project property upon
written notification from the FCT, as applicable, and that the FCT
will be held harmless from all claims relating to disallowable
activities. "Disallowable activities" are specifically listed in
the Agreement, and include the operation of concessions on the
property, and "any use of the project site by any person other than
in such person's capacity as a member of the general public".
Site Specific Management Plan Conditions reflect information
presented to FCT in the County's grant applications, plus revisions
deemed appropriate by the FCT, relating to proposed site
improvements and use. Proposed improvements include nature trails,
a picnic area, information kiosk, gazebo, and limited parking.
Management of scrub habitat is also a described management plan
condition for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Board Chairman to execute the attached Conceptual Approval
Agreement, and authorize staff to contact the City of Sebastian to
request its execution of the agreement. Staff also recommends that
the Board opt to have the County be the responsible party for
negotiation and acquisition activities associated with the
Sebastian Highlands scrub project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Conceptual Approval Agreement, as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Addendum to Acquisition Agreement
- Wabasso Scrub LAAC Site
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/5/95:
11 BOOK
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 pmu869
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro er M. Keatin , AIC
Community Development Wrector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois AICD
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: April 5, 1995
RE: Request for Approval of Extension Addendum to Florida
Communities Trust (FCT) Acquisition Agreement for the
Wabasso Scrub LAAC Site
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by
the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 18, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners, in July, 1993, approved a Conceptual Approval
Agreement with the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) to cost -share acquire the
"Wabasso Scrub" property. Addenda to the Agreement were subsequently approved
by the Board on June 21, 1994 and November 1, 1994, extending the original
Agreement expiration date. The Wabasso Scrub property is on the County Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee's (LAAC's) list of environmental land under
consideration for acquisition.
Last month, staff requested an extension to the referenced Conceptual Approval
Agreement in order to allow completion of negotiations and management plan
drafting prior to the agreement's expiration (see attached). The FCT Governing
Board, at its meeting of March 10, 1995, approved the requested extension.
Staff now requests that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached
Addendum to the Conceptual Approval Agreement which will extend the Agreement
until October 7, 1995, for purposes of allowing completion of negotiations and
conceptual management plans.
Project Status
A title report, boundary survey, and two independent appraisals of the Wabasso
Scrub property have been completed, and purchase negotiations are underway.
Remaining tasks include the development of a conceptual management plan in
accordance with FCT requirements.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board
Chairman to execute the attached agreement addendum.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Addendum III to Conceptual Approval Agreement, as
recommended by staff.
ADDENDUM IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12
APRIL 18, 1995
I. Approval of FIND Grant Application - Improvement at Oslo Riverfront
Conservation Area
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/5/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keats q,
Community Deve oppm'e Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: April 5, 1995
RE: Request for Board Approval of a "Phase II" FIND
Grant Application for Improvements at the
Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting on April 18, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners, at its meeting of April 27,
1993, authorized staff to submit a grant application to the Florida
Inland Navigation District (FIND) for limited public access
improvements on the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area Property.
The Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area was jointly acquired by the
County and St. Johns River Water Management District in 1991 for
conservation purposes.
Subsequently, "Phase I" of the, application was approved by. FIND,
and the County entered into a project agreement with FIND on
November 3, 1993. Phase I consists of permitting, engineering and
design of site improvements, including boardwalks, limited parking
area design, and an observation platform. On November 91 1994, the
Board authorized a contract with consultant Hanson Taylor Bellomo
Herbert, Inc., to assist with Phase I tasks. Permitting,
engineering and design are expected to be completed in the next few
months.
Staff now requests that the Board approve a FIND Waterways
Assistance grant application for "Phase II" construction of site
improvements. Staff also requests that the Board adopt an
application resolution (required by FIND as part of the
application).
Status of Phase I Project
Relating to Phase I grant project activities, most of the activity
undertaken to date has focused on submittal of a permit application
for state and federal approval of boardwalks, and related structures
proposed to traverse jurisdictional wetlands. While staff has
received U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval, State Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) permitting approval is still
pending. However, the county consultant (Hanson Taylor Bellomo
�4
13 BOOK F'F�Gr. 87
APRIL 18, 1995
j
BOOK 94 f't a 871
Herbert) has made progress in addressing DEP concerns, and a permit
is forthcoming. Also, the consultant has begun engineering and
design work for site plan approval of overall project improvements.
Other activities recently completed that will contribute to County
match credit for Phase II of the overall project are Brazilian
pepper removal and oak tree transplanting. Both of these
activities were paid for with County mitigation and tree fine
funds, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
S,ptember 20, 1994.
ANALYSIS
Costs and Funding
Overall site improvements are estimated to cost +;192,000. The
FIND grant application proposed herein would account for +$90,600
of that amount.
An estimated $50,000 of the $101,500 county cost relates to
restroom construction. Restrooms at the subject property could be
considered a future phase of development, contingent upon funding
availability.
County native upland mitigation funds may be used for management
costs associated with acquired conservation properties, and
therefore these funds can be used to fund site access improvements.
As authorized by the Board, Brazilian pepper removal and land
clearing have already occurred in the vicinity of proposed parking,
with use of mitigation and tree fine account funds. As such, a
portion of the county's match for the grant has already been
incurred.
Following is a summary of project construction costs divided into
matching fund categories.
County Upland county Match
Estimated Total FIND Grant County Match Mitigation Fund Potentially
PZoj. cost Request Already Incurred Match Deferred (Reetro®)
$192,100
Maintenance
$90,600 $10,000
$41,500
$50,000
Once the property is developed, annual maintenance costs are
expected to be incorporated into the operating budget of the County
Parks and Recreation Division.
According to information obtained from other public agencies,
conservation lands with passive recreational use generally cost.
approximately $25 per acre per year to maintain. In this case, that
would translate to +$7,500. However, that figure will likely be
less because a substantial portion of the property is impounded
wetland, and costs for maintaining the impoundment will be absorbed
by the Mosquito Control District. Also, the Board recently
approved a grant agreement between the St. Johns River Water
Management District and the I.R.C. School Board for educational and
stewardship activities at the Oslo Riverfront property. Therefore,
some maintenance work (litter patrol, trail maintenance) will occur
at no cost to the County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County
submittal of a FIND grant application for
improvements as explained herein. Staff
Board authorize the Board Chairman t
resolution as part of the application.
14
APRIL 18, 1995
Commissioners authorize
Oslo Riverfront property
also recommends that the
o execute the attached
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Phase II FIND Grant Application for Improvements
at the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area and adopted
Resolution 95-59, resolution for assistance under
the Florida Inland Navigation District Waterways
Assistance Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-59
RESOLUTION FOR ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
WATERWAYS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
(hereinafter "the Board") is interested in carrying out the
following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of
Indian River County and the State of Florida:
Project Title: Developing Educational
Improvements at the i
Area (Phase II)
Total Estimated Cost: $192,100
Brief Description of Project:
unities and Riverfront
.verfront Conservation
The vroiect will provide multiple educational opportunities
for waterways -related systems. Proposed improvements to
provide educational opportunities and passive resource-based
recreational access include: a +200 square foot canoe dock;
+600 square foot marsh view/fishing pier; +20 high.observation
platform; +1,650 square feet of boardwalk/wetland crossovers;
walking/nature trails; educational_ sign displays; and parking
facilities.
AND, Florida Inland Navigation District financial assistance
is required for the program mentioned above,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board that the project
described above be authorized,
AND, be it further resolved that the Board make application to
the Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of 47 % of the
actual cost of the project in behalf of said Indian River County
residents,
AND, be it further resolved by the Board that it certifies to
the following:
1. That it will accept the terms and conditions set forth in FIND
Rule 16T-2 F..A.C. which will be a part of the Project
Agreement for any assistance awarded under the attached
proposal.
15 BOOK 94 f'AGF 87?
APRIL 18, 1995
w
RESOLUTION NO. 95-59
poor �F�!:t 8.� 1
2. That it is in complete accord with the attached proposal and
that it will carry out the Program in the manner described' -in
the proposal and any plans and specifications attached thereto
unless prior approval for any change has been received from
the District.
3. That it has the ability and intention to finance its share of
the cost of the project and that project will be operated and
maintained at.the expense of said Board for public use.
4. That it will not discriminate against any person on the basis
of race, color or national origin in the use of any property
or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this proposal,
and shall.comply with the terms and intent of the Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352 (1964) and design
and construct all facilities to comply fully with statutes
relating to accessibility by handicapped persons as well as
other federal, state and local laws, rules and requirements.
5. That it will maintain adequate financial records on the
proposed project to substantiate claims for reimbursement.
6. That it will'. make available to FIND, if requested, a post -
audit of expenses incurred on the project prior to, or in
conjunction with, request for the final 10% of the funding
agreed to by FIND.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tippin,.-and, upon being
put to a vote, the. -vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
.Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 18th day of April, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest: By
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
l _ �t
�%� . t
/waterway.II
16
APRIL 18, 1995
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND L AL UFFICIENCY
B TERRENCE P. O'BRIEN
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
T. Award Bid #5054 -- KDB-6 Base Station - Radio
Communications/Hazardous Materials
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/95:
DATE: April 10, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services _'0*
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Award IRC Bid 15054/KDB-6 Base Station
Emergency Services/Fire Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
Statement of No Bids
LINZ, 0mil
Safety Equipment Company
Miramar, Florida
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
March 22, 1995
March 1, 8, 1995
Nineteen (19) Vendors
One (1) Vendor
Five (5)
BID TOTAL
$12,115.00
$12,115.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fire District Communications
Equipment -All
ESTIMATED BUDGET:
RECOMMENDATION
$12,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to the sole
bidder Safety i me t Com an . This bid meets all the
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 5054 to Safety Equipment Company in the amount
of $12,115.00, as recommended by staff.
17
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 Fvc 874
BOOK 94 u(;, 875
K. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes on Property Purchased for
County Use
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/95:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY C MMISSIONERS
4Z.A, �
FROM: Lea R. Kell r, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Char Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 6, 1995
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TAXES
PROPERTIES PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
The County recently acquired some right-of-way, and, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is allowed
to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property
acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done by
resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the Tax
Collector and the Property Appraiser.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolution cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
Attachment: 1 Resolution - Parcel #16-33-39-00001-0060-00001.0&2.0
William H. Hensick & Sons
R/W along 4th St., E of 58th Avenue
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-60, cancelling certain delinquent
taxes upon publicly -owned lands, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes.
18
APRIL 18, 1995
net R/N - 4th -St., E of 58th Ave.
Parcel •16-33-39-00001-0060-00001.0&2.0
Nilliam B. Bensiak & eons
I RESOLUTION NO. 95- 60
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
NHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or* acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, .reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and netting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authQrized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
oommissIONERs OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, thatt
1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property
described in 0. R. Book 1053, Page 1326, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County for right of way purposes on 4th Street east of 58th
Avenue, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section
196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to
send a certifi'bd copy of this Resolution to the Tax Collector and the
Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert r
and the motion was seconded by commissioner Tippin , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was -as followet
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Comnnislioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner .john W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 18 day of April , 1995.
Stamps
BOARD OF NTY COMMISSIO S _
INDIAN VER COUNTY, FLORI
t
�nl.
By
�enneth R. Macht, Chairman
rk
nentt'Deed w h Legal Description
'm mve Ce Approved Dale
dmirt
8udgel
Dept
or.
19 BOOK
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 ulu 877
Statutory Warranty Deed a�ao�eacd...,d.►...naretc)vtvte
R/W - Fourth- Street E of 58th Avenue DOCUMENTARY STAMPS
�� Tax ID #16-33-39-00001-0060=00001.0&2.0 DEED $ 38 4•y U
NOTE $
OEM$ OF JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERK
CySTATUTORY WARRANTY DEED, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
11KFRCOja
THIS INDENTURE., made this .3 day of OAA4 ,
1995, between
WILLIAM H. HENSICK & SONS, INC., a Florida
corporation, the address of which is Post Office
Box 309, Vero Beach, FL 32961, GRANTOR,
and
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, it political subdivision of
the State of Florida, whose address is 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, GRANTEE,
L7
WITNESSETH:
That GRANTOR, for and In consideration of the sum of $10.00
and other good and valuable consideration to GRANTOR in hand paid by
GRANTEE, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted,
bargained, and sold to the GRANTEE, and GRANTEE'S heirs and assigns
forever, the following described land, situate, lying, and being in
Indian River County, Florida:
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
and GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to the land, and will
defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
C
cc
Cc
ta?
�O
Signed in the presence of: WILLIAM H. HENSICK & SONS, INC.
a Florida corporation
sign: bc 4.2 te. gAg!jt
Witness /
printed name: K f` Q. 140w
By 4/
William B. Hensick _
Vice President
sign:
rLK--
Witness APPROVED AS TO FORM �-
printed name: 'rerrtpee�'. 4' �C3rie.., (SEAL) AND GAL I FFICIENCY
STATE OF FLORIDA BY. TERRENCE P. O'BRIEN
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY' •
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this S
day offtft , 1995, by William B. Hensick, Vice President -
WILLIAMHENSICK & SONS, INC., a Florida corporation, on behalf of
said corporation. He is personally known to me 4r --F••=: s:
ice_ .aei
sign:
Notary Public
• printed name:
•'`�f'�'�t OFFICIAL SEAL
LEA R. KELLER
nY Commtsalon ExOres
••'• 4 .• ' . May is, 1998
•••.« ..• Comm. No. CC 194154
20
APRIL 18, 1995
Cil
1
Z"
Q
6y0
r-;
On
__j
an
to m r`
m ^ r
M
F, O
F 0 SCALE. 1"=150' ~
} C G
1 J Q
/327--95 3Z7-94
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The North 70 feet of the South" 100 feet of Tract 6, together with the North "0 feet of the South 100 feet of
the West 10 acres of Tract 7, all lying in Section 16, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the
last general plat of the lands of the Indian River .Farms Company as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25 of the
Public Records ,'?of St. Lucie County, F:orida, now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CERTIFICATION
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional. Land Surveyor licensea to practice in the state z
of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate supervision, and that it is accurate and correct. I further i
certify that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Admin—
istrative Code, pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472.
PREPARED FOR 011" ROWER COUNTY
X10 DEPARTMENT o3
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY g
Charles A. Cramer,
_P7 _-z Re 4034 1840 c, SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q
9• # 25th St, Vero Beach, . 1 32960
Indian River County Surveyor (407) 567-8000
Date _t_. -t, e 7S
L ZE I sa ren I
1
1
1
BOOK 9 4 r}- :F 8 !
L. Revision of County Personnel Disciplinary Procedures
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/11/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney -6-4790
DATE: April 11, 1995
SUBJECT: Revision of the County's Disciplinary Procedures
The Board of County Commissioners has instructed the staff
to remove the Board from the disciplinary appeal procedure
process. An appropriate revision has been prepared for the
Administrative Policy Manual. In addition, the time for holding the
hearing and rendering a decision on an appeal has been increased
from 7 days to 14 days.
These new procedures shall not apply to employees in the
bargaining unit being represented by the Teamsters which is
currently in bargaining with the County unless or until they are
agreed to in the bargaining process. The old procedures shall
govern these employees. It is required by law to maintain the
status quo until after bargaining is completed.
It is recommended that pursuant to Section 104.02 IRC Code
that the attached changes be approved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the following changes to the disciplinary appeal
procedure process:
22
APRIL 18, 1995
Administrative Policy Manual Number AM - 807.1 Comment 6
"Appeals Process" is amended as follows:
1. 6 . a . 2 the phrase "seven working days" is changed to read
"fourteen working days"
2. 6.b. "Board of County Commissioners" is deleted except to
the extent set forth in the footnote to 6.a.4.
3. A new 6. a. 3 & 4 is ,added with footnote to read as follows:
3. In the event that the supervisor of the employee is the
County Administrator, the County Attorney or the Executive
Aide to the Commission, that County officer, as appropriate,
- shall conduct the pre -termination hearing as well as the
post -termination hearing.
4. The decision of the County Administrator, County
Attorney or Executive aide to the Commission, as appropriate,
shall be final and binding on the parties, without further
right of appeal.'
' This procedure shall not apply to those employees who are in the
bargaining unit currently under negotiations with the County and
represented by the Teamsters unless or until they are agreed to in
the bargaining process. The appeal process provided under 6B
shall remain for these employees. In addition the time extension of
7 to 14 days shall remain at 7 days for these employees.
23 BOOK 94
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 FAGS. 881
M. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #016
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/12/95:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 12, 1995
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 016
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The Friends of the Vero Beach Public Library have made a donation to the Main Library
amounting to $10,647.95. One check for $5,000 is for the National Telecommunication
and Information Administration (NTIA) grant match and is designated to go toward the
purchase of a LCD projector to be housed at the Main Library. This projector will be
used as a training instrument for the public. The remaining dollars are to be used for
books on tape and magazines. This entry will allocate this donation.
2. On November 19, 1994 the Sheriffs Office held a "Sale of Surplus Property" and are
using the proceeds to purchase replacement equipment (see attached memo).
3. In 1993/94 the Housing Authority applied for a grant and received $6,016.00 in advance.
They were unable to meet the objectives of the grant and must return the prior year
revenue. They have re-applied for the grant in 1994/95 and the grant application has
been approved for the same objectives. The attached entry allocates the money to do
this.
4. The Housing Authority sent the Budget Office an estimated revenues for the 1994/95
fiscal year. One of the revenues was $15,000 for Rental Assistance. The Budget
Director interpreted that to mean a $15,000 Rental Assistance grant from the Federal
Government, but Housing Authority wanted a transfer of $15,000 from the Rental
Assistance fund. The attached entry corrects the revenue budget.
5. The budget staff decided to change the funding subsidy for the Housing Authority we had
initially budgeted a subsidy of $74,606 from the General Fund which staff would like
to reduce to $24,606 and have the Rental Assistance Program pay $50,000 of the
subsidy. Staff feels this subsidy is better since the Housing Authority and Rental
Assistance are similar functions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 016.
24
APRIL 18, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #016:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commission
FROM: Joseph A. Baird,.
OMB Director. .
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 016
DATE: Aprill2.1995
REVISION
Entry
Number
FunddDepartment/Account Name
Account -Number
Increase
Decrease
I.
REVENUES:
GENERAL FUND/MAIN LIBRARY
Donations - Main Library
0014000-366-095.00
$5,000
$0
Donations -Books -Main Library
001-000-366-103.00
$5,648
$0
EXPENDITURES:
GENERAL FUND/MAIN LIBRARY
Subscriptions
001-109-571-035.46
$2,648
$0
GENERAL FUND/Audio Visual
001-109-571-035.48
$3,000
$0
GENERALFUND/
Other Furniture and Equipment
001-109-571-066.41
$5,000
$0
2.
REVENUES:
GENERAL FUND/Surplus Sales -Furniture
Land Equipment
0014000-364-041.00
$12,397
$0
EXPENDITURES:
GENERAL FUND/SHERIFF
001-600-586-099.04
$12,397
$0
3.
REVENUE:
'�
HOUSING AUT(IORITY/Grant
107-000-334-054.00
$6,016
$0
EXPENDITURES:
HOUSING AUTHORITY/Prior Year
Expense
07-226 554-036.72
107_226_5
$6,016
$0
4.
REVENUE:
HOUSING AUTHORITY/Other Culture
Rec. Great
1074)00-334-079.00
$0
$15,000
HOUSING AUTHORITY/Fund Transfer In
1074000-381-020.00
$15,000
$0
RENTAL ASSISTANCE/Low Income
Horsing
1084000-331-057.00
$15,000
$0
,EXPENDITURES:
RENTAL ASSISTANCEITransfer Out
108-222-581-099.21
$15,000
S.
REVENUE:
RENTAL ASSISTANCEJLow income
Horsing
108-000-331-057.00
$50,000
$0
EXPENDITURES:
GENERAL FUND/Transfer Out
001-199-581-099.21
$0
$50,000
GENERAL FUND/Cash Forward
001-199-581-099.92
$50,000
$0
RENTAL ASSISTANCE/Tmnsfer Out
108-222-581-099.21
1 $50000
so
0
25 BOOK
APRIL 18, 1995
94 F'ArE
BOOK 94 mu.893
N. Appointment of .Tack Chesnutt to LAAC
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/12/95:
- VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF REALTORSIM, INC.
1192 Ponce Ge Leon Clide
Verb poso, F9orldo 32960
REALTORO Phone (407) 567-3510
F A X (407)776.6490
April 12, 1995
The Honorable Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Lend Acquisition Committee
Dear Ken:
This letter will confirm our request to have REALTOR® Jack Chesnutt appointed to represent
the REALTORS® Association of Indian River County on the Land Acquisition Committee. As
you know, Mr. Chesnutt is a former president of our Association and currently serves as
Chairman of the Government AilWrs Committee.
Mr. Chesnutes home address is: 2845 Country Club Drive
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(407) 562-5724 (home)
office: Associates Realty of Indian River, Inc.
947 20th Place
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(407) 569-4437.
Sincerely,
Edward Donner, President
REALTORS® Assopigiod of Indian River County
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously appointed
Jack Chesnutt to the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee.
26
APRIL 18, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED PURCHASE OF KORANGY
PROPERTY
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised:
VERO MACH PRESS.JOURNAL
publish" Dally
Vere South. btdlen Rlver County, ilaride
COUNTY OF WMN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before IM undersigned sutMrity personalty appeared J. J SChwrrrayr. Jr. who on oath
says tml M h Business MansQer of 11116 Vero Beach press -Journal. a a
daily *a paper
r published
N Vero Beaah M Indian Rww County. Florida. that IM attached copy
In the matter o
In IM court. was pub-
ached In said newspaper In 1M Issues dl�
A111an11urther Be" ttrat ttm said Vero Beach press Jolmml Is a newspaper published et
Vero Beach. M sold Indian RNer County. Florlds. and that the said newspaper hes heretoloro
been eonlln nnaty published In sold Indian pNer County. Florida. each deny and has been
entered as sseend e4ss yam yell rbrt plaaedin9 the lhsl publlcallon of the ll Ihe post ollice in Vero Beach. in sold a attached COPY of
IT. Florida, for a peran River Coum
iod e! ohm 1 on, firm
ad•edisamenl: end eluant lumber says that M has r refund
pall ride ppurpose any Oars
or corporallon any discount, rebate. eanmissbrr o► refund for the tnrrF�e o1 securhrro this
adrertherrreni for publication In the Sold newsp W -
r Ibis} i O1 A.D. lig
• • SwMrh 10 Arid tlrbserlbed •
.'� •.ham �' •!.
• . -t.. -:•-r :•h.. t trey mac ^.ru:,r:rn .•• IB Mmha0er)
• �. t•t.M• d l ,.0a. L', r a.-.•
•1 % tsEAy � :: � � F�es- .. //.rr.• .... .
i r/.t �.•PT;
• raaery tvr�vn.. r:
NOTIM OF PIL C HtARNO
Nolte d Polar b eorrider Wo" p lCt" of
env"ruffencounty tmr 32 weprop=ty ow�
bd AmlWAjed e A. irle P lI
PIT"*
Trled y, h Sforoanes mmHg
TSR. AIA and Jungle
own eW 31 S. Ramps
39 E. See the abwe nap for the baton
A pubic haft at ~ parties in Mftes! end
dlzera steal have an eppoprt{�eilyy b be heard. wE
be held by to SMd of►kion Rh* Card Florida, In Ina Cwrdp Camlb�
abn CIhernbera d h Canny Adrnaiatratort Bl#
rr8 boated aI 1610 256 Steel Vero 9owk Floe
We on T�sd/y Ase 11.11115 S, . un
Arlyff YYFID It1aJ 1AAel1 ♦barljt deClelOn
which trey be made N tie wee need b no -
afire tat tl a verba roiled of ft prooeedlrrps b
made. which ahr>I I leetarUri old eddtyhoe upon
which the is based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACOOVAMA-
TION FOR THIS MEEM MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS VQTN DISABLM ACT
ADA)COOROWTOR AT W7400 X723 AT
on
T e8 NO= N ADVANCE OF TIE MEET.
INOMRIVOCOUNTY
BOARD OF 001A COM MOSIOfERB
BY-s4Wr 1 h R. Made. ChdMW
March 31. IM 1/18050'
The Board reviewed the -following memo dated 3/30/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP 14M k
Community Development Director
Roland M. DeBloisP
Chief, Environmental Planning
Terrence P. O'BrienCIP0
Assistant County Attorney
DATE: March 30, 1995
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE OF KORANGY PROPERTY
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of April 18, 1995.
27 BOOK 94 pmuc 884
APRIL 18, 1995
Boa 94 FAI,J,r- 895
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
purchase the Korangy property with land acquisition bond
funds. The proposed purchase contract (already executed
by the seller) is -summarized as follows:
Purchaser: Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners
Seller: Trust for Public Lands (TPL) after executing
purchase option with Amile and Parvone Korangy
Cost Share: State of Florida CARL Program
Total Price: $672,000
Other Costs: $13,000 (reimbursement to TPL for survey costs)
Acreage: 131.5 Acres
Principal Conditions_:
• Closing subject to county and state executing multi-party
acquisition agreement
• Purchaser will pay for title insurance policy
• Purchaser will obtain environmental audit of the site
The Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) considered this
proposed acquisition at a special meeting on April 13, 1995. Since
this staff report was prepared prior to the LAAC meeting, the
committee's action could not be reported in this staff report.
Staff, however, will report LAAC's recommendation to the Board at
the April 18, 1995 Board meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Among the properties initially identified for acquisition by Indian
River County with the proceeds of its $26 million environmentally
sensitive lands acquisition bond program was the Korangy tract.
Located on the north barrier island to the west of SR A -1-A, the
subject property is approximately 131.5 acres in size, consisting
of 5.5 acres of uplands and 126 acres of wetlands and submerged
lands.
Besides its extensive wetlands and location adjacent to the Pelican
Island National Wildlife Refuge, the property also contains
archeological sites and borders a segment of Jungle Trail. The
uplands portion of the tract has been incorporated within the State
of Florida Archie Carr CARL project.
For the past two years, staff has been actively negotiating the
purchase of the Korangy property. Since the seller recently
accepted and executed a staff proposed purchase contract for the
property, appraisal results, purchase offers and other confidential
information can now be released.
•Ownership Characteristics
Currently, the subject property is owned by Amile and Parvone
Korangy. The Korangy's live in Baltimore and have owned the
property since 1983. At present, the Korangy's are involved in
bankruptcy proceedings, and an IRS lien has been placed on the
subject property.
While the Korangy's currently hold title to the property, the Trust
Fund For Public Lands has a purchase option for the land. To
facilitate public purchase of the property, TPL acquired its option
over a year ago and has extended the option several times.
Obtaining the purchase option and extending that option several
times has cost TPL thousands of dollars. In addition, TPL has paid
for a survey of the property and two appraisals. TPL has also
spent significant staff resources and incurred substantial travel
costs in negotiating with the Korangy's.
28
APRIL 18, 1995
M s M
•Acquisition Cost Share & Property Management
Two issues which are important to LAAC staff with respect to all
proposed purchases are obtaining cost share assistance in property
acquisition and minimizing long term management costs. In this
case, staff has successfully resolved both of those issues.
Regarding cost share, the state has agreed to purchase the uplands
portion of the property as part of its Archie Carr CARL project.
Subject to final state approval of the County's Korangy property
appraisals, that amount is expected to be $460,000. Consequently,
the county's share of the entire site's purchase cost should be
only $212,000. As a standard means of furthering this process, a
multi-party acquisition agreement between the County and the State
has been drafted and approved by State and County staffs.
Execution of this multi-party agreement must occur before closing
on the property, and that is a condition of the (seller executed)
purchase contract.
Besides cost share, management cost is always an issue with
environmental lands acquisition. For this property, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has agreed to perform all management
activities and incur all management costs. USFWS's management of
the Korangy property will be an extension of their management of
the adjacent Pelican Island and Archie Carr Refuges. A letter
committing to entering into a management agreement is attached.
•Appraisals
During the two year negotiating period for the Korangy tract,
property value has been a controversial issue. Since the Trust For
Public Lands (TPL) has had a purchase option on the property for
the entire negotiation period, staff has negotiated almost
exclusively with TPL. In fact, the Acquisition involves TPL
exercising its option with Korangy and taking title to the
property. The County would then purchase the property from TPL
after the County/State multi-party Acquisition Agreement is in
place.
Prior to TPL obtaining its purchase option, the property owner had
listed the property for sale at a price of $3 million. After
getting its option, TPL Commissioned a survey of the property and
then had the property appraised by W. H. Benson & Company. This
was the first of four appraisals prepared for either TPL or the
County, and it estimated the property's value at $980,000.
To proceed with the Acquisition process and comply with land
Acquisition guide requirements, county staff then commissioned two
appraisals of the property. These were the Armfield and Jones
appraisals. These appraisals estimated the property's value at
$1,350,000 and $300,000, respectively. Because of the variation of
the two appraisals, county staff scheduled a meeting with both
appraisers and TPL's appraiser (Benson).
As a result of the unusual characteristics of the Korangy property,
establishing an accurate value is difficult. Not only does the
amount of wetlands (126 acres) compared to total property acreage
(131.5), make appraising the property difficult, but
characteristics of the uplands make it even more of a challenge.
While the property consists of 5.5 acres of generally contiguous
uplands, those uplands border AlA, are bisected by Jungle'Trail,
and contain extensive archaeologic resources (shell middens). A
further complication was that TPL's surveyor initially identified
15 acres of uplands on the site, instead of 5.5. His
determination, however, was based on considering undevelopable
mosquito impoundment dikes as uplands.
29
APRIL 18, 1995
J
Fr— _1
BOOK 94 rm,K- 887
The reduced Armfield appraisal thereby lowered the average of the
county's two closest appraisals to $672,500. Based on the revised
Armfield appraisal, the county made a new offer of $668,000, which
was countered by TPL at $708,000. At that point, the county made
a final offer of $672,000. TPL and the Korangys eventually
accepted this final offer.
OFFERS/COUNTER-OFFERS
07/94 _01/95 02/9
COUNTY: $632,500 $720,000•• $668,000•** $672,000 --
(subject to adjustment)
•
PFASMFM TO LAAC 07/06/94; MIECTED)
•• OFFER BASED 011 BAMM APR. i UNMISED ARMFTSM APR.
•** SAM ON SA10;lt i AEVISSD AIt IFULD APA.
•��* FIM COUNTY OFFER
Subsequent to staff's meeting with TPL and the three appraisers,
the Benson, Armfield, and Jones appraisals were changed to
$1,0201,000, $750,000, and $515,000, respectively. Even though
there was still significant variation between the county's two
appraisals, the county made TPL a purchase offer of $632,500. In
rejecting that offer, TPL made the county a counteroffer of
$826,250. That offer was presented to LAAC with a negative staff
recommendation, and LAAC rejected the offer. -
KORANGY APPRAISALS
FINAL APPRAISALS USED
*Paid for by TPL
From mid -summer, 1994 to December, 1994, the county revised its
Land Acquisition Guide to include a written appraisal policy,
providing that a third appraisal may be obtained when two
appraisals diverge more than 20 percent. Also during this time, a
final certified survey of the property was completed. In December,
1994, based on the county's newly adopted appraisal policy, TPL-
agreed to fund another appraisal to be conducted by a county
selected appraiser... That was the Baker appraisal which set the
property's value at $720,000.
Because the Baker and Armfield appraisals were the two closest of
the three county appraisals, those two were used to establish a new
negotiating value. Consequently, the county made a $720,000
purchase offer to TPL, subject to the Armfield appraisal being
revised. While TPL rejected that offer, TPL countered with
$760,000.
Subsequent to TPL's counteroffer, the Armfield appraisal was
reduced to $625,000, based on the final certified survey depicting
a reduced area of wetlands eligible for transfer of density rights
(TDRs) credit, when compared to early TDR acreage survey estimates.
30
APRIL 18, 1995
M M e
ORIGINAL
REVISED PER
ACOE WETLANDS
(<20% DIVERGENT)
BASED ON FINAL SURVEY
(TPL) BENSON:
$980,000
$1,020,000
---------------
(COUNTY) ARMFIELD:
$1,350,000
$ 750,000
$625,000
(COUNTY) JONES:
$ 300,000
$ 515,000
(COUNTY*) BAKER
-----------
-----------
$720,000
*Paid for by TPL
From mid -summer, 1994 to December, 1994, the county revised its
Land Acquisition Guide to include a written appraisal policy,
providing that a third appraisal may be obtained when two
appraisals diverge more than 20 percent. Also during this time, a
final certified survey of the property was completed. In December,
1994, based on the county's newly adopted appraisal policy, TPL-
agreed to fund another appraisal to be conducted by a county
selected appraiser... That was the Baker appraisal which set the
property's value at $720,000.
Because the Baker and Armfield appraisals were the two closest of
the three county appraisals, those two were used to establish a new
negotiating value. Consequently, the county made a $720,000
purchase offer to TPL, subject to the Armfield appraisal being
revised. While TPL rejected that offer, TPL countered with
$760,000.
Subsequent to TPL's counteroffer, the Armfield appraisal was
reduced to $625,000, based on the final certified survey depicting
a reduced area of wetlands eligible for transfer of density rights
(TDRs) credit, when compared to early TDR acreage survey estimates.
30
APRIL 18, 1995
M M e
e Contract
In accepting the county's last purchase
contract drafted by the county. A
attached to this staff report.
offer, TPL has executed a
copy of that contract is
As indicated, the contract establishes a purchase price of
$672,000, and a condition that closing is subject to execution of
a county/state multi-party agreement. The contract also provides
that TPL will have liability until the year 2000 for hazardous
waste discovered on the property (deposited during the ownership of
the property by TPL or Rorangy). Finally, the contract provides
that the county will purchase its own title insurance policy and
reimburse TPL for its survey costs.
•ANALYSIS
The Rorangy property has long been a priority acquisition for the
county, the state and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Because of
its location and resource value, there are many benefits associated
with the acquisition. Not only will this acquisition result in an
expansion of the Archie Carr National Sea Turtle Refuge, it will
also serve as a buffer for Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge.
With the wetlands being in public ownership, the Mosquito Control
District will be assured of having the ability to manage the site's
impoundments. Finally, the acquisition will, ensure protection of
the property's archeological resources.
Despite the importance of buying the subject property, the county
has pursued acquisition in a conservative, cost conscious manner.
Not only has the county secured cost share participation of almost
70% of the property's purchase price, but the county has obtained
management commitments which ensure that there will be no recurring
costs.
Most important is the negotiated purchase price. The $672,000
amount is just about 20% of the owner's original asking price.
Even more significant is that the purchase price is more than 30%
less than TPL's initial appraised value and 35% less than TPL's
revised appraisal of the property.
To complete the Rorangy property acquisition, the Board of County
Commissioners must approve the seller executed purchase contract.
In accordance with land acquisition guide requirements, staff has
scheduled this matter as a public hearing item.
Besides the information presented in this staff report, the
county's appraisals of the subject property are available for
inspection. Those appraisals are on file at the county planning
division's offices. In addition, staff will be available to answer
questions on this matter at the Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
proposed Rorangy property purchase contract.
31 BOOK 94 PA`vc
APRIL 18, 1995
Commissioner Bird wished to note that in the past he has filed
a conflict of interest statement whenever the Korangy property was
being discussed because his realty firm had it listed for sale.
However, he does not have the Korangy property listed any longer
and will not stand to gain anything if it is sold. He does not
have a conflict of interest and he intends to vote on this today.
Community Development Director Robert Keating briefly reviewed
the proposed Agreement for Sale and Purchase, noting that LAAC
voted unanimously at last Thursday's public meeting to bring this
recommendation to the Board. Director Keating advised that the
multi-party agreement includes two conditions: 1) The County is
responsible for obtaining title insurance; and, 2) The County is
responsible for obtaining an environmental site assessment of the
property.
Referring to an aerial view, Director Keating pointed out the
boundaries of the property, noting that the many unusual
characteristics of this property is one of the reasons why
negotiations took so long. Management is an issue and U.S. Fish
& Wildlife has offered to take over all management, so there will
not be any continuing costs on this property with regard to
management.
Director Keating advised that this offer is 20% below the
original offer and more than 30% less than the initial appraisal,
and he happily recommended the purchase of the property.
Commissioner Bird pointed out since Jungle Trail bisects this
property, it is important for the County to retain whatever rights
we need to continue to operate Jungle Trail under our Jungle Trail
Management Plan, which involves placement of signs, maintenance,
etc.
Chairman Macht opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted
the proposed Korangy property purchase contract in
the amount of $672,000, as recommended by staff.
Chairman Macht commended staff and the Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee for their hard work and efforts in bringing this
purchase proposal to the Board. He felt the community owes them a
very big vote of thanks.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
32
APRIL 18, 1995
DEBARTOLO REQUEST FOR COUNTY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
WITH THE INDIAN RIVER MALL PROTECT
Planning Director Stan Boling presented staff's recommendation
for denial of the request for financial assistance:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
i/ FiK
Robert M. Rea g, AICP
Community Development Director
.A• a
FROM: Stan Boling, AICD
Planning Director
DATE: April 12, 1995
SUBJECT: EDWARD J. DEBARTOLO CORPORATION'S REQUEST
FOR COUNTY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WITH THE
INDIAN RIVER MALL PROJECT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 18, 1995.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
In 1988, the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation initiated the process
of obtaining approval for its Indian River Mall project, and
withdrew its request in November 1990. Then, in 1994, DeBartolo
again initiated approval for a similar, but larger project. Having
obtained the necessary state, regional, and local approvals, the
Indian River Mall overall project was finally approved in October,
1994. The approval involved county, region, and state review of a
DRI (development of regional impact) development order (D.O.), a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, and stipulated
settlement agreements relating to the comprehensive plan amendment
and the D.O. Since then, DeBartolo representatives and staff have
worked together on site plan, building permit, and various
development permitting issues. Subject to satisfying D.O.
conditions, the developer can apply for and obtain site plan
approval, the same as any other commercial project in the county.
• REQUEST
On March 31, 1995, DeBartolo representatives met with county staff
and informed staff that circumstances had changed such that there
was now an opportunity to initiate project construction in
anticipation of a Fall, 1996 opening. According to Debartolo, the
decision on whether or not to proceed with the project must be made
by their board of directors. Since their board meets on April 19,
1995, DeBartolo officials have indicated that major cost issues
involved with the project must be resolved prior to April 19, 1995.
33
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 PAGE.0Ur-�
BOOK 94 F}v,A91
In their meetings with county staff, DeBartolo officials have said
that projected mall costs appear to be too high to allow the
corporation's board to approve construction of the project for a
Fall 1996 opening. To reduce DeBartolo's costs and enhance the
prospects of project construction being initiated in 1995,
DeBartolo has requested that, to make the project's "numbers"
better, the county take two principal actions. These are:
1. To collect water, sewer, and traffic "impact fees" from mall
tenants and provide those fees to DeBartolo to reimburse
DeBartolo for impact fees it has already paid or that will be
credited to DeBartolo for off-site road improvements;
and
2. To provide a cash contribution or reimbursement to DeBartolo
of up to $1.1 million to pay for the difference between
DeBartolo's estimates of off-site road improvement costs and
the actual project traffic impact fee (TIF) assessment.
Along with these two major requests, DeBartolo submitted a Notice
of Proposed Change (D.O. amendment) request to county staff on
March 29, 1995, and also submitted three draft developers
agreements to staff on March 31, 1995. The NOPC proposes to insert
into the D.O. specific county and developer responsibilities
relating to required traffic improvements.. The three draft
developers agreements address the NOPC issues and other topics, and
cover:
•Transportation Impact Fees and Credits
*Construction of Utilities
•Local Development Issues.
•TIMING FOR REVIEW OF REQUESTS
Since DeBartolo submitted all of the aforementioned requests in the
past two weeks, staff has discussed timeframes with DeBartolo
officials and has agreed to a review schedule. This schedule is as
follows:
• NOPC: The notice of proposed change to the D.O. must follow
a specified DRI amendment process including review by the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, DCA, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and consideration by the Board at an
advertised public hearing. Given those requirements, staff
anticipates Planning and Zoning Commission review in May and
Board consideration in May or June.
Developers Agreements: As submitted, the three developers
agreements are rough drafts, do not yet contain complete
information and back-up, and contain a number of details
relating to other agencies such as FDOT and the Indian River
Farms Water Control District. Since March 31st, staff and
DeBartolo representatives have worked together on completing
workable agreements and revising the drafts. However, these
agreements involve policy issues and many details, and must be
made complete prior to Board consideration. In addition, the
agreements cover some issues addressed in the NOPC.
Therefore, to allow time for the developer and staff to
complete the agreements, and to coordinate the timing of
agreement approval with the NOPC, staff will present the
agreements to the. Board at the time the Board considers the
NOPC.
34
APRIL 18, 1995
M M W
Two Major Requests for County Assistance: Due to the
DeBartolo Corporation's April 19, 1995 deadline, the Board
must consider at its April 18, 1995 meeting the request for
the county to collect impact fees from tenants and reimburse
DeBartolo, and the request for the county to provide a
contribution of up to $1.1 million for the project's off-site
improvement costs.
The Board is now to consider the two major requests for county
assistance.
ANALYSIS:
Since the DeBartolo officials contacted staff and requested the
County's assistance, staff has met several times and attempted to
accommodate reasonable requests to facilitate the project. The
meetings have included discussions of alternatives staff has
proposed to help DeBartolo minimize construction costs.
Representatives from the County's budget, community development,
public works and utilities departments, as well as the county
administrator and county attorney met several times both on a staff
level and with DeBartolo officials to address DeBartolo's requests.
The stated goal of the DeBartolo representative is to make the
project's "numbers" better by $4 million. To accomplish this,
DeBartolo has requested county assistance by:
Collecting for DeBartolo $2.9 million in county utility ($.8
million) and traffic impact fees ($2.1 million) from project
tenants (original, "first-time" tenants); and
Contribute to DeBartolo $1.1 million to cover the difference
between DeBartolo's estimate of off-site road improvement
costs ($3.2 million) and the project's TIF assessment ($2.1
million).
As a result of several meetings, staff has reached a consensus on
these two DeBartolo requests.
Collection of Impact Fees from Tenants
This is an issue for DeBartolo because the developer has already
prepaid utility impact fees and will be paying traffic impact fees
"up front" to reserve capacity and obtain concurrency approval for
his project. Utility impact fees have been paid in cash, while
traffic impact fees will be paid by crediting roadway improvements
proposed to be constructed by DeBartolo. The developer has
indicated that, if the County collects the impact fees and
reimburses DeBartolo, it will save DeBartolo considerable money,
since impact fee payments are usually negotiated out of tenant
contracts. Thus, according to DeBartolo, the county could collect
money from tenants that DeBartolo could not recoup in usual tenant
contract negotiations.
In assessing this request, the county attorneys office raised
concerns that county collection of impact fees and reimbursement of
fees to a developer could constitute use of public offices for a
private purpose and might not be legal. However, the attorneys
office has determined that such a county collection function could
be legally defensible under certain conditions, including full
disclosure to tenants and an administrative change to Cover county
costs. Please refer to attachment $2, a memo from the County
Attorney addressing the tenant collection request.
35 BOOK 9FAEE 92
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 9 ��.: i 893
County staff has three primary objections to the concept of the
county collecting impact fees from tenants to reimburse the
original developer. First, staff is concerned that such an
equire the county to collect T"pseudo-impact
shefunds
u tifu
arrangement would r
fees" for capacity that has already been paid for.
collected would not be true impact fees that go toward funding
capacity. Tenants could misconstrue the
River Mall e as an extr tionact
fee e charged by the county for the Indian
Second, staff is concerned that tenants would not be fully aware of
the charges in upfront negotiations between the developer and
tenants. Thus, the county could become a party to an unwelcome
"surprise fee" put upon tenants that otherwise should be addressed
up front during developer -tenant negotiations. Third, staff is
concerned that such an arrangement would set a precedent,
obligating the county to consider other such arrangements and.
potentially involving the county in matters that should be
addressed in developer -tenant negotiations.
Because of these objections, staff suggested that the developer
either negotiate up front with tenants to pay the developer for
impact fee costs or require tenants to buy the developer's pre -paid
capacity. Under the latter arrangement, the county could withhold
from tenants utilities service and building permits unless the
tenant obtained (bought) a capacity assignment from the developer.
A form of this arrangement is currently used by some project
developers. DeBartolo officials rejected these alternatives and
requested county consideration of impact fee collections from
tenants, as previously described.
Based on the previously stated objections, staff's consensus on the
request is that the county should not agree to collect "impact
fees" from tenants to pay back the developer. However, if the
Board of County Commissioners decides to approve such an agreement,
the agreement should be structured as outlined in the County
Attorney's memo (see attachment #2), to ensure disclosure and cover
administrative costs.
County Contribution of up to $1.1 Million
During the DRI review and approval process DeBartolo, the county,
the regional planning council, DCA, and FDOT agreed on traffic
improvements that must be provided to mitigate the anticipated
traffic impacts of the project. The resulting required
improvements include 58th Avenue widening and intersection
improvements, widening SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue,
paving 26th Street from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue, and
improvements related to project driveways. Throughout the DRI
review process, staff informed the developer that the county is
performing the 58th Avenue widening, and would participate in the
paving of 26th Street (50% contribution) via the petition paving
process. Thus, the developer's primary off-site road improvement
costs relate to :
•widening SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue
•participating in the paving of 26th Street
•providing improvements for project driveways (turn lanes,
signalization).
According to DeBartolo, the estimated total cost of these
improvements is $3.2 million, which is $1.1 million over the
project's $2.1 million TIF assessment. DeBartolo is requesting
that the county make up the difference via anticipated 1 cent sales
tax revenue increases that may be generated by the project, or from
other sources, such as traffic impact fees collected from other
project developers. -
36
APRIL 18, 1995
According to DeBartolo, the SR 60 improvements alone (including SR
60 project driveway improvements and signalizing the SR 60/66th
Avenue intersection) will cost $2.6 million, exceeding the traffic
impact fee. Staff notes that, according to DeBartolo's DRY traffic
analysis, the SR 60 widening will actually add less capacity to the
66th Avenue - 58th Avenue link than the amount of capacity that
will be consumed by the project (880 peak hour trips vs. 935 peak
hour trips). In addition, public works staff have stated that the
$2.6 million estimate contains some discrepancies and is not yet
supported by submitted engineering plans.
In regards to the 26th Street paving issue, staff notes that the
road paving will add value to the project site, as well as other
property owned by DeBartolo that fronts 26th Street. The petition
paving process applied to collector roads, such as 26th Street,
includes an assessment of all benefitting property owners and a
large contribution from the county (50% of paving project costs,
including right-of-way acquisition).
Developers of other large development projects have performed off-
site improvements in addition to paying traffic impact fees. For
example, in addition to paying traffic impact fees, the Wal-
Mart/Sam's developer paid for turn lane improvements and
modifications for the project's 58th Avenue and SR. 60 driveways.
Disney paid its traffic impact fees and paid for turn lane
improvements for its CR 510 and SR A -1-A ,project driveways, and
paid for its SR A -1-A pedestrian tunnel. Likewise, the Horizon
Outlet Mall developer paid traffic impact fees and made SR 60
improvements for the project's SR 60 driveway and is now designing
and will fund a signal at its SR 60 driveway. Thus, developers of
other large projects have paid traffic impact fees and have paid
for "project -related" turn lanes and traffic signals. Also,
developers of other projects have participated in and contributed
funds via the petition paving process, in addition to paying
traffic impact fees, to provide road improvements necessary to
serve their projects.
Staff's consensus is that the county already is substantially
participating in funding road improvements required by the project,
that the developer is not being required to provide "oversized"
traffic improvements, and that the developer will receive the
appropriate traffic impact fee credit for improvements. It is
staff's consensus that the county.should not contribute money to
the developer to provide additional funds for the developer's
required improvements. Furthermore, it is staff's consensus that
staff can and will continue to work with the developer and other
agencies to minimize actual off-site construction costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Deny DeBartolo's request that the county charge project
tenants impact fee money that will be reimbursed to DeBartolo.
However, if the Board of County Commissioners decides to agree
to the request, then staff recommends that the collection
arrangement be structured as outlined in the County Attorney's
memo (see attachment #2).
2. Deny DeBartolo's request for the county to contribute up to
$1.1 million for the difference between the project's traffic
impact fee assessment and estimated off-site road improvement
costs.
37 BOOK 9 4 FACF ���
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 F.� C L895
.Director Boling explained that there have been a couple of
late changes since the above memo was distributed. The developer
is asking us to focus only on the County's collection of traffic
(transportation) impact fees from the tenants to go back to the
developer. Staff's recommendation is to deny that request.
However, if the Board sees fit to agree to the request, staff
recommends that an agreement be structured consistent with the
County Attorney's memo that deals with a full disclosure to tenants
so that the tenants will know up front in the negotiations that
this is an agreement with the developer and won't be surprised with
any impact fee payments. He emphasized that traffic impact fees
and utility impact fees are different for this project.
Commissioner Eggert understood that while the utility impact
fees have been paid in cash, no traffic impact fees have been paid
as yet.
Director Boling explained that the developer will be doing
road improvements rather than laying out cash for traffic impact
fees. Actually, they will be doing construction, but that will
have to occur before the project opens. So, they will be expending
money for road improvements instead of giving cash to the County.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the contract needs to be
enormously clear that we are talking about a traffic impact fee of
a certain amount minus a collection fee, etc.
Director Boling believed it would have to be structured to
have the tenants pay a certain amount as they come in. It would be
as if cash were paid for that particular amount of road capacity.
Commissioner Bird understood then that the developer has paid
the water and sewer impact fees and is not asking the County to
assist in reimbursement of the utility impact fees. He further
understood that the developer is asking us to focus only on the
traffic impact fees.
Chairman Macht wondered why we don't deal directly with the -
anchor stores on the traffic impact fees since they usually own
their land and build their own buildings, and Director Boling
responded that we could do that. The development has been created
as a whole, and the developer doesn't want to break up the project
because of concurrency requirements and impact fees.
APRIL 18, 1995 38
M M
M
Attorney Vitunac referred to the following memo dated 4/12/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
��JaYv"ly'C..
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 12, 1995
RE: DeBartolo Mall
In connection with the DeBartolo mall's request for the Utilities
Department to collect utilities and traffic impact fees (which have
already been paid by the mall) from mall tenants and reimburse the mall,
I believe that as long as the tenant is fully aware of the facts and
cost to the tenant and agrees to the reimbursement request the County
could legally assist in the collection of the money.
I would recommend, however, that to ensure full disclosure, language
similar to the following be included in the lease between the mall and
the tenants:
Tenant understands that Developer already has paid or
otherwise satisfied all traffic and utility impact fees
required by Indian River County. Tenant agrees to reimburse
Developer for these fees by delivery to the County of the sum
of $ for traffic impact fees and $ for
utility impact fees. The County shall return these payments
to Developer less a collection fee of $ Developer
will not authorize County to serve tenant with utility
services or building permits until this reimbursement has been
made.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the DeBartolo people spent 3-4
days looking over the proposed wording and came back with their own
version which was not acceptable to us because it took out some of
the actual numbers that were owed. Just before today's meeting
they said they were happy to go along with our version with the
provisions necessitated by taking out the utilities' part.
Commissioner Bird felt that disclosure is extremely important
so that they know right up front what is expected from them so that
all of a sudden the County doesn't become the bad guy.
Chairman Macht felt that without full disclosure we would be
getting back into the same kind of mess we were in with the mobile
home community.
Commissioner Bird understood that the developer will be
fronting the money. It's not like the County will be at risk in
not receiving these funds or improvements; it will be a matter of
collection and reimbursement. Commissioner Bird wanted some kind
39
APRIL 18 1995 'BOOK 94 ria s
BOOK' 94 PAf;L 897
of hold harmless agreement that if the County has a problem with
collecting from the tenants•, DeBartolo would be responsible for
legal expenses or whatever costs are incurred in making that
collection.
Dave Curl, vice president of development for DeBartolo,
appreciated all the time and effort staff has put into this matter
over the last few weeks. With regard to the traffic impact
reimbursement request, they realize this is an accommodation to
them. They have a very short window on this matter and, if this
request is approved today, they can take this to the Board of
Directors' meeting tomorrow. If the Board of Directors approve it,
there is an opportunity to open the mall in the fall of 1996. They
have no problem with the conditions set forth by Attorney Vitunac
and they are prepared to go forward. Mr. Curl emphasized they are
not requesting any dollars out of the County's coffers by asking
for this administrative accommodation. Hopefully, this
accommodation will give them the opportunity to move forward with
this project that will bring 3000 jobs to the County and add $5 -
million a year to the tax base.
Mr. Curl stated that the matter of water and sewer impact fees
will be put aside, and they will not come back to the County with
further requests.
Attorney Vitunac advised that our leverage in this matter is
that we will not issue a building permit until everything is in
order.
Mr. Curl explained that the developer would come in to get the
building permit for the center section of the small shop area of
the mall. They will build a shell of the center section and
complete the common area improvements. Each individual small shop
tenant would be required to submit his plans and obtain a building
permit to complete his phase. At that point in time, he would pay
the traffic impact fee for his phase. Mr. Curl assured the Board
that DeBartolo will work very closely with staff on this.
Commissioner Bird didn't feel we would be putting the County
at financial risk, but he was concerned about setting a precedent
with other malls. He asked staff what major concerns led them to
recommend denial of the request.
Director Boling responded that one major concern was the
County's legal authority to not give utility service and not issue
a building permit to a project for which capacity already has been
paid. The other major concern was disclosure to the tenant.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we cannot deny a permit based on
the fact that utilities' fees had not been paid.
40
APRIL 18, 1995
Commissioner Bird asked if staff had heard anything this
morning to cause them to change their recommendation, and Director
Keating said, "no."
Commissioner Adams felt that this is a different situation and
that we should look at every mall and their specific requests.
Every mall is different; it's not black and white. There are all
sorts of gray areas, and she felt we need to be a little more pro-
active in figuring out how to make things work to our advantage as
well as to the advantage of the applicants. This type of project
is certainly new to us, and there will be a lot of impact from the
mall. Commissioner Adams felt we are all anxious to test our
growth management plan because we worked very hard on it and we
think it is very good. She felt we can look at everything
differently and subjectively to make sure we are doing a
responsible job protecting the traffic that will be generated. She
realized that there is a lot of controversy, both on our side and
others, whether or not we are taking care of too much traffic or
too little traffic. She just hoped that we err on the good side
and that we are covered, because when the project is built out and
the developer is gone, she didn't know how much more we would be
able to drag out of them.
Commissioner Adams felt that with' the disclosure suggested by
Attorney Vitunac we can work out a way to make it feasible with the
inside tenants. Obviously, the anchor stores are going to carry
the bulk of all the impact fees. We are just a conduit for the
money.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that we have made a lot of
commitments to the Economic Development Council. She had a big
struggle with the original request, but now that it has been
reduced to traffic impact fees and we have a hold harmless
statement, she did not have the problem with it that she had
before. Commissioner Eggert emphasized that it will not cost us
anything to do this since we will be charging an administrative
charge for collecting the traffic impact fees.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board approve the
collection of traffic impact fees by the County,
with proper disclosure to the tenants, and with a
hold harmless statement, as recommended by the
County Attorney Vitunac.
41 BOOK 94 F'kGE 898
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 F -nn 899
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird understood that the anchor
tenants will be paying a share of this, and Mr. Curl stated that
negotiations on that are still ongoing. It all depends on timing.
Traffic impact fees are at $2.1 million right now, and everything
that is built in the project would be accounted for as part of the
total impact fee.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that this is not to be
construed in any way to forgive transportation impact fees.
Chairman Macht remained concerned about setting a precedent,
especially in the case of an owner wanting to build a house for the
purpose of renting it.
Director Keating felt that was a good question, and advised
that we don't have a mechanism for that as we have in a situation
where an owner would have to get an internal improvements building
permit. We are not sure what would happen down the road.
Commissioner Macht was in total disagreement that this could
be handled on a case by case basis, and he reiterated his concerns
about what would happen in the case of bankruptcy.
Director Keating explained that when the applicant comes in to
do his SR -60 improvements and any other improvements, we will
enter into a formal credit agreement with him. A portion of that
credit could be bonding to ensure construction of the improvements.
Through the credit agreement we will be reserving capacity so that
there will be a need for the County to have some level of comfort
that the improvements will be done.
Commissioner Bird understood we will require the
transportation improvements to be completed prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project -- they would- either
do the improvements or we would have their money up front.
Mr. Curl noted that condition is in their present Development
Order. They will enter into a hold harmless agreement that will
take the County totally out of this issue if any legal questions -
come up on this in the future.
Chairman Macht suggested that a reverter clause or condition
be included in the agreement stating that the mall will open in
1996 with a minimum of 3 anchors. Otherwise, we might be here 5
years from now. He believed that what the developer is asking for
is minimal compared to the overall construction costs, and it
indicates to him that they don't really believe this is a viable
project now or will be in the future. Chairman Macht believed
that without these conditions, the precedent we would be setting
isn't worth the risk.
42
APRIL 18, 1995
Commissioner Tippin believed he could come up with 25
precedent -setting scenarios for sitting here and doing nothing.
However, this is the 20th century and somewhere along the line we
have to move forward.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion carried by a vote of 4-1, Chairman
Macht dissenting.
Commissioner Adams reminded Mr. Curl about the buffering and
taking care of the.mall's neighbors.
AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH ERICSSON GE FOR
PURCHASE OF 800 MHz SIMULCAST TRUNKED COMMUNI—
CATIONS SYSTEM FROM EXISTING COUNTY CONTRACT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Adm* istrator
FROM: Doug Wright, DirectorWt
Emergency Services
DATE: April 6, 1995
SUBJECT: Authorization for Staff to Negotiate With Ericsson GE
For the Purchase of the 800 MHz Simulcast Trunked
Communications System From an Existing County Contract
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved the funding of an
800 MHz Simulcast Trunked Communications System for the County from
the Optional One Cent Sales Tax revenue. The funding was approved in
two phases, with $2,235,500 in FY 95/96 for the system infrastructure
and $1,606,300 for user equipment in FY 96/97.
The current communications system used by the County administration
and public safety agencies such as the Sheriff's Office, Fire
Division, EMS Division, Emergency Management, and some
municipalities, is experiencing rapid degradation. Complaints are
received on an almost daily basis about the existing communications
system and staff is of the opinion that preparations should be
completed so the Board can consider awarding a contract not later
than October 1, 1995, in order that construction of the
infrastructure can start immediately after the funds become
available.
43 �ooK 9 FaGF 900
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK. 94 FADE 991
The 800 MHz system is also being considered as a means of enhancing
the public access channel broadcast capability by utilizing its
microwave video transmission capability and the numerous T-1 circuits
which will provide over one thousand voice grade telephone or data
circuits.
In this vein, staff wrote to Motorola, E.F. Johnson, and Ericsson GE
on January 12, 1995, asking each of the three major communications
system vendors to provide Indian River County with copies of existing
contracts with other Florida counties which had been executed for an
800 MHz communications system. The letter also inquired of each
vendor if they would be willing to extend the same pricing in the
existing contracts to Indian River County.
A response was received from Ericsson GE on February 3, 1995, and
this company was the only vendor that responded. Ericsson GE
provided copies of both the Hillsborough County ($17 million) and
Dade County ($38 million) contracts, with an offer to the County to
purchase from either of the two contracts. After a response was not
received from Motorola or E.F. Johnson, Purchasing Manager Fran
Boynton -Powell sent a letter dated February 9, 1995, to the two
vendors advising them that if they planned to submit any contracts
for the County's review, they should have them delivered to the
Purchasing Division not later than February 28, 1995. Letters were
received from the two vendors as noted in the attachments below, but
neither submitted a contract as requested in the correspondence.
Staff is seeking authorization from the Board to negotiate with
Ericsson GE as provided for in the policies and procedures of Article
Six, Procurement of Service, of the Indian River County Purchasing
Manual for procurement of an 800 MHz Communications System.
Most recently, Volusia County utilized this method of purchase by
negotiating a not -to -exceed $16.2 contract with Ericsson GE from the
Dade County contract. The Director of Communications in Volusia
County stated that the final costs for this project will be $14
million, and his county saved over $2 million in costs by utilizing
this method of purchase as well as saving many months of time in the
process.
If the Board approves this approach to the procurement of an 800 MHz
Communications System, the County Administrator will appoint a
Negotiation Committee routinely and a meeting will be scheduled with
Ericsson GE representatives to begin the process.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Given the fact that the total anticipated communications system cost
for Indian River County is $3,841,800, staff does not anticipate that
a major vendor will give the County the same level of equipment'
pricing as that provided to Dade County for a $38 million dollar
system or Hillsborough County for a $17 million dollar system.
Therefore, staff feels that this approach would be prudent and cost
effective in purchasing the communications system since Ericsson GE
has offered the same pricing to Indian River County as was provided
to the two large counties referenced above.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board authorize staff to negotiate with
Ericsson GE for the purpose of reaching a proposed agreement or
contract for consideration by the Board for the purchase of an 800
MHz Simulcast Trunked Communications System based on the pricing
provided under existing contracts previously bid with other
governmental units.
44
APRIL 18, 1995
Commissioner Bird understood that the' engineering design is
not set, and Director of Emergency Services Doug Wright explained
that we have the final design and only need to block it in.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize staff to negotiate
with Ericcson GE, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
Under discussion, Chairman Macht felt Director Wright is to be
commended for his innovation and research in adding some features
that will save us some money and bring it in under what was
anticipated.
- THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion carried unanimously.
OLD HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/95:
DATE: APRIL 6, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
An
PROMs H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
BUBJECT: OLD HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING
BACKGROUND:
At their regular meeting on April 4, 1995, the Board -approved
staff's recommendation for some renovations and expansion of the
County Administration Building. Also part of that recommendation
was to sell the old Health Clinic, State Attorney's building, and
Courthouse Annex and use the revenues to off -set renovation costs.
Until such time as an architect/engineer can ascertain the
feasibility of the proposed project, staff would recommend that the
State Attorney's building and Courthouse Annex not be offered for
sale. This recommendation is based on the fact that if the
proposed plan should not be feasible, these buildings may be needed
for temporary office space until such time as a long range plan can
be finalized.
45 BOOK 9 PA,f. 902APRIL 1 S, 1995
BOOK 94 SAGE 903
AMLYSIS:
However, the old Health Clinic was not a part of any alternative
that has been submitted. A portion of that building is subject to
a lease but will expire the last of this month. One of the tenants
has already advised they would be vacating their space by 4/30/95.
The other tenant has asked whether or not they would be granted an
extension so they could make plans for residency.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests authorization to have the old Health Clinic and
associated property appraised and it be advertised for sale. With
not knowing how long it will take to sell the property, it is also
recommended the present tenant be extended a month to month lease
with a thirty days notice clause to vacate. Revenues collected
would be used to off -set maintenance expenses on that facility
until disposition is made of the property.
Commissioner Bird felt that when we advertise it for sale, it
should be on an "as is" basis.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized an appraisal of the building and
associated property; and authorized that it be
advertised for sale.
4TH STREET WIDENING & INTERSECTION BIPROVEMENTS -
AMENDMENT NO. 1 - KEITH & SCHNARS, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/11/95: -
TO: Jaynes Chandler
County Administrator
Cl
THROUGH: James W. Davis. P.E.�.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson. P.F,�1/jj`�
Capital Projects Manager �`
SUBJECT. 4th Street Widening and Intersection Improvements
Amendment No. 1
DATE: April 11. 1995
Keith do Schnars. Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to provide
professional civli engineering services for improvements to 4th Street from U.S. I
to 600 feet west of Old Dixie Highway.
46
APRIL 18, 1995
The attached Amendment No. 1 provides for the preparation of a right-of-way map
and four legal descriptions west of Old Dude Highway. Additional right-of-way is
needed to satisfy the St. John's River Water Management District's requirement
to treat stonmwater runoff in swales.
Services for Amendment No. 1 will be performed at a lump sum fee of $1.800.
This. added to the current contract amount of $51.914. will result in a new
contract amount of $53714.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
Amendment No. 1. '
Funding Is from Account 101-156-541-067.29.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
-Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Keith &
Schnars, Inc., as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DISCUSSION OF THE FUTURE OF MEDEVAC AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES IN FOUR COUNTY AREA
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/12/95:
QOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
DENNY GREEN
CoMw+is"ER
\QZCW MEi1@l1S1Q1l�I
Commissioners
'prtt 1a 1995 Administrator
Attornoy _.
perar nr 1
pt-blIc 7�or►:a
Commu.ttly VCV.
Cornrnkataw Kerateth A Mak WNW
Liam REver coure[y connntsaim Finri. ce
2401 SE Monarsy Rodd Orin
Smart, FL 34M Emefg. Serv. _
Daor CarnrrtEsstarrer/timacft frisk W. ._
ONINNIer X-
In ow wnw6e of �&W aril rc tvXun � Ow Fuv Dialrid'a muwgrrn&d t , Wd prr� WjURW, we
hRw an area of enncem f wleh to adity. Thos concern craters on Medevac cervices to St lardy CAwq od
de wnafk ra mach of Man^ OWd oba and Indian Rive, De St Lurie CW" SWS Diep&bnent and
on a Ladle Catnry Fft DbV tPWenriY prrvtde this sen*f to that antis wide the cost beta$ ba w by & Ludt
C"
47 BOOK 94 Fina 904
APRIL 18, 1995
BOOK 94 ME 995
I would n+guest drat M&M Xr Cauuy &vM of County GornmWoner; to coopera&n wtrh sx Ludy
O roe, and Mart n CWowfam a comVen of dee 1W Dina* ShaiJf's DRmrana% MO&W C mmwft-
ftftdl Ltadas mrd die porno to Mbw dre Pan of M&M ac mid Emarge %q Sff vka to tha four mea
and the fhndtng ofswA s"xm 7i+ta cormnitua of aWots could asomdtic arc Wads oe our fow Coanq WW and
Aomo offer aqrAWW as to the mom drat way to kber dose so*es to our ccnsdatetrta.
To f �trdw this en4 we an rerluesting that you aFpoW at damp?" vrdtvtduath up to tree PVM4 to serve
ora an M-Ifoc Camttttte to a pwn arra tmWdgau as atiewts W a WWW me gnat of Mft=0 Ewcr cy
Medtraf Sends and Me*�= Svv= Mr. George Lout Okwlabee Cmruy'.4&nvdjV0w, has arW to
an"N gFW?1ate *&W&Iats to serve on this eafnnoft
J would ask drat jot agenda dos r'sem lw ddtcussldR widr yoar ea»tnetsdon. 1 �rnrcld/ferditi ask tJtatynu notif j+
Pr opw when you ahsdak the bm by cdft (4M 462.1406
Yaw Cooper&*% seWPW dw oteald" to this Moran is dr+Eatly appnctated
Bei
Dm
w
A Lads Catrrty an
Commissioner Green, chairman of the St. Lucie County
Commission, wished to see an ad hoc committee established to look
at this matter and gather information to see if there is a cost
savings and other advantages in serving the 4 -county area or 3 -
county area. He felt it's a good issue to consider.
Commissioner Eggert stated that as chairman of the Emergency
Services District Advisory Committee she would like to see us look
into this.
Chairman Macht suggested we turn this over to Commissioner
Eggert to appoint 3 members to the ad hoc committee, and the Board
indicated consensus for Commissioner Eggert to appoint 3 members to
the ad hoc committee.
STATE SESQUICENTENNIAL COM TTEE OPERATIONS
Chairman Macht recalled that at the request of the State, the
County set up the Sesquicentennial Coordinating Committee through
Resolution 94-151, and now the members of that committee would like
to know the level of the County's financial participation in the
celebration of the State Sesquicentennial. Mention was made of
$5,000, and he felt we need to find out about the costs in advance.
Administrator Chandler offered to contact the committee
chairman to find out what expenses there will be and how much money
will be needed.
48
APRIL 18, 1995
CHANGE IN DATE FOR TEEN PREGNANCY MEETING AT SCHOOL
Chairman Macht advised that the School Board would like the
Board to consider either April 26 or May 4 for rescheduling the
teen pregnancy meeting. He stressed the importance of this meeting
and urged everyone to attend.
Commissioner Eggert regretted that she could not be there, but
she had read the information she received on the subject.
The Board agreed on May 4 at 7 p.m.
LETTER REGARDING DEP REQUIREMENTS - WETLANDS
MITIGATION
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/12/94:
' ; vncrar
Department of
Environmental Protection
' Central District
Lft"On cmes - 3319 Maguire Boulevard. Suite 232
Governor Orlando. Florida 32803-3767
April 12, 1995
Ronald R. Brooks, Manager
Solid Waste Disposal District f9Js
Indian River County
1840 25th Street er° 4AR 1995 d.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 `* qt-ctlV ,
N
s &D
wo
Re: Wetlands Mitigation Plan i WAD.
MSSan River-County,Application
'iN� ida323Indi
Dear Mr. Brooks:
VhgMla B. wedwrell
Secretary
OCD -ERP -95-0192
The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) Is In receipt of your March
29, 1995 wetlands mitigation submittal (received April 3, 1995). The following
Information is required to adequately evaluate the mitigation proposal and thus
complete the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit application:
1. Indicate the type and approximate quantity of wood debris material that will
remain in the scrub community as habitat enhancement.
APRIL 18, 1995
49
BOOK 94 FAGS 906
BOOK 94 u�,E 9V
2. Explain how the non -detrimental ornamentals will be controlled.
3. Verify that the area within the meleleuce stand following completion of the tree
removal will be at the same elevation as the immediate adjacent areas.
4. Will the replacement of the soil following removal of the melaleuca be sufficient
to support wetland vegetation? Please elaborate.
5. What precautions such ab turbidity control, erosion stabilization, etc., Wil be
undertaken during the,proposed removal of Brazilian pepper using a backhoe?
6. Was consideration given to the utilization of wetland or upland plant species in
Hsu of the sod following removal of the Brazilian pepper?
7. What size in gallons or plugs of the respective specimen types will be planted
In the enhancement areas?
8. Discuss why a fence is only proposed around the. north and south boundaries
Instead of around the entire site. Comment on the potential of dumping trash
and debris on the east and west sides of the site due to the absence of the
fence.
9. Provide details regarding the type of monitoring that will be conducted once the
wetland Is enhanced srid planted.
9. Provide a monitoring schedule to document the success of the mitigation and
removal from the mitigation area of any nuisance and exotic species. The
proposed monitoring should continue for at least two years following
completion -of the mitigation area.
11. Revise Exhibit IV to Include an explanation of all proposed activities, (plantings,
enhancement, removal of specific plants or trees, planting centers, types and
sizes of trees/plants, construction, etc). Indicate the location of each activity
type by drawing an arrow from the .narrative to the proposed location of the
activity.
12. Verify that the actual preserved area of the site will be 11.76 acres, i.e., 13.09
- 1.33 acres and not 13.09 acres as indicated on Exhibit IV. This actual
preserved area should not Include acreage designated for future. roadway
expansion or any other development.
13. The Department does not consider overview of the site by the County Planning
Department as preservation. Instead, a long term conservation easement will
be required, a copy of which is attached for your Inspection. Please fill in the
blanks of the agreement and include this language on the plan sheets.
14. 'Provide a legend to Exhibit IV that indicates the symbols used and their
respective meaning. .
Please Incorporate the proposed changes into a revised mitigation plan. Submit one
copy to the Department in a timely fashion. Be advised that -a reduced copy of the
final, approved mitigation construction sheets should be provided to the Department
and will become affixed to, and a part of, the MSSW permit. •
APRIL 18, 1995
Sincerely,
Richard S. Lott, P.G., P.E.
Engineering Support
Environmental Resource Program
411
M M
_ M
Chairman Macht commented that this is another good example
of unfunded mandates.
Commissioner Adams reported that a new director in the DEP
office in Orlando has indicated that she wants to cooperate, and
perhaps we should sit down and talk with her and show her this
letter. Then, if she doesn't help us, we can take out our 6 -
irons.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that he forwarded
this letter to the Commission just to keep the Board in tune with
what we have to respond to. He was convinced that some of the
policies that come out of the DEP are going to take legislation to
correct them. The feeling in the DEP is that they are charged with
carrying this all out, but they are requiring a level of detail
that is not necessary.
NO -ACTION TAKEN.
NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY - ADDITIONAL PARKING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/12/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman ayr
Public Library Advisory Board
DATE: April 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Parking - North County Library
Availability of parking has become a major problem at
the North County Library. Sonny Dean and Jim Davis have
conferred about solutions to this problem.
The addition of 23 parking spaces may be possible with _
a change in the drainage system and asphalting of the
southeast area of the property. Jim Davis estimates a total
cost of around $30,000, or a little over $1,000 per space.
At the meeting of the Public Library Advisory Board on
April 12, 1995, it was unanimously approved to ask the
Board of County Commissioners for permission to work with
staff and Masteller/Moler in investigating the engineering
and potential cost of doing this. We are not totally
certain it can be done but would like to gather enough
information to bring back to the Board for a final
decision.
APRIL 18, 1995 51 800K 94 P,�r,-E 998
BOOK 94 mu 909
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that this library is expanding
more than we ever dreamed it would.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
up to $2500 for staff to work with the engineers to
see what can be done and come back with a plan.
SCHEDULING OF SPECIAL MEETING FOR UTILITIES, STRATEGY
PLAN INCENTIVES
CONSENSUS was reached to schedule the meeting for Thursday,
May 18, at 9:00 a.m. in Chambers, and to televise same.
COMMENT ON UNFUNDED MANDATES
Commissioner Adams reported on her recent trip to Tallahassee
where she learned that one county actually sent a bill to the State
for the cost of their unfunded mandates and then sent a late notice
after 30 days. She felt we may want to consider doing that and
perhaps offer them a 2% discount if they pay within 30 days.
Commissioner Eggert believed that may be a very good idea.
Administrator Chandler advised that staff is well under way
with the task of putting together the cost of federal mandates.
NO ACTION TAKEN.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD _
A. John's Island Club - Street Lighting Agreement dated April 3,
1995
52
APRIL 18, 1995
STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT
•
Ty IS AGR.EEMENT, is entered into this -3-� day of
AIR , 1995, by and between Indian River County, a political
"su v on o the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY",
and JOHN'S ISLAND CLUB, INC., whose mailing address is 350 Beach Road,
Vero Beach, Florida 32963, hereinafter referred to as "CUSTOMER".
THIS AGREEMENT, is entered Into for the purpose of obtaining for
CUSTOMER necessary electrical energy and street lighting systems from the
Florida Power. a& Light Company, hereinafter "COMPANY", and incorporates
by reference all the terms, conditions and rates as set out in the
Conservation Lighting Conversion Agreement between COUNTY and COMPANY
as executed on January 6, 1965 and November 18, 1981, respectively.
COUNTY and CUSTOMER, in consideration of payments and
selrvices hereinafter mentioned, agree and covenant as follows:
1. COUNTY shall file with the COMPANY a "Request for Addition
of Facilities" (Exhibit C to the Conservation Lighting Conversion Agreement)
to provide the CUSTOMER with the following facilities:
One street light at the 55th Avenue and 87th Street
Intersection entrance to John's Island West Golf Club
2. CUSTOMER shall pay to the COUNTY for costs incurred by
the COUNTY under the terms ,of the Conservation Lighting Conversion
Agreement with COMPANY, and in consideration of administrative costs to
the COUNTY, the following:
$180.00 per year, in advance for the cost of
one (1) street lights
3. • CUSTOMER shall make payments to the' COUNTY, on an
annual basis, in advance, commencing on the date set forth herein, and
costs shall be subject to modification pursuant to any successive rate
schedules as may be approved by COMPANY from time to time.
4. The term of this agreement shall be until November 18, 1996
and shall be renewed automatically for successive periods of five years,
unless COUNTY gives written notice to CUSTOMER of its intent not to renew
prior to the expiration of the initial term or any extension thereof, or,
unless CUSTOMER gives COUNTY notice of its intent to terminate six months
prior to expiration of the initial term or any extension thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed or caused this
agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officials on the date first
above written.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Ja es E. Chandler
unty Administrator
Authority: Resolution No. 88-23
JOHN'S ISLAND CLUB, INC.
Dated - 3/31/95 BYA,��&A
Buckley Aubbard, Jr.
Vice President:
53
APRIL 18, 1995
MOK 94
EXHIBIT C
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL AND/OR
ADDITION OF FACILITIES
Florida Power & Light Company
Gentlemen:
1995
Bou 94 PnE 9.1
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conservation Lighting
Conversion Agreement dated January 6, 1965 and November 18, 1981, this
request is made for an addition of facilities in the existing Street Lighting
System within the limits of this body's jurisdiction.
The addition requested is as follows:.
One street light at the 55th Avenue a9d 87th Street
Intersection entrance .to John's Island West Golf Club
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY
A.1"v LA
T tle: maw Imli-j-'wau
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(for John's Island Club, Inc.)
-----Ile,L
Jayfes E. Chandler's
C unty Administrator
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:48 a.m.
ATTEST:
. K. Barton, Clerk Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman -
i
Minutes approved /D,2>/9t—D
APRIL 18, 1995 54